The Secret Military Moon Base Probably Actually Exists

originally posted by: yuppa
rob ross i think you are missing the point. he does not say it exist as a 100 percent fact. this is a SPECULATION THREAD.

that is entirely fair, and if it had been placed in skunk works i would say have at... but i feel it fails to meet a certain burden of credibility for this particular forum.

but as with most things, ymmv.

a reply to: pigsy2400

This would be you speculating on a topic that you have nowhere close to all the relevant facts on (ie what possible purpose or secret advantage such a base could grant)

This makes it AT BEST an argument from incredulity and at worst a flagrant display of dunning Kruger.

a reply to: neutronflux

What part of the title indicates speculation?

Umm... PROBABLY?

a reply to: neutronflux

Also I think it's actually only under a treaty between the Russians and US ... SALT 2 I'm thinking?

A treaty which AFAIR both nations have since repudiated and China etc never signed.

a reply to: muzzleflash

*Slow clap*

I knew you deserved that golden spoon buddy!!

Btw... check out the Glomar Explorer thing... There's a reason they're not wanting to touch that tar baby even a little!

*Cough especially Erik cough cough*

Hey btw Erik buddy aren't you former NAVY and weren't you in RADAR?

... I used to, and even now honestly, be more or less 100% sure old Gary McKinnon was fulla the brown stuff but damn man... With the way this thread has spiralled, I don't know anymore! *My head asplode n my world view shattered or something*

Just like the people who emphatically DIDN'T show up to play ever so conspicuously lol...

Maybe it was that "not antigravity" stuff that got brought up... But nahhh it couldn't be that... could it?

You've done an excellent job here, and contrary to the protestations to the contrary you didn't put it in the wrong forum nor should it be in skunk works nor have you done any of the other imaginary wrong things either.

Frankly, every once in awhile you've posted some stuff I disagree with pretty strongly to the point where I've sorta questioned things.

But this time you did really well, especially when it came to refusing to be baited into trying to answer questions that by the very nature of the subject would have been impossible for you to answer and instead making the point that they were totally unreasonable and unrealistic and intellectually dishonest questions for people to be asking.

You have more than held your own here.

And your avatar is fantastically respectful

the coolest dude painting happy little trees on channel 11 in Dallas

a reply to: muzzleflash

Please quote where I said they probably exist? Or quote where I said they exist? Quote where I ever argued they exist. It was a bad example.

Why spend millions on shielding to protect a staff of six from cosmic radiation when the millions could be spent protecting millions with a ground base missile defense system.

Is that better?

Now. When was the moon base probably built. What is the probable number of people it housed at any given moment?

And please explain how this statement is speculation?

Unconfirmed but if that photo is legit I bet it's the US Space Base because it was NOT there in the photographs of the same crater from 50 years earl

Where is there any doubt in that statement by the author a US moon base exists. Sad to see you create false narratives that contradict the title of this thread and a statement made in the beginning?

originally posted by: roguetechie
a reply to: neutronflux

What part of the title indicates speculation?

Umm... PROBABLY?

How is probably conducive to speculation?

Probably
almost certainly; as far as one knows or can tell.
en.oxforddictionaries.com...

Nice of you to ignore the post in its entirety for context.


What part of the title indicates speculation?

“The Secret Military Moon Base Probably Actually Exists”

This statement is speculation?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Unconfirmed but if that photo is legit I bet it's the US Space Base because it was NOT there in the photographs of the same crater from 50 years earlier.

The author was not speculating there might be a moon base, the author was pushing there was a moon base? And out of reckless bias forgot to vet citted sources, so was pushing an agenda based on a hoax.

This is more speculation?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's just an example that it can be done, has been done, and the military could have been doing it for decades.

They also have a lot of remote islands too.

originally posted by: GBP/JPY
And your avatar is fantastically respectful

the coolest dude painting happy little trees on channel 11 in Dallas

talking to me?

I do love this pic

a reply to: neutronflux

Lmfao.

I said:
"Unconfirmed but if that photo is legit"
and
"the military could have been"

and to you this terminology is NOT speculative?

You think those are statements of absolute certainty and fact? Hahahah

I suppose you have no real position at this point. You just love talking to me huh? Awwwh

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: neutronflux

It lands vertically, no landing strip needed.

