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.

 

The US space program and its secret advancement in our solor system exploration!

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Just thought I should quote the OP and another poster from elsewhere on ATS. This is what triggered this thread.


Originally posted by mike_trivisonno
The Space Shuttle Enterprise made its test flights when I was in 5th grade. They are still throwing those bricks into low earth orbit nearly 40 years latter.

Did the USA simply stop doing manned missions or developing manned space systems in 1977 or did the majority of advancements occur in secret?

It has already been proven that deploying bases to the Moon and Mars and maintaining a nonstop supply chain is not only possible but affordable. Scientists and engineers have provided many different options that demonstrate the feasibility of manned settlements and astronauts routinely endure long duration missions.

Between 1977 and 2011 we have seen precious little public advancement in the establishment of permanent settlements on the Moon or Mars and yet technology speeds to dizzying heights? It seems a bit fishy.

Permanent settlements on the Moon and Mars can be constructed, manned, and maintained. The OP shows what may be a small permanent settlement (on Mars see here). It seems a reasonable claim. Indeed, more reasonable than many of the claims made in these forums.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



Originally posted by TheMur
I would also like to add a few thoughts:

The US decides to end the space shuttle program and outsource its missions to space. Now why would they do such a thing when other countries are still exploring space and the competition is still there?

My answer: The US has had the tech to get far into space for decades, does it not seem strange that we have been using the same old shuttles for the last 30 years? This would be like using a race car from 1950 to run the Indy 500 in 2011. The space shuttle program was most likley a front and as budget cuts are getting nessecery they decided to end a program that really was money in the toilet.

Why have we not known about this?
My answer: Unfortunately as with most things in the technology industry the Military has control of the best and it would be kept secret that we posess this technology, as it would be used as a weapon or for war first.

Why Mars?
My answer: The moon is inhabited by ET's and they have claimed the moon as there own.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Make of conclusions in those two posts what you will. However, there is a case to answer.
edit on 5/6/11 by Pimander because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Some related Zorgon threads here.

NAVY Space Command Uncovered

The Secrets of Schröteri Crater

Secret Astronauts and NOVA

And here's one by Mike Singh.

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

Just some background reading in case you were bored or just in the dark.

edit on 5/6/11 by Pimander because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   
I never liked the phrase, and frankly never heard of the phrase before the 9/11 conspiracy theorist's got into full gear around 2004. The whole premiss of that poster's argument is 'strawman', meaning to deflect the actual analysis of a subject into unprovable opinionated ideas and or to infer that because something in the past occurred in such a way that it will continue to occur that way without adjustments. A bit more in depth I will post an explanation of possible MO. (CT'ers can now move on, as they usually will).


The practical impossibility of assuring a complete set of competing hypotheses, together with the limitations on disproving them constitute an imposing barrier to successful inductive proofs constructed according to the Holmesian blueprint.

So why is this method so common among conspiracists?

First, it creates the illusion of support for a proposition that has no direct evidence at all in favor of it. Since most conspiracy-related propositions are pure conjecture, a direct proof is not possible. The conspiracist would have nothing to write at all if not for the practice of indirect proof.

Second, an indirect proof carries a semblance of rigor. If the author is unable to fully enumerate the competing hypotheses then it's unlikely the sympathetic reader will be able to; and thus he won't necessarily notice the absence of a serious competitor that the author has failed to consider. Unless the reader is predisposed to dig deeper than the author, he will likely consider the case complete and decisive.

This circumstance is especially effective on specialized topics such as science. Most readers are not experts in all technical matters. And so competing hypotheses that arise from obscure -- but nevertheless valid -- scientific principles are likely to be missed by both author and reader. And when a critic brings up these obscure principles in his objection to the conspiracy theory, he can often be accused of trying to muddy what would otherwise be a "straightforward" case.

In this devious way, the conspiracist pares down the set of possibilities to something which appeals to the "common sense" intuition of the reader. The reader is spoon-fed just enough information to validate an overly simplistic view of the problem. And this simpleton view then generates what appears to be a small set of competing hypotheses, which the author can usually convince the reader is complete. Then after disqualifying each of this small set of straw men as an explicator, the author proclaims his desired proposition vindicated by process of elimination.

