Declassified Technology notes Moon Bases UFO technology

You guys always know how to ruin a thread. I was kind of interested at first and wanted to read the replies to get an idea of whether or not this is something worth paying attention to, but all you guys are doing here is arguing about what a "G" is for like 3 pages. Enough of this thread...

reply to post by housegroove23


That one is about the ecology of extraterrestrial bases - just like it says. Not about one that exists, but an exploration of what you would need on an extraterrestrial base if you wanted to keep the air clean and so on for extended periods of time.

Can you use algae, kudzu, mosses, what? Which has the best CO2->O2 conversion, which ones are more hardy and the like. In 1964, no one had really worked on such things and it had to begin somewhere.

edit: In that era, it's my impression from all the studies performed that there was an expectation that we'd do more than a few Lunar landings and quit. So there was a good bit of prep work done towards the development of permanent Lunar bases, working space stations and trips to Mars.

[edit on 29-8-2007 by Tom Bedlam]

What is really interesting is most talk of ET's is prior to the Apollo 11 correct? 11 did occur in 1969 if I'm not mistaken, so we had a pretty damn good idea of most things. Also, the Swedish jet, if were helping them develop this, god knows what we've already accomplished.

Yep Its just going too be impossible too hide or deny soon. It seems sightings of ET/UFO like and our own unpublished advanced techs are becoming more impossible too hide/coverup/deny with every passing day. I think mankind on the whole is ready for alien contact providing its a of friendly nature too both parties. I mean its been in our culture via movies,tv,toys,ads,etcc for going on 70+ years.
And Nasa's latest(and longest:@@ public venture too the moon in 2018 will easily allow their past cover ups too go un punishible. I can hear them saying "We never knew these were there" Amazing and laughable at the same time.
Soon very soon!

reply to post by VType


what worries me is think about the fake moon landings or airbrushed cover ups they will be able to do now with current CGI capablites, how will we ever believe them that they really did land on the moon this time? we'll be counting pixels and arguing over CGI OR NOT CGI i mean, just look at the ruccus the drones caused...now throw a billion dollars of black op funds to some CGI artist group.
it is a sad case when you can't trust them to tell you the truth anymore, cant celebrate with the rest of the world (blind sheeple) when you have taken the red pill and know the truth.

Originally posted by VType
Yep Its just going too be impossible too hide or deny soon. It seems sightings of ET/UFO like and our own unpublished advanced techs are becoming more impossible too hide/coverup/deny with every passing day. I think mankind on the whole is ready for alien contact providing its a of friendly nature too both parties. I mean its been in our culture via movies,tv,toys,ads,etcc for going on 70+ years.
And Nasa's latest(and longest:@@

public venture too the moon in 2018 will easily allow their past cover ups too go un punishible. I can hear them saying "We never knew these were there" Amazing and laughable at the same time.
Soon very soon!

Good point and I agree with you. We were never in a rush to go back to the moon until the Chinese started to go into orbit. So we better hurry and get back there so we can cover up our lies to the public and discover first what we already discovered.

reply to post by TheInfamousOne


I dont believe the Chinese will ever be allowed to go to the mon, if anything they will be allowed to join us on a joint mission. they will either be told the truth or threatened.

Okay.. a couple of quick questions. I found this report cited, but not the actual report.

Title: The 'UFO' of July 24, 1981: A Discussion with Comrade Zhang Zhousheng,
AD Number: ADA128307 Corporate Author: FOREIGN TECHNOLOGY DIV WRIGHT-PATTERSON AFB OH Personal Author: Liu,Yan Report Date: April 11, 1983

All I could find googling Zhang Zhou Sheng was this qoute on a foriegn page that I had to translate via google?

Zhang Zhou Sheng, astronomer in the Yunnan observatory Chengdu, 1977: It is particularly important that the recordings from at least two independent observers, from each other removes 180 km, was correct, what concerns the flight direction of this strange flying object. Up to now there is no satisfying explanation of this strange phenomenon, but there were thousands of good witnesses, who saw it.

(1) Does anyone know what this report/sighting refers to?
(2) What do we know about FOREIGN TECHNOLOGY DIV WRIGHT-PATTERSON AFB? Why so many government docs concerning the UFO phenom originating from here? Please indulge a newbe

Originally posted by TheInfamousOne
Good point and I agree with you. We were never in a rush to go back to the moon until the Chinese started to go into orbit. So we better hurry and get back there so we can cover up our lies to the public and discover first what we already discovered.

From the conspiracy side, isn't all the top governments perpetuating this cover up? That will include China as well IMO.
I hope not, and like you said the US government would have to man up and disclose because if they don't, then we will hopefully learn about it from some other country.

With that said and if I were to believe all this conspiracies how will they disclose that we have bases on the Moon? Its a catch 22 because they will be proving themselves as liars.

I found this on the second topic you are questioning Click Here
Rense
Gary O'Connell





These are the top members for that project.

Originally posted by infamouskiller

stinet.dtic.mil...

you need to read this

stinet.dtic.mil...

This doc has the following disclaimer:

"DISCLAIMER

This publication was produced in the Department of Defense school environment in the interest of academic freedom and the advancement of national defense-related concepts. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense or the United States government."

Does this mean this is part of a project in a military school? Seems like it.

