It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Question of a Lunar Outpost

page: 1
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 02:42 AM
link   
The United States spent many billions of dollars to win the Space Race with the Soviets. While the US was throwing massive amounts of currency at this project, the Russians were spending only a fraction. USSR began concentrating very heavily on unmanned missions, then for a period Cosmodrome produced numerous, often disastrous manned missions. Much of what the Americans paid for with dollars, the Russians paid for with human lives. Komarov could testify to this. In fact, he did. He made his opinion very clear as he plunged from orbit into the surface of the planet.

Then, as suddenly as the Space Race began, the Soviets seemed to lose interest, to recognize inevitable defeat, or came to realize the cost-benefit of being "number one" might be less than the benefit of accepting second place. America continued its development practically unchallenged, and Russia simply went on to clone America's designs. Financially, such action seems reasonable. Granted, the Russians didn't exactly go on to become the worlds economic capital, unless knowledge of "the Russian dream" somehow escaped me. Could America too have learned a lesson through this?

Just 66 years from the Wright Brothers first flight, Neil Armstrong became the first man to set foot on the moon. The solar system seemed very much within out grasp. Now, 47 years later, we've achieved no such feats of this magnitude. We're in fact restricted to low earth orbit, hitching rides to the ISS aboard a Russian space shuttle, a clone of the space shuttle which America once had. Could it be that what America learned was that the cost multipliers associated with a mad rush to the stars wasn't worth the prestige? Maybe a slower, far quieter approach was called for.

The United States has long been obsessed with supremacy and dominance. A multi-polar world was unacceptable, hence the Cold War. The American political and military machine desired absolute control over all the world had to offer, from it's skies to its economies. Full Spectrum Dominance would lay the foundation of continuity, something which it's long frustrated itself to ensure. There was no competing with America's might, be in in the air, on the land or in the sea. If for some unforeseeable reason they were wrong, well then that's what those Continuity of Government bunkers were for. But there was one more frontier that America had yet to assert it's dominance over, and it was a big one: Space.

Orbit was one thing, actually establishing a foothold is something else entirely. Establishing America's presence among the stars was necessary to guarantee United States supremacy over foreign powers. The costs involved would be astronomical, and any cost-multipliers were unthinkable. The USSR couldn't learn of America's intentions, despite that having planted American flags on the moon might've already aroused suspicion that America desired to cease and utilize lunar territory as it had done in Antarctica in the forties. This undertaking would be far more costly than Apollo, and America may be unwilling to sustain a long-term competition to cease space. While it outwardly appeared unlikely that the Soviets would be serious competitors in this arena, it was possible. The Soviets had their own continuity to think about. They might have acted simply out of the realization that leaving the US to dominate space would mean the future is Americas.

Even prior to Apollo, US military was calling for establishing an outpost on the moon. A foothold among the stars and force projection from beyond Earth was an inevitable necessity. If the United States could obtain a covert head-start, its supremacy would become certainty. The moon would be the first step in such a process. An intelligently positioned outpost, complete with facilities and equipment for sustainable living as well as mining and refining would leave America with the first colony in space and also provide COG for in the event of global catastrophe back at Earth. Not only that, but it's eventual independence and productive capabilities would make the lunar outpost a machine capable of fueling further expansion practically autonomously. Such a lunar outpost would make Mars an inevitability, and at a deep cost reduction. America would save money in the long-term, so a lunar base would be an investment as well.

Today the Delta IV Heavy is the highest capacity rocket known to the public. At a cost of $375 million per launch, it's capable of carrying 63,470 to orbit, 22,000 pounds to the moon, or 17,600 pounds to Mars. During the Apollo program, the Saturn V could carry 310,000 pounds to orbit or 107,100 pounds to the moon, at a cost of $185 million per launch.

To help you us understand exactly how much Saturn V could have carried to the moon, it would take nine trips to carry all the components which make up the International Space Station from Earth's surface to Lunar orbit. This would have cost $1.6 billion in 1971 dollars. The US government spent $897 billion that year, and NASA's budget was $3.3 billion. By comparison, we launched double that number of missions to the moon over the course of the Apollo program. For further clarity, a single launch could carry two of these extractors or the contents of 2.5 fully loaded semi trailers. A lunar base doesn't seem outside the realm of possibility, especially if done quietly, which would mean over the course of many years, stretching out the cost. The question doesn't sound to be one of capability, but only one of motivation.

