Message posted by Gunslinger on November 19, 2000 at 02:33:47 EST:
First off, let me say this: What follows are theories gleaned from other sources. I do very little 'real' work, myself, instead serving as a clearing house and collator of information dealing with all things 'secret'. Having said that: I will not post ANY 'item of interest' unless it has at least TWO seperate supporting facts - and that still falls into the realm of 'Wild Speculation' as far as I'm concerned. However, at least it's something That being the case, here's a bit of info on the 'hidden complex' theory. 1) It IS possible to create underground complexes without any visable signs on the surface AS LONG as there are buildings to mask such details. Obviously, air vents that would stand out in barren land could be hidden within a building itself. In addition, there are ways of removing the dirt from the site so that it's not visable as evidence. 2) Some of the recent work on the base seems starngely hap-hazard and 'make-work'. This would be rare on a privatetly owner corporation's research lot, and is doubly unusual on a military or para-military instilattion, where non-essential installations, (such as guard shacks), and sometimes even ESSENTIAL installations, are patch-work repaired into oblivion before any work is done to replace them. 3) No Government contratc 'exists' for upgrade or maintenance of a facility that, itself, doesn't 'exist', offically. Yet, despite the 'black' nature, money must change hands for the work. the question is - could the information be back-tracked througfh the tax records? Or is there a 'National Security' tax break for these contractors. (And if so, how do I apply!) These points were originally pointed out to me by one individual, then independanetly connected by another. Both, seprate, individuals were using them for an interseting theory, however, one that I have no hard data in any form. Anybody interested in hearing something that I classify as most definale 'wild' can contact me through e-mail...
'concrete'.
Replies: