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.

 

Did the Space Shuttle dock at the Secret Space Station tonight?

page: 24
39
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 03:44 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Zorgon said:
"Absolutely NOT Even the ones they did find they are not going to snitch on... just use it as a bargaining chip... "

Well you WOULD say that wouldnt you. If France saw anything that would rub anyones nose into the dirt, they would be screaming louder than Charlton Heston after a US wide Gun Ban




posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon


Originally posted by Chorlton
'Beam Weapons' ?? Youve been watching too many films mate. But go on....Ill bite......wheres the evidence of these beam weapons.....humour me


LOL I will do more than humor you... you can count on it...


But it never happens does it?.
So many times on this and other threads I see from both you and JL, We'll tell you about it later.......BIG revelations coming.............secret suff just arrived cant tell you, and more and more ad nauseum.
But it never happens, Just more guessing, more fuzzy pics, more totally unrelated stuff..
Par for the course I spose.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 08:14 AM
link   
People who make such outrageous claims on a continuing basis always need to keep the "truth" just out of arms reach of the "people" to limit their exposure to those of us with common sense, reason and logic.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chorlton
So there is your 100% proof. There's probably others but....you know....I just cant tell you about them at present..


LOL I wonder why that would be?


R0 was launched on 28 June 1969, but developed a large rolling oscillation immediately it was released from the pad. The fault was an open circuit in the feed back loop which controlled one of the motor pairs. As a result the guidance system was not able to correct the motion. At about 64 seconds into the flight, the control system could not cope and the vehicle tumbled. One of the payload fairings broke away, followed by the payload, then the Gamma 8 ceased thrusting. The vehicle was destroyed by ground command when it was at an altitude of 9000 feet on its descent.


1 down 4 to go...


R1, like R0, had live first and second stages, but no third stage. It was launched on 4 March 1970 and was completely successful.


Worked Never made it to space...
2 down 3 to go


R2 was launched on 2 September 1970. The first stage was completely successful but the second stage shut down 15 seconds early, leaving 30% of the HTP unburned. This turned out to be due to a leak in the HTP pressurisation system. The third stage separated correctly, and fired, but the velocity was insufficient to reach orbit, and thepayload crashed into the Gulf of Carpentaria.


3 down 2 to go...


R3 launched the Prospero satellite (X3) into orbit on 28 October 1971, in a text book launch. The programme had meanwhile been cancelled on 29 July 1971.


Yippeee they got lucky...

4 down 1 to go....
Oh wait....


R4 was never fired, and is now on display in the Science Museum, Kensington.


I knew of this Herr Chorlton, but I did not wish to embarrass our British friends... and it hardly related to 'secret space craft'


Above us, travelling at 17,000 miles per hour, a tiny piece of British Science Fiction orbits the Earth every one hundred minutes. The final child of the British Space Programme, a satellite launched from a rocket called Black Arrow in the parched heat of the Austrailian desert in 1971, Prospero is a tiny refugee, a little ball of metal and electronics, an orphan of a future that never happened.



The ghost of this dream still orbits above us now, sucking in energy from the sun. According to this article, amateur satellite trackers heard the last tiny cries of Prospero as late as 2000, a phantom voice from an aborted future…


Prospero The Little Satellite That Could

So you are correct sir... One of those little green specks on that image is from Britain




No wonder you guys drink warm beer





posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chorlton
But it never happens does it?.


Cut the crap Chorlton... you yourself admitted that you can't be bothered to follow our links. You can say what you want about my interpretation of the data I collect, but every bit of it is backed by documents and links to official sources, mostly at military websites...

You 'fuzzy images' line is becoming a joke. Try actually reading some of the material...

And everything I have promised to show I have... but it will be at my schedule not yours... and building a little anticipation? Nothing wrong with that The BBC does that all the time with there TV shows


You want the data faster? no problem... get out of the pub and give me a hand assembling the material... I will give you a list of military sites to start with


[edit on 30-9-2007 by zorgon]



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


And you want me to list all the duds you had plus the people your space race killed?



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Chorlton
But it never happens does it?.