So what do you think? Might it be that the Apollo astronauts weren't exploring as much as they were surveying? Could our thirst for knowledge about the moons geology have been about more than just scientific curiosity? Did America's thirst for dominance and continuity lead to establishing a foothold among the stars? Uncle Sam appeared capable of establishing a lunar outpost, but did he want it badly enough?
edit on 12-3-2016 by Navarro because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 03:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Navarro

Well written, thanks.

It indeed is somewhat strange that we made progress in almost every respect - computing, manufacturing, communications,knowledge about materials and production processes - but that in essence we still use the same, you might even say watered down, technologies we used in the 1960s to get us into space. But much boils down to our old enemy: money. America had lost the initial battles in the space race to the Russians, but when the US put men on the moon, they had effectively won the war. There was nothing more to gain, it's as simple as that.

As you point out, flying to the moon is dangerous. And the political effects of getting your pilots / astronauts killed are huge. On the other hand, if the USSR had been able to put their man on the moon first, the US would have been the laughing stock of the world, given the braggadocio of president Kennedy that the US would put a men on the moon before the end of the decade.

I think that it weren't just the comrades that swore and cursed when they sometimes saw in what strange and unsafe contraptions they were supposed to travel in. Americans and Russian both lost good men and if there had not been a space race, probably most of the accidents could have been prevented. But all were in a hurry to get to the moon.

In 1969, the US (or at least that's the official story) made it. And that in effect was all that was needed. Of course, the scientific world enjoyed having the opportunity to have experiments done on the moon, but in effect, the benefits of being on the moon had already mostly been reaped when the famous words "Houston - The Eagle has landed" were spoken. Some believe we were chased away from the moon by aliens. Perhaps, but if so, that only would have strengthened a decision not to go back. Even without being told to stay away, the Americans WANTED to stay away: expensive, dangerous and no real benefits any more.

So, they gradually diminished the flow of money, and projects were cancelled. Finally the program stopped - before it was completed.

There may well be a base on the moon, and there might be humans working there. But if there is a base on the moon, it was not erected using the clumsy rockets that in fact are still in essence oversized V2's. Either there exists a "secret space program" and we already have technology far beyond what is shown in the media, or it is just a matter of economics: no real benefits anymore, high costs - let's not go there.



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 03:29 AM
link   
Just one point, both Russian shuttles were destroyed when the roof of the hanger they were stored in collapsed. there are photos on the web.



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 03:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Navarro

I think, even with the low lunar gravity, that the fuel expended in escape from the moon's gravity well, outweighs its use as an outpost or way-station

That being said, there may be other reasons for setting up a base there.

If a base had been set up, it has been such a long time since we were there, I imagine things would be breaking down from ionizing radiation and lunar dust.



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 04:19 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

It is said that moonbases would be build underground, hence far less danger of meteorite impact, radiation and dust. Ingo Swan, a well known remote viewer, was asked to remote view the dark side of the moon and reported towers, lights, an atmosphere in which a lot of dust swirled around. Swan reported craters with some kind of nets over them, houses inside. A lot of digging and building. Swan also reported to 'see' HUMANS, all males, butt naked for some reason. These humans seemed to be capable of sensing he was probing them. Very strange.

Others even say the moon is hollow. If so, it may contain an entire population, safely living inside their protective shell. Perhaps a colony of men, men that lived on earth long ago. Or perhaps it are other types of beings and they simply abduct men to work for them as slaves. We might even be working with them, and the reason our men are naked is that it is not really easy to hide something if you're naked.

So, many theories. Scientifically, of course, it's all nonsense. Go talk to an astronomer, they will laugh and say "oh, you must be one of those conspiracy nutjobs" - then show you photo's of a quite barren dark side of the moon. Nothing to see there...
edit on 12-3-2016 by ForteanOrg because: he cleaned up his text



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 06:36 AM
link   
Something I recently heard was that while Bush II was in office he authorized the Pentagon to go ahead on building a moon base. It is interesting in that this was a time when all the money the pentagon could not account for in the trillions. The published number was $2.3 trillion, but I saw some of the investigative documents on the search for the money and it was not $2.3 trillion. It was $1.3 trillion per year for 6 years. What I found astounding was not that the government was covering up the amount, but that during the 6th year, there was a statement in the documents that said they could not discover where this money was going and QUIT INVESTIGATING. This means it could have continued on for who knows how many years.

Also, strange to me was the financial crash. We know a lot about it, but over $20 trillion went missing during that time and the fed refuses to say where it went. Could this moon base be of a global nature and it required a global financial take down to fund not only the base, but the transport ships, weapons, security, troops, supplies, etc. that such a base would require. There is an international treaty about not building moon bases for obvious reasons during the cold war. However, after the cold war there could have been an outpost built in the event of a global catastrophe like a comet or large asteroid strike, a nuclear war, etc. I find it odd that during the cold war we didn't build these large seed vaults like the Svalbard Seed Vault and others, DNA cryostorage facilities, etc.