Third, the Holmesian Maxim supplies language to predispose the reader to accept a conclusion he might otherwise reject as absurd. The astute conspiracist author realizes that his controversial proposition will encounter skepticism. By introducing his attempt at indirect proof with the Holmesian Maxim, the author imparts a degree of intellectual comfort to the reader who can then accept the proposition against his better judgment. The reader believes himself to have remained rational if he accepts a preposterous conclusion that nevertheless must be true by the process of elimination.

While conspiracists can easily create indirect inductive proofs that seem rigorous even when applied to baseless propositions, they seldom acknowledge the ease with which such indirect proofs can be refuted. The two impassable obstacles in an indirect inductive proof -- assurance of completeness and strength of elimination -- give predictable rise to the two basic methods of refutation.

Any plausible competing hypothesis that the author does not consider in his indirect proof, is sufficient refutation of the proof. It does not matter whether the competitor's proponent is able to prove the competing hypothesis in the specific case. It matters only whether the author is able to disprove it in the specific case. The author has the burden of proof to "eliminate the impossible". The critic's burden of proof is for mere plausibility -- that it is "not impossible". So saith the Holmesian Maxim.

Since each competitor must be conclusively eliminated, the strength of each eliminative proof must be aggressively tested. As noted above, the eliminations are, by nature, difficult proofs to construct to sufficient rigor. And the lack of empirical evidence may eliminate the testability altogether, in which case impossibility may not be assumed. But very often the simplism of a putative elimination is its own undoing; it may serve only to suggest that a hypothesis is improbable, not that it is truly impossible. And as stated above, this reduces the argument to an evaluation of relative probability among improbable hypotheses.

To compare one hypothesis to another on the basis of its relative probability is the process of direct inductive proof. One must examine the merits of the desired hypothesis, not the conspicuous lack of merit in all its competitors. And because an indirect inductive proof invariably reduces, upon scrutiny, to a direct proof, the smart proponent adopts a direct proof strategy at the outset. And knowing that a purely conjectural hypothesis cannot prevail according to a direct proof, the smart proponent avoids advancing a conjectural hypothesis altogether. And this leaves the Holmesian Maxim safely where it belongs -- away from the inductive case.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pimander
Some related Zorgon threads here.

NAVY Space Command Uncovered

The Secrets of Schröteri Crater

Secret Astronauts and NOVA

And here's one by Mike Singh.

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

Just some background reading in case you were bored or just in the dark.

edit on 5/6/11 by Pimander because: (no reason given)




I am currently on page 21 of 26 on Zorgon's Navy Space Command Uncovered thread, it's well worth the time to read it all, excellent suggestion.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 

Congratulations for being able to cut and paste.



If anyone is wondering. The little essay above is copied from this.

Clavius... CONSPIRACY: The Holmesian Maxim



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


Pimander is absolutely correct, that is a direct cut and paste job, without putting it in "Quoted text" or giving credit this appears to be plagiarism.

I would also add that the Holmesian Maxim is:

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." - Sherlock Holmes (The Sign of the Four by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle)


It is not really an argument against a hypothesis, but a method, like Occum's Razor, on applying a scientific method to move the hypothesis towards theory or fact. Also, please note how the above quote is formatted, as that is the way to give credit where credit is due, if one is not trying to take credit for writing what they think is profound of course.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Pimander
 

Oo mummy pwitty pwitty videos!

If I waste part of my life watching them, will I see proof of millions of dollars spent on a secret space programme?

Will I bollocks.

If you have written documentary evidence, attributed and attested, of such a programme, please post it on the thread. The idiot box is for idiots only.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 12:15 AM
link   
OK so let me ge this straight? For those of you who doubt my post (which would be not believeing that the US has a far superior space program than we know of) im guessing all the sightings in the skys really are Aliens. And that would mean we answer that question.

