Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Claims of Russian Moon Bases

page: 2
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by Pimander
 



The claims look far fetched but they still need removing from the radar if they are false.


If you think rationally about these claims, they automatically disappear from anyone's radar. The Soviet Space Program wasn't in a position to be building, operating and manning one Moon base...Beter says 10!

They were struggling to successfully operate the Lunakhod rovers and Beter's putting them in the frame for operating bases and firing lasers at US platforms?! The claim makes no sense.







So please explain why most US-cars with a V8 didn't have double camshaft, 4 valves per cylinder and several other features like multi point injection or supercharger/turbo until the early nineties? The technology has been around since WW2. The Chevy small block didn't change from the mid 50s until the early 90s.

The Russian space program is just like the US space program, a deliberate smokescreen.




posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   
i could believe 1 base is on the moon,not not 10 or by the russians,if anybody is going to put 1 on the moon i feel it would be the u.s or a joint venture with someone.
covering wouldn't be a problem if it were under the surface,hard to put it above ground & stop others seeing it.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   
I'd still be fascinated to learn whether any members have spotted anomalies close to the coordinates given in the OP. Anyone?



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Pimander
 


Ah yes Herr Karl Wolfe... now there is a name....

But if you listen to him you will hear him say that he was at Langley a short time in 1965... when he saw those Lunar Orbiter pictures..

Funny thing... Lunar Orbiters didn't fly til late 1966-67

OOPS



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 

That is amusing.


Maybe Karl got his year wrong. More likely the official lunar orbiters weren't really the first. Maybe they were other lunar images. Maybe he made it up?

Anyone with anything on those coordinates?



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   
What would anyone be doing on the Moon except hiding from people on Earth.
Sure underground can't be detected. But there are plenty of hiding places on Earth
considering all the planes and unknowns and rockets and armaments we never see.
A secret base, even on the surface, seems to be no problem as the search for the Lunar
Landers turned out recently. So why not 10 perhaps a number approaching the number
of Landers. In any case, I would think activity on the moon could only be accomplished
by ships we are told we don't have.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pervius
Russia never had a space program.

They can't even get satellites into orbit today. 30+ attempts to get a satellite to Mars to take some pictures all failed.


Seriously? Then why is it every time the Shuttle docks at the ISS there are 2or 3 Russian ships already there?
here is a picture taken from the huttle that shows two Soyuz and one Progress Russian ship at ISS. The one approaching is Mission 9 from the ESA




Why do Pizza Hut, Radio Shack, Lego and Popular Science pay millions to advertise on Russian spacecraft?

Why does Robert Bigelow use Russian spaceports and ships to launch his private space station?



Why does Russia have an assembly line with hundreds of Soyuz rockets?



Russian Cargo Vehicle Progress M-09M (41) Launches to the ISS



Russia had the Almaz secret space platform in orbit for years while we never got MOL off the ground

The Secret Astronauts Astrospies
www.pbs.org...



They can't launch a satellite? Then why do space tourists pay 20 million for a ten day stay on ISS via Russian launches?



If Russia has no space program why is NASA contracting with Russia to hitch a ride when they retire the Shuttle?

NASA Extends Contract With Russia For Rides on the Soyuz


For those who are upset that NASA will be relying on (and paying) the Russian Federal Space Agency to ferry US astronauts to and from the International Space Station after the space shuttle is retired, there’s now more to be in a tizzy about. NASA has signed a $335 million modification to the current ISS contract, adding additional flights into 2014. The previous contract allowed for crew transportation, rescue and related services until 2013. The new extension raises the price of a seat on the Soyuz to $55.8 million, from the $26.3 million per astronaut NASA is paying now, and $51 million a seat for flights in 2011 and 2012.




www.universetoday.com...

I say anyone who thinks the Russians do not have a very active and capable space program are just playing ostrich


When NASA spent millions to make a pen that could write in space, the Russian simply took a pencil
and they still have two working shuttles stored in Building 80, Area 112A Baikonur Cosmodrome One is 'Ptichka' and the other one is 'Burya'. They have been well kept and could easily be made space ready




And they had those cool one man mini shuttles the 'Spiral'. Finally got some good photos of that one



I wouldn't count the Russian out of the picture... the whole Cold War was just a ruse to let both side arm up. They have always been our allies, though friendly rivals
I once requested a file from a NASA historian... he wrote me back saying they had a poor copy and linked me to a Russian website that had a better copy




edit on 18-6-2011 by zorgon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 

That shut them up.