Why now? We know they have been building bases deep underground 2 to 3 miles for decades. Lately, they have been stockpiling these bases like there is no tomorrow. Buying long term food stuffs right off the docks in whole lots like long term butter, cutting the supplies to the companies that normally package and sell this stuff. And it has been widespread. Truckers have confirmed carrying loads to underground facilities, having to unhook their trailers while they are taken down and unloaded and their trailers brought back an hour or so later to be hauled back. What are they worried about today that they weren't worried about during the threat of Nuclear Armageddon. A moon base would make a nice hideout for the global elite if a new WWIII or bio or chemical depopulation agenda were in the plans.

The stocking of bases could be for restocking the moon base until the time comes when they can come back and repopulate the earth. We would be talking total destruction if all the people were gone as seed stocks would be wiped out due to loss of agriculture. It gets deep real fast when you are talking about some of the theories as to these globalists and their plans or a global catastrophic calamity like that of a comet which we saw hit Jupiter.

The state of the planet is in trouble and I think we would all agree on that. To ensure humanities survival a military triage scenario would be applied to radical operations to ensure said survival. Perhaps we were given a chance to do it publicly but failed to take action and plan b was and has to have been running in parallel in case it was needed. The question would not be if there was a moon base, but why wouldn't there be. Then we must ask what is the purpose of such a base. I suspect the US has developed advanced spacecraft quite awhile ago. When you look at the speech given to the graduating class of MIT by the retiring president of Lockheed Skunkworks - Ben Rich, that we have technology to travel to the stars already and they had been give the contract to "take ET home". Whether the ET reference was real or just a metaphor to travel to the stars, a moon base would be required as an operational orbital base of low gravity for such operations.

Below is basically what he said in a speech at MIT back in 1994 or 1996 if I recall correctly. I can't find it now, but there are other articles about it and a video with him in the article from the below quote.(See Source)

2nd Director Of Lockheed Skunkwork’s Shocking Comments About UFO Technology
“We already have the means to travel among the stars, but these technologies are locked up in black projects, and it would take an act of God to ever get them out to benefit humanity. Anything you can imagine, we already know how to do it.” (1) “We now have technology to take ET home. No it won’t take someone’s lifetime to do it. There is an error in the equations. We know what it is. We now have the capability to travel to the stars.” (1) “There are two types of UFOs — the ones we build and the ones ‘they’ build.”

Source Article

Ben Rich Lockheed CEO Admits on Deathbed: ET UFO Are Real

In the below Air Force commercial this colonel mentions opportunities in the air force flying Star Ships. And he mentioned space ships also, so I don't think the Air Force made a mistake in releasing the commercial. It had to go through several reviews before release.



edit on 12/3/16 by spirit_horse because: typos



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 06:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Navarro

There already is a lunar outpost...for the Nazi's.




posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 08:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Navarro


To the OP: You have bought into the propaganda of government and media that we are in space to the extent where they tell us we are and that in no way should you think beyond that position.


Anyone that has seen a decent UFO or triangle or can accept that UFOs are genuine, will not be so closed-minded as to accept what we are officially told.

The so-called space race was not done to build better ICBMs as much as to determine where the ETs of the UFOs lived. Most commonly it was thought Venus or Mars. What a coup on the competition to discover that first! It looks like the Soviets assumed that the ETs were from Venus.

The US has had great success from 21 Mars mission attempts since 1962, 6 failures and one partial success.(Two of the more recent “failures” are considered suspect by some.) On the other hand, during the same span, the Soviets/Russians have had not one success out of 19 missions, only four partial successes. The disastrous record of the Russian attempts did not go unnoticed in JPL and NASA. They joked that a “Mars Monster” was seeing to it that the hammer and sickle crowd would not succeed with a single mission. That was self-evident. To whom the monster owed alliance seems clear.

In the basic data of deep space missions we find a most curious and insightful situation in looking at probes launched to Mars and Venus by the Soviets and the United States during that aspect of the space race. The Soviets fired off 29 missions toward Venus over the years from 1964-1972. They achieved only 10 partial successes, about a third of their attempts. They failed to harden their landers well enough to survive on the brutally hot planet and they continually failed to have a single, fully successful mission. They were slow to accept that Venus was not the home of the UFOs.

