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.

 

Navy Submarine Base Under the Nevada Desert?

page: 11
59
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 12:44 AM
link   
This map might help:

img72.imageshack.us...

A big enough lake and possible under water entrance into a lab area.




posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Why? Why? Why? Why would we want a submarine base in Nevada... are we invading Lake Mead? Really... even if we could build it... there is no reason to. You can get the same effect much closer to the coast. Why base submarines somewhere where they are useless...and it will take them hours and hours to even get to the ocean... does that sound like a good tactical move? The whole point is to have submarines in strategic locations, hundreds of miles inland and 5000 ft under the midwest desert is not a very strategic location. What possible use could a submarine be there? There are many more logical places to put a submarine base. even if you wanted to hide it.





[edit on 4-10-2007 by CTS32]



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by CTS32
 


I know, the NUWC stands for Naval Under Water Command on the
map.. I found in this Nevada discussion thread:


www.abovetopsecret.com...

but than again, this guy once help Top Secret security clearance:
www.youtube.com...

Oh yeah, something is out there. Foolishness.



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by CTS32
Why? Why? Why? Why would we want a submarine base in Nevada...


Well we may not WANT one but that never stopped them


And now it seems we will get more nuke testing too..

Seems Chorlton's fellows plan to dump the Trident nuclear subs and begin testing new ones. I wonder if they will hide those in that base in the meantime? I mean no one would suspect hiding secret nuclear subs in the Nevada desert...

Well cept maybe the lunes at ATS



On March 14 the British Parliament voted to replace its Trident submarine nuclear weapons platform with new submarines and upgraded missiles and warheads. Why should this be a concern to [Nevadans]?

The Mutual Defense Agreement (MDA) between the United Kingdom and the United States was renewed with little debate in Parliament and less in the U.S. Congress. Under the MDA Treaty, Britain tests its new nuclear weapons designs in conjunction with the United States - at the Nevada Test Site. There have been 29 joint U.S./U.K. tests in Nevada between 1962 and 1991, at least 9 of which were for the Trident warhead.

The U.S. recently awarded the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory the contract to design the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW), with the stated purpose of making the "Naval Trident replacement as its top priority."


www.citizensedproject.org...

I say we gather up all that radioactive fallout and drop it in Buckinghams back yard! First Yucca Mountain now this!


[edit on 4-10-2007 by zorgon]



posted on Oct, 22 2007 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by CTS32
 


Well said, I have to agree with you. And even if it did make strategic sense, you would think that the boat to cave size ratio would make it prohibitive. While a Los Angeles Class Hunter Killer is a damn big boat, it's a pup compared to the Ohio Class Boomers which are massive, not to mention that the Boomers make their living by having a whole ocean to vanish in. After reading the description of these tunnels, I think we can assume that cave building code violations would be a big problem. All kidding aside, what possible reason would justify risking a billion dollar platform (not to mention the souls on board) in such a unstable decrepit maze?
Then again, maybe I have my head 'up and locked' and underwater catacombs such as these might offer tactical advantages beyond my limited grasp. After all, I am not, nor have I ever been a Naval Officer, I just play one on the internet.
Hey, if nothing else it does make for interesting reading.



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by DocMoreau



I guess I was not clear in what I said. So would that make the base about 9500 feet under Hawthorne? (5280+4300)


No, I said most underground bases are about a mile down. Hawthorne is 4300 feet above sea level and sea level is where they operate the submarines. So the base below Hawthorne, if there was a base would be at sea level.


and a Mile under Monterey Bay?


No, Monterey Bay is a sea level, just like 4300 feet below Hawthorne. I would assume that he entrance to the sea under the California, Nevada plate or crust wold be many hundreds of feet below Monterey Bay.



Or do you think the underground tubes change elevations?


I think you are confusing the underground tube system with the Pacific Ocean that underlies California and Nevada The underground tube system (actually there are several different ones) are at different levels and have nothing to do with subs getting from Monterey Bay to below Hawthrone Nevada.


If that is the case, I bet its tricky manuvering with no windows!


Its very likely that you have no knowledge of how submarines are navigated.


It wouldn't surprise me if there was some sort of upward oriented water filled shaft that they were able to identify and thats why they chose the base's location.


It would surprise me and also surprise the laws of physics.


Still, its all very Z.O.W.I.E. to me...


Of that I am sure.

Thanks for the post Derek.


[edit on 24-10-2007 by Will Dog]

[edit on 24-10-2007 by Will Dog]



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Well, in the start of your post, you stated that the lake is getting smaller and smaller. Keeping in mind that these passages are big enough to fit a nuclear sub, it would be big enoug to pass saltwater and even water enoug for the lake it self. And the ocean is rising, so i guess the lake would have rised and not fade ...



