Pegasus Research Consortium

http://worldufophotosandnews.org/?p=7330

Posted on May 21, 2014 by PFEIFER   

(http://worldufophotosandnews.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/MALIBU-CALIF-CAVE.jpg)

A massive underwater entrance has been discovered off the Malibu, CA coast at Point Dume which appears to be the Holy Grail of UFO/USO researchers that have been looking for it over the last 40 years.  The plateau structure is 1.35 miles x 2.45 miles wide, 6.66 miles from land and the entrance between the support pillars is 2745 feet wide and 630 feet tall. It also has what looks like a total nuclear bomb proof ceiling that is 500 feet thick.  The discovery was made by Maxwell, Dale Romero and Jimmy Church, host of FADE to BLACK on the Dark Matter Radio Network on Monday, May 12th 2014 and announced on Facebook, Twitter and Church's radio program the following day.  The underwater base has been a mystery for many years with hundreds of UFO/USO sightings...many with photographs...but the entrance of the base has remained elusive...until now. The entrance can support nuclear sized submarines and massive UFO/USO activity and allow access to different military installations that are inside the US such as the China Lake Naval Base that is in the middle of the Mojave desert and the Naval Undersea Warfare Center in Hawthorne, NV between Las Vegas and Reno.  In the photographs you can see its relation to the coastline, Los Angeles and its natural surroundings which to not match up with the structure itself...which is massive in scale. The support pillars to the entrance are over 600 feet tall.  Malibu, California, is known the world over for its scenic beauty and as the playground of the rich and famous. Few people know that it is also the land of UFOs.

In the late 1950s, as my neighbor and some of his friends were watching the sun setting on the Pacific Ocean, they witnessed three bright UFOs fly across the water at great speed then hover for a few minutes over the Santa Monica Mountains before flying off out of sight. My family moved in around 1962. We had a perfect view of Zuma Beach in our front yard with the mountains for our backyard, and the star-filled sky above us at night. During the 1960s, people were frequently seeing UFOs flying around Malibu, but a lot of people were taking hallucinogenic substances in those days too. However, by the early 1970s, whole families were going down to the beach at Point Dume at night to watch the multicolored UFOs that would sink under the water at times.  NOTE: The above image is from Google earth.

I thought the above was interesting since John Lear had brought this up many years ago right here on the livingmoon.com.   

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/02files/Navy_Secrets.html#Nevada

 NOTE: The above image is from Google earth.

I do wonder how google might get photos of underwater geology @ what probably is a fair depth?? Is Google in the process of making a "Google Earth - Oceans" now?? :)

http://thetechnopath.com/download-google-earth-5-google-ocean/43/

To be honest, I couldn't get the ocean view to work for me, even after a full hour of unsuccessful attempts. I could get most of the features in the new ocean layer to work, but still wasn't able to dive under the surface. This is actually a big hurdle towards the success of this new feature as it isn't clear exactly how to dive under water.

I tried the Mariana Trench, Pacific, Atlantic, the Mediterranean and even the Indian ocean but still no luck. That's why I decided to put the full review of Google Earth 5 on hold.

Someone tried it but left this comment above.

i think those guys are playing a prank.. that pic doesn't look right somehow

but hey on the other hand if they can see so far underwater now there's hope of finding that plane

Quote from: sky otter on May 23, 2014, 01:08:01 PM

i think those guys are playing a prank.. that pic doesn't look right somehow

but hey on the other hand if they can see so far underwater now there's hope of finding that plane

That's a good one sky....!

Can't be sure about that one, but there have been a lot of sightings in that area of USO's.  It would be an ideal scenario for those visiting from off world.  Enter the ocean off the coast, head for the underwater base, dock and the proceed to an elevator that would take you to a special room at the lower level of some downtown building.  You could be in space one hour and walking the streets the next.   

Cosmo

For what ever its worth. I found it on Google Earth. Due West of Malibu. Just like the picture shows.

John's link has it coming out around Monterey Bay right North of the old Army base Ft. Ord where I was stationed in the 70's.  I do not have any idea how Google maps the oceans at all so I cannot verify what has been said about the area in Malibu.  I will have to dig but there have been other sighting of UFO's and USO's right off an island off San Diego also.  Also at John's link that I posted earlier in the thread alludes to a possible channel coming from Puget sound to Nevada.  Another mystery!

On Google, if you sit on one area with your mouse it tells you at the botom of the screen where the info came from. There are many detailed ocen studies put into Google ocean but this area looks sort of pale and patchy. You need to figure out the source and trail it.