On the other hand, the basic launch data clearly shows that the United States hardly seemed to bother with Venus. In truth, the missions were all flybys, never was a probe sent to land and get serious. There were only six rocket launches toward Venus, one of which failed, but the data was conclusive enough. Venus was hot. If you were a government sending out probes to find the likely home of the UFO within our solar system, than Venus could be quickly crossed from your list of possibilities. Let the Soviets have it for whatever reason. We concentrated on Mars.

It needs mentioning that every bit of Russian data from their deep space efforts first came (by agreement) through NASA’s gigantic “Big Ear Horn” antenna in California before it was fed by land line to Russia. We knew exactly what their probes were doing even before they did.

If you or anyone wants to believe the "official" history of space investigations as pedaled by the US government, fine. But to do that feat you must deny and ignore every singe iota of data about "flying saucers" and UFOs from the very first troubling the US Army had about sightings in 1947 right up to the latest triangle sightings. To accept what they tell you to believe would make you a very correct citizen. Deny ignorance. Think a little.

We are on the Moon,folks, that was the plan of the Reagan's "Star Wars" effort, officially, the Space Defense Initiative, to control space out to and beyond the Moon. The so-called space treaty was a joke, not worth the paper it was written on.

As for Mars, we hear an awful lot
of talk about it today, but strangely, we lack any possible way to make a trip there in reality. The plan seems to be to get you all "warm and fuzzy" with thinking about Mars for some reason. Maybe you should imagine that we have Mars capable ships with vehicles such as back-engineered UFOs as we placidly move along actually living in a gigantic web of deceit.



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Background images of the moon landing and of Mars on the side. Sounds like there may be some NASA money now coming to ATS.


I kind of like all the pictures.
edit on 12-3-2016 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Navarro

When I was a kid, there was a TV show called Space 1999 about Moonbase Alpha and its inhabitants.
One was a shape shifting alien who was working with the crew.
In my mind the year 1999 was so far off in the future that I really thought it was all going to be possible, just as Id imagined it. The TV show died and 1999 flew at me like a bullet.
No Moonbase.

I still secretly hope that they did it and that maybe they're up there now working away.
Kind of upset that it IS secret.
It wouldn't surprise me if there was a huge black space budget. It sure would be one way to spend a heck of a lot of money and if they do know something that we don't, their needs might have been urgent. Ulp!

I love a good moon conspiracy but so far, the arguments haven't convinced me. Then again NASA don't really seem to quite tell the whole story. Just maybe, this time, the truth is somewhere in the middle. So I'm a fence sitter. Hard to see how we could find proof unless you did an audit of accounts and there was paper evidence.....but.....if I found out it was all true and there was a base, I wouldn't be at all surprised.
Cheers.



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 05:48 PM
link   
The question does arise that if the primary or sole benefit of going to the moon was simply the point of going there, then why not stop once Armstrong uttered those famous words? Apollo 1 through Apollo 10 were precursors to an actual landing mission. Once Apollo 11 accomplished the goal set forth by Kennedy, winning the Space Race, wouldn't it then be reasonable to stop? Yet NASA planned nine additional missions following Apollo 11, and carried out six, ending with Apollo 17. There were many reasons attributed to the rationality of cancelling the remaining missions, from delays in R&D to an inclination to reallocate NASA's resources to launching Skylab, to Nixon's personal distaste for additional lunar missions.

Caspar Weinberger advised Nixon to state his reasoning for cancelling the remaining missions for being that "Apollo 15 was so successful in gathering needed data that we can now shift, sooner than previously expected." Caspar went on to suggest citing NERVA as one of the new directions for NASA to concentrate its efforts. It's not difficult to imagine that this "Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application" could have better facilitated conveyance of materials needed to construct a lunar outpost. NERVA wasn't a pipe dream either. They constructed and tested the engine with success, even going on to design an upgraded version named NERVA XE. "The NERVA was deemed ready to design into a working vehicle by NASA." However, the report of it's readiness for implementation is said to have resulted in "creating a small political crisis in Congress." I find it peculiar that the program should be supported, and so many resources should be allocated to it, and only when NERVA was ready was there a "crisis" in congress which lead to the programs termination. NERVA was a success, and that success was somehow its downfall.

One could simply say that NERVA failed to be realized for the same reason NASA's remaining lunar missions may have been cancelled: money. Just the same as before when I asked why NASA didn't stop at Apollo 11 once its actual objective was achieved, why should NERVA be followed to fruition only to rid ourselves of it once we knew it was doable? Why should the government spend such considerable resources on these things if they were superfluous?
In pursuit of that answer, I think it important to contemplate the implications of Weinberger's statement, "Apollo 15 was so successful in gathering needed data that we can now shift, sooner than previously expected."

