The Moon
 

Have we been there, is there a moonbase there already

I've got this on my website about apollo: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.ewles/cf/Who%20Mourns%20For%20Apollo.doc

read thisabout the moonbase:

HALF A CENTURY OF THE GERMAN MOON BASE - 1942 TO 1992



The Germans landed on the Moon as early as probably 1942, utilising their larger exoatmospheric rocket saucers of the Miethe and Schriever type. The Miethe rocket craft was built in diameters if 15 and 50 meters and the Schriever Walter turbine powered craft was designed as an interplanetary exploration vehicle. It had a diameter of 60 meters, had 10 stories of crew compartments and stood 45 meters high. Welcome to Alice in Saucerland. In my extensive research of dissident American theories about the physical conditions on the Moon I have proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is atmosphere, water and vegetation on the Moon and that man does not need a space suit to walk on the Moon. A pair of jeans, a pullover and sneakers are just about enough. Everything NASA has told the world about the Mood is a lie and it was done to keep the exclusivity of the club from joining by the third world countries. All these physical conditions make it a lot more easier to build a Moon base. Ever since their first day of landing on the Moon, the Germans started boring - and tunnelling under the surface and by the end of the war there was a small Nazi research base on the Moon. The free energy tachyon drive craft of the Haunibu-1 and 2 type were used after 1944 to haul people," material and the first robots to the construction site on the Moon. When Russians and Americans secretly landed jointly on the Moon in the early fifties with their own saucers, they spent their first night there as guests of the Nazi underground base.



In the sixties a massive Russian - American base had been built on the Moon, that now has a population of 40,000 people, as the rumour goes. After the end of the war in May 1945, the Germans continued their space effort from their south polar colony of Neu Schwabenland. I have discovered a photograph of their underground space control centre.





According to Renato Vesco again, Germany was sharing a great deal of the advances in weaponry with their allies the Italians during the war. At the Fiat experimental facility at lake La Garda, a facility that fittingly bore the name of air martial Hermann Goering, the Italians were experimenting with numerous advanced weapons, rockets and aeroplanes, created in Germany. In a similar fashion, the Germans kept a close contact with the Japanese military establishment and were supplying it with many advanced weapons. I have discovered for example a photo of a copy of the manned version of the V-1 - the Reichenberg - produced in Japan by Mitsubishi. The best fighter in the world - the push-pull twin propeller Domier-335 was duplicated at the Kawashima works. Or a photo of Japanese high ranking Imperial navy officers inspecting the latest German radar station.



A Japanese friend of mine in Los Angeles related to me the story of his friend's father, who worked as technician in an aircraft research bureau in Japan during the war. In July of 1945, two and a half months after the war ended in Germany, a huge German transport submarine brought to Japan the latest of German inventions - two spherical wingless flying devices. The Japanese R&D team put the machines together, following the German instructions, and there was something very bizarre and other-earthy standing in front of them - a ball shaped flying device without wings or propellers, that nobody knew how it flied.



The fuel was added, the start button of this unmanned machine was pressed and it disappeared with a roar and flames without a in the sky. The team never saw it again. The engineers were so frightened by the unexpected might of the machine, that they promptly dynamited the second prototype and choose to forget the whole incident.





According to the authors of the underground German documentary movie from the Thule society, the only produced craft of the Haunibu-3 type - the 74 meter diameter naval warfare dreadnought - was chosen for the most courageous mission of this whole century - the trip to Mars. The craft was of saucer shape, had the bigger Andromeda tachyon drives and was armed with four triple gun turrets of large naval calibre (three inverted upside down and attached to the underside of the craft and the fourth on top of the crew compartments).



A volunteer suicide crew of Germans and Japanese was chosen, because everybody knew that this journey was a one-way journey with no return. The large intensity of the electro-magnetogravitic fields and the inferior quality of the metal alloys used then for the structural elements of the drive, was causing the metal to fatigue and get very brittle only after a few months of work of the drive. The flight to Mars departed from Germany one month before the war ended - in April 1945.



It was probably a large crew, numbering in the hundreds, because of the low level of automation and electronic controls inside the saucer. Most of the systems of the craft had to be operated like these on a U-boat of that time - manually. Because the structurally weakened tachyon drives were not working with full power and not all the time, the trip to Mars took almost 8 months to accomplish.



An initial short trust towards Mars was probably used the strong gravitational field close to Earth, after that the craft was "coasting" for 8 months in an elliptical orbit to Mars with its main drives turned off. Later trips to Mars by the joint Soviet - American craft in 1952 and by the Vatican craft of the Marconi project from Argentina in 1956 reached Mars in only 2 - 3 days, because their drives were working during the whole flight: accelerating in the first half and decelerating in the second.



Smaller Kohler converters were probably used to power the systems and life support equipment on board. I do not have any information at the present time about any artificial gravity capability on board the craft, but that could have been easily done with the large anti-gravity drives of the ship.