Quote from: spacemaverick on May 23, 2014, 08:29:54 PM
John's link has it coming out around Monterey Bay right North of the old Army base Ft. Ord where I was stationed in the 70's.  I do not have any idea how Google maps the oceans at all so I cannot verify what has been said about the area in Malibu.  I will have to dig but there have been other sighting of UFO's and USO's right off an island off San Diego also.  Also at John's link that I posted earlier in the thread alludes to a possible channel coming from Puget sound to Nevada.  Another mystery!

Ah Ft.Ord.. Basic training Oct. 1970... H-4-1... Hooah!  :)

Quote from: deuem on May 23, 2014, 08:14:21 PM
For what ever its worth. I found it on Google Earth. Due West of Malibu. Just like the picture shows.

Greetings, Professor:

Too bad you didn't get a screen capture of "just like the picture shows" for our edification and enjoyment.

Perhaps the coordinates and we will check it on FlashEarth.

We will understand if that type of information is not readily 'exportable' from your location.   :P

"Pics or it didn't happen."   :P

(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/malibu.png) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/malibu.png.html)

Guess it happened

Quote from: thorfourwinds on May 24, 2014, 01:49:44 PM
Perhaps the coordinates and we will check it on FlashEarth.

I don't understand why people use FlashEarth instead of their original sources. ???

Quote"Pics or it didn't happen."   :P

You make it sound like it's something hard to find.  ::)

The problem with bathymetric data is that it's usually too old, as people are more interested in other things than on knowing about the oceans, even those areas close to their cities.

You can see that this map (http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/bathymetry/maps/finals/BR-15/BR-15.pdf), for example, is more than 30 years old, from 1983.

Because its more fun and 'trendy' this way....(google earth btw)... ;D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDn-KHWByHY

Seems to me that the overall architecture of this place is similar to adjacent areas in appearance, except for the raised top and open area.

Is it possible this raised area could have been a resultant formation of some past prior "earthquake"?

Or, could it be seaside structures built by ancient civilizations, before global warming raised the sea levels? :))

If information has been around on this underwater structure for years, are there no detail reports on deep water inspections of this area??

6 miles is not very far off of the coast, and area high vantage points likely offer a clear view of the area during the day, by eyesight, to see anything happening on the surface. Night happenings could not be seen, except for by any nearby radars.

Just thinking out-loud with the keyboard! :)

Quote from: thorfourwinds on May 24, 2014, 06:19:32 PM
Oh what do you mean by "... their original sources?"

That part that says "Map source", on the top left corner of FlashEarth's page. :)
FlashEarth is just a way of looking at more than one source, but now is limited to just two different sources (Bing and Yahoo), when some years ago, when I first found it, they had five or six.

QuoteAnd could you please recommend perhaps what you use that is so superior and up-to-date?    8)

I didn't say a thing about "superior" and/or "up-to-date", please stop implying I said things I did not.

QuoteOr, how about a link or something directly to do with the graphic in question?

Did you miss the link I posted to a PDF with a bathymetric map?

QuoteDo you, ArMaP, think that it IS the 'secret' entrance to the waterways beneath CONUS?

No.

QuoteWhat is the real reason for this, one might innocently enquire?

I don't really know, as I am not part of the people that gather that information or part of a possible group of people that delays the gathering of that information.

QuoteYOUR opinion ONLY, and we sincerely thank you for it.

As usual. :)

QuotePerhaps you have a list handy of those "other things"...:P

TV shows, for example.

QuoteOr perhaps your Opinion is reflected in your analysis of people that You have
personally interviewed on the subject of "... knowing about the ocean ..."    :o

Sorry, I don't understand this sentence, but I can tell you that I never interviewed anyone on this or other subject (except people applying for a job on the company where I work).

QuoteIMHO, You (again) throw out a dead fish as Gospel from ArMaP, and we question (as always) implied Authority.   :P.   :P

No, you just interpret it that way. It may be because of the way I write.

QuoteAs always, thank you for your time, consideration and participation.    ;)

You're welcome. :)

Quote from: ArMaP on May 24, 2014, 06:36:28 PM
That part that says "Map source", on the top left corner of FlashEarth's page. :)

Thank you for pointing that out.

QuoteI didn't say a thing about "superior" and/or "up-to-date", please stop implying I said things I did not.

How silly of us. We have come to expect You to have "the bee's knees" when it comes to ANY research tool, as evidenced by Your past (exemplary) behavior - virtually Always having THE best photograph...:P

QuoteDid you miss the link I posted to a PDF with a bathymetric map?