Apollo 15's best known success was in the discovery of the Genesis Rock. NASA holds this discovery in high regard, but to the layman lacking geological interest, there doesn't initially appear to be anything very extraordinary here. Research conducted by the University of Michigan suggests that the excitement isn't in what NASA said, but in what it didn't say. Genesis Rock was proof positive of water on the moon. "The new findings indicate that the early moon was wet and that water there was not substantially lost during the moon's formation." The article goes on to remind us "In 2009 ... LCROSS slammed into a permanently shadowed lunar crater and ejected a plume of material that was surprisingly rich in water ice." Long before this discovery, Wikipedia tells us "scientists have since the 1960s conjectured that water ice could survive in cold, permanently shadowed craters at the Moon's poles."

No wonder NASA named it Genesis Rock. It contained evidence of the substance required for the formation of life: water. When Michigan said "water there was not substantially lost," we find reason to infer that the moon might not have only been capable of supporting life in the past, but it might also be capable of supporting the lives of American astronauts now. Through electrolysis of water we're able to produce oxygen for our astronauts to breath. We're able to provide water for our astronauts to drink, and water for crops to drink, which in turn provides food for our astronauts to eat. If you wanted to build a lunar outpost, then you wanted it to be self-sufficient. For that you needed water. Weinberger may have thought Apollo 15's discoveries so significant because it was through their discoveries that a lunar outpost was realized to be a possibility. If America did indeed wish to establish a foothold among the stars, and if the US did also wish to prevent the cost multiplier of a second Space Race, then that would be the moment to wind down Apollo, and to begin the theorized secret space agency.

It would be time to covertly investigate the lunar poles. Water was likely there. It was just a matter of finding it. After all, is it that unfeasible that Apollo program might not have been for the simple purpose of "beating the Russians," particularly given that we continued the program beyond our achievement of that goal? We planted flags on the surface of the moon, as though we were claiming it in the name of America. One must consider the tone of such things. Even before our first moon landing, we were sending robotic spacecraft to the moon's surface. We didn't call these explorers, we called them surveyors. A term usually associated with appraising an area as a precursor to constructing something there. So the question again becomes not whether or not it could be done, but whether we were motivated to do it. I think the tone and the information available suggests that we were indeed so inclined, and that this was what Apollo was really all about.



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 05:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: pikestaff
Just one point, both Russian shuttles were destroyed when the roof of the hanger they were stored in collapsed. there are photos on the web.

Yes of course. American astronauts are hitching rides on Soyuz spacecraft and not Russia's space shuttles. I really must begin better considering trivial details like that before I post. Luckily it was just a side point and not central to the argument though. Nor do I think it to meaningfully detract from that side point.



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 06:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Navarro

I think, even with the low lunar gravity, that the fuel expended in escape from the moon's gravity well, outweighs its use as an outpost or way-station

That being said, there may be other reasons for setting up a base there.

If a base had been set up, it has been such a long time since we were there, I imagine things would be breaking down from ionizing radiation and lunar dust.

The moon's mass is about 1/4 that of Earth, as is it's gravity. One would then require 1/4 less energy to achieve an escape velocity from the moon than Earth. You're slashing launch expenditure by 3/4, which is substantial. Consider also the value of the moon's Helium-3. When joined with deuterium through a fusion process, the result is a matter-energy conversion of seventy percent. Compare that to the 33% conversion rate of uranium, specifically U-235. The process of producing energy through H-3 is also considerably simpler and cheaper than U-235. If we consider the nuclear rocket engine NERVA which I discussed in detail earlier, and also the substantially reduced gravity of the moon, we arrive at such a position that lunar rockets could be launched far cheaper, could travel far more quickly, and could cover a much larger distance.

If the United States intended to continue its path of exploration, a lunar outpost makes a great deal of long-term financial sense. Beyond that, Helium-3 could provide America with far more destructive weapons than our current nuclear warheads. Neil Armstrong described his step onto the lunar surface as "a giant leap for mankind." A lunar base and Helium-3 production would certainly be a "giant leap" forward in America's capabilities.