Cut the crap Chorlton... you yourself admitted that you can't be bothered to follow our links. You can say what you want about my interpretation of the data I collect, but every bit of it is backed by documents and links to official sources, mostly at military websites...
[edit on 30-9-2007 by zorgon]


But what about all those end lines....its coming soon folks, that top secret stuff will be revealed, Im just waiting for confirmation.

YOU cut the crap, you post eaily available stuff. Most is totally off topic because it suits your purpose. Its called 'sleight of hand' "Ill show you this pile of photos and make you think its imprtant when it realy isnt

What is comes down to is this.
The title of the OP
" Did the Space Shuttle dock at the Secret Space Station tonight"
You have provided NO, evidence of any secret space station, lots of W & P but not one scrap of evidence. Lots of sleight of hand to confuse some, but in the final analysis. You havent proved a thing, you haven even come close. You started with BS and ended with BS, Noisy BS but that doesnt change it.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chorlton
reply to post by zorgon
 


And you want me to list all the duds you had plus the people your space race killed?





Are you attempting to erect the dreaded straw man for an argument?

Zorgon is not making political statements so much as making statements about intellectual constipation and mismanagement of comprehension seemingly creating the largest amount of dissent to his postings.

Would it be possible for you to link to information to support your dissenting opinions?



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon...you yourself admitted that you can't be bothered to follow our links.


See, that is why I have decided to stop posting links. Claims that I am whacked have no credibility anyway, and posting links just shows I have something to prove, an attempt to defend myself, which in turn lends support to those claims.

I posted on page 23

Its good enough for me

So take my word for it, or do your homework. I have no more patience to be bothered by such nonsense.

Sure, there are those who would cry "smug elitist pig!". I have an open door policy, and if someone wants in all they have to do is ask, so that is far removed from this claim too. As far as my work here goes, it is pretty much over. I will continue to carry the flame for our colleagues in our own group, but doing actual work here is over as far as I am concerned.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Are you attempting to erect the dreaded straw man for an argument?

Not at all. My reply was intended for John lear when he asked for proof.
It was then ridiculed by Z who, though wishing to mention the failures made no mention of the failures by the US. In fact if you look, we were far more succesfull in launching our first satellit than the US was.



Zorgon is not making political statements so much as making statements about intellectual constipation and mismanagement of comprehension seemingly creating the largest amount of dissent to his postings.

Sorry but from where I sit he WAS making a political jibe, to an answer to a question asked by JL. I suspect Z is so used to being ridiculed that he takes every post as such


Would it be possible for you to link to information to support your dissenting opinions?

You want a list of all the US space failures or a link to the UK satellite launch?



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Hi Zorgon,

Not sure if I followed this whole discussion through correctly, but there seems to be some confusion about the number of Brit satellites in orbit? I'm pretty sure there's a lot more than one green speck from an old Spoutnik size Brit spy satellite in orbit. Or was the discussion only related to the British capacity to launch satellites? ESA would be handling all the British launching services from Kourou

But that's still off topic...

Secret Space Station? Could very well be. We're all so far down the "secret ladder" that anything is possible. If the US has all the alien technology they are theorized to have, ie: anti-gravity space ships, I think 500 kilograms missing from the manifests of a few Progress supply vessels seems redundant, doesn't it? I mean, why bother with a chemical rocket for 2.5T of cargo when they can lift a lot more to a "secret space station" through the other way without anybody knowing about it?

Just my thoughts



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Originally posted by Chorlton




You want a list of all the US space failures?



Yes, please, Chorlton I want to show how many failures there were until they figured out that the moon had 64% of the earths gravity and not 1/6th as is commonly believed.

Please list by spacecraft and date.

Thanks for your help Chorlton. It is greatly appreciated



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by Chorlton

You want a list of all the US space failures?


Yes, please, Chorlton I want to show how many failures there were until they figured out that the moon had 64% of the earths gravity and not 1/6th as is commonly believed.
Please list by spacecraft and date.
Thanks for your help Chorlton. It is greatly appreciated


Nice try John but again..... no banana. I see you gloss over the proof I provided for your original question.
But we're talking here about dud rockets for launching satellites, nothing to do with hair brained schemes of the moon.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matyas

See, that is why I have decided to stop posting links.


Good point Matyas....

