Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Moonbase

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 21 2003 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Whether or not the army placed men and materials on the moon subsequent to the first lunar excursions is a topic of heated debate. Something is up there! Russian and Japanese astronomers filmed an enormous vehicle (perhaps one kilometer in diameter) orbiting the moon, casting a good solid shadow on the surface as it passed north to south at the estimated speed of 200 kilometers (124 miles) per second!

That figures out to be 450,000 miles per hour. If the craft moved on impulse power alone it could travel from the moon to Earth, a distance of 240,000 miles, in about 25 minutes, roughly the same amount of time it would take to eat a decent meal.


full story


www.ufo-ufo-ufo.com...




posted on Jun, 21 2003 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Are thier any pictures of this Craft?
Deep



posted on Jun, 21 2003 @ 08:03 PM
link   
There probably is something up there, we'll never know though.



posted on Jun, 21 2003 @ 08:05 PM
link   
Wait...i do remember having seen on an earlier thread pictures taken by Nasa Satilites of Huge Disk like object orbiting the earth. I'll try to find the pic and post it up
Deep



posted on Jun, 21 2003 @ 08:08 PM
link   
From conversations with certain members of the military, there is indeed at least one manned outpost on the moon. There was also an attempted manned mission to Mars in 1986 that did not succeed "due to causes not related to technology or engineering".... and immediately after that, approximately 90 billion dollars was rerouted to developing HAARP, an offensive weapons system...

Figure that out...

Also, the vehical mentioned in the report is very similar to the last transmission recieved by the Russian Phobos II probe, immediately before it "went offline"...

bjbooth.topcities.com...



posted on Jun, 21 2003 @ 08:13 PM
link   
Did you ever hear that the reason we cant land on Mars is because their is an alien civilization there, and an optical illusion blocks our scopes from seeing whats there.

The little Mars Rover that went into space and landed on mars may have been a fake,

*wish i could remember what website its from*



posted on Jun, 21 2003 @ 08:18 PM
link   
how amazing it must be
we can only dream for now

I need a telescope dammit.



posted on Jun, 21 2003 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoxStriker
Did you ever hear that the reason we cant land on Mars is because their is an alien civilization there, and an optical illusion blocks our scopes from seeing whats there.

The little Mars Rover that went into space and landed on mars may have been a fake,

*wish i could remember what website its from*


I was not told the specific reason that the manned mission failed, although the way it was phrased made me think that we lost the crew....

It was something to the effect of "the failure was not due to any technical or engineering faults"...

Again, in 1987 approx 90 billion$US was diverted to the development of HAARP in Gakona... which is an offensive weapons system... figure that one out!

I agree, the mars rover likely was a fake.



posted on Jun, 21 2003 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Whats even stranger is that one time something happened with the Mars optical illusion system or something. And an observatory saw the Martian surface filled with buildings and things flying about. Then that very night after the discovery, something destroyed the observatory. Strange isn't it.

Wish i could remember the damn website.



posted on Jun, 21 2003 @ 11:34 PM
link   
well...

For a whole civ to be hidden from human eyes, and for evry robot we've sent there to be a fake... you'd have to have basically everyone in the astronomical community woirking with the conspirators. Sure, video of a little robot can be faked, but yards and yards of data cannot be (eventually, some scientists would notice that some geological data looked fake, or something).

My guess is that the aliens have a 'base' on Mars, just as we (the USA) have bases in Turkey, Qatar, Cuba, etc, etc.

Even with starflight capabilities, it might be easier to launch abduction missions from mars, rather than bringing a starship back and forth every time you want someone. After all, as mentioned in another thread, the thing found at Roswell was supposed to be a 'scout' craft without any long-range provisioning.

Of course, I'm just speculating, but I don't see how a CURRENT civilization could be hidden on mars. My guess, though, is that there's just enough frozen water over there to support a few 'manned' bases (perhaps even automated factories that build/repair ships and huge genetic labs).

Dragonrider...
Could you go into that 'failed' mission stuff more? It sorta sounds like the whole Alternative 3 legend.



posted on Jun, 22 2003 @ 05:58 AM
link   
I think this is the one that you are talking about over the earth.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

"Did you ever hear that the reason we cant land on Mars is because their is an alien civilization there, and an optical illusion blocks our scopes from seeing whats there."

Interesting I`ve heard of it but never gave it more thought. Just how do you go about hiding an entire civilisations actuality from another civilisations eyes and ears (both technological and human)?? If they were willing and able to do this it may indicate they consider us a threat, why else would you hide from your neighbours.

I have to admit this does seem fanciful as the level of traffic to the moon would be tricky to hide, and I`ve also seen many stories of bases on mars.



posted on Jun, 22 2003 @ 07:35 AM
link   
I am not sure if they were talking about an entire civilization on Mars (I do kinda doubt that), or just some kind of base there (I think that to be more likely). What I mentioned is all that I know.

Yes, it does indeed follow the Alternative 3 theories, which is why I am so interested in them. Keep in mind, I heard this from military individuals, before I even read up on the Alternative 3 theories.

As far as keeping the X Craft traffic secret, I would believe it to be far easier than you would think, simply by launching into polar orbits rather than equatorial orbits.