As far as your concerns about environmental factors such as dust and radiation, we we're said to have gone there already and our astronauts and equipment survived then. If the environment was problematic over the long-term, we could have simply constructed facilities underground, shielding our astronauts and equipment from the bulk of these hazards. The Apollo missions spent the majority of their time investigating lunar geology. Apollo 15, also discussed at depth earlier, investigated among other things, the Hadley Rille. This is a canyon thought to have possibly been collapsed tunnel in which lava once flowed. We can infer than there may then be intact tunnels, which are either open to the surface or accessible through minimal work. A lunar outpost constructed inside such a tunnel should provide considerable protection. There were then mitigating factors boosting the feasibility of such an outpost with regard to environmental hazards.



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: ForteanOrg

You seem to be the one to ask ForteanOrg many years ago i saw a video of the Moon in thermal ? you tube , i know but it matched the blueprints for what they had planned to build there

Any more on this



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: spirit_horse
Something I recently heard was that while Bush II was in office he authorized the Pentagon to go ahead on building a moon base. It is interesting in that this was a time when all the money the pentagon could not account for in the trillions. The published number was $2.3 trillion, but I saw some of the investigative documents on the search for the money and it was not $2.3 trillion. It was $1.3 trillion per year for 6 years. What I found astounding was not that the government was covering up the amount, but that during the 6th year, there was a statement in the documents that said they could not discover where this money was going and QUIT INVESTIGATING. This means it could have continued on for who knows how many years.

Also, strange to me was the financial crash. We know a lot about it, but over $20 trillion went missing during that time and the fed refuses to say where it went. Could this moon base be of a global nature and it required a global financial take down to fund not only the base, but the transport ships, weapons, security, troops, supplies, etc. that such a base would require. There is an international treaty about not building moon bases for obvious reasons during the cold war. However, after the cold war there could have been an outpost built in the event of a global catastrophe like a comet or large asteroid strike, a nuclear war, etc. I find it odd that during the cold war we didn't build these large seed vaults like the Svalbard Seed Vault and others, DNA cryostorage facilities, etc.

Why now? We know they have been building bases deep underground 2 to 3 miles for decades. Lately, they have been stockpiling these bases like there is no tomorrow. Buying long term food stuffs right off the docks in whole lots like long term butter, cutting the supplies to the companies that normally package and sell this stuff. And it has been widespread. Truckers have confirmed carrying loads to underground facilities, having to unhook their trailers while they are taken down and unloaded and their trailers brought back an hour or so later to be hauled back. What are they worried about today that they weren't worried about during the threat of Nuclear Armageddon. A moon base would make a nice hideout for the global elite if a new WWIII or bio or chemical depopulation agenda were in the plans.

The stocking of bases could be for restocking the moon base until the time comes when they can come back and repopulate the earth. We would be talking total destruction if all the people were gone as seed stocks would be wiped out due to loss of agriculture. It gets deep real fast when you are talking about some of the theories as to these globalists and their plans or a global catastrophic calamity like that of a comet which we saw hit Jupiter.

The state of the planet is in trouble and I think we would all agree on that. To ensure humanities survival a military triage scenario would be applied to radical operations to ensure said survival. Perhaps we were given a chance to do it publicly but failed to take action and plan b was and has to have been running in parallel in case it was needed. The question would not be if there was a moon base, but why wouldn't there be. Then we must ask what is the purpose of such a base. I suspect the US has developed advanced spacecraft quite awhile ago. When you look at the speech given to the graduating class of MIT by the retiring president of Lockheed Skunkworks - Ben Rich, that we have technology to travel to the stars already and they had been give the contract to "take ET home". Whether the ET reference was real or just a metaphor to travel to the stars, a moon base would be required as an operational orbital base of low gravity for such operations.

Below is basically what he said in a speech at MIT back in 1994 or 1996 if I recall correctly. I can't find it now, but there are other articles about it and a video with him in the article from the below quote.(See Source)

2nd Director Of Lockheed Skunkwork’s Shocking Comments About UFO Technology
“We already have the means to travel among the stars, but these technologies are locked up in black projects, and it would take an act of God to ever get them out to benefit humanity. Anything you can imagine, we already know how to do it.” (1) “We now have technology to take ET home. No it won’t take someone’s lifetime to do it. There is an error in the equations. We know what it is. We now have the capability to travel to the stars.” (1) “There are two types of UFOs — the ones we build and the ones ‘they’ build.”

Source Article

Ben Rich Lockheed CEO Admits on Deathbed: ET UFO Are Real

In the below Air Force commercial this colonel mentions opportunities in the air force flying Star Ships. And he mentioned space ships also, so I don't think the Air Force made a mistake in releasing the commercial. It had to go through several reviews before release.