Besides I am neglecting getting caught up at Pegasus... all those papers to file



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatsthatthingy
Hi Zorgon,
Not sure if I followed this whole discussion through correctly, but there seems to be some confusion about the number of Brit satellites in orbit?


Nah no confusion... just tormenting Chorlton...




But that's still off topic...

Secret Space Station? Could very well be. We're all so far down the "secret ladder" that anything is possible.If the US has all the alien technology they are theorized to have, ie: anti-gravity space ships, I think 500 kilograms missing from the manifests of a few Progress supply vessels seems redundant, doesn't it? I mean, why bother with a chemical rocket for 2.5T of cargo when they can lift a lot more to a "secret space station" through the other way without anybody knowing about it?


Quite true and as we do not have access to very much documentation for the top secret stuff, we can only follow crumbs...

While they may seem insignificant in themselves, putting them together shows many flaws in the data that do not make sense. All we can do is look trough these discrepencies and see if we can find out more.

We have tracked anti gravity to John Lears father's company having worked with TT Brown and the DoD on such projects...

We have shown LANL papers dealling with 'Gravity Sheilding'

We have Ben Rich's statement " That anything we can think of we alreay have"

We have Boyd Bushman stating anti gravity has been solved

Both these last two are senoir execs a Lockheed

There is a lot of available documentation on the state of the art
There are HUNDREDS of existing patents on Space Craft, Anti Gravity Stealth Tech and even a black paint for spaceships that has 'special properties'

So sure we could state that:

Secret space stations exist and are painted with black paint and covered with a 'cloaking device' and are supplied by anti gravity ships launched from Antarctica through the 'invisibility window' over the pole (a place where no satellite can take photos) and this base is supplied by c5 super galaxy transports that they had to make special preparations on the ice so their landing gear wouldn't fall through.

I could also state that the Russians and Americans have small shuttle like space planes armed with beam weapons that openly they state were designed to shoot each other LOL (but I don't buy that) They too are painted black...

So Okay I have said it... so now you all will believe me...

Well I thought so... and that is why we try to show the pieces of the puzzle as we find them. Chorlton constantly commenting on our 'delays' at presentation is merely a smoke screen... I will not present anything that I haven't tracked down all available sources on before posting. If that bothers some, too bad... just try and spend a day searching this stuff...

Don't like my presentation style? Good I must be hitting a nerve
But hey your still here for more


Well personally I don't see the reason they would transport everything with the anti grav ships... It doesn't make sense.

Sure they would have to to move the big stuff... but you would no more use a Limo to deliver cargo. Why risk showing off your fancy secret ship when you can use cheap robotic cargo vessels... that will keep people on Earth employed and distracted from the "good stuff"?

Also if you send common workers or crew up in rockets less chance of loose lips LOL then you can transfer them to the better ships for the hop to the moon or Mars


Well in the meantime until one of our sources offers us a ride, or we get our own craft together, we can only seek out the inconsistencies and try to assemble the whole picture.

If we didn't do this, there would be no thread and no discussion...

something I am sure the likes of Chorlton would prefer.

Just my thoughts




posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chorlton
Not at all. My reply was intended for John lear when he asked for proof.
It was then ridiculed by Z who, though wishing to mention the failures made no mention of the failures by the US. In fact if you look, we were far more succesfull in launching our first satellit than the US was.



I guess the UK should get the golden Kewpie doll. It is quaint to see someone who still holds onto the aspirations of the former British Empire.
I have a very dear friend that lives in England. I look forward to her shipments of Custard, Snickers, and Milky Way bars. I hate the Aero's. And that stuff called "Marmolite" is so nasty i can't even stand to open the jar.

But i have a question...how come if you got the first satellite in orbit, you haven't figured out how to put biscuits in a can? She is simply amazed at our "canned biscuits".


You want a list of all the US space failures or a link to the UK satellite launch?

yes, both would be nice. Thank you. I noticed that Mr. Lear asked for it, too, but you simply replied with calling it a smoke screen. Will i get the same treatment?



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Don't like my presentation style? Good I must be hitting a nerve
But hey your still here for more


never said that in my post...



Well personally I don't see the reason they would transport everything with the anti grav ships... It doesn't make sense.


