PDA

View Full Version : Could Hanger 18 be the moon hoax set?



valeriuginghina
2006-Mar-20, 11:13 PM
Hello everybody! This is my first post, so please don't be too hard on me...
I have been reading several posts about the faking of Moon landings, Moon walks and many others related to the Apollo missions. Many people, smarter than I am, have repeatedly said that faking is obvious in pictures, movies and last but not the least, inconsistency of NASA statements and official standings. But I say faking would have costed far more than the real thing. There has been proven, and believe me, it was a lot of common sense in it, that faking was in certain aspects impossible at that time, given the technical means and/or technology. 'Capricorn One' may have been a good movie at its time, but the idea was the actions depicted in the movie could have happened, not it has happened. It raises a question mark on how a big scale cover-up COULD be built, not that it actually happened. But what about 'Hangar 18' ?! This might be, in my oppinion, a much more disturbing sign of a POSSIBLE cover-up or government-supervised conspiracy. In my country, in 1986, a Romanian military pilot had the courage to write a book on this matter - the UFOs throughout the human history, starting from stone age or even before, to the year 1986. He was also saying something about his personal experiences, about the disappearance of several pilots - people he knew - when getting too close to the UFOs with their MiGs, and so on. A military pilot's view over the matter, including the oppinion that 'Hangar 18' may very well have depicted real things, along with fiction facts. But let me stop now and wait for comments, if there will be any, if someone's interested in trying to tell real from fake.

Duane
2006-Mar-20, 11:49 PM
I have moved this from the Moon Questions thread as it is off topic.

Nicolas
2006-Mar-20, 11:52 PM
Do you have a link to "hangar 18" information?

Graham2001
2006-Mar-21, 12:44 AM
As far as I know, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base has less than 18 hangers. I'd love to know where the HB's get the idea that there are 18.

Halcyon Dayz
2006-Mar-21, 01:12 AM
Many people, smarter than I am...
I'm pretty sure they're not. :D

Gillianren
2006-Mar-21, 03:06 AM
Let's just say that Hangar 18 would have to be pretty freakin' big, have gravity 1/6 that of Earth, and be a vacuum chamber. Question answered?

Cl1mh4224rd
2006-Mar-21, 03:37 AM
As far as I can tell, "Hangar 18" is supposed to be located at the Groom Lake facility (Area 51). It was also a 1980 movie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080836/) flop (as well as a Megadeth song, and hip-hop group). I can't tell if the ideas about the hangar came from the movie, or the idea for the movie came from existing conspiracy theories.

Here's a page with a couple pictures (http://ufo.whipnet.org/area.51/structures/hangar18.html), and it indicates that the size is 300x300x100 feet. :shrug:

Halcyon Dayz
2006-Mar-21, 03:45 AM
Here's a page with a couple pictures (http://ufo.whipnet.org/area.51/structures/hangar18.html)...
Hey, a woowoo-site that actually looks cool.
Not the usual eyesore. :D

R.A.F.
2006-Mar-21, 12:36 PM
Let's just say that Hangar 18 would have to be pretty freakin' big...

Yep...and as I have posted before (somewhere, here :)) The Lunar liftoff film from (for example) Apollo 15 is most telling...the filmed view literally covers hundreds of miles. It could not have been filmed inside any hanger...

...unless "hanger 18" is like the TARDIS...:)

PhantomWolf
2006-Mar-21, 12:38 PM
well 300x300x100 isn't anywhere big enough. At least 200 feet too small minimum

Jakenorrish
2006-Mar-21, 01:26 PM
In answer to the question, one would first have to prove that there was any evidence to support the 'faked moon landings' theory. Any evidence put forward to support this theory has so far been completely debunked, and the Moon landings have been totally proven. There are many other threads devoted to this subject on this site, if you doubt what I'm saying, it may be worth a bit of research on your part on the subject before responding.

So as the Moon landings did actually happen, then the answer to your question is a very firm 'No'. As the Moon landings happened,then they couldn't have been faked in hangar 18, Atlantis or any other mythical place. They took place on the Moon!

Graham2001
2006-Mar-21, 01:36 PM
As far as I can tell, "Hangar 18" is supposed to be located at the Groom Lake facility (Area 51).

When I first heard of 'Hangar 18' it was definitely supposed to be located at Wright-Patterson AFB.

As I remember one of the Games Designer Workshop's 'Twilight 2000' scenarios published in their house magazine was set in the vicinity of Wright-Patterson and there was a specific reference to 'Hangar 18' as still being under guard.