All these points are absolutely critical. I've contemplated and discussed each many times over the years. These facts and others practically serve to define a lunar outpost and secret space program as feasible, if not probable. It nearly even seems as though there's a conscious intention to hint at it. In fact, both America and Russia have recently discussed building moon bases. Both even specifically remark that this could be accomplished before the end of the 2030s.

This could be precisely the Space Race 2.0 which America sought to avoid the expense of. Should Russia now proceed with this plan of reclaiming its status in the world by claiming a part of the moon, and should Russia do so in a mad rush as with the first Space Race, then America's already there. America won't be one-upped by Russia's efforts, because America theoretically established this foothold long ago. Whatever Russia showcases on the moon, America's will be better. The cost involved in achieving the US lunar outpost gradually over the course of the past 47 years would also be much cheaper than producing it between now and once Russia establishes it's own foothold.

Then again, it could be argued that the ultra-secretive Soviet space program has already established a lunar base of its own, and we observe the results of a joint decision between America and Russia to disclose their outposts in the 2030s. Which, may even relate to the many prominent scientists saying and repeating that they anticipate contact with extra terrestrials in the 2020s. Many have after all speculated that America was "warned off the moon" by aliens as another poster remarked upon in this very thread. There might even be only one such outpost, produced as a joint effort between the two countries, halfing the costs of both nations. Reagan may have even alluded to it. All I can with certainty is that if there is a lunar outpost, its history is a complicated one.



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 09:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Aliensun
By no means do I mean to suggest that the official story with regard to NASA and Apollo are accurate. My argument has been based on the opposite suggestion, to include that the purpose of Apollo wasn't simply to "beat the Soviets" in some extremely expensive competition, solely for the sake of the competition. I've heard the proponents of a Moon Landing Hoax, and I've previously invested effort into researching the subject. Some of the evidence is compelling. For instance, NASA apparently "forgot" how to produce some of the necessary components to necessary to achieve a moon landing, using technology that would've been available at the time. I'll compare this to a few years back when Britain "forgot" how to build nuclear weapons. Specifically, compartmentalization and secrecy lead to the information necessary to construct the "foghat" component to die with a particular scientist. Britain was forced to request assistance in the matter from America. Naturally, both situations could be be construed as evidence against Apollo and nuclear weapons in general. Just as there are those who say Apollo was a hoax, I've also heard it said that nuclear weapons are a hoax.

Both might be, but I haven't observed conclusive evidence in either case. I haven't "bought into propaganda," I'm only accepting that these things are possibilities. There is undoubtedly much deception with regard to Apollo. It may even be that what the world observed on the television was in fact created in a studio. This wouldn't conflict with the potential for Apollo or something similar to have been real and an effort directly purposed to the end of establishing a lunar outpost. You however seem to primarily be arguing that Apollo's purpose was related to aliens, which I agree is a possibility. I've considered this. It was only about a decade after Roswell and the DC UFO Flap that Kennedy announced the Space Race.

If an alien threat existed, then building a foundation through which we can more adequately project power into space would make a great deal of sense. If you thought aliens might have an outpost on the moon themselves, through which they launched their terrestrial operations, then again going to the moon makes sense. If you desired to conduct frequent and effective reconnaissance throughout the solar system, then again a lunar outpost makes sense as cheaper platform through which launch such efforts. The claims for and evidence in support of NASA being "warned off the moon" also correlates. That is, if an alien faction was attempting to persuade you to not pursue the moon, wouldn't that in fact have the effect of increasing your motivation for doing so? Surely America wouldn't be inclined to simply stand down and allow extraterrestrials to maintain the full spectrum dominance which America itself seeks.

So, should they have been merely "monitoring" us as some have claimed, I certainly wouldn't have been sufficiently spooked to stay away. Even if they were engaging in hostilities toward us would I not, which has been suggested to be the cause of the Apollo 13 disaster as well as others. As president, I would view our astronauts as assets of national security, and their lives would be expendable in the effort to achieve force projection in space, or at least the capacity for more effective reconnaissance and intelligence gathering. America's astronauts are USAF personnel after all. They're DOD assets, and I would use these assets to strengthen our position if there were any chance of success at all. I'm certain that you would too, and I'm certain that any president would as well.

