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.

 

100% proof of bases on moon since the 60's !

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 01:01 PM
link   
dude, he's not batman o come save the day maybe he dont want to be associated with this bogus thread with a misleading title. besides it has been hashed over and over on another thead and john lear did put in his two cents, for whatever they are worth.




posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 01:44 PM
link   
...most of the people who post as "unbelievers" are either disinfo agents or just have a hard time understanding how large the universe is. Think about it this way, look into the Drake Equation (Green Banks equation), it states that since we exist, about 1k, 10k? I forget, communicating civilizations have to exist. With the amount of time we've proven/are capable of understanding to have elapsed, how could there NOT be other forms of life out there, that look like us even.

Read that Phila Experiment thread, there's a link to an interview w/ one of the survivors, said they used stargates to travel 10-15k years into the past, there's other forms of life out there who look just like us and are more advanced, talked about numerous alien species.

Any idea on new Planet X/Nibiru information? Southern Hemisphere ATSers, we need you to keep track on the skies since it supposedly shadows the sun since it's almost a brown dwarf....



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by arktkchr

...most of the people who post as "unbelievers" are either disinfo agents or just have a hard time understanding how large the universe is.



this is not about believers/unbelievers but about basic communication skills. I am a believer of many far-out things, including ETs and moon-bases. But I wont go around making sensationalistic headlines such as "100% proof" when I dont have 100% proof. Now, I personally dont require proof to believe what my inner sense tells me, but the fair and appropriate title would have been:

"possible proof of moon bases"

or

"proof of moon bases???"

or the most accurate:

"plans of moon bases in the 60s".

THAT would have established a little tiny thread of credibility.



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 08:06 PM
link   
arktkchr you atre very wise and u actually as they say " bug" me out because i study exact sme topib for planet x today and you post on same day as i was doing this research, this mean to be? telepathy maybe? i think so



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Could the Americans built a moon base in the '60s? Sure they could. They had the technology to reach the moon and the technology to build a self contained sealed enviroment. The Apollo missions and nuclear submarines are proof enough of the ability of the US government to do just that.
They question of whether they did or not is one that won't be conclusively solved until some one goes up there and has a look around. That is, some one not affiliated with the US government or NASA. Even someone from the Internation Space Agency would be suspect because of the ties to NASA.
The big question is that of whether or not there was the WILL to inhabit the moon. Sure, we would all like to take a trip and check the place out. Maybe try a little moon golf, and explore for alien artifacts. But a government is what we are talking about, and politicians are notorious cowards. Calling for the billions of dollars a year needed to keep the base in service using the technology presented is a thing that few would even think of let alone actively pursue.
Until we develop a technology that allows for cheap transport out of the atmosphere, there isn't any way to establish a base. The logistics are to expensive and the risk of being left there to die is too great. With NASA's track record I don't see any rational person relying on them for suport.



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 12:32 AM
link   
thanc u direwolf, now u make picture clear that i try to get across to humanoids, if look at in this light it is 100% proof, humanoid i ask u to ask john lear he will tell you also it is 100% that humanoid is on moon for base for mining of helium 3 for nuclear fusion propulsion systems and other etc. understand? question?

[edit on 5-9-2007 by K-illuminati]

[edit on 5-9-2007 by K-illuminati]



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 01:40 AM
link   
You said 100% proof! That's a stretch. What is the evidence for this? It just gives the basic requirements of establishing a base on the Moon.

Here are two basic forms of proof. These are:
> By preponderance of evidence - statistical
> By strict axiomatic derivation - analytical


There is neither!

Yes, I agree that this was a paper written in the 60s. So? I could write one today on the requirements of a base on Pluto. Some sucker would read it on the internet in the year 2050 and say, "Hey! It's been over 40 years. So that's enough time to have built a base on Pluto, so it's 100% proof that they've built one!".

I'm heading for the nearest bar. I believe the beer is 20% 'proof' at the least!


Cheers!



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 01:46 AM
link   
It would seem that English is not your 1st language. Maybe you don’t actually know the full meaning of the word proof? Proof would mean that it is UNDENIABLE beyond any doubt that they built a base. What you have is EVIDENCE (different from proof) that they pondered the possibility of building a base.


Originally posted by K-illuminati
john lear im calling you over to this thread please, i dont know how els to tell humanoids


The name “Lear” just does something for some people, doesn’t it? It is the name, not the man in my opinion. Without the family name no one would listen, even on ATS or C2C.

We don’t all worship John Lear. Bringing Mr. Lear into this thread will further discredit your 100% proof in many members eyes. Quite possibly a majority of members eyes.

"Dear John Lear, please forgive me for not being able to convince these humanoids. Please John Lear, save me from the wicked ATSers who know the difference between proof and BS. And please forgive them, John Lear, they just haven’t been enlightened yet. They know not what they do. In John Lear's name I pray, Amen."



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 03:36 AM
link   
The following link is probably closer to 'proof' that buildings could be on the moon - at least since 1994.

www.cmf.nrl.navy.mil... ensor=UVVIS&filter=415_nm

Clementine Lunar Image Browser (1.5)

1 pixel = 1 km

768x768

lat = 1
long = 311

Still not proof though, but does anyone want to have a guess at what that large rectangular shaped object sitting on the lunar surface might be?



