The Top Secret US Military Space Program. Is The Future Already Here?

reply to post by COOL HAND


I'll take a shot at your challenge.

An amateur CCD astronomer John Lenard Walson has somehow been able to image objects that in many cases look like orbital spacecraft/stations. Some claim they are alien, but aliens would likely not have such clunky put-together objects. So these might be what you are asking for.

See this ATS Thread last year. I re-posted the images, but the videos are off YouTube now. So here is one that works.

Episode1 - F.A.S.T.

Also: Strange Things Above

He is imaging something. He seems to have some intuitive sense on how to find these. If you see his image of the ISS you will see that at the magnifications he is looking that there are many objects much larger than satellites and more the size of the ISS but in amazingly different configurations.

Unless you believe in Aliens (many of us do) and these could be, but are more likely orbital testbed, operations by a secret space program.

More on John Lenard Walson and his work below.

Link to article on Walson and the film Interstellar:
Click

Link to official download of the film (Remember there have been issues.):
Click

Images:






ZG

reply to post by ZeroGhost


So, then if they are so easy to find why haven't other people (with better equipment) placed more photos on the net for us to review?

Why haven't groups of people who believe in this kind of crap banded together to purchase time at a more substantial telescope and get decent high quality photos of these items that will leave nothing to debate?

Probably because they don't exist.

Originally posted by COOL HAND
So, then if they are so easy to find why haven't other people (with better equipment) placed more photos on the net for us to review? ...
Probably because they don't exist.

I also find it questionable that there are apparently dozens of different types of these things presented. I can see where there would be two or three that might go undetected, or that the Secret Space Force could have a few different designs for ships. But so many?

Unfortunately, this was a case where the dude should have left well enough alone and kept his claims to a minimum. But no, he had to go overboard. The more stuff he produces no one else can duplicate just makes it even more doubtful.

reply to post by COOL HAND


Cool you are asking the impossible. Let me ask you a simple question. The Manhattan project how many people knew about that when it was in the makes? Doesnt mean it wasnt happening. I think you need to open your mind to the fact that there is a truth bigger than what the government plays off. Keep in mind the first thing they teach you in the CIA is reality is not real. keep that in mind before you throw out comments like Ill ask the majority of the world about the truth. You could be right there may not exist any awsome crafts or spacestations but you shouldnt close your mind to the fact that there could be.

[edit on 29-1-2008 by mybigunit]

reply to post by COOL HAND


Oh cool hand, cool hand...

I see where your going with this...

because I can't physically reproduce the evidence, it must not be going on...
So your one of THOSE people...

But, keep in mind, Just because I can not physically provide you with evidence, does not mean it doesn't exist.
Perhaps, someone out there can get this evidence for you.

Do you believe in god by any chance?
if so, please prove it...
If not, well, then I guess I can't prove a point.

and your using Ignorance in the wrong context...
Ignorance is not a lack of education, it is simply to ignore something.
By keeping an open mind, and accepting the POSSIBILITY of things, then I am, in fact, denying ignorance by not ignoring its possibility...

So thank you for trying, but i still leave this conspiracy open to possibilities.
and no, i have absolutely no proof, just an idea.

Originally posted by COOL HAND
reply to post by ZeroGhost

 

So, then if they are so easy to find why haven't other people (with better equipment) placed more photos on the net for us to review?

Why haven't groups of people who believe in this kind of crap banded together to purchase time at a more substantial telescope and get decent high quality photos of these items that will leave nothing to debate?

Probably because they don't exist.

To see such grains of sand in the sky you need Right Ascention and Declination on a good amateur scope and unless these are in geosynchronous orbit they will have an orbital speed hard if not impossible to follow without the manual guide equipment this guy has.

I'm an amateur astronomer and a professional astronomical illustrator. I know these are likely authentic images from the specs he gives. He also has some other hardware and possibly software to image these with and is being proprietary about this until he can make a buck on his films. Who can blame him? I cannot afford the equipment he has. Want to buy my 17.5" scope so I can afford to get a new one with CCD and an equatorial mount? My Scope I'll find these too.

This is not common astronomy tools he has. Maybe 2% of amateurs have such tools, and 0.1% of those are inclined to even look for such objects.

You have to know astronomical equipment, optics and methods to see what he is doing and know why others don't. Few know this, so discounted his work.