I understand there to be an X Craft base in north Wyoming, which launches X Craft into a predefined corridor across Canadian airspace, mainly through (at very high altitude) BC, which is relatively sparsely populated. Also, there is reportedly another X Craft base in northern Alaska, somewhere near Elmendorf AFB (there are reports of X Craft being sighted at Elmendorf), which would allow direct launch into the Arctic Circle, with next to no possible observers. Our southern launch routes would easily be accessible by the X Craft base at Pine Gap Australia, launching right across the ocean and reaching orbit high above Antarctica.

Consider: The B2/F117 were publicized in the late 80s... assume them to have been operational at least 10 years prior to being publicly released. Also, safely assume that these are the "bottom tier" of stealth technology, with much more advanced stealth tech still classified, and likely never to see public eyes. (Reportedly, the X Craft incorporate stealth technology far in advance of the B2/F117). Therefore, visual/radar observations of X Craft transitting to orbit would likely never occur.

There are also several advantages to launching into polar orbits. First of all, about 90% of all satelite traffic is broadly equatorial in nature (with the exception of spy satelites). Therefore, very little chance of a polar orbiting X Craft will encounter a manned space mission (and even if it did, I am very sure that the crew would never report it). In addition, launching into a polar orbit allows much more flexibility in reaching most all points of the globe.



posted on Jun, 22 2003 @ 07:41 AM
link   
"As far as keeping the X Craft traffic secret, I would believe it to be far easier than you would think, simply by launching into polar orbits rather than equatorial orbits."

Good point, and I suppose not knowing the level of technology involved its hard to guess the way in which they avoid detection. I could have an x craft hovering over my house and not even have a clue.



posted on Jun, 22 2003 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonrider

I was not told the specific reason that the manned mission failed, although the way it was phrased made me think that we lost the crew....

It was something to the effect of "the failure was not due to any technical or engineering faults"...

Again, in 1987 approx 90 billion$US was diverted to the development of HAARP in Gakona... which is an offensive weapons system... figure that one out!

I agree, the mars rover likely was a fake.


I don't really have any comment on your "Mars manned-mission" scoop, other than, don't buy on any stock tips from this dude...

but what I did want to comment on was how you keep referring to HAARP as an "offensive weapons system". I think to say that as a statement of fact is stretching it a little isn't it? Wouldn't it be more accurate to classify it as a "active defensive weapons system"??? I realize, from reading your posts in other forums that you believe they are trying to develop some type of offensive way to damage somebody, some where, but there really isn't any evidence of that...yet, right?

And then one last comment..

"I agree, the mars rover likely was a fake." Come on, you're smarter than that.



posted on Jun, 22 2003 @ 09:16 AM
link   
I don't really have any comment on your "Mars manned-mission" scoop, other than, don't buy on any stock tips from this dude... Posted by Valhal

I have gotten several comments regarding my statements about this. If these people had been anyone else, on the street, or in any other situation, I probably would not have believed them either.

However, when they walked me through a sealed storage bunker wearing a Level A containment suit containing 20 metric tons of VX (about 5x the amount we used as an excuse to invade Iraq I would remind you) in a near downtown area of a major metro city where the population has NO clue of its presence or lethality, I tend to believe what they tell me.

As far as HAARP not being an offensive weapons system, well....

Some 150 different international treaties, in place since 1975, prohibit the use of "weather warfare," implying a legal challenge to HAARP, since its patents include weather modification experiments. And beyond atmospheric dangers, the FEIS filed by the Air Force and Navy says that HAARP transmissions "can raise the internal body temperature of nearby people; ignite road flares in the trunks of cars; detonate aerial munitions used in electronic fuses, and scramble aircraft communications, navigation and flight-control systems." U.S. studies show that even small increases in EM radiation from devices like HAARP can cause human health problems such as leukemia, cataracts, birth defects and cancer, alter brain chemistry, and elevate cholesterol, blood-sugar, blood pressure and heart rates.

www.emagazine.com...

I would also point out that these very same people I have spoken with have made numerous trips to all CONUS HAARP facilities for various environmental reasons. One such trip to Gakona was made because entire flocks of (endangered) migratory birds tended to fall out of the sky dead when they flew through the HAARP transmission path. A second trip was required to Gakona when a tech crew accidentally powered up the antenna field while they were in the systems building (HAARP is unmanned when in operation, being remotely controlled from Elmendorf AFB): The tech crew was found quite dead inside the building, killed by the EM radiation.



posted on Jun, 22 2003 @ 09:17 AM
link   
"I agree, the mars rover likely was a fake." Come on, you're smarter than that. Posted by Valhal

I now have next to NO trust in ANYTHING produced by NASA.



posted on Jun, 22 2003 @ 10:30 AM
link   



posted on Jun, 22 2003 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Thank you Kitty. That's all I needed! I believe the WHOLE THING now.



posted on Jun, 22 2003 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonrider
From conversations with certain members of the military, there is indeed at least one manned outpost on the moon.


From where are there frequent, unnoticed launches to send supplies to such a base?



posted on Jun, 22 2003 @ 11:17 AM
link   
its all revealed now
call the press









 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join