The above is admittedly from memory (:o) and if anyone can confirm this I would be very grateful.

sts60
2006-Mar-21, 02:49 PM
Welcome, valeriuginghina!

The first problem with the alleged "Hangar 18" idea is that there is really no evidence at all that this particular hangar even exists; but if there was, there is no evidence that it was used for an attempted hoax. None. Just unsupported claims.

Secondly, it immediately doesn't fit what we observe about the Apollo film record. The lighting of a single bright distant source does not look like lighting one would find in a hangar. The behavior of dust in Apollo motion imagery clearly indicates a vacuum, but the idea that a hangar hundreds of feet on a side could sustain a vacuum is ludicrous. All motion observed (dust, astronauts, dropped tools) is compatible with 1/6 Earth gravity, but antigravity doesn't exist and you can't fake the motion of dust with wires. And, as R.A.F. pointed out, the lunar module liftoff was tracked miles into the sky.

So the hoax hangar idea just doesn't fit reality. That's before you get to the mountains of other evidence supporting Apollo.

I'd also have to disagree that it takes "courage" to write a book making wild and unsupported claims about UFOs or Apollo or whatever. Drop by your local bookstore and take a look at the stacks and stacks of drivel touting UFOs, astrology, gubmint coverups, homeopathy, crystal healing, channeling, the "Philadelphia incident", and so on ad nauseum. Turn on your television and see the vast buffet of psychic detective this, ghost hunter that, witches whatnot. No, no, friend; these days it takes more courage to challenge such notions publicly. And it's been that way for a while. I read lots of UFO books when I was a kid, enjoyed Close Encounters, etc., and I've been around for some time.

Lastly, I'll also dispute the notion that Crapicorn One was either a "good" movie (it stunk, though that's rather subjective) or that it showed that such a conspiracy was possible (it didn't, and that's a fact).

Those are general comments, of course - if you want to discuss the "Hangar 18" idea in detail, we'd be happy to, but I think you need to provide more specifics to chew on.

JayUtah
2006-Mar-21, 03:37 PM
I enjoyed Capricorn One because I like Sam Waterston. But it terms of plot etc. it left somewhat to be desired. But that's all purely subject.

The major problem in using an aircraft hangar as a moon hoax set depends on whether a vacuum would have to be achieved inside of it. Hangars employ gracile, efficient structural methods thereby spanning great distances unsupported yet providing almost no live load bearing capacity. The additional load imposed by atmospheric pressure were the interior rendered a vacuum would exceed the structural capacity of the typical hangar by at least two orders of magnitude. Hence structures intended as vacuum chambers are very robust. There is no advantage to be gained in trying to convert a hangar to a vacuum chamber; the effort and cost would be tantamount to new construction.

Aircraft handling facilities are often used in filmmaking and much prized by filmmakers for their ability to enclose a large volume in which sets may be constructed without using forced-perspective techniques that restrict camera angles. However, as has been noted, the Apollo video includes scenes that demonstrably occur in an environment extending hundreds of meters from the camera in several directions, a feat not possible with any unsupported structure in the 1960s. Even if you concede that the vacuum effects were achieved by some means other than creating an actual vacuum, the scale of the Apollo films still does not fit Hangar 18 or any other structure. With no points of correspondence and several points of content, the "airplane hangar" argument simply fails to rise to the challenge.

Don't be so sure that those who propose a moon hoax are "smarter than you". A few minutes' questioning of them reveals that they certainly know far less than I and others here, and probably less than you. But they go to great lengths to inflate the appearance of their knowledge hoping that you'll draw the precise conclusion that they "must" know what they're talking about. It's a tactic carefully calculated to win converts, not to arrive reliably at the truth.

Tensor
2006-Mar-21, 03:53 PM
As I remember one of the Games Designer Workshop's 'Twilight 2000' scenarios published in their house magazine was set in the vicinity of Wright-Patterson and there was a specific reference to 'Hangar 18' as still being under guard.

The above is admittedly from memory (:o) and if anyone can confirm this I would be very grateful.

Man, I had to dig way back in my memory for that one. But yeah, I sorta, kinda, remember it too. Anybody here remember GDW game "Triplanetary"?

JayUtah
2006-Mar-21, 05:28 PM
I'd also have to disagree that it takes "courage" to write a book making wild and unsupported claims about UFOs or Apollo or whatever.

I also disagree. The presumption misapplied to these authors is that they care what people think. Many of these authors see their readers as only one thing: a figure on a balance sheet. Still others, especially those who self-publish, are desperate for attention. Making fools out of themselves is a small price to pay to get the notoreity they think they need.

