It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


The Secret Military Moon Base Probably Actually Exists

page: 21
<< 18  19  20    22  23 >>

log in

(post by roguetechie removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 04:20 AM
Totally agree, question, why is it with all the images of the moon by China and India in the last decade, still have not show any high res images of the dark side? We still have better quality from our cell phones than these probes have shown.

posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 04:34 AM
a reply to: myss427

There are loads of high res images of the far side, right back to the Lunar Orbiter images taken before Apollo, the Apollo images, and those of China, Japan and India and of course the LRO.

We have complete coverage of the moon surface and have had for decades.

posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 04:38 AM
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Yes but they always seem to be selective, and have blurred out bits on them. And still the resolution is way down on the level of technology that we poses now or the last decade.

posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 04:52 AM
a reply to: myss427

You need to look at the actual images, not the odd one that gets floated out on conspiracy sites so that people can go nuts about nothing.

Go to places like these

follow my tutorials

Or go buy the books - I have an atlas of the moon published in the 1960s made from the Lunar Orbiter images, it's superb.

As for resolution, there is always a compromise. The majority of probes (modern ones at least) are not sent there to take pretty pictures, they are there to use other scientific instruments and the pictures are a bonus. You have to trade off the weight of the camera versus its use to the mission.

The highest resolution images are the LRO. Lunar Orbiter, Apollo Panoramic Camera and India's Chandrayaan are next, then JAXA. China has the lowest resolution coverage but on average has covered the moon best.

posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 06:45 AM
a reply to: roguetechie

If there is a moon base on the moon, then cite actual physical evidence. The moon base either started excavation on the moon, was built and not manned, or built and manned. Is there physical evidence on the moon or not. Some things are yes or no.

Cite an actual rocket launch, or physical evidence that points to building a moon base?

What equipment can be used to excavate on the moon with a lack of atmospheric oxygen. how did it get there.

I just don’t see much compatibility with creating a habitable moon base vs a secret moon base. Then add to the chance it would be detected year after year. Decade to decade. Any argument claiming a moon base, but not willing to put it on the line by citing a date it was build, and how long it was staffed, cannot be taken seriously. Not citing those key facts shows the lack of credibility in the argument.

posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 07:37 AM
a reply to: roguetechie

I agree!

posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 08:49 AM
a reply to: roguetechie

If there is a secret moon base, why would American government documents tell you anything. Especially when the excuse why none of the high resolution NASA photos of the moon with the ability to discern the lunar lander equipment are “airbrushed” to hide moon bases is used.

I thought there was a concerted effort to hide the Probably Actually moon base?

Would be interesting if you can find any rocket launches with rockets that had the capacity to get construction equipment to the moon. Or the facilities or sea launch platforms to handle a 6 million pound rocket. But that is the rub. It takes a specific missile design to get anything sizable to the moon.
edit on 5-4-2018 by neutronflux because: Fixed more

posted on Apr, 6 2018 @ 01:18 PM
a reply to: neutronflux

If they used rockets... If a whole bunch of other things...

P.S. I've already addressed your camera and probe thing ad nauseam and I genuinely do not care whether you don't like the answers, don't understand them, or if the answers were always irrelevant to you because this is purely about your quest to derail this thread.

You do not get to set the standards of evidence here, nor do you get to dictate how other posters choose to phrase things, and finally you have absolutely no right to incessantly shout and demand that people take their time answering anything to your satisfaction!

Honestly, for the first time ever I'm considering mashing the report button since this has long since crossed the line into freaky obsessive compulsive behavior territory on your part.

Other people have an interest in discussing this topic and they have a right to do so. If you don't like this topic, or my posts, quit reading them.

posted on Apr, 6 2018 @ 05:06 PM
a reply to: roguetechie

It took a modified heavey lift Atlas V variant to get the Lunar Precursor Robotic Program (LPRP) to the moon. The 8,000 pound of total payload of equipment to test for water on the moon.


You do not get to set the standards of evidence here, nor do you get to dictate how other posters choose to phrase things, and finally you have absolutely no right to incessantly shout and demand that people take their time answering anything to your satisfaction!

No, but probably does have a specific meaning.