Actually, we sidestepped the low-hanging fruit, allowing someOne else to question why You were not addressing the item in question directly and while the 30 year old bathymetric map is interesting, it doesn't assist in the deciphering of the presented graphic, unless, of course, You will share with us how it disproves the existence of the 'entrance' 30 years ago.

QuoteNo.

Now, we're getting somewhere.

Are you saying that the entrance:

1) Does not exist.

2) Does not exist THERE.

3) The graphic is misleading and those 'formations' are NOT a secret entrance but 'natural' underwater terra-firma.

QuoteI don't really know, as I am not part of the people that gather that information or part of a possible group of people that delays the gathering of that information.

Thank you for pointing out that there is "a 'possible' group of people that delays gathering of that information."


Question: Do You know how long the delay (months, years?) is on Google Earth and Bing and Yahoo?

And any other map sources?

Are they all blacked out in certain 'delicate' places?

QuoteTV shows, for example.

Good call...sheeple mind control.   :P

Thank you for the info.

Quote from: thorfourwinds on May 24, 2014, 07:44:44 PM
How silly of us. We have come to expect You to have "the bee's knees" when it comes to ANY research tool, as evidenced by Your past (exemplary) behavior - virtually Always having THE best photograph...:P

Photographs are different from computer generated 3D images. :)

QuoteActually, we sidestepped the low-hanging fruit, allowing someOne else to question why You were not addressing the item in question directly and while the 30 year old bathymetric map is interesting, it doesn't assist in the deciphering of the presented graphic, unless, of course, You will share with us how it disproves the existence of the 'entrance' 30 years ago.

I thought it did, as those lines on the PDF I posted is (let me add "as far as I know", before I am accused of stating things as gospel) are the kind of data that is used to create 3D images like the ones used on Google Earth, as the data gathered is the distance from the ship collecting the data to the bottom of the ocean, so we get a "top-down" view only, and not a real 3D representation.

QuoteAre you saying that the entrance:

Quote1) Does not exist.

No, as I don't have information that proves that such an entrance does not exist.

Quote2) Does not exist THERE.

No, as I don't have information that proves that such an entrance does not exist there.

Quote3) The graphic is misleading and those 'formations' are NOT a secret entrance but 'natural' underwater terra-firma.

That's close to what I think, that what we see on that computer generated image is the result of the data (with not enough detail) gathered from natural underwater geological features.

QuoteThank you for pointing out that there is "a 'possible' group of people that delays gathering of that information."

There's always a "possible" everything. :)

QuoteQuestion: Do You know how long the delay (months, years?) is on Google Earth and Bing and Yahoo?

No, but judging from other images (land images), Google images are the ones that are updated with less frequency, it looks (to me) like they are more worried about updating "popular" areas and ignore all others, that's why the photos Google Earth shows of the town where I live are 5 years old while the photos on Bing Maps are 1 or 2 years old.

QuoteAnd any other map sources?

There aren't many underwater maps, if that's what you're asking about. There are other map sources that use lower resolution (ground) imagery, in January I was working on including satellite photos on a real estate management program I was making, and at the time I looked for more (free) sources but could only find lower resolution images.

QuoteAre they all blacked out in certain 'delicate' places?

Didn't see any, but as they are lower resolution maybe there's no need for that. :)

QuoteGood call...sheeple mind control.   :P

Another thing I remember after writing that is the reason why we are talking about this.

Are we talking about it because we are interested in underwater data or imagery? No, we are discussing it because some people say it may be related to UFOs or government secrets.

Take a look at the forums we have on Pegasus (or the forums on any other site) and we can see forums for UFOs, space exploration, general conspiracy theories, alternative history, sciences and technologies and a few Earth related forums, with fewer posts, and most of those not related to the oceans.

I don't know if it's because the oceans are not our element, but although we have been using them for centuries it looks like we are not that interested in what they really are or what they really hide.

PS: have you got the virus of using capital letters when talking about someOne?  :P

I see we came back  to the subject of the thread.  ;D

I did go after the low hanging fruit but I can't get there from here.

Dead fish Jokes. Gotta love them dead fish..

got the following from:

http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr78305

(http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m623/Sgt_Rocknroll/plate-13-0001_zps8822ebd3.png) (http://s1135.photobucket.com/user/Sgt_Rocknroll/media/plate-13-0001_zps8822ebd3.png.html)

and:

(http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m623/Sgt_Rocknroll/subpens-1_zps7ce07c21.png) (http://s1135.photobucket.com/user/Sgt_Rocknroll/media/subpens-1_zps7ce07c21.png.html)


Now I'm not saying the mound and entrance are man-made or natural...I don't know...just thought it was interesting....