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
Air Univ, Maxwell AFB, AL

I still think it is interesting a military school is touching upon such interesting (actually scary) topics as War in Space. However, this does not necessarily mean ET/UFO type space wars - I could be wrong on that front, however, nothing so far seems to suggest otherwise.

Absolutely - Maxwell AFB's Air Academy churns out all sorts of "forward-looking" studies.

One you see quoted from often on ATS, albeit in general taken carefully out of context to enhance the spookiness, is AF 2025.


Here is where the index used to be, I'm not sure the links are still good, but the first few I looked at seem to work ok.


You should take a quick tour of the first two links, "Welcome Letter" and "Executive Summary", they will give you a fair idea of how and why this stuff is generated, and who participates.

I almost started crying while reading this thread, seriously.

The high G forces that jets experience are during maneuvers, when you are changing the direction of an object that is travelling at high speeds. The limits of this are the airframe and the stresses it can take, even a Cessna can pull up out of a dive and endure serious forces before the wings rip off. The person that is obsessed with the speeds involved is missing the point. It isn't about how fast a jet is moving, it is about how quickly you can turn at speed. When they bring people up in an F16 for a joyride, they black out because the pilot is 'pulling up out of a dive', whether it is sideways or whatever. The same thing is happening on a rollercoaster when it pulls up out of a dive.

There are some neat rules of physics that apply to these situations, look into 'Delta Vee' as an example of how this all effects space flight. And let's not forget that velocity and speed are two very different things as well, which come into play when you are talking about objects 'changing direction'.

reply to post by Diplomat

You took the words right out of my keyboard..LoL I even postponed my dinner
at the beginning of this thread because it was so interesting to me. But what a let down.
I hope i never hear about a g or acceleration again.

I haven't visited the site yet. That you are referring to , although it is extremely interesting to hear about. For one reason. In your very first post you said they track your ip#. What for? and to do what with it? Has anyone else, that hit this site, seen any dudes in black around the house? I suppose I am more paranoid than I thought. Although if you wouldn't of said they track your ip# I would of already been there.....scary.

Im not worried about them tracking my IP because I am posting from a government IP anyway.

All this stuff in interesting, especially the talk about what a G is....lol. WOW, I am a pilot and am also a aerobatic pilot. Theres been times where i have pulled 6 G's in a ultralight aircraft doin nose overs and hi banking turns, And then theres time when in aerobatic aircraft we have done almost 10 g's in tight turns and diffrent manuvers. And we were only traveling about 200 mph in those turns when we first entered the manuver. Also, it is possible to accelerate to 9 g's.....rockets do it and the old rocket sleds whould accelerate even faster, but to sustain 9 g's on acceleration is probably impossible, especially for a couple min's. Also the sound barrier and sea level is 650mph, because the air is thicker and requires less speed to achive breaking it, but more power. At, 35,000 ft. the sound barrier is 750mph because of the thinner air and it also takes less power to break the sound barrier at higher alttitudes. A G is the gravitational load on a person or vehicle, in abrupt manuvering or hi-acceleration. Like i weigh 220lbs...so at one G which is what we are everywhere on earth in weigh 220lbs....at 2g's 440, at 3g's 660, etc.etc.etc.

reply to post by infamouskiller


G force is relative to acceleration, deceleration and change in direction of an aircraft in flight. It actually has little to do with the speed or mach number that it is moving at. If you corner hard you feel G force. When you stomp on the gas and it pushes you into your seat, or brake hard and it pushes you into your seat belt, that is G force.
Most aircraft can produce 9 G for some period of time, but if it isn't designed for it, structural failure results fairly quickly. Your typical Cesna 150 can do a 9 G pull out from a high altitude dive, but the wings tend to come off and meet up with you after the crash.
The Gripen is designed for sustained high G manouvering. This means that it can turn hard and pull up hard, making it more manouverable at higher speeds. F-14, F15, F16 & F18 can all do this, but the key word is sustained. Their structural limits only allow so much of this before the airframe is retired due to structural stress and material fatigue. The Gripen was designed to last longer and allow for more agressive manouvers. The anti-g system is designed to use air pressure to inflate a G suit, which acts like a blood pressure cuff only on your entire lower body. It squeezes your legs and abdomen, forcing the blood to flow into your upper body and brain. This counters the G forces action of forcing the blood into your extremeties and away from your brain. Without the G suit, sustained high G manouvers result in a black out, where the pilot becomes unconscious. Aerobatic pilots who do these type of manouvers only do so in a short G condition, where the G force peaks and drops off quickly. They experience grey outs, where their vision tunnels and the colour fades during the high G portion of the manouver. Once the manouver is over, they return to normal.
And before you ask, yes. I have flown during these type of manouvers. I was as Engine Tech at the Airbase that the SnowBird Air Demonstration Team flew from and went up for a couple rides with them and instructors from the school.

You seem to know what your talking about, the planes ive flown and that ive done aerobatics in has including the Pitts S2S, and the Extra 300, and also a couple sukhoi russian eobatic planes...and a few others. These aircraft are built to withstand +16g's and -16G's......but they are a little diffrent in G loading. Most normal aircraft are rated at diffrent g loadings usually around 6 to 9 positive.....and 4-6 negative...im guessing..i dont have numbers for every plane ever made. There is also a margin of error built into them, so the actual g loading they can withstand is actually higher then advertised.

reply to post by housegroove23

Well thats interesting information. Where exactly are you posting from?