Gruesome
2006-Mar-21, 06:39 PM
I bought this (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00009XYYF/qid=1142965990/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-5666892-8944017?s=dvd&v=glance&n=130) last year and the idea that the footage of Eagle rendezvousing with Columbia is faked I find a tough sell. The shot is like 15 minutes long, no cuts. Not to mention the notion that it was faked in a small hanger [sic].

Cl1mh4224rd
2006-Mar-21, 09:05 PM
When I first heard of 'Hangar 18' it was definitely supposed to be located at Wright-Patterson AFB.

As I remember one of the Games Designer Workshop's 'Twilight 2000' scenarios published in their house magazine was set in the vicinity of Wright-Patterson and there was a specific reference to 'Hangar 18' as still being under guard.

The above is admittedly from memory (:o) and if anyone can confirm this I would be very grateful.
You're most likely correct. Those pictures I linked to are definitely not the usual quality you'd see from Area 51 photos. I also do vaguely remember some link to Roswell.

Rereading the short Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hangar_18), I'm pretty sure now that it was just the movie that was somewhat related to Area 51.

Bob B.
2006-Mar-21, 10:01 PM
As far as I can tell, "Hangar 18" is supposed to be located at the Groom Lake facility (Area 51).
When I first heard of 'Hangar 18' it was definitely supposed to be located at Wright-Patterson AFB.
I too have always heard that Hanger 18 is allegedly at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. It is where debris and bodies from the supposed 1947 Roswell crash were taken and stored. I live near WPAFB, so the story is kind of a local legend around here. I don’t know how the story was portrayed in the 1980 movie, but according to ufologists the “real” Hanger 18 is definitely at WPAFB.

mid
2006-Mar-22, 12:09 PM
Mind you, if we're accepting for the moment that "Hanger 18" actually does what the alien believers claim, then we might as well accept the other claim by the very same people that W-P AFB has an artificial zero-gravity facility that can hold a vacuum. One that isn't in Hanger 18.

So, even if Hanger 18 were to exist with a bunch of little green corpses in it, I doubt it would be used as the soundstage for any fake moon footage.

Besides, if you were to really believe that the US military have access to interstellar spacecraft (even broken ones), then why would you simultaneously believe it's impossible for them to travel merely as far as the moon?

Z28Jerry
2006-Mar-22, 12:32 PM
yeah, that's a great point, lol. If we captured alien spaceaft that led to all the "inventions" of our modern time, then believing they used that reverse engineered technology to go to the moon 20 years after roswell should be pretty believable, lol.

That's great logic for sure. I love it when you can use several woo-woo consiracy theories together when engaed in woo-woo talk soup battles.

good stuff, got a good laugh out of it for sure!

P. Edward Murray
2006-Mar-22, 02:07 PM
My question here is this:

How old are folks who say the Moon Landings never happened or might be faked? I was 12 1/2 during Apollo 11.

I just can not believe that any kid at that time believed that this was a hoax!
Possibly some idiot teens who were older than me strung out on their drug of choice perhaps.

But the rest of humanity, that had TV sets saw the same things that I saw.

At any rate, one of my Uncles helped design the computer for the Apollo spacecraft.

sts60
2006-Mar-22, 02:29 PM
I too have always heard that Hanger 18 is allegedly at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. It is where debris and bodies from the supposed 1947 Roswell crash were taken and stored.

Well, it's been a couple of years - time to once again drag out the quote that perfectly sums up my feelings on the matter:

It's not that I don't believe the government would try to hide dead aliens; it's that I don't think the government would succeed, since every time the government tries to do anything secretly, as in the Iran-contra arms deal, it winds up displaying all the finesse and stealth of an exploding cigar at a state funeral. If there really were dead aliens, I figure, there also would be daily leaks about it from High-level Officials, and huge arguments among influential congresspersons over whose district the multimillion-dollar Federal Dead Alien Storage Facility would be located in.

Jason Thompson
2006-Mar-22, 05:13 PM
Many people, smarter than I am, have repeatedly said that faking is obvious in pictures, movies and last but not the least, inconsistency of NASA statements and official standings.

Don't confuse the ability to write a book or a website with intelligence. Don't assume that the authors of such published material are smarter than you. That is precisely what they want you to think. You are supposed to read their leading narrative and arrive at the conclusons they present, whether or not that conclusion has any actual basis in reality.

But I say faking would have costed far more than the real thing.