And for those of you who thinks my post holds merit, could this mean that Aliens do not actaully exsist due to the fact that that the US has a far more advanced program that we know of.

Or could there be a superhighway above and possibly below our heads that both Ets and Mankind share?



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Are you kidding me? Do you really expect something so secret that very few could have knowlege about to be that easy to get?



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by TheMur
 

No. That’s why your fantasy hasn’t got a leg to stand on. Thanks for admitting it; that’s decent of you.

Last person to leave the thread, please switch off the lights...



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by TheMur
 


OK so let me ge this straight? For those of you who doubt my post (which would be not believeing that the US has a far superior space program than we know of) im guessing all the sightings in the skys really are Aliens.

No, they are mostly cases of mistaken identity. Some are the result of lies, hoaxes and confabulation. And there are a few genuine mysteries among them as well, reliably-attested sightings of inexplicable things.

However, an intelligent person would never jump to conclusions about these unexplained sightings. An intelligent person would acknowledge that they are unexplained, and either try to find out more – if there were more to find out – or simply leave it at that. They certainly wouldn’t make up stories about secret space programmes.

Do you realize that is what you have done? You have made up a story without any proof at all to explain something you saw (or, more likely, think somebody else saw) in the sky. Just like primitive humans making up stories to explain thunderstorms, comets and eclipses, or those soap operas about the Sun and Moon and the planets we now call ‘mythology’.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Pimander
 

If you have written documentary evidence, attributed and attested, of such a programme, please post it on the thread. The idiot box is for idiots only.

Pwitty, Pwitty insults....

Secret.... Black... I wonder what that means?

Are you looking for a paper trail consisting of way above top secret documents? Only an idiot would have made them available.


I have provided some links for anyone who wishes to start looking for evidence. I have to go to real work unfortunately.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 02:25 AM
link   
reply to post by TheMur
 





Im not sure where to begin when so much disinformation, lies, and deciet has plagues the nation for so long.


I was not going to reply, but I just could not help it......Disinformation.......


Here is an old Nasa disinformation file.


Theme: Space Shuttle
EC 6-2
OVERVIEW
The Space Shuttle program (SSP) plays a vital role in enabling NASA's vision and mission. This includes advancing human exploration and providing safe access to space in support of human operations in low Earth orbit. The Shuttle’s primary role is to complete the assembly of the International Space Station (ISS). The Shuttle’s phase out is planned for the end of the decade, following completion of it role in ISS assembly. The FY 2005 budget request will allow NASA to meet the intended flight rates; provide appropriate contingency planning to assure transportation and assembly support to the International Space Station (ISS); and include high priority projects for mission assurance.


RELEVANCE
In 1972 President Nixon issued a statement to initiate the "development of an entirely new type of space transportation
system designed to help transform the space frontier of the 1970s into familiar territory, easily accessible for human
endeavor in the 1980s and '90s.” The Space Shuttle is essential to the assembly of the ISS, its primary mission before its
planned phase out at the end of the decade.

www.nasa.gov/pdf/55412main_29%20SSP.pdf


Your idea of the shuttle and Nasa's idea of the shuttle are two different idea's. I think that the shuttle served it's purpose well. I will be sad to see it go.

edit on 6-6-2011 by liejunkie01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 04:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Are you looking for a paper trail consisting of way above top secret documents? Only an idiot would have made them available.

Listen, O Scientist and Scholar: I asked the OP – not you – for evidence of his hypothesis. You chose to reply instead, and your reply was a spamfest of YouTube videos. If there was no proof of the OP’s hypothesis in them, why bother to post them at all? Rather an idiotic thing to do, don’t you agree?



edit on 6/6/11 by Astyanax because: I wanted a nasty smiley too!



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Im rather surprised how strong you are on your beliefs in this subject, its almost as if you want to end this discussion because there could be some truth to it.

Here are some facts that prove that there is alot of money that is being pumped into programs that very well could be a military drawn space program along with many other programs.




•Classified or “black” programs total some $57.8 billion in the FY 2011 request, a real increase of 2.8 percent from FY 2010. Classified funding accounts for 19 percent of acquisition funding and 7.3 percent of O&M funding in the FY 2011 base defense budget.