How deep is this supposed to be?

Cosmo

Sarge, A little wisper from Deuem, "go in side"

I think you will find a red herring.

Have fun!

Quote from: COSMO on May 25, 2014, 04:37:36 PM
How deep is this supposed to be?

After some searches (and a 20 minutes interruption to vote for the European Parliament) I found a PDF (on this page (http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/dem/squareCellGrid/download/663)) according to which, and if I am interpreting this correctly, the top of that "plateau" is 100 metres below the surface.

(click for full size image taken from the PDF)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/Santa_Monica_NAVD_88_2.jpg) (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/Santa_Monica_NAVD_88.jpg)

I don't know if it's possible, but it looks like the above mentioned page has a digital elevation model file that maybe Sgt.Rocknroll can work with.

Quote from: deuem on May 25, 2014, 05:40:30 PM
Sarge, A little wisper from Deuem, "go in side"

I think you will find a red herring.

Have fun!

You're probably right. I just thought it was interesting.

Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on May 25, 2014, 09:58:47 PM
You're probably right. I just thought it was interesting.

A red herring?  Sounds kind of fishy..... ;D ;D ;D

My last entry...enjoy


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pO0uZbCpWg

Quote from: ArMaP on May 24, 2014, 08:21:53 PM
That's close to what I think, that what we see on that computer generated image is the result of the data (with not enough detail) gathered from natural underwater geological features.

Interesting, ArMaP.   Are You certain that They only compile acoustical data from one spot directly downward?  I would think that by now, given all the computing genius We are displaying on this planet, that more data could be handled.  Add to that lasers from space doing mapping - not saying someOne is, but that We surely have that capability - I have to guess that We have have more data available than straight down only.

It is interesting that there appears to be a door back in underneath...  Wonder what data that is displaying........

QuotePS: have you got the virus of using capital letters when talking about someOne?  :P

Now ArMaP, You know (I presume, since I have said it before on ATS and here) that it is out of respect for Humans as "God" and a Conscious choice I make that I do that.  No need to be disparaging.  [smile]

Quote from: Amaterasu on May 27, 2014, 06:48:35 AM
Are You certain that They only compile acoustical data from one spot directly downward?

No, I cannot be certain of that, obviously, but what I am certain is that the first method used was the original method of sending down a weighted line and measure and much of it they had to send until it reached the bottom of the ocean on that part. Then they moved the ship a little and did it again.

From the little I know about this, even acoustical data was gathered vertically, I think just in the last 10 years or so they have been using newer and more sophisticated methods, but I don't know if they get real 3D data that would allow, for example, so "see" underwater caves.

QuoteI would think that by now, given all the computing genius We are displaying on this planet, that more data could be handled.

More data can be handled, the problem is getting that data.

QuoteAdd to that lasers from space doing mapping - not saying someOne is, but that We surely have that capability - I have to guess that We have have more data available than straight down only.

Lasers are not that good in the water, sound is better.

QuoteNow ArMaP, You know (I presume, since I have said it before on ATS and here) that it is out of respect for Humans as "God" and a Conscious choice I make that I do that.  No need to be disparaging.  [smile]

It was not meant as disparaging, I just thought it interesting that thorfourwinds used a similar way of writing.

Also, there are (in my opinion) much better ways to show respect for humans (or other creatures) without the need to use different ways of writing.

Quote from: ArMaP on May 27, 2014, 01:56:16 PM
No, I cannot be certain of that, obviously, but what I am certain is that the first method used was the original method of sending down a weighted line and measure and much of it they had to send until it reached the bottom of the ocean on that part. Then they moved the ship a little and did it again.

And We know know that We do it far differently now. 

QuoteFrom the little I know about this, even acoustical data was gathered vertically, I think just in the last 10 years or so they have been using newer and more sophisticated methods, but I don't know if they get real 3D data that would allow, for example, so "see" underwater caves.

A sonar signal gives data which are much wider in scope than merely straight down.  And I bet We have had stuff that could at least peer some way into caves under water for more than the official 10 years.  Just sayin'.  I note You dropped My observation that a door can be seen in the back of the opening...  Didn't touch it at all.  [smile]

QuoteMore data can be handled, the problem is getting that data.