Never mind the cost, faking the Moon landing would require re-writing the laws of physics.

'Capricorn One' may have been a good movie at its time, but the idea was the actions depicted in the movie could have happened,

Leaving aside the fact that Capricorn One is fiction, and therefore anything contained therein happens because the author says so, not because reality dictates it, people who use Capricorn One as support for a conspiracy have obviously never seen the film. At the very end of the film one of the characters turns up at his own memorial service, thus blowing the whole cover-up wide open. So, Capricorn One if anything shows that such a conspiracy cannot be kept secret even for a couple of weeks.

But what about 'Hangar 18' ?! This might be, in my oppinion, a much more disturbing sign of a POSSIBLE cover-up or government-supervised conspiracy.

If a 'Hangar 18' exists, so what? Are we supposed to find it suspicious that any government would undertake classified research and have the odd facility where only a select few have access?

In my country, in 1986, a Romanian military pilot had the courage to write a book on this matter - the UFOs throughout the human history, starting from stone age or even before, to the year 1986.

Do not confuse writing a book with courage. I can write a book. I can write one about absolutely anything. If I write about certain things it might seem like I am putting my career or life on the line, but am I really?

He was also saying something about his personal experiences, about the disappearance of several pilots - people he knew - when getting too close to the UFOs with their MiGs, and so on.

First we would need evidence that these anecdotes are real and that he has not simply made them up. Second, a UFO can be anything as long as it flies. Now, getting too close to any flying object, identified or otherwise, in a high-speed jet is a very bad idea. Get too close to a goose and your aircraft can end up falling to bits, ploughing into the ground, turning into a large fireball, or some combination of those things, and if conditions are right there may not be much left to identify or recover.

JayUtah
2006-Mar-22, 06:11 PM
Never mind the cost, faking the Moon landing would require re-writing the laws of physics.

I tend to agree, but you have to be very careful making this argument. It is tantamount to arguing that it wasn't done because it can't be done, and things that can't be done obviously weren't done. But this refutation plays right into the hands of conspiracists, who can generally only argue that faking it was possible. They don't accept the burden of proof that the moon landings were faked; only that it is possible they were faked. And that generally boils down to showing that it's not impossible, which is enough to sell a surprising number of books.

If your argument that it was impossible ends up being more of a straw man than you intended, then the refutation becomes rather weak. For example, we point out that a hangar cannot structurally act also as a vacuum chamber. That presumes the hoaxsters would achieve vacuum effects by actually creating a vacuum. Since all their arguments are conjectural, they would come back with other speculation on how visible effects of vacuum could be achieved: "magic" sand or weighted feathers. And, from a logical point of view, that would turn the vacuum chamber explanation into a straw man.

The proper approach to this is to keep putting the burden of proof back to where it belongs: on the conspiracists' burden to show the landings were actually hoaxed, not simply that it wasn't impossible to have done it. The latter is a uselessly low standard of proof. If I favor Explanation A, and you favor Explanation B, you cannot establish B merely by saying B is "not impossible". That would create a burden of proof for A requiring me to show not just that it is the best explanation -- even perhaps by a large margin -- but also that it is the only possible explanation. In real-world historical investigation, that isn't an attainable standard of proof.

And so the real burden of proof is not to show that Explanation B fails to be impossible, but that it stacks up better than Explanation A in a head-to-head contest.

Larry Jacks
2006-Mar-23, 08:31 PM
In short, here is what it would've taken to fake a single Apollo moon mission.

1. You'd have to launch a Saturn V in full view of several hundred thousand spectators (and millions watching on TV).

2. The Saturn V 3rd stage/SM/CM stack would have to enter orbit where it could be tracked by space surveillance radars (and human eyes on the ground)

3. After 2 revs, you'd have to launch the stack on a translunar trajectory, broadcasting telemetry, audio, and occassional video signals that could be picked up not only by governments but in some cases by ham radio operators. You couldn't leave anything in Earth orbit because it would've been tracked.

4. After a few days, your faked moon ship would have to enter orbit around the moon (detectable by doppler effects and by signal loss of roughly 40 minutes ever two hours as the vehicle passed behind the moon.) There's no way you could fake it from Earth orbit.

5. While one piece stayed in orbit around the moon, another piece would have to descend and land on the moon (detectable again by doppler effects). While one piece remains in orbit, the other piece has to transmit signals from the moon's surface.

6. While on the moon, the fake lander would have to transmit "fake" video and audio of astronauts working on the surface. It'd also have to deploy scientific instruments like the laser refelectors that are still operational today.