No, the physics of what is needed to make a powered, shielded, and habitable moon base year after year sets the standard. Habitable may not be compatible with secret.

The physics of running a nuclear reactor on the moon with no source of plentiful water for shielding or cooling sets the standard.

Just the specific amount of fuel needed to get any sizable payload to the moon sets the standand.

More fuel needed to get to the moon than what is required to place large loads in Earth’s orbit sets the standard.

The year to year research of the moon with photographing, radar, radiation detectors, infrared cameras, and ultraviolet cameras makes it increasingly highly unlikely there ever was a secret moon base.

Again, the most logical reason a secret moon base was never outed? Because there is no secret moon base.

posted on Apr, 6 2018 @ 05:18 PM
a reply to: roguetechie

The reality of what it would take to build and staff a secret and habitable moon base sets the standard. Not some fantasy Hollywood physics where some fantasy character can do what would take 20,000 highly skilled individuals, with numerous ties to industry, 5 to 7 years to accomplish.
edit on 6-4-2018 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

posted on Apr, 8 2018 @ 12:52 AM
a reply to: muzzleflash

Love the theory and its certainly possible,but asteroids come from literally out of no where. Unless the tech has advanced tremendously or they have new tech, in bound traffic would have to orbit the moon before they could send down a lander. Doesn't the known physics of space flight require an object to be captured by the moons gravity allowing it to circle and slow down before attempting to land even if they could launch a complete system and land it its not going to just zip right through to the moon landing it's going to have to do a few orbits to orient itself for a targeted landing point. Not arguing the base per se but it's would be a really fantastic notion that it wouldn't need occasional supply or rotational manpower to exist thus exposing itself to be possibly being viewed doing orbital movements.

I still like the one theory that we tried to established a base but were ran off and forced to leave by other intelligent life forms.
edit on 8-4-2018 by putnam6 because: additions

posted on Apr, 8 2018 @ 02:43 AM
a reply to: putnam6

I'm happy for an actual rocket scientist to correct me, but the direct approach (ie arrive at moon, land) is perfectly possible.

What it needs, however, is a means of getting rid of the speed the arriving rocket has. On Earth the atmosphere does this, but on the moon it could only be achieved with a hefty chunk of engine fire. That amount of engine use needs extra fuel, which has all kinds of knock on effects on launch vehicle size and other payloads that may have to be lost to cope with carrying the fuel.

Lunar orbit capture is more time expensive, but much more fuel efficient, which means you can devote more of your rocket payload to other things.

posted on Apr, 8 2018 @ 07:50 AM

originally posted by: abeverage
a reply to: muzzleflash

Please see my above post about the Disney presentation Man and the Moon


Thank you.

it took 8 pages to address this.

posted on Apr, 8 2018 @ 08:31 AM
a reply to: yuppa

What part of SPECULATION THREAD do you not grasp?

Yet its posted in general conspiracy forum and not skunkworks where speculation threads are welcomed and skeptics can ask but its not required to prove things.

posted on Apr, 8 2018 @ 08:32 AM

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: yuppa

You know with topics like 911 or chemtrails they had plenty of time to develop tactics and scripts to attack the topic with, so it's like a well oiled machine.

But this one was a surprise attack and caught em off guard. They had no clue how to combat it effectively. It slipped right through their fingers.

I recognize my efforts in the attack itself were sub-par and a bit reckless, but the mere element of surprise combined with experience and good strategy caused a critical hit.

It was hilarious.


Really showed your hand with this post.

posted on Apr, 8 2018 @ 05:56 PM
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

I knew I should have got into Kerbal space program!

If I had I'd probably totally be able to tell you what the difference between your various options for the moon trip were like.

Also though when you talk about bringing the fire from lighting off the boosters, I don't know exactly how visible that would be approximately. Really it would be a bunch of number ranges for several different factors like the angular size of your craft, how much light it puts out in what wavelengths when boosters fire, surface reflectivity of the craft, and to a degree it's position relative to the observer and the sun right?

Do you know or have some idea where we could get some information on some of these factors?

It would be really interesting to see some hard numbers and maybe some information on how exactly we would apply the hard numbers to establish an overall visibility level of craft going back and forth especially during burns.

