The Secret Military Moon Base Probably Actually Exists

a reply to: neutronflux


originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: muzzleflash

Why don’t you make a f-n logical argument and cite actual physical evidence? Or answer a question leveled at you?

?


Holy crap, man. It could be argued that you sound like a crazy psychopath with the way you are angrily and frenzily trying to convince everyone that there is NO POSSIBILITY of a moon base.

Legitimate question: why ARE you so angry and so desperate to refute the speculation of a moon base?

And to be fair, Muzzleflash HAS been answering your questions. He answers your question and then you come back and throw 5 or 10 more questions at him and claim that he didn't answer these NEW questions that you just tossed out. Also, many of your questions are addressed in the documents he provided, which you clearly haven't read. Go and read them, why don't you?

No really- why don't you??

a reply to: muzzleflash

The basic building block for the outpost would be cylindrical metal tanks, 10 feet (3.0 m) in diameter and 20 feet (6.1 m) in length.

Then you post a photo showing rectangular shapes on the edge of a crater...


Ist have changed the design huh?

a reply to: samkent

Was the shielding and equipment used to hide the radiation and heat signature of the nuclear reactor carried to the moon by floating space jellyfish, or beamed to the moon by quantum mass disrupters, mass projection, and reconstituted with string assembly?

It’s rumored the infrared signature of the base was hidden with a giant translucent hyper-photon phase shifting space amoeba? It uses solar wind charge particles as a source of food, uses the infered from the base to covert chemical processes into cold fission, and produces water as waste.

a reply to: neutronflux

Hah...

You're right, they're not called no detection because people who deal in this sort of thing don't deal in absolutes. And since there is a very very small but non zero chance of someone putting all the pieces together they call it low probability... Yes.

This being said, you act as if the only stuff blasting out stuff across the various spectra are all earth bound sources. This is not the case, hence radioastronomy being a thing.

Truthfully, there's plenty of spectral clutter for someone clever to hide stuff in coming in towards earth from every direction and all sorts of fun effects which can be used to really effectively obfuscate origin points and the nature of signals.

You also still seem to have a hard time with this angular resolution thing to boot.

The single best and most convincing argument against moon and even orbital distance visual anomalies skeptics have for very good reasons are...

Do you know how big/bright that would have to be?!

And it's a really really damn good argument for a reason!!

Seriously, you should really do some looking around at just how big and bright an object would have to be at various distances in order to be observable with the most common astronomy gear.

You are, unfortunately for your argument, arguing from the same ignorance flat earthers are about some of the very same things that they claim as "proof" earth is flat and satellites don't exist and using them as "proof" of why a moon base is impossible!

To put it bluntly, you're wrong and so are they.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: muzzleflash

The basic building block for the outpost would be cylindrical metal tanks, 10 feet (3.0 m) in diameter and 20 feet (6.1 m) in length.

Then you post a photo showing rectangular shapes on the edge of a crater...


Ist have changed the design huh?

The artist illustration posted right after that quote was of cylinders in the process of being buried.

The 2 photos in my 2nd post have been debunked which I thanked the posters for explaining. I admit I threw the first images from a google search "moon base" on there and I simply didn't have time to research it myself.

In that post I also made a disclaimer because I realize they were dubious to begin with. It was an oversight, no one's perfect.

I asked the mods to edit n remove them but they responded don't worry about it so I can't fix it.

a reply to: roguetechie

One, I disagree in that a radio telescope would still see a transmission from the moon as a point source. A point source with an encoded message vs dispersed background radiation with nothing discernible but white noise.

And you are saying the Russians and Chinese have no benefit in trying to filter out and isolate this type of broadcast?

And when was the speculated moon base staffed? Are you saying this type of transmission was used on the speculated first construction landing.

And you still have the problem of hiding several types of energy from a moon base? The radiation signature of the reactor, ELF radiation from power cables, and the heat/infrared signature of the base. These types of sources have been used to study the moon.

And you still have the problem of hiding a rocket launch from the earth to the moon. Or a rocket launch from earth, to a space station, to the moon.

www.nasa.gov...