Well, true, but I suspect enough data is getting through than to give only a straight down mapping.

QuoteLasers are not that good in the water, sound is better.

Fair enough, but it may be They have something more exotic, on the order of gravity waves (not saying specifically GW, but on that order...).  It's not out of the realm of possibility...

QuoteIt was not meant as disparaging, I just thought it interesting that thorfourwinds used a similar way of writing.

Um...  That's why You referred to the behavior as being a "virus..."  An illness.  A sickness.  Not disparaging?

QuoteAlso, there are (in my opinion) much better ways to show respect for humans (or other creatures) without the need to use different ways of writing.

Do You imply I do not express this in OTHER ways?  This is one way I use, an effective way to bring that out in print.  A good way to help in getting People to think in those terms at all.  It is My choice and I am pleased with its effects and so I choose to continue.  [smile]

Quote from: Amaterasu on May 28, 2014, 12:14:19 AM
And We know know that We do it far differently now.

Obviously. :)

QuoteA sonar signal gives data which are much wider in scope than merely straight down.

That depends on where they point it. :)
I think they now use more than one direction at the same time (computers now can handle that without any problem), but to have a perfect 3D representation they still have to "look" at the target from all sides, so something like that "plateau" should be "looked at" from at least above and two sides, to give a real 3D information of that place.

QuoteAnd I bet We have had stuff that could at least peer some way into caves under water for more than the official 10 years.  Just sayin'.

No betting. ;)

QuoteI note You dropped My observation that a door can be seen in the back of the opening...  Didn't touch it at all.  [smile]

Because it's based on what I think is data that is not good enough. If you look close at the 3D representation you will see many typical signs of averaging of data or "jumping" from one data point to the next because there isn't any data for the area in between.

QuoteWell, true, but I suspect enough data is getting through than to give only a straight down mapping.

I don't work with suspicions and bets, only data. :)

QuoteFair enough, but it may be They have something more exotic, on the order of gravity waves (not saying specifically GW, but on that order...).  It's not out of the realm of possibility...

See above.

QuoteUm...  That's why You referred to the behavior as being a "virus..."  An illness.  A sickness.  Not disparaging?

No, as we don't use it like that in Portugal, we use in the same way as copying a habit from someone else.

QuoteDo You imply I do not express this in OTHER ways?

No, just that changing letters doesn't show respect, it only makes the text look strange.

QuoteThis is one way I use, an effective way to bring that out in print.

It's not effective to me.

QuoteA good way to help in getting People to think in those terms at all.

To me it only makes me think that you are just trying to look different.

QuoteIt is My choice and I am pleased with its effects and so I choose to continue.  [smile]

You're right, it's your choice, in the same way I can interpret that in any way I choose. :)

Quote from: ArMaP on May 28, 2014, 12:46:08 AM
I think they now use more than one direction at the same time (computers now can handle that without any problem), but to have a perfect 3D representation they still have to "look" at the target from all sides, so something like that "plateau" should be "looked at" from at least above and two sides, to give a real 3D information of that place.

It was My point "they now use more than one direction at the same time (computers now can handle that without any problem)" when I said "I would think that by now, given all the computing genius We are displaying on this planet, that more data could be handled."

Hardly necessary to have perfect 3D.  Indentations need to be probed by very little to have them stand out, else the tech is worthless.  And a ship moving along spewing sonar is, like the man-made-looking wall on the right of the opening(s), going to pick up whether there is a wall or an aperture pretty easily.

QuoteBecause it's based on what I think is data that is not good enough. If you look close at the 3D representation you will see many typical signs of averaging of data or "jumping" from one data point to the next because there isn't any data for the area in between.

And yet I don't have to look closely to see the door shape, nor for that matter, the crystal clear neat line of collumns to the right...

QuoteI don't work with suspicions and bets, only data. :)

I don't "work with" those either.  Those are assessments of high probabilities based on data I do have.  Any question like that is one to find out whether You agree with the assessment. 

QuoteNo, as we don't use it like that in Portugal, we use in the same way as copying a habit from someone else.

Fair enough. [smile]

QuoteNo, just that changing letters doesn't show respect, it only makes the text look strange.
It's not effective to me.
To me it only makes me think that you are just trying to look different.

Not trying to be ("look") different - though what would be wrong with that?  I already AM different.

QuoteYou're right, it's your choice, in the same way I can interpret that in any way I choose. :)

[shrug]  I have no control in Your interpretation.  I don't concern M'self much with it.