7. Eventually, part of your fake lander would have to lift off from the lunar surface and rendezvous with the orbiting component.

8. You'd have to then fly back to Earth (transmitting the whole way), reenter the atmosphere, and somehow have the crew appear. This will be especially tricky given that the reentry was tracked the whole way.

Now, repeat this several more times, once for each mission. You'd have to do it well enough to fool the Soviet Union and every other nation that had space surveillance capabilities back in 1969-1972. You'd also have to be able to fool the ham radio operators who could receive the signals. You'd have to fake the moon rocks well enough to keep geologists fooled to this day.

Is such a scenario impossible? Well, maybe not. Was it possible with the technology available in 1969-1972? Not really. In many ways, it would've been more difficult to successfully fake the missions than to actually fly them. Occam's razor comes to the fore once again.

Nicolas
2006-Mar-23, 08:34 PM
If not more difficult, faking the missions would have been so close to performing them that it would have been rather pointless :).

novaderrik
2006-Mar-23, 09:07 PM
ahh.. someone mentioned the Megadeth song. one of the coolest music videos ever made, and the first time i ever heard of this mythical "Hangar 18".

welcome to our fortress tall
i'll take some time to show you around
impossible to break these walls
for you see the steel is much to strong
computer banks to rule the world
instruments to sight the stars

possibly i've seen too much
hangar 18 i know to much

foreign life forms inventory
suspended state of cryogenics
selective amnesia's the story
believed foretold, but who'd suspect
military intelligence
two words combined that can't make sense

possibly i've seen too much
hangar 18 i know too much

Bob B.
2006-Mar-23, 09:26 PM
If not more difficult, faking the missions would have been so close to performing them that it would have been rather pointless :).

This is why so many HBs end up relying on the old 'deadly' radiation argument. This way NASA can have the technological capability needed to pull off the hoax but still not be able to put a man on the moon.

PhantomWolf
2006-Mar-24, 04:01 AM
I always find it amazing how they'll claim that NASA didn't have the tech to get a human to the moon in a craft that was piloted by a human, but then turn around and claim that they did [edited to fix] have the tech to automatically land a space craft.

Nicolas
2006-Mar-24, 01:05 PM
that last one must be "did" :)

As we all know, automated machines predate manual controlled ones...

Halcyon Dayz
2006-Mar-25, 05:35 AM
O Valeriu, where are you? http://www.cosgan.de/images/midi/froehlich/a010.gif

granolaeater
2006-Mar-27, 06:13 PM
As far as I heard, they actually planned to fake the moon missions on hangar 18. But then this UFO crashed and they needed hangar 18 to store the UFO there.
So they lost the stage for the intended hoax and had to do the moonlandings for real.

PhantomWolf
2006-Mar-28, 02:03 AM
That was from a scene in Futurerama.

Skyywatcher
2006-Mar-31, 12:50 PM
Throwing in a wench to all who debunk the moon landings. It happened. We've sent samples all over the world to examine. Surely, if it were a hoax we'd know it by now. As for all the other ones like little green men show me just one creditable piece of evidence. Yours truly Skyyywatcher.

Skyywatcher
2006-Mar-31, 12:53 PM
Right on Phantom Wolf.

Sticks
2006-Mar-31, 02:13 PM
And so the real burden of proof is not to show that Explanation B fails to be impossible, but that it stacks up better than Explanation A in a head-to-head contest.

What about explanation C :D

NASA had to cover things up because of the huge alien biosphere on the moon they ran into.

Oops sorry :doh:

Wrong CT crowd :naughty: ;)

Incidentally, some years ago my brother inlaw bought what he thought was a legitimate astronomy video about Mars. It turned out to be the one done by our Mr Hoagland, and my sister thought it was hilarious. Needless to say he passed it onto me.

JayUtah
2006-Mar-31, 03:03 PM
We've sent samples all over the world to examine. Surely, if it were a hoax we'd know it by now.

But in response conspiracists have no problem asserting that every single one of those scientists is either clueless, bribed, intimidated, or in on it.

A good indication of the wackiness of one's theory is how much existing belief and understanding must be rewritten in order to accommodate it.

Jason Thompson
2006-Mar-31, 03:53 PM
Throwing in a wench to all who debunk the moon landings.

Damn, I'm arguing the wrong side: I wouldn't mind a free wench....