The matter concerning a lunar outpost is undoubtedly complicated, and I have considered these things you've said. I was however foremost concerned with determining whether or not the United States thought a lunar base feasible, and if so, whether or not they would be sufficiently motivated to pursue it to fruition. In the post where I discussed that Apollo's discovery of water on the moon and the discussion surrounding that, I think I've demonstrated this to be a possibility if not a probability. I think too that the perception of an alien threat would add to that motivation. I've suggested this very indirectly throughout the thread at any rate. Continuity, dominance, supremacy, foothold, and so forth are all very militaristic terms, especially when discussing being possibly "warned off" by an extra terrestrial threat. The USAF doesn't maintain Space Command, Space Wings, and a satellite network purposed for detecting "threats from deep space" without cause, and I doubt they're solely concerned with earth-based threats. They're certainly concerned about the threat which aliens may pose, and a lunar outpost would alleviate some of that concern. The alien question serves to provide additional motivation for such an outpost.



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Navarro

Kaixo,

I think there HAS to be a moon base. How on earth would our influence hungry government have given up the chance to colonize the moon before anyone else, especially the Russians?

If not for any other reason than to be able to launch a nuke in the event of a total loss, like a dead hand weapon.

We have a moon base, and possibly more. It may have been abandoned at some point. Maybe not.

What is certain is that we DID and definitely do have now, the technical knowledge to establish one, as you so eloquently pointed out.

There is no way that while controlling toilet paper money and its worth that they would want to accumulate it in the trillions for fun.

They didnt steal and misspend all that dough. It went to everything we built in secret. It went to everything that will be revealed all at once. (maybe soon)

Its the sort of "stuff" that makes things like project blue beam a consideration as far as an emergency tactic for mass revolt.
The sort of things that make a staged alien invasion a consideration.

The end game is not influence. That is risky and not enough (also historically proven to be flawed). Its about DOMINION. The absolute control of all moving pieces.

The big secret that may never be revealed is that its not alien tech. Its OUR human inheritance OUR ancestors hid away in the hopes of rebooting us to our former glory.

I dont know man. I am just one guy. In all I have learned, this is what I find true.

Gabon.

S&F for a great thread.


edit on 3 12 2016 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 11:03 PM
link   


Uncle Sam appeared capable of establishing a lunar outpost, but did he want it badly enough?


Or did Uncle Sam go broke. Economically the US is in a mess with 100% of federal revenues projected to be spent on entitlements (debt interest, medicaire, social welfare) by 2033 with nothing remaining for military, NASA, federal employee's etc So with USAF admitting the average age of its aircraft is now 27 years old you can understand the degree of funding for everything in coming years will be given on a need bases only. So if space exploration is to continue NASA must develop a new means to send mass into LEO cheaply probably with something akin to a railgun.

I suspect missing trillions has been spent on underground bases on earth to protect elite from a potential nuclear response to the plundering of oil rich nations by US and NATO. The underground base at denver and building of massive bunkers at China and Russia suggests the potential of a nuclear WW3 is realer now than ever before.



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 03:38 AM
link   
Does anyone recal the Air Force 14 Space Wing back in 1994? I was in their site one day and they had this S.T.A.A.R. Team. It was an Strategic Tactical Advanced Alien Response Team. It was the only space wing at the time. Now if you go to the Air Force and look up space command wings there are lots of space command wings. I didn't take it too seriously even though at the time you got the big red warning screen that you were entering a DoD system and subject to active surveillance and quite a bit of threatening language. I was more interested in the massive expansion of space command wings.

US Air Force Space Command Wings

Check it out. Seems an awful lot of activity for a few spy satellites.


edit on 13/3/16 by spirit_horse because: typos



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 04:04 AM
link   
Air Force 14

There is no mention of the STAAR Team now, but that was back in 1994 and it was the only space command wing back then, not on a public network. I suspect any such wing would be classified and taken off any public systems. I used to go through old Arpanet connections to computers on bases that were connected to the net and still connected through base networks to other computer meant to be for official use. That was long ago. I gave it up after an incident with the Air Force (4 separate bases) and NASA Ames Research Center. It was enough to curtail my military activities looking around. They didn't appreciate my stating I was clicking on links and shortening urls and it was all accessible. No hacking involved. I accidentally ended up in a field Special Forces Intelligence operation in the war in former Yugoslavia through a family email server set up for the troops. It gave me access to live intelligence operations being carried out against the population and psyops and the reports from spies in the field. Again, I just clicked my way in, no hacking involved. Anyway, they were not impressed by my claim no hacking involved. I mentioned that anyone could have done it, the enemy, etc. and that was enough of that. I claimed I had no further interest and would stay out of their systems and we parted company. I worked in intelligence, although not military. Now there are websites. And if you are a US citizen you are allowed to go into certain areas that foreigners are not allowed. Be very very careful though. You may find yourself in a rabbit hole you shouldn't have entered and risk your rabbit freedom.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join