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.

 

Stargate SG-1 End Credit's; U.S. Space Command

page: 1
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 12:04 PM
link   
It's been years since I've read a Stargate SG-1 thread so I decided to start one. It has long been my theory that the US is not at war in the Middle East over oil or terrorism, we are in the Middle East in search of something, an artifact or power source or dig site. I don't know.

So let's start with the ending credits of the show.

SG-1 IMDB



Department of Defense (we gratefully acknowledge the cooperation of)
Department of the Air Force (we gratefully acknowledge the cooperation of)
U.S. Space Command (we gratefully acknowledge the cooperation of)


So if any of you have seen the show, and I hope you have if your commenting it may strike you as odd that the Department of Defense and US Space Command were involved.

One has to wonder why the US plays such a roll in the Stargate series...

United States Space Command


(U) USSPACECOM provides joint employment of military forces and operational support to other unified, combatant commands. Its mission is to conduct joint space operations in accordance with the Unified Command Plan assigned missions: Space Force Support, Space Force Enhancement, Space Force Application, and Space Force Control.


What kind of information was being provided to the show from Space Command?


edit on 6/19/2016 by onequestion because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

The military usually participates in shows and movies that portray them, as long as it's not going to do something, like show a mutiny on a nuclear submarine attempting to launch missiles on Russia. It helps to make them accurate.



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

You think it's as simple as that?

What about the show was actually ever accurate?

I find it odd that Space Command has an initiative as Eglin and China Lake and Eglin are basically connected at the hip.

I mean the squadrons at China Lake detach to Eglin on what a monthly basis?
edit on 6/19/2016 by onequestion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Well Perhaps Gary McKinnon was on to something.

And there is something called Naval Space Command




a military command of the United States Navy. It was headquartered at Dahlgren, Virginia (USA), and began operations 1 October 1983. Naval Space Command used the medium of space and its potential to provide essential information and capabilities to shore and afloat naval forces by a variety of means



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

Quite a bit was. Uniforms, weapons, rank structure, etc. The military aspects were extremely accurate.



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Indeed.

I'm surprised you didn't know this already, onequestion.
It's well known that the Air Force endorsed SG1.

Fun fact;

The SG1 emblem is also a Freemasonic Square & Compass.



Im guessing Space Command consulted on the physics of the universe stuff in the show.

My favourite show as it happens. Watch it everyday.



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Spacespider

Of course there is, both the Navy and Air Force have satellites that need monitoring and controlling.



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Spacespider

Without a doubt, the Navy has the biggest budget in the military and does and all the cool stuff (SEAL, SWCC) among others.

They also have entire black squadrons who knows what they do, Zaphod might know more, I've only seen them was never able to see one of their logbooks or worked in maintenance control when they were on the ground.



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 12:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Spacespider

Of course there is, both the Navy and Air Force have satellites that need monitoring and controlling.


"Satellites" lol. That's the SG1 cover story as well.



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408

And you have proof that there's more right? Not the word of some hacker who couldn't even take a screenshot, but actual proof?



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hazardous1408

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Spacespider

Of course there is, both the Navy and Air Force have satellites that need monitoring and controlling.


"Satellites" lol. That's the SG1 cover story as well.


Yeah the Navy is only interested in sattelites for recon.

Not a chance there is more going on than what meets the eye.



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Wait my turn...

And you have proof that it isn't happening right?

See how that works?



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Hazardous1408

And you have proof that there's more right? Not the word of some hacker who couldn't even take a screenshot, but actual proof?


Calm your tits down, it was a joke.



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion


It has long been my theory that the US is not at war in the Middle East over oil or terrorism…

Really? Perhaps the media, like this thread are distracting our attention away from Middle Eastern and African Natural Resources (like oil) as the primary reason to dominate the regions.

They are never honest about stuff like that. They say they are 'exploring' for oil, fighting terrorism, spreading democracy.

Hogwash.



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. So it's up to the people saying it is happening to prove it, not the ones saying it isn't.



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 12:23 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

You jumped in denying this one pretty quick Zaphod, anything we should know?



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: onequestion

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. So it's up to the people saying it is happening to prove it, not the ones saying it isn't.


Actually I'm creatively exploring an idea.

We both know that black projects are compartmentalized incredibly well.

You know how hard they are to prove. Speculation is the best we can do it in most cases.
edit on 6/19/2016 by onequestion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: onequestion


It has long been my theory that the US is not at war in the Middle East over oil or terrorism…

Really? Perhaps the media, like this thread are distracting our attention away from Middle Eastern and African Natural Resources (like oil) as the primary reason to dominate the regions.

They are never honest about stuff like that. They say they are 'exploring' for oil, fighting terrorism, spreading democracy.

Hogwash.






You said it yourself.




They are never honest about stuff like that. They say they are 'exploring' for oil, fighting terrorism, spreading democracy.


Hogwash.



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Zaphod58

You think it's as simple as that?

What about the show was actually ever accurate?


US Space Command told the producers about the big stone doughnut. They said look, we are in the ME looking for a big stone doughnut, go make a show about it.

And they did, and it was a great show!

(Although I preferred SG Universe, and am still hoping for a reboot as they come out on the other side of the void).




new topics

top topics



 
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join