It's under the giant blur on the moon photos.

By the why, out of all the vehicles you posted pictures of, which ones could verticality land?

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: neutronflux

Lmfao.

I said:
"Unconfirmed but if that photo is legit"
and
"the military could have been"

and to you this terminology is NOT speculative?

You think those are statements of absolute certainty and fact? Hahahah

I suppose you have no real position at this point. You just love talking to me huh? Awwwh

Again your actually quote?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Unconfirmed but if that photo is legit I bet it's the US Space Base because it was NOT there in the photographs of the same crater from 50 years earlier.

And again, probably equals sure bet not speculation.

The title “The Secret Military Moon Base Probably Actually Exists” indicates it is a sure bet there is a moon base no? Even given the benefit of the doubt, it just means the title was at least intentional click bait. Sorry to see you back peddle and create false narratives...

a reply to: neutronflux

its quite possible that there was a moon base but could have been deemed to no longer be of defence significance, hence the bombing of the moon for "water" to eradicate any signs there were there.

All speculative of course...

originally posted by: pigsy2400
a reply to: neutronflux

its quite possible that there was a moon base but could have been deemed to no longer be of defence significance, hence the bombing of the moon for "water" to eradicate any signs there were there.

All speculative of course...

Here is the video taken from the two ton reocket stage as it headed towards the moon.

LCROSS: IMPACT
m.youtube.com...

LCROSS: IMPACT

a reply to: neutronflux

Weak sauce ....

Boo hiss!!!!

Your own definition says ALMOST CERTAIN

ie indicating that there is still room for doubt certainly but a stronger case for it being certain than if probably were to be replaced with may, could, or might for instance!

And you have the temerity and gall to say Muzzle is BACKPEDALING? (backpeddling would be selling trifles in reverse?

Pro tip: if you're going to attempt to argue semantics or word choice, which is the last refuge of a dictatorial pedant anyway, you should definitely not post a definition which proves the other guy right.

Almost certainly is not certainly and therefore there is room for speculation...

You posting this response only serves to highlight how utterly irrationally you oppose this thread and your desperation to delegitimize it which has now reached such an intensity that you are posting a definition which only someone who is flat out delusional could possibly believe does anything to help their cause!

a reply to: roguetechie

You

And you have the temerity and gall to say Muzzle is BACKPEDALING? (backpeddling would be selling trifles in reverse

Muzzleflash, the author of “The Secret Military Moon Base Probably Actually Exists”

Muzzlefkash with I bet it is the space base statement? One could argue the individual found what turned out to be a hoax photo of a base believed to exist? Does not seem very speculative? Seems more I am willing to bet it’s the space base?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Then several pages letter Muzzleflash states:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
I don't even believe there "is" a moon base. I only speculated that there "probably is" a moon base.

a reply to: roguetechie


You

indicating that there is still room for doubt certainly but a stronger case for it being certain than if probably were to be replaced with may, could, or might for instance!

The definition of probably

Almost certainly; as far as one knows or can tell.
en.oxforddictionaries.com...

Probably is not the belief of something with hesitation? Probably is not the thought something is more wrong than right. Probably is far as one knows, meaning until proven wrong.

The title says it all for the starting context “The Secret Military Moon Base Probably Actually Exists”. By definition, the secret moon base as far as one knows actually exists. Doesn’t read as speculation.

originally posted by: roguetechie
a reply to: neutronflux

You posting this response only serves to highlight how utterly irrationally you oppose this thread and your desperation to delegitimize it which has now reached such an intensity that you are posting a definition which only someone who is flat out delusional could possibly believe does anything to help their cause!

That's why it's best to remain anonymous and why I won't give anyone publicly any details about my court drama or anything like that. Only in private after vetting someone would I risk that.

Some people get unhinged over this stuff and it could put myself or others near me in danger.

a reply to: muzzleflash

You don’t understand being called out on your click bait title with absolutely no proof of a moon base with no credible means for that moon to have operated?

Enough of the tit for tat!

The topic is not each other and it's a good way to get Posting Banned by going after the member and not the topic. Be warned this is getting old. Very old. Posting in a civil manner is not hard.

Do not reply to this message.