I on the other hand I can see this as credible astronomical imaging and are giving you benefit of my knowledge. I've worked for NASA, SETI, Astronomical Society of the Pacific, and I have friends at NASA, JPL, Vandenberg and many other people that are experts that if I don't know, they will. I do CGI and have been doing computer imaging since 1983 and I have been observing since 1974. I might have a small bit of cred here.

But look for yourself and don't be shy about what you don't know. I know what I don't know, so take everything as a probability based on existing data. I think this bears some attention. So, tell me your specific arguments? I'll listen.

ZG

reply to post by Odessy


You pretty much sum it up. Dont close your mind to stuff that could exist. it doesnt mean that it does exit but its better to keep your mind open. I think its funny because the most religious of people are usually the ones who denounce anything like aliens or exotic space crafts or what not but yet believe in a god they cant see or here or there is no proof of just a book...whos really the ignorant one?

reply to post by ZeroGhost


You make excellent points ZeroGhost and have left insightful information.
Thanks for sharing it. I look forward to you future posts.

and thanks mybigunit for the compliment.
an open mind is all it takes to gain a better understand of everything around you, why people act the way they do, and just how small we really are in the perspective of things.

Just stay true to possibility of ANYTHING (even god and little green men
) and youll be just fine

[edit on 29-1-2008 by Odessy]

Originally posted by Odessy
Oh cool hand, cool hand...

I see where your going with this...

because I can't physically reproduce the evidence, it must not be going on...
So your one of THOSE people...

Then you must also believe in things like unicorns and magic pixie dust.

But, keep in mind, Just because I can not physically provide you with evidence, does not mean it doesn't exist.
Perhaps, someone out there can get this evidence for you.

I am waiting for that day here. ATS, the only website that allows you to post whatever the hell you want regardless of whether you can prove it. How much more ignorant can you get?

Do you believe in god by any chance?
if so, please prove it...
If not, well, then I guess I can't prove a point.

We are here aren't we? What more proof of God do you need?

and your using Ignorance in the wrong context...
Ignorance is not a lack of education, it is simply to ignore something.
By keeping an open mind, and accepting the POSSIBILITY of things, then I am, in fact, denying ignorance by not ignoring its possibility...

Don't get me wrong, I am all for an open minded approach. I believe in aliens, yet I have never seen one.

This is more a case of knowing what my government is capable of and secret space stations are way beyond what they can do.

What John Lenard Walson's space objects could be:

1. Abandoned platforms from earlier secret space projects of any country.
2. Working platforms of existing secret activities in space of any country.
3. Alien structures with unknown use, orbiting for unknown amount of time.
4. Nothing at all. Lens flare. Other imaging artifacts cleverly processed. Products of CGI and special effects filmakers. The photographer claims he has a special technique for imaging them which will not disclose yet. He filled petitions for a patent. Not anybody according to him and probably without his technique which he will patent can spot them.

My take.

They look like construction platforms.

1. Abandoned equals they would behave like derelicts, they do not remain visible but only for some time according to the photographer, therefore, they can move around.
2. It could be bu the public has a difficulty tracing the identity of the projects these platforms are a part of.
3. No. They would be spotted since the earliest years of human space flight.
4. Hard to tell. The answer could be Yes, or it could be No. Especially in this case we need another totally independent source to confirm the same structures exist. His patent might be about mechanical means that aid his imager. The objects might travel in a fast orbit in this case difficult to spot and image under common circumstances.

[edit on 29-1-2008 by spacebot]

Sorry but this is pure fantasy stuff.

Lets think about things logically.

There is currently a space race on. Why? Because of an element called Helium3
en.wikipedia.org...

The amounts of helium-3 needed as a replacement for conventional fuels should not be underestimated. The total amount of energy produced in the ³He + 21H+ reaction is 18.4 MeV, which corresponds to some 493 megawatt-hours (4.93x108 Wh) per three grams (one mole) of ³He. Even if that total amount of energy could be converted to electrical power with 100% efficiency (a physical impossibility), it would correspond to about 30 minutes of output of a thousand-megawatt electrical plant; a year's production by the same plant would require some 17.5 kilograms of helium-3.

Now there we go... This is worth BIG money. If the USA did already have such technology then they would already be on the moon and mining it.

