Underground Bases

and Tunnels

_____________________________

The first section of this page was written by Phil Schneider:

Photo of United States Air Force tunnel boring machine at Little Skull Mountain,
Nevada, USA, December 1982. There are many rumors of secret military tunnels in
the United States. If the rumors are true, machines such as the one shown here are
used to make the tunnels. (Source: U.S. Department of Energy.)

This is a CHF 12.52 million tunnel boring machine (TBM) used for tunneling at the
Nevada Test Site. (Remember that Area 51 is part of the test site.) Many other types
of TBMs are used by many government agencies, including the 'nuclear powered
TBM' [NTBM] that melts solid rock and leaves behind glass-like walls.
Most tunneling activity is under military installations and all information is highly
restricted. Former employees of said facilities have surfaced over the years to talk of
massive underground installations in places like Area 51, the Northrop facility in
Antelope Valley, California (rumored to have 42 levels), and the Lockheed installation
near Edwards, California.

The 'Black Budget' currently consumes CHF 1.2 trillion per year. At least this amount
is used in black programs, like those concerned with deep underground military
bases. Presently, there are 129 deep underground military bases in the United
States. They have been building these 129 bases day and night, unceasingly, since
the early 1940's. Some of them were built even earlier than that. These bases are
basically large cities underground connected by high-speed magneto-leviton trains
that have speeds up to Mach 2. Several books have been written about this activity.

The average depth of these bases is over a mile, and they again are basically whole
cities underground. They all are between 2.66 and 4.25 cubic miles in size. They
have laser-drilling machines that can drill a tunnel seven miles long in one day. I was
involved in building an addition to the deep underground military base at Dulce,
which is probably the deepest base. It goes down seven levels and over 2.5 miles
deep. I helped hollow out more than 13 deep underground military bases in the
United States.

_____________________________

More thought-provoking images of tunnel boring equipment:

_____________________________

From Dr Bill Deagle's December 2006 Granada Forum Lecture:

I took care of John Fialla, who was best friends with Phil Schneider. How many
people know about Phil Schneider? Well, they were using tunneling machines back in
the mid-90s that could tunnel through a rock face at seven miles per day, that could
cut through a rock face with high-energy impact lasers that could blow the nano-
sized particles of rock so that there was no debris left, forming an obsidian-like core,
and laying an inner core for unidirectional maglev trains that travel at Mach 2 to 2.8
underground between these very very powerful and organized cities.

There's 132 under the United States, an average of 5.36 to 7.24 cubic miles in size at
an average of 1.5 to 4.5 miles underground, built, by and large, most of them in
areas away from geotectonic areas - but there's going to be lots of new geotectonic
faults established when you have force 11, 12, 13, 14 earthquakes hit the Earth.

Why are they rushing to do this? Because they know that catastrophe is coming. And
where's this money coming from? It's not coming from our regular Black Op budget.
It's coming from the illegal sale of drugs. In the United States there's at least, by
conservative estimates, a quarter of a trillion to a half a trillion of illegal drugs just
sold in the United States that goes directly into underground budgets, and 90-95%
goes to the DUMBs [Deep Underground Military Bases].

_____________________________

The following was written by Richard Sauder, PhD, adapted from his book
Underground Bases and Tunnels:
The nuclear subterrene (rhymes with 'submarine') was designed at the Los Alamos
National Laboratory, in New Mexico. A number of patents were filed by scientists at
Los Alamos, a few federal technical documents were written - and then the whole
thing just sort of faded away.

Or did it?

Nuclear subterrenes work by melting their way through the rock and soil, actually
vitrifying it as they go, and leaving a neat, solidly glass-lined tunnel behind them.

The heat is supplied by a compact nuclear reactor that circulates liquid lithium from
the reactor core to the tunnel face, where it melts the rock. In the process of melting
the rock the lithium loses some of its heat. It is then circulated back along the
exterior of the tunneling machine to help cool the vitrified rock as the tunneling
machine forces its way forward. The cooled lithium then circulates back to the reactor
where the whole cycle starts over. In this way the nuclear subterrene slices through
the rock like a nuclear powered, 2,000 degree Fahrenheit (1,100 Celsius) earthworm,
boring its way deep underground.

The United States Atomic Energy Commission and the United States Energy Research
and Development Administration took out Patents in the 1970s for nuclear
subterrenes. The first patent, in 1972 went to the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.

The nuclear subterrene has an advantage over mechanical TBMs in that it produces
no muck that must be disposed of by conveyors, trains, trucks, etc. This greatly
simplifies tunneling. If nuclear subterrenes actually exist (and I do not know if they
do) their presence, and the tunnels they make, could be very hard to detect, for the
simple reason that there would not be the tell-tale muck piles or tailings dumps that
are associated with the conventional tunneling activities.