Reminds me of a misprint in the instructions for my telescope, which advised me to tighten the mounting nut with the wench provided. I just had to e-mail the supplier about this. I complained that I couldn't find a buxom serving girl in any of the boxes. I got a wonderful reply: the guy said the instructions were out of date and that they were no longer able to supply the wench because of a new EU directive on the sale of buxom serving girls!

Sticks
2006-Mar-31, 04:34 PM
At great effort I have managed to get a picture of Hanger 18 (See this link (http://img387.imageshack.us/img387/2162/hanger180037bo.jpg)) keep a look out for the MIB :shifty:

Grand_Lunar
2006-Apr-10, 10:06 PM
A bit off topic (I didn't feel this needed a seperate thread) but National Geographic Channel showed a program on the moon hoax.
Actually, it was a more balanced one, showing the real experts debunking HBers, including Bill Kaysing.
It was a riot to see.
One of the debunkers was named Jay. Would that have been you, JayUtah?

JayUtah
2006-Apr-10, 11:23 PM
Yes, that was me.

Donnie B.
2006-Apr-10, 11:26 PM
Admittedly, you do look different without the 17th-century garb. You're one of the few people I've known who look good in a powdered wig... ;)

Grand_Lunar
2006-Apr-11, 02:25 AM
Coolness, Jay!

Good to know there are people like you that can steer people to the true path.

Oh, question: the film from the Hassalband. Can any ordinary film processing place develope them, or do you need to go to a certain place for that?

IIRC, I heard it's 70mm film, the same used on IMAX, and wondered if someplace special was needed to make the photos from them.

EDIT to add: Another question. Amongst the issues raised was the hazard of micrometorites. I think I missed the rebuttel to that. How'd Apollo deal with them? Or is it another claim blown out of porportions, like the radiation one?

Sam5
2006-Apr-11, 03:13 AM
This might be, in my oppinion, a much more disturbing sign of a POSSIBLE cover-up or government-supervised conspiracy.

Back in the 1960s, the “space race” competition between Russia and the US was so great that, if our moon landings had been faked, the Russians would have either produced some faked moon landings too, or they would have exposed ours. But the Russians knew we actually went there, and they knew there was no way to fake such a thing so that it couldn’t be detected.

Duane
2006-Apr-12, 10:54 AM
Back in the 1960s, the “space race” competition between Russia and the US was so great that, if our moon landings had been faked, the Russians would have either produced some faked moon landings too, or they would have exposed ours. But the Russians knew we actually went there, and they knew there was no way to fake such a thing so that it couldn’t be detected.

Sam, you're doing it again--trying to invoke logic. Please stop it.

Eric Vaxxine
2006-Apr-12, 10:59 AM
NASA had to cover things up because of the huge alien biosphere on the moon they ran into.


Alien or Russian, or do you consider the Russians alien?

Sticks
2006-Apr-12, 11:11 AM
Alien or Russian, or do you consider the Russians alien?

Aliens

Little Green Men

Not of this Earth

I have a 2 Video Cassette box set of Hoagland making these claims with his photographic "proof" of this Alien Bisophere. My Brother in Law originally bought it thinking it was a legitimate video about Astronomy and was not best pleased when he saw what he had actually bought. So he passed them on to moi.

I would suspect the structures he sees are little more than JPEG compression fragments.

maryccc
2007-Jan-02, 06:05 PM
I have to wonder about the link to WPAFB. That was my hometown. My sister said where my mom worked on the base she would see steam coming from under ground vents and thought that was where they kept the spacecraft. I believe it may have been where they were experimenting with cyrogenics too. I know there have been a large number of cases of cancer in my town that I thought was unusual. I think there is something wrong with the water there. My skin gets a terrible rash when ever I visit there.

maryccc
2007-Jan-02, 06:06 PM
At great effort I have managed to get a picture of Hanger 18 (See this link (http://img387.imageshack.us/img387/2162/hanger180037bo.jpg)) keep a look out for the MIB :shifty:

ROTFL

sts60
2007-Jan-02, 06:32 PM
I think they must be hiding alien spacecraft under Washington, D.C., too, because I have often seen steam coming from underground vents there.

Sam5
2007-Jan-02, 07:10 PM
I think they must be hiding alien spacecraft under Washington, D.C., too, because I have often seen steam coming from underground vents there.

You are probably talking about the early 19th Century UFOs that ran on steam. One of them crashed on Robert Fulton’s farm in Pennsylvania and that’s how Fulton was able to develop his steam engine technology. These large heavy flying disks used to be known as the Fulton Steamers as they flew across the skies of Pennsylvania during the Civil War. Their circular shape was somewhat oval, and Fulton sold contracts for them to the Union Forces during the Civil War.