Again just think logically.. Why would the US spend billions on NASA with programs to get to the moon to mine it, if they already had the technology to get there and back efficiently?

IMO this is airy fairy stuff and not to be believed.


[edit on 29-1-2008 by lazer1]

[edit on 29-1-2008 by lazer1]

ok so i had a post for u cool hand, but im retracting it and am simply going to end on this note.


and duh, doesnt everyone believe in unicorns and pixies?

[edit on 29-1-2008 by Odessy]

reply to post by StellarX


Thank you stellar, that's the kind of debates that I'm looking for here on ATS, in fact your arguments are so well put together that it would be pretty hard to dispute them.



You got me wrong on one thing though, I don't believe government cover ups always work - if there is really a black budget that finances a highly advanced military space program, then sooner or later someone is going to find out about it, and that someone is either going to force the project to be disclosed, or is going to provide evidence that proves that person right, ie a scientist makes public the blueprints of an advanced engine. However, that someone is not on this thread, and all we have to support the OP theory are arguments like "I touched an engine and it was alive", "We need X element to run the engine I worked on", but no details whatsoever on how the mechanism worked, or no proof that what they are saying is entirely true.

As long as no real proof is presented, then there are only two alternatives to pick from:
1- The government is doing one heck of a job covering the whole thing up.
2- The conspiracy doesn't exist.
Even if gazillions of dollars were missing we couldn't add the third alternative(the one that says that there is a secret highly advanced space program) without hard evidence that shows that such project does exist since for all I know those gazillions dollars could be going towards supporting a Hollow Earth(?)

From what I've read of the Dr. Peter Beter letters, there appear to be some similarities occurring. Although it sounded more sci-fi than reality, there is still some wonderment about the issues presented. Like electro-gravitic platforms hovering in the upper reaches of our atmosphere.
Only they belonged to the Soviets. And they had control of space.
i still like the ending of the presentation of Alternative 3, where the voices remarking about the 'supposed' landing of a vehicle upon the surface of Mars, are both Americans & Russians.
Battle of the Harvest Moon is another little segment in this scenario too.
One must factor in miles and miles of underground tunnel systems within our very own planet. That's a whole lotta security guards at all of those checkpoints!

reply to post by goosdawg

Numerous planetary managers told Aviation Week & Space Technology they now fear a manned Moon base and even shorter sorties to the Moon will bog down the space program for decades and inhibit, rather than facilitate, manned Mars operations--the ultimate goal of both the Bush and alternative visions. The first lunar sortie would be flown by about 2020 under the Bush plan.
www.spaceflightnow.com...

Why not the Moon? It costs $10,000 to $20,000 per pound to lift the space shuttle into orbit. Typically 85 to 95 percent of the weight of a launch vehicle is fuel that gets burned up getting into orbit. You could get off the Moon at $1000 per pound. Conversely, one could blast off the surface of the Moon with almost 10 times the effective load than you could do from Earth. But they’re thinking of establishing a base on an asteroid instead, a million miles away! Don’t ask me which asteroid!

Now for the conspiracy angle. So why not the Moon?

> We are already there mining the Moon for He3 / 4 and other exotic minerals/metals. So why waste time and effort duplicating what the black projects are already doing there probably since the 70s? More…

> To divert the public’s attention away from the Moon for the above reason.

> An alien culture has warned them to stay off the Moon. Far fetched but a possibility all the same. Having said that, let’s take a look at a document co-authored by none other than Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer, then Director of Advanced Studies Princeton, New Jersey, and father of the atomic bomb and Albert Einstein.

Operation Majestic-12 was established by special classified presidential order on September 24, 1947 at the recommendation of Secretary of Defense James Forrestal and Dr. Vannevar Bush, Chairman of the Joint Research and Development Board. The goal of the group was to exploit everything they could from recovered alien technology.

Einstein and Oppenheimer were called to give their opinion, drafting a six-page paper titled “Relationships With Inhabitants Of Celestial Bodies.” They provided prophetic insight into our modern nuclear strategies and satellites, and expressed agitated urgency that an agreement be reached with the President so that scientists could proceed to study the alien technology.

Gist of the paper, Relationships with Inhabitants of Celestial Bodies is that the US, the Soviet Union, or any other human state on Earth could not claim the Moon as their exclusive property — because it was already occupied by extraterrestrials!