I revise my position. Maybe the Soviets did have the capability to build 10 moon bases.....



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by zookey
 



Rubbish, they have the MOST experience of all in long term space living.


We're talking about the 1970s.


Check out Solyut or Skylab and then come back with more than 13 words to explain how anyone had 10 bases on the Moon with the capability of firing 'particle beams' at satellites.

reply to post by Pimander
 



Scepticism is great but not without some investigation guys.


Scepticism exists so we don't have to investigate every claim that's inherently unreasonable, unlikely or BS. Beter's unsourced, hearsay account hits all three.


reply to post by Regenstorm
 
Please explain your thought processes that led from this...



...most US-cars with a V8 didn't have double camshaft, 4 valves per cylinder and several other features like multi point injection or supercharger/turbo until the early nineties? The technology has been around since WW2. The Chevy small block didn't change from the mid 50s until the early 90s.


To this...



The Russian space program is just like the US space program, a deliberate smokescreen.


The logic is the same as pointing out what sharp knives we had in the 19th Century and then claiming the lack of open-heart surgery is a 'smokescreen.'



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


good work zorgon, smashed the "no soviets in space" theory to peices

just 1 small error, which i only learnt the other day

the whole pen/pencil thing is a myth

www.scientificamerican.com... spen

www.snopes.com...
edit on 18-6-2011 by DeadpoolPete because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
then come back with more than 13 words to explain how anyone had 10 bases on the Moon with the capability of firing 'particle beams' at satellites.


One word is enough... Polyus


Equipped with a Laser to take out satellites...


1) The Polyus spacecraft, also known as Polus, Skif-DM, or 17F19DM, was a prototype orbital weapons platform designed to defend against anti-satellite weapons with recoilless cannon.

2) It was also equipped with a sensor blinding laser to confuse approaching weapons and could launch test targets to validate the fire control system.

3) It had the capability of deploying Nuclear mines through a special cannon.

4) Black matte painting for camouflage, probable stealth radar observing properties.

5) The laser device was not found on board, however. It had been replaced by a dummy of identical weight.

6) TASS originally reported that a 'mock-up' had been sent up by Energia (This would explain why the 60 ton Laser module was never recovered)

7) No member of the Reagan or Bush administrations ever admitted or revealed publicly any knowledge of Polyus.

8) The US Navy made no statements about any attempts to investigate the wreckage of Polyus, which lies on the floor of the South Pacific.


Polyus was launched May 15, 1987 from Baikonur Cosmodrome Site 250






Oh and as to Almaz...that secret spy space station... they just delivered the latest model to Isle of Man, UK Seems the Brits plan to orbit it


Excalibur-Almaz



www.russianspaceweb.com...

Now as to Moon bases... It would be very hard to spot them as the Russian plan calls for them to be buried, so you wouldn't see much in the photos...





But then we had Project Horizon (final draft 1958) to put a base on Farside by 1962. I now have three of the four documents in full (missing Vol 3, the political ramifications if the public found out) but I know where I can get it if I go to Alabama

10 bases? Nah no need.. but they might be robotic satellite stations.

edit on 18-6-2011 by zorgon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 
Zorgon, you know I respect you and class you as an ATS friend of some esteem. Your dedication to the game is above and beyond most members.


The first image is an illustration and so is the second.

The Soyuz image is a stock image available at NASA and doesn't show 'hundreds' but eight stages.

They were constructed with an eye on the market of space exploration...an investment. One is always attached to the ISS in case of emergency and another is always ready to launch for similar reasons. They've prepared for up to 14 launches a year.

None of which supports the notion that, in 1976, the Soviets had 10 bases on the Moon and were shooting down US satellites.


At least one Russian Soyuz spacecraft is always docked to the Space Station. In addition, there is usually a Progress supply vehicle docked and sometimes a Space Shuttle as well. The Station is well supplied with docking ports for all three types of vehicles.

Up to three crewmembers can launch and return to Earth from the Station aboard a Soyuz TMA spacecraft. The vehicle lands on the flat steppes of Kazakhstan in central Asia.