I've looked at videos of people capturing ISS transits of the moon and got some explanations of what it takes to capture those, and to be honest this is a large part of what i base my belief that craft going to and from the moon might be way more difficult to spot than some people in the thread think.

In the case of ISS transits you have an almost 100 meter long something like 50 meter wide at many points object with large flat highly reflective surfaces something like 450 kilometers up and a website with very good data showing you transit windows near your coordinates, and it's still not super easy to catch a good clean video clip of it where you can clearly make out the shape of the ISS.

How you get stuff into space and headed outward as well as getting stuff from space back to earth... That part if they're doing it or did at one point is where the really neat tricks would have to be in my opinion!

Not being a rocket scientist or understanding the finer points of orbital mechanics makes it hard to know where the line between possible and impossible is even if we limit the hypothetical Secret space program to conventional rocket technology.

Also FWIW limiting this hypothetical program in that way is probably a foolish thing to do in this case IMO because anything that could possibly be worth establishing an off book moon base for is worth using every toy in the arsenal for almost by default. I mean if you felt the need to be up there in secret like that, whatever you're up there for almost has to be pretty important doesn't it?

posted on Apr, 8 2018 @ 06:58 PM
a reply to: roguetechie

You don’t think Russia and China have similar capabilities?

Space Tracking and Surveillance System (STSS)

Real On-Orbit Performance
Now ballistic missiles have no place to hide. Two Northrop Grumman-built Space Tracking and Surveillance System (STSS) demonstrator satellites are on-orbit, demonstrating capabilities required for birth-to-death tracking of ballistic missiles and other cold objects in space.

Both satellites fly and work in tandem as a risk-reduction mission by the U.S. Missile Defense Agency (MDA), paving the way for an operational constellation.

Using sensors capable of measuring infrared radiation from the vantage point of space, the satellites have demonstrated their ability to detect missile launches, track missiles from boost into midcourse and communicate with missile defense command and control systems.

Space-Based Asset
Since launch in 2009, the two spacecraft have demonstrated the value of space-based sensors to missile defense. In addition to their missile tracking capability, the demonstrator satellites are showing how fewer Aegis missile defense destroyers can defend larger areas by using external cues provided by space-based sensors.

posted on Apr, 8 2018 @ 09:44 PM
a reply to: neutronflux

TBH... Russia may very well have even better capabilities at some of that than us.

As an example Russia has had a BMD grid protecting Moscow and some of the surrounding areas for 2+ decades.

China OTOH is pretty likely to have been very late to the party compared to Russia, but has almost certainly made very significant progress in the last 2 decades. Especially since one of their defensive measures against carrier battle groups is the DF-21D anti ship ballistic missile deal.

Between that and China's regional sphere of influence I'd say that continued conventional rocket launches to keep a hypothetical moon base supplied as of now would be very problematic without other governments knowledge. Would they rat the US government out at the current juncture though? I don't know, and I can honestly say you don't either because geopolitics has gotten just plain weird in the last 20 years.

Going back to Russia again for a minute though, in the last few months they've put out some very interesting presentations about next generation weapons they've either built or are building which are kinda suggestive of there still being holes in our ability to detect launches, flight paths, and et cetera. So again this makes me wonder if maybe there really are still blind spots or work arounds that the big kids may all know about to some extent and not acknowledge publicly.

My entire position in this thread is based around the idea that there's definitely some things that are suggestive out there and we just plain do not have anywhere near the amount of information we'd need to say that such a base definitely did not exist or would have been discovered and made public or etc.

We just don't know...

I know that a majority of people are distinctly uncomfortable with the idea of uncertainty, ambiguity, or a lack of concrete answers but that's just how the world is. We just don't know all sorts of stuff.

That's why I like these threads though because they give us the opportunity to sit down and see if there's enough information available now to get better answers.

posted on Apr, 9 2018 @ 01:17 AM
a reply to: roguetechie

Picking out a burn against the brightness of the moon would be difficult, but with the right gear it has been possible to identify spacecraft en route to the moon:

and of course impacts of are observed regularly.

This document gives details on how Apollo was tracked from start to finish:

new topics

top topics

<< 18  19  20    22  23 >>

log in