NASA and the DoD cooperate and share responsibilities for characterizing the satellite (including orbital debris) environment. DoD’s Space Surveillance Network tracks discrete objects as small as 2 inches (5 centimeters) in diameter in low Earth orbit and about 1 yard (1 meter) in geosynchronous orbit. Currently, about 15,000 officially cataloged objects are still in orbit. The total number of tracked objects exceeds 21,000. Using special ground-based sensors and inspections of returned satellite surfaces, NASA statistically determines the extent of the population for objects less than 4 inches (10 centimeters) in diameter.

www.aerospace.org...

How do we know where space debris is located?
A Space Surveillance Network (SSN) operated by the U. S. Air Force tracks objects in space. The SSN has radar and optical sensors at various sites around the world as shown in the figure below. Theses sensors observe and track objects that are larger than a softball in low Earth orbits and basketball-sized objects, or larger, in higher, geosynchronous orbits. The sensors can determine which orbit the objects are in and that information is used to predict close approaches, reentries, and the probability of a collision. Other nations also run space object tracking systems.

I would think Russia and China would have similar technologies?

And you still would have thousands of people working to build the equipment and technologies used to create the moon base.

And you would still have a noticeable infrastructure and detectable use of raw materials and fuel.

The chances a moon base would not be detected and outed from decade to decade is zero.

a reply to: Chadwickus

Regolith over structures constructed using forms specifically constructed to be well under the size at which any scheduled probe or etc overflight would have the angular resolution to detect?

I mean, just spitballing here but logically atmosphere loss, micrometeorite protection, and thermal loading issues would seem to dictate that you'd probably want to lump a bit of free big dumb already there mass on or around your tank farm based hab.

And some weird rectangular shapes showing up here or there, ESPECIALLY if they were gone later would actually fit pretty well with what muzzleflash is proposing.

a reply to: KansasGirl

He does seem a wee bit unhinged doesn't he?

Especially when you realize that his show stopping arguments are nothing of the sort and have much more to do with things he doesn't know which are relevant to the conversation than actual issues

originally posted by: Outlier13
a reply to: muzzleflash

I tend to agree with the general assertion it makes more sense to have a base(s) on the Moon than not. However, I also agree with many of the posters here asking important questions.

1. What would the strategic advantage be to have a Moon base?
2. Why keep it a secret?
3. How do we resupply a massive operation of this magnitude without the general public being aware?
4. Etc...

For the most part these questions have been answered to some degree. However, there is another aspect I would like to ad into this scenario. What if we do not use conventional means to travel to and from the Moon? What if we do, in fact, have space craft capable of Space travel by non-conventional means? For example, if we have actually designed and built space craft capable of traversing long distances in mere minutes and not through the use of traditional propulsion systems then all of the conventional questions become irrelevant.

If we are going to go so far as to assert there are secret Moon bases then we can equally go as far to assert we have developed alternative means of travel which make space travel as simple and easy as driving to the neighborhood store.

If this is plausible then the answers to "why" become different questions asked entirely.

It could be a good use for the TR3B...

a reply to: muzzleflash

Thus the media world we now live in. Our technology has superseded our ability to readily spot fakes that are made with it. This, being a direct eye-opener as to what lies ahead.

The proof of anything will always be, and needs to be, in the eye of the beholder and everything else is hearsay. It could be, that real truth can only be had if we figure out a way to transfer an experience to a verifying object.

Then, again, what will be the ways that that could be hacked as well...

It's like a no way out, and given the asymptotic curve of our technology, it's gonna be a wild ride. I believe anything is possible if people spend a great deal of time trying to accomplish it. We are learning through quantum physics that many observations can eventually create our own reality.

originally posted by: roguetechie
a reply to: KansasGirl

He does seem a wee bit unhinged doesn't he?

Especially when you realize that his show stopping arguments are nothing of the sort and have much more to do with things he doesn't know which are relevant to the conversation than actual issues

Start small then. How is the base, it’s reactors, it’s power sources, the piles of excavated dirt from tunneling, it’s landing pads, and the need runways for the implied shuttles not detected by the different and numerous international missions to map and study the moon through radar, photographing, radiation, inferred, and ultraviolet detection?

