The question du jour, though early, is a fascinating one: Why are there persistent rumors, stories, and even pictures of massive boring machines floating around the Internet – all clustered around the notion of “secret bases?”
An email from our friend warhammer is on point: What is it about EMP, nuclear threats, and such that drives government to turn mole and dig deeply?
George,
The data center highlighted in this article, Boyers, PA, is a short drive from my residence.
<http://www.computerworld.com/article/2606378/new-data-center-protects-against-solar-storms-and-nuclear-emps.html>The article describes what is essentially a Faraday cage, which has been used for decades to shield electronic emissions from classified sources from getting ‘out’ to where prying ears can pick them up. This one prevent EMP from getting ‘in.’
One key fact is left out of the article, which is that much of Boyers is already underground.Having 220′ of earth and rock above and copper shielding surrounding the data center area, nothing short of a direct asteroid hit, H-bomb attack or global flood will immobilize Boyers.
Astute observers might see a pattern emerging – Raven Rock (Site ‘R’) and other alternate U.S. Government facilities such as Cheyenne Mountain and Denver Int’l, both in CO, Boyers/Iron Mountain Corp., PA, Fort Greeley, AK, Fort Huachuca, AZ, China Lake, Naval Air Station, CA, Dulce Base, NM, Los Alamos, NM and “many, many more. Why all the digging? Is the U.S. Government merely preparing for the unthinkable or do they actually know something we don’t?
Don’t forget the Svalbard Global Seed Vault in Norway, the vegetation version of Noah’s Ark.
My humble opinion? Valuable resources are not typically expended on the ‘unthinkable.’ Some plausible information must lay at the root of the subterranean real estate craze.
Or is that “real estate crazy” that rational government leaders find it necessary to spend tremendous amounts of time and money preparing to survive.some type of destruction from above (whether natural, man made, or ‘other’).
A familiar saying states that if you want to find out the truth regarding any covert op, “follow the money.” While classified programs can cover their expenses through congressional exemption, plotting the web of underground facilities across the nation (and the globe) can provide the arm chair researcher with many key pieces to a very mysterious puzzle.
Cheers,
Dulce base, in particular is a vexing one: What’s out there?
A couple of years back, we heard about unidentified air traffic that moved at incredible speeds and (after leaving the Denver ATC track, was on course for Dulce’s vicinity before blipping off radar) and have wondered if all-night shift workers in New Mexico might have some interesting accounts. Or, our friends with the castle up near “ground-zero” for cattle mutilations, west of Trinidad, Colorado.
One of these days, if you’re looking to do a real public service, a visit to the MUFON or other UFO reporting database might yield some interesting results if you plot the locations against population densities of sighting areas.
Logic argues that if UFOs are a ‘mass hysteria’ kind of phenomena, that we should see the density of reports roughly (although noisily) track pop density.
But last time I inspected a small sample, best I can recall, the sightings and rumors were very much weighted to the low pop-density areas.
SOME of that might be attributable to “city loom” and “light pollution”, but one of the things that operations like PRISM are slowly teaching even the recreation web-thinkers, is to begin to appreciate that there is often truth hidden in large data sets.
And, mulling the note from warhammer, there may be a good bit to be learnt from a serious pass through some of the large data sets looking for highest congruence between sighting areas.
Readers Writes: Not a Space Race, A Space Waste
Yesterday’s notes on the money that is being spent on landing a probe (Rosetta Comet) rubbed a number of readers the wrong way. Maybe I didn’t express myself clearly enough…hence some critical mail – like this from reader Robb:
Morning George,
Your rant on that money was sad, research is what built “this” world & landing a probe on an asteroid is research. I’m not sure what spending the money in some small MO town would do other than be a fine point in an argument about what a waste it is.
My govt sends billions of borrowed tax dollars everywhere, I’d rather see it spent on rocket fuel, hardware & salaries here that put in a
C-141 as shrink wrapped $100 bills and given away.
Sad.
Fine point! So glad you raised it!
My bitch is not with “spending money on space.” Nor have I ever shied from development of new technologies.
But I’ve had to be a hard-nosed management type in the past and when there is money spent, there’s usually a road-map to some future objective.
Now, maybe I missed it, but I don’t see the product migration plan on this one. If we were going to set off a nuke and see if we could break it up, peachy. But to land on a rock that has a 99.9% chance of being some combo of the same crap Earth and Moon are made of…well, that just doesn’t excite me.
Come on, Robb! Get on the page with me here: That amount of money, put into domestic programs, economic thinking, and so forth, really would make a difference., Yes, we could create a lot of millionaires, but the large point was we could have a spending agenda that would make sense in terms of developing our most important product – people.
Stimulating communities or whole countries into self-sufficiency6 seems to me a batter payoff than landing on a distant comet, but no one asked, did they?
As luck would have it, this is being done by the EU, so it’s not the real-world case. But in an increasingly complex world, we are left with almost meaningless votes every two to six years where we elect (harshly) idiots who don’t publish a “pathway toi the future” like the CFR or Club of Rome do.
No, increasing welfare by a few bucks a month won’t help, but planning economic development (or transitioning the whole world to a 20-hour work week) might be an interesting alternative is my point. Owning a comet rock? Doh…
One other fair criticism (reader Les):
Just a slight reality check here George.
Way back in the 60’s I was in the space industry. Sure, Billions were spent but keep in mind that all of that money, except the actual cost of the material that went into space to never return, went into the pockets from the janitor on up to the technicians, engineers, managers and so on. Sure there was some ‘skim off’ as we all know is still going on today but the bottom line IMHO is that there was and still is money put in the pockets of those who still have jobs. So even though this land on a comet probe has a cost of $1.68B most of that money stayed here on earth in the hands of those who had the jobs to build it and those who now collect and analyze the data.
Exactly! And here we get to my point:
Whose pockets did that money get shuffled into? The 99 Percenters or the 1 Percenters?
That was (and continues) to be my point: We have a spending agenda that pads the corporate agenda more so than the humanist agenda. But then (sadly) there hasn’t been a Humans United case from the Supreme Court, has there?
Of, might something else be going on? Might there be (behind the curtain of public relations) some large-scale/global threat to humans that is hidden both above (as in Rosetta landing) and below as in Morlocking and moling?
Ah the joys of Big Data: The (new & improved) curtail behind which the Wizard lurks.
More Thursday – be sure and bring friends… Peoplenomics looks at old and new ways to get rich in tomorrow’s report…
George george@ure.net