[/quote

www.csbaonline.org...



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Are you looking for a paper trail consisting of way above top secret documents? Only an idiot would have made them available.

Listen, O Scientist and Scholar: I asked the OP – not you – for evidence of his hypothesis. You chose to reply instead, and your reply was a spamfest of YouTube videos. If there was no proof of the OP’s hypothesis in them, why bother to post them at all? Rather an idiotic thing to do, don’t you agree?





I though this was a discussion board not a private chat. As the readers can see, I was quite clearly responding to a question that was part of a discussion, AstyTrollaxe!


The other posts I made were not a reply to you at all. They were information relevant to the thread for the benefit of members who were interested. You may consider yourself so important that anyone posting on here is only concerned with you, however, I don't.


Originally posted by Pimander

Originally posted by Astyanax

Billions and billions of dollers have been spent without the knowlege of anyone on capital hill or the american public.

How do you know about it then? Do you have the cheque stubs?




There are other sources too.

The money has gone somewhere.


Could Dolan have the answers?



Make up your own minds.

edit on 5/6/11 by Pimander because: (no reason given)


As you can all see folks - evidence that there are TRILLIONS not billions that are not accounted for.

If you lie about what I have said on here again Tollyanaxe then I will just have to ignore you.

I guess I really should take the advice in the tips linked to in my signature right now.

edit on 6/6/11 by Pimander because:




posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Pimander
 


As the readers can see, I was quite clearly responding to a question that was part of a discussion

Really? Then why did your post begin with these quoted words?


Originally posted by TheMur
Billions and billions of dollers have been spent without the knowlege of anyone on capital hill or the american public.

Originally posted by Astyanax
How do you know about it then? Do you have the cheque stubs?

How earth can you claim that a question as personally specific as 'Do you have the cheque stubs?’, asked in post that says 'Reply to TheMur’ in big letters on top, is a general inquiry? Please don’t wriggle; it’s contemptible.


If you lie about what I have said on here again Tollyanaxe then I will just have to ignore you.

Oh, there is a liar on this thread all right, but it is not me. I have never told a single untruth on ATS: not one.

Name-calling and bluster will not erase what is already on record; your sorry attempt to distort and obscure the facts is plain for all to see.

*


reply to post by TheMur
 


Im rather surprised how strong you are on your beliefs in this subject, its almost as if you want to end this discussion because there could be some truth to it.

I suppose it is rather surprising that there are a few people still left in the world who still care strongly about truth. However, we do exist, and we don’t like people making up and spreading tall stories.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by TheMur
 


That's interesting, but sadly when lacking proof it's just your opinion of what NASA is really up to..of course im not saying I don't agree with some of these claims



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 11:20 PM
link   
I listened to a Coast to Coast program and in it was a interview with Bigolow (sorry if I spelled his name wrong). There he said he was very worried about the future of the USA when it comes to space exploration. The USA is bankrupt and China hold all the cards for claiming the Moon and for becomming the new technology 'leader' of the world.

The USA has blown its potential for greed and mis-management by the government. The private-sector is the only chance for making investments and starting up manned mission to Mars projects. But even that will take national pride, will......and honest intentions.

Bigolow was a bit vague when the UFO subject and secret militairy programs were discussed. Personally I belief that a lot of money is disappearing and the case with this english chap confirms more or less that the secret government of the USA has its spaceprogram well covered...but not the people who paid for it involved. The american tax-payer is milked as a money cow.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 06:25 AM
link   
reason for the expenses in the US space program is due to contracts awarded by the government and the military to companies at grossly overpriced amounts.

Delta IV Heavy

compare the above with the data for the upcoming Falcon 9 Heavy

Falcon 9 Heavy



“The Falcon Heavy will be about one third the cost of the Delta IV Heavy and with twice the performance. That’s about 6 times more cost effective,” Musk stated. “That’s a pretty huge leap in capability.”


Falcon 9 Heavy Unveiled



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join