Does to me. Assuming 20000$/kg for chemical rockets, speed of such anti-grav "aircraft/spacecraft", and discrepancies in the manifests to bring only 500kg per trip, would make perfect sense to use cloaked crafts from somewhere no one could be on the watch for, yet still run the old stuff for the non secret phony agenda like the ISS, paperwork would match, nobody would pickup on this lead at all


Sure they would have to to move the big stuff... but you would no more use a Limo to deliver cargo. Why risk showing off your fancy secret ship when you can use cheap robotic cargo vessels... that will keep people on Earth employed and distracted from the "good stuff"?


If you had a choice to use a limo over a horse and carriage to deliver the goods promptly, wouldn't you?


Well in the meantime until one of our sources offers us a ride, or we get our own craft together, we can only seek out the inconsistencies and try to assemble the whole picture.

If we didn't do this, there would be no thread and no discussion...


Quite true, keep up the good work, both yours and John's investigative work are much appreciated (by a few os us, anyway...
). Thanks a bunch

[edit on 30/9/2007 by whatsthatthingy]



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatsthatthingy
never said that in my post...


LOL that wasn't directed at you just a 'generic' post


discrepancies in the manifests to bring only 500kg per trip,


Well the 500kg per trip makes two assumptions...

A) that is all the cargo we can show on the manifests.

(Its not)

B) that all the progress ships burn up in freefall

It does not make sense that they would waste those cargo vessels just to 'take out the trash' and then just dump them into the ocean. The few we have tracked do not burn up entirely. You would think if there were so many flights and so many burning up that more would be noticed. Where is the international outcry for dumping space craft with garbage into the Pacific?

As I say its hard to track... but we are making 'progress'


I find it much more likely that they are using them to build the new Mini Stations....



So how about it folkes? All want to chip in and help Pegasus get one of these?


MIR Corporation
Moscow, Russia; Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Alexandria, Virginia, September 4, 2001



The MirCorp orbital facility, currently named Mini Station 1, will accommodate three visitors for stays of up to 20 days at a time. It is to have a lifetime of more than 15 years, and will be serviced by both Soyuz manned transports and unmanned Progress cargo resupply spacecraft. Startup of commercial operations is expected in 2004.


Damn more of those darn Soyuz and Progress Cargo ships... who the heck is doing 'traffic control'?


Detailed Definition of the MirCorp Station to be Completed in October 2001
The pioneering commercial orbital facility will be developed by Russia, using the country's more than 30 years of manned space station experience. The station will be based on proven technology developed by MirCorp's shareholder, RSC Energia, and its subcontractors.


Hmmm 7 years ago



MirCorp Soyuz manned transportation vehicles will visit both Mini Station 1 and the International Space Station. On a typical flight, the Soyuz would go first to Mini Station 1, where it will be docked for the two-week commercial mission. It then would fly to the ISS, where the Soyuz crew will transfer to the older Soyuz already docked to the international station. The crew would return in this Soyuz, leaving a newer spacecraft for the next space transportation cycle.


So THIS is where some of them stop...


Source



Quite true, keep up the good work,


Thanks LOL I'm not going anywhere


Here is a bit of news... Jack 'dug up' a file... well report really 1075 pages long... daily log of the ISS.... this is going to take some time to go through... and he is starting at the back (most recent)

This is what he found at just a 'quick glance'


"This is a "daily report" document. It's going to take some time but so far I've noticed during the last two Progress approaches, a "problem" occurred causing the ISS to lose some electrical systems cutting off communications to ground control and cameras on the ISS for TWO days each time. - Jack"


Now how convenient is that?





[edit on 1-10-2007 by zorgon]



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 02:40 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Your comments on my 'aspirations for the British Empire are laughable.
Considering the US is attempting to create an American Empire at this very moment.

I was going to post a list of your spectacular failures of rocket launches of which there are many many but there are so many I will leave it up to you.

We dont need to make our own rockets any more, we just pay others to do it for us. We proved we could do it with a far more reliable and far cheaper rocket than those posessed by the rest of the world at the time. Then someone asked the question "Why bother" and indeed I agree with them.



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 04:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chorlton "Why bother" and indeed I agree with them.


I don't doubt that... 'why bother' seems to be your calling card.





new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join