After a heavy, almost crashing landing, the saucer slammed to a stop, damaging irreparably its drives, but saving the crew. That happened in the middle of January 1946. The crash landing on Mars was not only due to the crippled tachyon drives of the craft - it was also due to the smaller gravitational field of Mars generating less power for the tachyon drives; and also due to the thinner atmosphere on Mars, that could not be used as effectively for air breaking as the Earth's atmosphere could.



The craft was shaped as a giant saucer - a form that is very efficient as an air brake, when it is entered into the atmosphere with its huge cross section perpendicular to the trajectory of descent.



One question, that I have not answered yet in the affirmative is how were the Germans able to regenerate the air inside the craft for 8 months for this big crew. Quite probably they were using advanced life support systems, developed initially for their larger Walter turbine and free energy submarines, that were cruising the oceans without resurfacing.



The radio message with the mixed news was received by the German underground space control centre in Neu Schwabenland and by their research base on the Moon.

Re: The Moon
 

:erm:

Re: The Moon
 

Is that the sound of black helicopters I hear?

Re: The Moon
 

I dont understand, I thought the moon was made of chesse?

Re: The Moon
 

I rest my case ;)

Re: The Moon
 

:p: Nurse ....Nurse... Pass me the needle and thread.......my sides are splitting:D

I think my sig says it all:)

Re: The Moon
 

Re: The Moon
 

So if all this technology exists, exactly *why* did the Americans and Russians spend all those billions of dollars on rockets?

*Why* do we have to send research spacecraft on gravitationally assisted trajectories to other planets/ comets etc?

And *why* have none of these craft ever been spotted by the tens of thousands of amateur astronomers out there who are looking and photographing the moon, the planets and the stars *every night*???

Re: The Moon
 

[QUOTE=Graham]So if all this technology exists, exactly *why* did the Americans and Russians spend all those billions of dollars on rockets?[QUOTE]

Original they developed rockets for lanch system for there missile (as seen on the space race) but the sceintists wanted to go into space and on to the Moon. In the end all side won

Re: The Moon
 

but why did you have to bring this up again? :erm:

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/sh...4&postcount=66

Re: The Moon
 

Every time I read a post he his pimping his own website :cleader:

Re: The Moon
 

I forgot about this post, but I didn't start that thread and I wanted to add a poll, I added links to info that would help people make there own mind up.

Re: The Moon
 

More to the point, can anyone prove the existence of david.ewles, or is he a MI5/Metropolitan Police plot to stop me whacking me283 over the head about human rights again by filling the board with conspiracy theories? Tin hats on!

Re: The Moon
 

There are some quite good reads on that site... well it whiled away my lunch hour anyways...

Keep it up David I say.

Re: The Moon
 

I doubt very much that there is a base on the moon. There may be left over junk on the moon but I would think its probably been burnt up or moved along somewhere else in the universe.

Plus I am sure that we would be able to see the base from earth using very good telescopes, unless it is underground, which is very unlikely.

As for going to the moon, I think we are more than capable of going there so I assume that we have been.

Building a base there is something I'm sure is being worked on and planned to be built in the next 5-10 years.

However, do we really need to put in all this money to get a base set up on the moon and an eco system going, when there are still a million things to be done on earth....like helping the homeless, etc.

Looking at it from another view, it could be the most dangerous thing ever.
Lets say we build this bubble aquariam cover and get an eco system going. All well and good..... Until Mr Terrorist comes along and blasts a missile into the roof, and everyone there is no more.

Re: The Moon
 

I answered the poll before I read the first post in this thread. If I'd read the post first, I think I'd just have walked away from the thread without contributing at all ... I'd prefer not to legitimise utter fantasy like this by discussing it :erm:

It disturbs me that there are people out there who actually believe this stuff.

Re: The Moon
 

the moon is home to bases ran by the russians china and the usa.

Re: The Moon
 

I'm sure the Clangers live on the moon.
We should leave them in peace.

Re: The Moon
 

Well, there definitely is something very fishy about this thread: 28.57% is missing from the poll! Coincidence? I think not... :erm:

Re: The Moon
 

they've been taken. I wont comment on where they are being probed but suggest it's where the sun dont shine - the dark side of the moon.

Re: The Moon
 

Have a read of http://www.clavius.org/


Lots of stuff thoroughly debunking the moon hoax conspiracies.

Re: The Moon
 

I stopped reading and realised this should probably be in Humour when I reached this point ;

Right .......... :erm:

Re: The Moon
 

MMMMMMMmmmmmmm

Chopped Pork!:D

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10...ition_results/

Re: The Moon
 

Oh, God, someone please tell me this is a joke. If anyone actually believes this crap, they should be sectioned immediately because they're obviously functionally insane.

Tachyons are theoretical particles - their existence hasn't even been proven yet, by the Germans or anyone else. I don't think they were theorised as far back as 1944, so where the hell does this 'free energy tachyon drive' come from?