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Originally posted by tep200377





Well, in the start of your post, you stated that the lake is getting smaller and smaller. Keeping in mind that these passages are big enough to fit a nuclear sub, it would be big enoug to pass saltwater and even water enoug for the lake it self. And the ocean is rising, so i guess the lake would have rised and not fade ...



Thanks for the post tep. The lake has nothing to do with the base. The lake is fed by the east Walker river. It is fresh water. There is no saltwater anywhere around. The lake is about 80 feet deep at its deepest point and about 15 miles long. They may train with SDU's in it but I doubt it.

The big subs are down about 4300 feet at sea level. In the part of the Pacific Ocean that underlies California and Nevada.

Thanks for the post.



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


I'm sorry Zorgon but hasn't testing nuclear weapons been banned? I believe that article is just referring to the testing of the delivery system, and not the actual warhead.



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 

John,
At the risk of sounding stupid, when you say the loss might be due to "hostile action", are you suggesting that an underwater craft from another nation engaged one of our subs in combat under California or Nevada, and won the contest? Would you elaberate please, and if this is a dumb question then I apologise.
Thanks.

Illegitimi Non Carborundum
(don't let the bastards wear you down)



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 09:02 PM
link   
John, reading this thread I came across several refrences to a worldwide tunnel network. "Tubes" Silly question, but where do you hide that much rock after you dig it out?



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Originally posted by Will Dog




John,
At the risk of sounding stupid, when you say the loss might be due to "hostile action", are you suggesting that an underwater craft from another nation engaged one of our subs in combat under California or Nevada, and won the contest? Would you elaberate please, and if this is a dumb question then I apologise.
Thanks.



I don't believe I said anything about hostile action. Could you please refresh my memory? Thanks.



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 11:00 PM
link   
Originally posted by b309302




John, reading this thread I came across several refrences to a worldwide tunnel network. "Tubes" Silly question, but where do you hide that much rock after you dig it out?


Please check out the site below:

www.light1998.com...



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Thanks John I have been looking for the link to those pictures for a long time. First saw them on Eyes behind and then couldn't find them again. These pictures are the correct answer to many questions asked here.



posted on Oct, 25 2007 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Two U.S. Navy submarines sank mysteriously in the 1960's. The first, the Thresher allegedly sank of April 10, 1963 and the second, the Scorpion allegedly sank May 23, 1968.

In my opinion one or both were lost in the sea under California and Nevada either due to disorientation or hostile action.

In either case the Navy would have fabricated an elaborate cover story to prevent anyone from ever finding out what really happened.

The fabrication would include recovery efforts, serial numbered parts, eye witnesses, you know, the usual coverup bs.


Here you go.



posted on Oct, 25 2007 @ 06:36 AM
link   
Guys, John spews so much clap trap he often forgets what wild idea and/or opinion he is throwing out there, lol. I wonder how many of his pet stories people blindly latch onto and believe that he just makes up on the fly? More than a few, I suppose....



posted on Oct, 25 2007 @ 07:02 AM
link   
Interesting John,my oldest sister was originally recruited by Naval Intelligence back in late 60's before she joined Secret Service,her husband is also retired SS,the storys they could tell,I've asked quite a few questions only answer I get is"Your probably right" they will go to grave with secrecy,also being at one time the desrt was an ocean,could the water have sunk down rather then dry up?



posted on Oct, 25 2007 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by Zaphod58





Yes and no. Read the post I put up about the loss of the two. There's some evidence that it was sunk by a Soviet sub in response to the loss of the K-19, which was lost in the failed attempt to launch a nuclear attack on Pearl Harbor. But there's nothing conclusive that has been found to date, and the official cause was that one of her own torpedoes activated, and she did a 180 degree turn in an attempt to deactivate it (thus causing the gyro to think that it was turning back towards the sub), and something happened to cause her to break up and sink.



With all due respect Zaphod that concoction of a story is as bad as a Boeing 757 crashing into the Pentagon. But thanks for the effort, I know that it is appreciated.


K-19 was decomissioned in 1991 and in 2006 was sold to Vladimir Romanov... It didn't sink anywhere. I dunno about the ocean under Nevada though, that seems kinda iffy.



posted on Oct, 25 2007 @ 04:49 PM
link   
That was my bad. It's wasn't K-19, it was the K-129. She sank off Hawaii in the late 60s and was recovered by the CIA a few years later.

[edit on 10/25/2007 by Zaphod58]



posted on Oct, 25 2007 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


This was the operation that used Howard Hughes as a cover correct?



new topics

top topics



 
59
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join