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:M6i3zlJDusBv5M:http://www.state.ga.us/civilwar/images/1862.jpg

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:4F5tNbc9OmkDPM:http://www.klaus-kramer.de/Schiff/Panzerschiffe/MONITOR%26MERRIMAC/SG000729k.jpg

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:qbspONrgs5Tq9M:http://www.wm.edu/niahd/journals/display_image.php%3Fid%3D8589

http://www.weeklyuniverse.com/2004/Sacramento%201896%20airship.jpg

http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/monitor-merrimac/monito6.jpg

Sigma_Orionis
2007-Jan-02, 07:25 PM
Hmmmmm, that might explain why Gotham City's sewers have so much steam in them :D

maryccc
2007-Jan-02, 07:40 PM
You All Are Too Funny

Sam5
2007-Jan-02, 07:45 PM
You All Are Too Funny

Thank you Mary. We do a stage act too, and we can dance and sing.

Welcome to the board.

Jim
2007-Jan-02, 08:42 PM
I think they must be hiding alien spacecraft under Washington, D.C., too, because I have often seen steam coming from underground vents there.

That's the result of rerouting the hot air from the Capitol building.

Nicolas
2007-Jan-04, 08:23 AM
so alien spacecraft actually do disappear in thin air...

Occam
2007-Jan-04, 10:04 AM
I'm dumbfounded that this garbage keeps coming back. Is it strictly an ad hominem to say that there are some very self evidently stupid people in the world? Hanger 18, Capricorn One, Alternative 3, blah blah blah. When did people lose the ability to discern fact from fiction? Sigh.

Anyhoo.... I have a question and have scoured this site for an answer, to no avail...
can someone PLEASE tell me what HB actually stands for?

Tog
2007-Jan-04, 10:25 AM
I
Anyhoo.... I have a question and have scoured this site for an answer, to no avail...
can someone PLEASE tell me what HB actually stands for?

Happy Bunnies
Hoosiers=Basketball
Hoax Believers
Hobo Bashers
Horrific Blunders
Homogeneous Beer
Huge Brains
Hi Bob
The softness rating of pencil lead between 1 and 2
Herbivorous Bovine
Homeopathic Brainwashing

One of them is bound to be right. When in doubt, pick "C" :D

Maksutov
2007-Jan-04, 12:13 PM
What happened to valeriuginghina (http://www.bautforum.com/member.php?u=12610)?

Abducted and held hostage at Hanger 18?

Or 17 or 19, plus or minus 1?

Or under the care of Hungerdunger the 18st?

http://www.cosgan.de/images/smilie/verschiedene/f038.gif

Bob B.
2007-Jan-04, 01:21 PM
can someone PLEASE tell me what HB actually stands for?
Hoax Believer.

The term is generally used in reference to those who believe the Apollo moon landings were a hoax.

Nicolas
2007-Jan-04, 02:08 PM
And added to that, it is NOT meant as an insult. The only thing remotely related to that, is that it is sometimes used in a generalisation.

Occam
2007-Jan-04, 06:36 PM
Thanks - why, I asked myself, are these people being called pencils?... and surely they are more like 2B's, anyway. :D

PetersCreek
2007-Jan-04, 07:50 PM
I have to wonder about the link to WPAFB. That was my hometown. My sister said where my mom worked on the base she would see steam coming from under ground vents and thought that was where they kept the spacecraft.

Is it supposed to be a steam-powered UFO?

My guess is that the explanation is much more mundane. I was never stationed at WPAFB but at least one base to which I was assigned, Seymour Johnson AFB in North Carolina, had a steam plant. It fed pipes all over the place, including our maintenance hangars, to be used for heating. We had a few grates and vents that steamed on occasion, too. With WPAFB being in a somewhat colder climate, I wouldn't be surprised if they were similarly equipped.

Regarding your beliefs about cryogenic experimentation, it's my experience the the vapors associated with such behave differently than steam...noticeably so.

Count Zero
2007-Jan-05, 02:38 AM
Thanks - why, I asked myself, are these people being called pencils?... and surely they are more like 2B's, anyway. :D

No, they are not 2Bs.



;)

maryccc
2007-Jan-05, 02:48 AM
As far as I can tell, "Hangar 18" is supposed to be located at the Groom Lake facility (Area 51). It was also a 1980 movie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080836/) flop (as well as a Megadeth song, and hip-hop group). I can't tell if the ideas about the hangar came from the movie, or the idea for the movie came from existing conspiracy theories.