Sorry your fantasies have no bases in reality.

a reply to: neutronflux

See getting rockets through the atmosphere and out away from the earth is where I see the biggest problems occurring with this...

But, here's the thing, from the reading I've done the space debris isn't uniformly distributed equidistantly around the entire sphere of the earth and so neither are the tracking assets for space debris.

This still leaves defense satellites and over the horizon radars and God knows what else that you'd likely want to avoid of course...

BUT

Say you were Russia or China and your defense satellites etc were tracking a bunch of pretty sneaky American launches and etc and you figure out the crazy Yanks have a friggin moon base!

What now?

Do you tell everyone and show the evidence on sky news and then listen to the public and scientific communities in your country kvetching constantly about how the damn Yanks pay way less taxes and THEY STILL HAVE A MOON BASE!!! WHERE'S OUR MOON BASE!!??

Now personally I don't know because I'm not a member of the Chinese communist party upper echelons or etc, but I suspect that this might actually be something that people would keep secret for reasons purely having to do with self interest rather than out of anything to do with America at all.

Regardless of whether you think this whole thing is stupid or not, the one thing such a situation definitely would not be is as simple to write off as impossible as you're attempting to make it.

If there's any validity at all to this, the situation would not be anything resembling as simple as you're attempting to make it sound in your arguments.

Also, I had hoped that you could make some meaningful extrapolations from my explanation of the angular resolution thing that just because they have studied the moon in x or y spectra etc etc .... This doesn't actually tell us anything or preclude anything!

Sensors regardless of what they're observing and measuring are not infinitely sensitive. There's going to be detection thresholds and limits that quite frankly very likely wouldn't be all that hard to remain under in this scenario.

Then again you're also still arguing the commo thing now building a point source straw man which is cute and funny but ultimately sad, so I guess I'm really just expecting far too much out of you....

Just like the flat earthers who believe satellites don't exist and have regressed back to a cognitive level where object permanence is no longer a concept they grok

originally posted by: jidnum

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

originally posted by: jidnum

originally posted by: muzzleflash

originally posted by: neutronflux

How would the secret moon base create and harvest items for power undetected?

All they need is a nuclear power plant (small is enough). Their plans call for 2.
That means a tiny bit of fuel can last decades.

Simple.

The moon is covered in Helium 3.

It has a covering, but it is not as much as people imagine. The rock containing the helium needs to be mined and the resource extracted and processed into a usable form. You then need to invent and build a power station capable of using it.

All of which would be very, very visible.

Even on the side of the moon we can't see from earth based telescopes?

There are, of course, the many probes that have been and are in orbit over the moon sine the 1960s that show no evidence of anything at all. A base on the far side would still need to communicate with Earth, which means you need some sort of satellite in place to relay communications. It would still be need to be supplied with resources and personnel. You would still need to invent a way to use helium 3 safely and cheaply. In other words you would still need to do a lot of very detectable things to do something hidden.

There have been many books written by many people (including Apollo 17's Jack Schmitt) along the lines of "If we were to build a lunar base, what would we need to do?", but that doesn't mean that it has happened or that any of the proposals are actually achievable.

a reply to: neutronflux

I have explained all of those things lol... It's not my fault you don't get the explanation.

As far as my fantasies, those have nothing to do with a moon base (I'm more into cheerleaders named Becky and Bobby sue, that's just how I roll)

I'm actually not for or against this. I believe it's an interesting concept and scenario to explore. I also KNOW you're doing a crap job debunking it. But as for me believing in it or not much less actually staking out a position and defending it... That I have not done.

Why haven't I done it?

Simple

Because while I do know pretty conclusively that your arguments suck, there's a whole god damn pile of stuff I don't know and know damn well I don't know these things that I would need to know in order to come to a reasoned, reasonable, and anything resembling scientifically supportable conclusion in favor or against the topic!!

Muzzle is at least looking at this and being very straight forward about what he knows for a fact, what's debatable but may support the initial idea, and what he personally thinks on the subject.