In fact, why am I even bothering? This is on a par with von Daniken's bilge. Every one - every single one - of the conspiracy theories can be and has been thoroughly debunked with hard, verifiable science. A lot of the so-called evidence 'proving' the Apollo photos were fakes in fact proves they are real - read Philip Plait's excellent Bad Astronomy.

And then GET A LIFE!!!

Re: The Moon
 

Are you by any chance a journalist for the Sunday Sport. If so how's the London Bus that is also on the moon. Apparently it's driven by Elvis

Re: The Moon
 

Star Trek !

Re: The Moon
 

Indeed Tachyons are sub-atomic particles, and are supposedly what you get when you smash up neutron. They are difficult to study because no one's ever seen one and they only exist for for about 10x-26 of a second.

Re: The Moon
 

I'd suggest talking to the armed forces of the world about that. They talk about 'protection' and 'defence' - against whom, exactly? Newsflash, guys: the Cold War is over. The Wall is down. We don't need the so-called deterrent any more, if we ever did. The poor and hungry of the world could be helped many times over with what's spent every year on what is essentially the largest and most parasitic industry in the world - namely weapons that aren't intended ever to be used. Is it just me, or does that sound like a colossal waste of our money?

In terms of what it'll cost to set up a moonbase, you're thinking too short-term - like the many politicians who cut off Apollo at the knees. As with any major capital investment, it'll take years, even decades, to see any return on space travel. But when we do, the dividends will be in the trillions.

Consider: there are useful, valuable minerals on the Moon. With no native life or ecosystems to worry about, open cast and strip-face mining, two most efficient methods, could be used. You'd only have to send a few mining machines to the Moon; others could be built in situ, for next to no cost.

There are various industries which depend on the use of vacuum, which is difficult and expensive to achieve on Earth. On the Moon, there's no need; the entire Moon is a vacuum environment. Power isn't a problem, either; you can rely on solar power 24/7, since there are no clouds to worry about. There are physiological advantages, too; lower gravity places much less strain on the heart, lungs and bones, potentially extending lifespans - although it's true that if you stayed on the Moon long enough, you'd find it difficult or impossible to cope with the Earth's gravity however much you exercised.

Then there's the question of sending the minerals and/or refined metals to Earth. Easy and cheap. The Moon's escape velocity is only a fraction of Earth's, so it isn't necessary to have loads boosting all the way to Earth, using up tons of expensive fuel. In effect, they simply fall into Earth's gravity well and just need the odd nudge on the way down to ensure they land where we want them. Or you could use an induction catapult, as depicted in Heinlein's The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress.

Then there's space tourism, which is already starting. Oh, initially it'll be for the rich and famous, yes - but if you think about it, so was air travel when it first started, and now it's routine. The principle is the same; the result will be the same. All it needs is a few shrewd investors to sink a few billion into it. It will happen; I'm hoping I live long enough to see it and, if possible, do it. Hands up anyone who wouldn't love to get the same views of Earth from orbit that the Shuttle astronauts do.

Liars! :)

I admit I'm not exactly holding my breath for the prospect of Richard Branson pulling it off, but he's not the only one who's interested in the idea.

It's one thing to sneak explosives into somewhere such as the Metro, where there are multiple entrances. But on a moonbase? With a very limited number of entrances, and every one an airlock at that? Not a chance. It wouldn't be possible to sneak into a moonbase - any hull breach would be detected immediately and the perpetrator dealt with.

Surely personnel would be thoroughly vetted; they'd also have to be highly trained in order to have any right to be there at all. After all, at first it's going to cost a fortune per person to send them, and therefore that money isn't going to be spent on anyone who isn't essential to base operations, at least not for the five or more years it'd likely take to make such a base a going concern. Initially any moonbase will be manned solely by astronauts, engineers and scientists - anyone who wasn't supposed to be there would be very quickly identified. Mr. Terrorist isn't going to just 'come along'. To do anything to a moonbase, first he's got to get there; it's not a question of just catching a taxi or a bus, it's a little matter of 238,000 miles or so. Are the crew of any Lunar craft going to let anyone on board they don't know and who hasn't been cleared? As if. Stowaway? Where? How?


Besides, everyone in the base would have their own pressure suit, and there would be airtight doors which could seal off any section which was losing pressure for whatever reason - basic engineering. You couldn't take out the entire base and/or personnel just like that. No, I think terrorism won't be a real concern on the Moon for years to come, and probably not then. A Lunar environment would be - would have to be - far more rigidly controlled than anything on Earth. To borrow from Arthur C. Clarke's Imperial Earth, those who feel like abandoning their social responsibilities on the Moon must first practice breathing vacuum (he was referring to the hydro-methane atmosphere of Titan, but the principle's the same).

Re: The Moon
 

For someone who claims that every single conspiracy theory has been debunked, you don't half spend a lot of time theorising about why a moonbase wouldn't be at risk from terrorists ;)

Re: The Moon
 

Oooo if I vote that we've not been to the moon but there is a moon base, will the universe end?
No? How about this thread then?

Re: The Moon
 

We can but pray ;)