A Soyuz trip to the station takes two days from launch to docking, but the return to Earth takes less than 3.5 hours.
source

edit on 18-6-2011 by Kandinsky because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeadpoolPete
the whole pen/pencil thing is a myth


Yes and no... while the actual story is a myth, the concept it represents is true. While we spend billions on fancy gizmos, the Russian are practical and use what they can. When the ISS had an electrical problem last year that almost lost it... a Russian took a piece of cable and used it as a jumper wire and saved the day.

They don't waste money or time on the frills... but I hear they still honor the tradition of a hot meal waiting for new arrivals to the ISS



Astronauts used a jumper cable to bypass a faulty power switch, NASA said on its website. The computers will run overnight for testing in the morning. Russian flight controllers blamed the glitch on installation of the ISS' new solar panels, but head of the Russian space operator RKK Energia said he did not blame the visiting crew for the problem.


www.space-travel.com...
edit on 18-6-2011 by zorgon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Zorgon, you need to do a complete thread on the Russian Space program!
Love that stuff!!!



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Soldier of God
 


What Happened To Russia’s Space Shuttle Program?
www.abovetopsecret.com...






posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by Pimander
 



Scepticism is great but not without some investigation guys.


Scepticism exists so we don't have to investigate every claim that's inherently unreasonable, unlikely or BS. Beter's unsourced, hearsay account hits all three.


Come on Kandinsky. You don't actually think I believe the whole story do you? There may be some truth in it though. There is a secret space program - we just don't know the extent of it or exactly how far back it goes.

I posted the coordinates in case Beter got the locations based on something he knows. That's the only way to check.

You aren't going to find sourced material admitting to bases on the moon from the Russians or anyone else as far as I know even if they are there. Black Projects are secret by definition. If you are going to investigate secret technologies or black projects you have to look beyond sourced material. Zorgon has uncovered stacks of clues and data on technology but the details of the projects and operations are not directly documented.
edit on 18/6/11 by Pimander because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky


reply to post by Regenstorm
 
Please explain your thought processes that led from this...



...most US-cars with a V8 didn't have double camshaft, 4 valves per cylinder and several other features like multi point injection or supercharger/turbo until the early nineties? The technology has been around since WW2. The Chevy small block didn't change from the mid 50s until the early 90s.


To this...



The Russian space program is just like the US space program, a deliberate smokescreen.


The logic is the same as pointing out what sharp knives we had in the 19th Century and then claiming the lack of open-heart surgery is a 'smokescreen.'


It's simple, in the 19th century they didn't have that knowledge nor experience present.
The combustion engine has been perfected during WW2, many of the features of the engines from that time were introduced later as revolutionary new technology.
And why a smokescreen?
According to my own research everything points at Germany reinvented/developed antigravity devices before and during the war, the US and former USSR followed not much later using most likely a different technology.
edit on 18-6-2011 by Regenstorm because: typo



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Regenstorm
 



According to my own research everything points at Germany reinvented/developed antigravity devices before and during the war, the US and former USSR followed not much later using most likely a different technology.


Yet Germany still fought the war with Messerschmitts and Fockes?

They lost the war too.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Regenstorm
 





According to my own research everything points at Germany reinvented/developed antigravity devices before and during the war, the US and former USSR followed not much later using most likely a different technology.


That is close to what I may have acquired although with different terms and same situation.
I call the force to propel a ship with unseen engines the making of gravity or the propelling force.As the term antigravity has been nurtured by those willing to obscure the ship the term must be opposed to the truth. Definitely German scientist were taught how to make the ship during the war as a secret weapon or as a prize technology. US and Russia both acquired the technology under their occupation. So based upon those assumptions it is interesting to follow history in a completely new way.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by Regenstorm
 



According to my own research everything points at Germany reinvented/developed antigravity devices before and during the war, the US and former USSR followed not much later using most likely a different technology.


Yet Germany still fought the war with Messerschmitts and Fockes?

They lost the war too.



The technology ended up being held back for the next war or bargaining chip from intel forces.
The super fast speed in a ship that needed a new type of weapon was held back.
The ship vibrations set of common powder weapons.
The ship could not use ammo but might blow up enemy stores.
This was suggested by Tesla as a way to stop armies.
The Nazis did not use the ship to blow up US weapons.
All we hear is foos stopping B-17 bombing runs by either confusion of gunners
to lent in fighters or interrupting radar for the bombing which seemed ineffective
unless the B-17 gunners did have ammo explode and indeed cause problems
which to this day have never heard about.









 
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join