You OTOH, are presenting your opinions and beliefs as absolute facts .... Which is at the least intellectually dishonest, and in your case being done purely to try and shout down a topic you don't like for whatever reason.

a reply to: roguetechie

Nice rant to avoid a direct question.

Please answer to....

Start small then. How is the base, it’s reactors, it’s power sources, the piles of excavated dirt from tunneling, it’s landing pads, and the need runways for the implied shuttles not detected by the different and numerous international missions to map and study the moon through radar, photographing, radiation, inferred, and ultraviolet detection?

Sorry your fantasies have no bases in reality.

The simplest explanation why scrutiny, study, and photographing the moon square mile by square mile reveals no moon base, because there is no moon base.....

The simplest reason secret craft are not detected going to and from the moon by systems able to locate objects small as basketballs, because there are no secret space craft making the trip.

The simplest reason a secret space craft from the moon never explode is because there are no secret craft from the moon. (In the context two of the six space shuttles exploded midair)

The simplest reason a secret facility housing 1000s of the brightest engineees to create secret 6 million pound rockets to get 36,000 pound payloads on the surface of the moon, because there is no secret facilities creating million pound secrets?

This ring a bell?

math.ucr.edu...

when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."

a reply to: roguetechie

Like to calculate the statics of keeping 1000’s of workers secret, keeping the construction of 6 million pound rockets secret. With the addition of keeping the use of the fuel secret. In addition to keeping the infrastructure to launch and retrieve craft from the moon secret. In addition to making the trip to and from the moon secret. In the addition of building and maintaining a moon base a secret. In addition in keeping the secret moon base a secret without any credible physical evidence year after year, decade after decade?

In the context Apple cannot even prevent leaks concerning one single component?

www.reddit.com...
iPhone X Leak Video gets Apple Engineer Fired!

a reply to: roguetechie

If my arguments “suck”

Then it should be easy to counter

“Start small then. How is the base, it’s reactors, it’s power sources, the piles of excavated dirt from tunneling, it’s landing pads, and the need runways for the implied shuttles not detected by the different and numerous international missions to map and study the moon through radar, photographing, radiation, inferred, and ultraviolet detection? ”

Instead of wasting time ranting.....

originally posted by: muzzleflash
You do realize that large asteroids pop up right in front of us all the time - despite all those awesome telescopes.

Your arguments are very weak.

i'm sure someone else pointed this out, but the reason asteroids are missed is they come from every direction. it's hard to watch every bit of sky for something popping in.

the moon, however, is easily located and many skywatchers focus their attention on it.

I tweeted Elon Musk recently to suggest that he use the Falcon Heavy to build a space hotel with a series of rotating cylinders. Saw something in a movie recently that brought it to mind.

Space Hotel, for viewing the Earth, and even as a vacation from Earth.

I don't think that people should conceive babies in zero G however.. so they'll have to be careful.

Edit to add: The central hubs of those rotating cylinders could be used for "Ender's Games" style floaty games, but no sex unless you are safely in simulated gravity of your room out on the perimeter. And no satanic BS or rituals in those hubs either since they might try to sacrifice a baby in there, just to make mankind's first real forray into the experience of outer space some sort of satanic affair - and do not allow Lady Gaga to perform the first space concert. That too should be outlawed imho. Gotta keep it clean such endeavors regardless of whether or not Jack Parson's the founder of NASA might have routinely engaged in ritual sex magic with Allistair Crowley one result of which might very well have have been, Barbara Bush.

a reply to: roguetechie

Yes, it is elaborate and sensational speculation based on how old of a document?

Other than a declassified wishlist, please state what physical evidence supports the title of this thread “The Secret Military Moon Base Probably Actually Exists”

Again...

NO, AMERICA DID NOT BUILD A SECRET MOON BASE
By MUFON Admin

mufongeorgia.org...

The idea of a secret manmade base on the Moon is inherently unrealistic to those with even a rudimentary understanding of spaceflight. Even so, some of those who appeared on “Far Side of the Moon” made such a claim. Thus, it is important to explain why such a notion is outside the bounds of realism.

Is ATS about getting to the truth? Or a play ground for wannabe fantasy writes?