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by cavscout
 


Too true, cavscout, too true. Not everyone worships at the temple of Lear. He has some interesting thoughts, but that's as far as I'll go.



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Originally posted by seagull




Too true, cavscout, too true. Not everyone worships at the temple of Lear. He has some interesting thoughts, but that's as far as I'll go.


Nobody has to worship at my temple nor do they have to worship me. But with all due respect I would request that you refer to me as "Your Holiness" or "His Holiness", thanks.



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 02:17 PM
link   
A star for your good humor.



Originally posted by johnlear
Nobody has to worship at my temple nor do they have to worship me.


Mr. Lear, I am in Vegas 6 days a week; if you have a temple let me know so I can take some photos, I am sure ATS would love to see it.


But with all due respect I would request that you refer to me as "Your Holiness" or "His Holiness", thanks.


Sorry sir, I just can do that. I will, however, refer to you as "Your Moonliness" if you wish.



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by cams
 


I posted this on another thread, but it directly answers your post. In fact, you answer your own post with the information you have provided.

The resolution selected is 1 pixel = 1 kilometer. The rectangle is approximately 48 pixels by 29 pixels. (Just lift out the rectangle with any editing software and view the remaining attributes.) So at one pixel per kilometer you have a building 24 kilometers long by about 15 kilometers wide. To put it in miles: a building 15 miles long by 9.3 miles wide, nearly 140 square miles. This is about 4 billion square feet, which is about 375 times larger than the biggest building ever built on earth in terms of surface area square feet.

Even at 1/6 earth's gravity (or 1/2 according to Lear) you have quite an engineering feat there. You'd have to figure out where all that material came from and who put it together how and for what purpose.

Or alternatively, do the math on the rectangle and realize the probability of that being a "base" is near zero.



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Man, if I had a buck everytime a thread claiming to be 100% proof of something is started...

I really encourage the mods to delete this kind of threads (or close them at least) if they not cope up with they claim to be.



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by segalindoa
Man, if I had a buck everytime a thread claiming to be 100% proof of something is started...

I really encourage the mods to delete this kind of threads (or close them at least) if they not cope up with they claim to be.



I wouldn’t go that far.

Can there really be 100% proof of anything?

It is OK for a person to claim they have proof, and it is OK for another to educate that person of what proof really is.

Although the title of the thread may be misleading, the motto of the site is deny ignorance. That is what we are doing here.



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


Your Holiness it is...
. I do hope you realize I was attempting to be somewhat facitious. I try not to be intentionally offensive, if I can avoid it.



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler
Even at 1/6 earth's gravity (or 1/2 according to Lear) you have quite an engineering feat there. You'd have to figure out where all that material came from and who put it together how and for what purpose.

Or alternatively, do the math on the rectangle and realize the probability of that being a "base" is near zero.


At the outset, how come you changed your avatar? The previous one looked more 'dynamic'!


Ok, so what's the big deal in making a complex that big? It could've been made by them aliens! They have all those esoteric tools to make them with and anti grav tech etc. They could probably make that darn construction within a matter of days!


So there! Cheers!



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 11:40 PM
link   
The only way to prove it is to spin it around so we see the other side !



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler
reply to post by cams
 


I posted this on another thread, but it directly answers your post. In fact, you answer your own post with the information you have provided.

The resolution selected is 1 pixel = 1 kilometer. The rectangle is approximately 48 pixels by 29 pixels. (Just lift out the rectangle with any editing software and view the remaining attributes.) So at one pixel per kilometer you have a building 24 kilometers long by about 15 kilometers wide. To put it in miles: a building 15 miles long by 9.3 miles wide, nearly 140 square miles. This is about 4 billion square feet, which is about 375 times larger than the biggest building ever built on earth in terms of surface area square feet.

Even at 1/6 earth's gravity (or 1/2 according to Lear) you have quite an engineering feat there. You'd have to figure out where all that material came from and who put it together how and for what purpose.

Or alternatively, do the math on the rectangle and realize the probability of that being a "base" is near zero.


So you believe because of its apparent size it is virtually impossible that is could be a structure?

Okay then consider this….

The great pyramid of Giza consists of approximately 2.3-2.5 million stone blocks ranging from approximately 1 to 70 tonnes each. Construction for one of the largest structures in terms of mass in the world is widely accepted to be 20 years. So in theory, each block would have had to have been laid approximately every 4-5 minutes, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for 20 years.
Also depending on which construction technique you choose can also makes this task seem even more incredible (eg ramp method – ramps need to be huge in the end, extending for great distances, becoming larger than the object itself. Even the amount of food, water and accommodation to feed and accommodate the army of workers would have had to have been incredibly massive. The logistics are amazing).
(Note the 4-5 minute per block are my calculations. Others have said much less than that (ie 1-2 minutes per block (based on 10 hour work days - considering sunlight etc, 0.55 blocks per minute)). I calculated 0.2378 block per minute 24 hours per day using 2.5 million blocks)

It seems highly unlikely and near impossible to lay these blocks every 5 minutes (especially at night), for 20 years but that does not mean the great pyramid doesn’t exist, does it?

If it is not a building/bunker/structure, then would you like to have a guess at what it may be then?



[edit on 6-9-2007 by cams]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join