Were we asked to keep off the Moon? Sounds like sci-fi, what? But remember, ”there are more things in heaven and Earth than can ever be dreamed of in your philosophy” ….Shakespeare

Cheers!

www.abovetopsecret.com...



[edit on 30-1-2008 by mikesingh]

Originally posted by daniel_g
reply to post by mikesingh

 

lol and what exactly do you think NACA & Co. accomplished in regards of space exploration? They put 1 satellite in space, just one, so much for the extra 40 years in space exploration research that you are adding..

Now it's easy to come here and say things like 'back then they put many man on the moon, now we have to wait 20 years...'
I repeat, know your facts before you say anything with no fundaments:

In 1966 NASA had a budget of 5.933 billion dollars.
In 2007 NASA had a budget of 16.25 billion dollars.

Sure you can argue that right now they have 3 times as more as they had back then. However, lets not forget something very basic: The value of money doesn't stay constant over time. One dollar in 1966 was worth 3 times as much as it's worth today, meaning a $5 billion budget would be equivalent to the $16 billion budget that they are getting today. So in reality there has not been a real budget increase.

However, back then they didn't have 1000 satellites to worry about, they also didn't have Space Shuttles or ongoing Mars exploration programs. The money for those programs didn't grow in trees, and I don't think that the fact that the apollo era stopped just years before the space shuttle program was a coincidence.

I'll repeat it to you: If you are going to say that there is something fishy with NASA's budget, at least try to provide proof of what you are saying.
Here, why don't you have fun with the 2007 budget?
www.nasa.gov...
Do the math, look up the projects. If you find large amounts of money missing, or non-existing programs, then say so, I'm open minded.

[edit on 28-1-2008 by daniel_g]

Hi I read the budget and on page 7 I see paper clips 9.7 billion...
No just kidding.

I think this is actually a good start but how do we determine that the budgeted costs are in fact what the actual spend is?

reply to post by smans


Actually, as Zorgon mentioned a few posts away, NASA has very little to do with what's going on in the top secret space program. That is a fully autonomous on-going project where budgeting is concerned. NASA budgets have absolutely nothing to do with black org budgets. daniel_g continuously talking about NASA budgeting and audits, doesn't hold water.

So, there's NO connection with NASA's budgets. And secondly, there is no audit! Remember the missing trillions? It had nothing to do with NASA!

Cheers!


[edit on 30-1-2008 by mikesingh]

Since you didn't answer my other question from page 4 Cool Hand, I'll put another here. Where is your proof exactly? Your stating "factual" information but you have nothing to back it up. Why not invest in a $8000 telescope and show us all the clear sky your viewing, till then there are still tons and tons of blurred images of things in our outershere. So please Cool Hand stop with these claims like you "know" something and actually pick up some proof. An I know I'll be told by you that I need proof not you, but what then your spitting out remarks that have no proof at all I haven't seen one of your posts link to any type of article or any factual information. I've seen the other guys here post plenty of things that would support their outlandist claims, you on the other hand have zero.

Originally posted by Lokey13
Since you didn't answer my other question from page 4 Cool Hand, I'll put another here. Where is your proof exactly? Your stating "factual" information but you have nothing to back it up. Why not invest in a $8000 telescope and show us all the clear sky your viewing, till then there are still tons and tons of blurred images of things in our outershere. So please Cool Hand stop with these claims like you "know" something and actually pick up some proof. An I know I'll be told by you that I need proof not you, but what then your spitting out remarks that have no proof at all I haven't seen one of your posts link to any type of article or any factual information. I've seen the other guys here post plenty of things that would support their outlandist claims, you on the other hand have zero.

I did not answer your question because it had nothing to do with our discussion.

So, let me see if I understand you correctly. I need to invest thousands of dollars and take pictures of the entire sky to prove to you that there are no secret space stations in orbit?

How do you prove something you know does not exist actually does not exist?

Course, whatever I come up with will probably be labeled as false information or insufficient to convince anyone.

The burden of proof here is on those who believe they exist. When they get off their lazy butts and prove this is real I will glady apologize to each and everyone of them.

Exactly how I thought you'd answer... Your still at zero.

-Again great thread, look forward to more in the future.