Here's a page with a couple pictures (http://ufo.whipnet.org/area.51/structures/hangar18.html), and it indicates that the size is 300x300x100 feet. :shrug:

Hangar 18 is supposedly at WPAFB. I grew up in that area. I recently saw the documentary about it on the History Channel and was surprised by it seeing as it was so close to home.

Gillianren
2007-Jan-05, 02:58 AM
No, they are not 2Bs.



;)

[groan]

Actually, I used to have a storage unit the entry door of which I remembered because it was 2A (not 2B).

Occam
2007-Jan-05, 03:02 AM
No, they are not 2Bs.



;)

That is the question.
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous Sibrel :lol:

maryccc
2007-Jan-05, 03:09 AM
Thank you Mary. We do a stage act too, and we can dance and sing.

Welcome to the board.
Thanks I must have missed the introduction board. I'm still looking for it. I'd like to see that stage act too.

Sam5
2007-Jan-05, 03:14 AM
I'm dumbfounded that this garbage keeps coming back. Is it strictly an ad hominem to say that there are some very self evidently stupid people in the world? Hanger 18, Capricorn One, Alternative 3, blah blah blah. When did people lose the ability to discern fact from fiction?

I think with some of them, it was around 1953.

Nowhere Man
2007-Jan-05, 03:19 AM
Thanks - why, I asked myself, are these people being called pencils?... and surely they are more like 2B's, anyway. :D

No, not pencils. Most of them aren't terribly sharp, the sharp ones don't have any lead, and pretty much all of them are pointless. It's a complete write-off.

Fred

Count Zero
2007-Jan-05, 05:08 AM
I think with some of them, it was around 1953.

:think: Actually, it was the night of October 30, 1938. :p

Neverfly
2007-Jan-05, 06:07 AM
Alternative 3 LOL that ones a Riot

Occam
2007-Jan-05, 08:34 AM
Alternative 3 LOL that ones a Riot
I was 20 when Alternative 3 was broadcast in 1977. I knew it was a put-on after about 5 minutes. Of course, the date was April 1st, so that was a bit of a hint. The interview with the fake lunar astronaut should have been a giveaway, I thought, but here we are 30 years later and some people still believe it's true.
The producers rode the infamy for a while. After the public outcry, Anglia TV forced them to air a retraction and show the programme again. In 1978, however, they issued the Book of the same name which expanded the conspiracy and explained away the retraction as another cover-up. I still have the book which is published under the World Affairs/Speculation category rather than fiction. That in itself is amazing, since it is clearly fiction and reads like a bad novel. Here is a snippet....

Clements groaned, exasperated "Surely that clinches it"
Godwin slowly shook his head. "No, Chris, not as far as I'm concerned. It's just more theory, that's all it is"
"But Fergus, it all fits! Gerstein and Broadbent - each a top man in his own field - both suggesting some sort of secret co-operation in space between the super-powers"

Gripping stuff! How can you not believe? :D

Sigma_Orionis
2007-Jan-05, 01:43 PM
Is it supposed to be a steam-powered UFO?

Yes, it's obvious that the Aliens that crashed at Roswell used an Aeolipile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile) as the power source for their craft, even the Wikipedia agrees with me :D

Sam5
2007-Jan-05, 11:54 PM
:think: Actually, it was the night of October 30, 1938. :p

I read somewhere that back in the 1920s, when US radio was first getting off the ground, some radio technician claimed to be receiving radio signals from Mars, and I think the New York Times wrote some articles about it.

Sam5
2007-Jan-05, 11:57 PM
1924:

http://earlyradiohistory.us/mars.htm

Bob B.
2007-Jan-06, 12:21 AM
I read somewhere that back in the 1920s, when US radio was first getting off the ground, some radio technician claimed to be receiving radio signals from Mars, and I think the New York Times wrote some articles about it.
It's been said that Guglielmo Marconi tried to listen for radio signals from Mars, though I don't know how much truth there is to the story.

Sam5
2007-Jan-06, 01:48 AM
It's been said that Guglielmo Marconi tried to listen for radio signals from Mars, though I don't know how much truth there is to the story.

I've got some old books and during the 19th Century it was commonly believed by some writers that all the planets were inhabited. I haven't found too many scientists who wrote about that, but a lot of popular science writers did. So I guess by the 1920s radio was advanced enough so that some radio people might think they could receive some signals from Mars. I guess it was like the SETI experiments of its day.