The 1972 patent makes this clear. It states:

"... (D)ebris may be disposed of as melted rock both as a lining for the
hole and as a dispersal in cracks produced in the surrounding rock. The
rock-melting drill is of a shape and is propelled under sufficient pressure
to produce and extend cracks in solid rock radially around the bore by
means of hydrostatic pressure developed in the molten rock ahead of the
advancing rock drill penetrator. All melt not used in glass-lining the bore is
forced into the cracks where it freezes and remains ...

"... Such a (vitreous) lining eliminates, in most cases, the expensive and
cumbersome problem of debris elimination and at the same time achieves
the advantage of a casing type of bore hole liner."
(U.S. Patent No. 3,693,731 dated Sept. 26, 1972)

There you have it: a tunneling machine that creates no muck, and leaves a smooth,
vitreous (glassy) tunnel lining behind.

Another patent three years later was for:

A tunneling machine for producing large tunnels in soft rock or wet,

clayey, unconsolidated or bouldery earth by simultaneously detaching the
tunnel core by thermal melting a boundary kerf into the tunnel face and
forming a supporting excavation wall liner by deflecting the molten
materials against the excavation walls to provide, when solidified, a
continuous wall supporting liner, and detaching the tunnel face
circumscribed by the kerf with powered mechanical earth detachment
means and in which the heat required for melting the kerf and liner
material is provided by a compact nuclear reactor.

This 1975 patent further specifies that the machine is intended to excavate tunnels
up to 12 meters in diameter or more. This means tunnels of 40 ft. or more in
diameter. The kerf is the outside boundary of the tunnel wall that a boring machine
gouges out as it bores through the ground or rock. So, in ordinary English, this
machine will melt a circular boundary into the tunnel face. The melted rock will be
forced to the outside of the tunnel by the tunnel machine, where it will form a hard,
glassy tunnel lining (see the appropriate detail in the patent itself, as shown in
Illustration 41). At the same time, mechanical tunnel boring equipment will grind up
the rock and soil detached by the melted kerf and pass it to the rear of the machine
for disposal by conveyor, slurry pipeline, etc.

And yet a third patent was issued to the United States Energy Research and
Development Administration just 21 days later, on 27 May 1975 for a machine
remarkably similar to the machine patented on 6 May 1975. The abstract describes:

A tunneling machine for producing large tunnels in rock by progressive

detachment of the tunnel core by thermal melting a boundary kerf into the
tunnel face and simultaneously forming an initial tunnel wall support by
deflecting the molten materials against the tunnel walls to provide, when
solidified, a continuous liner; and fragmenting the tunnel core
circumscribed by the kerf by thermal stress fracturing and in which the
heat required for such operations is supplied by a compact nuclear
reactor.

This machine would also be capable of making a glass-lined tunnel of 40 ft. in

diameter or more.

Perhaps some of my readers have heard the same rumors that I have heard swirling
in the UFO literature and on the UFO grapevine: stories of deep, secret, glass-walled
tunnels excavated by laser powered tunneling machines. I do not know if these
stories are true. If they are, however, it may be that the glass-walled tunnels are
made by the nuclear subterrenes described in these patents. The careful reader will
note that all of these patents were obtained by agencies of the United States
government. Further, all but one of the inventors are from Los Alamos, New Mexico.
Of course, Los Alamos National Lab is itself the subject of considerable rumors about
underground tunnels and chambers, Little Greys or "EBEs", and various other covert
goings-on.

A 1973 Los Alamos study entitled Systems and Cost Analysis for a Nuclear
Subterrene Tunneling Machine: A Preliminary Study, concluded that nuclear
subterrene tunneling machines (NSTMs) would be very cost effective, compared to
conventional TBMs.
It stated:

Tunneling costs for NSTMs are very close to those for TBMs, if operating
conditions for TBMs are favorable. However, for variable formations and
unfavorable conditions such as soft, wet, bouldery ground or very hard
rock, the NSTMs are far more effective. Estimates of cost and percentage
use of NSTMs to satisfy U.S. transportation tunnel demands indicate a
potential cost savings of 850 million dollars (CHF 1,896.02) throughout
1990. An estimated NSTM prototyCHF 96.29pe demonstration cost of
million over an eight-year period results in a favorable benefit-to-cost
ratio of 8.5.

...Was the 1973 feasibility study only idle speculation, and is the astonishingly
similar patent two years later only a wild coincidence? As many a frustrated inventor
will tell you, the U.S. Patent Office only issues the paperwork when it's satisfied that
the thing in question actually works!

In 1975 the National Science Foundation commissioned another cost analysis of the
nuclear subterrene. The A.A. Mathews Construction and Engineering Company of
Rockville, Maryland produced a comprehensive report with two, separate, lengthy
appendices, one 235 and the other 328 pages.

A.A. Mathews calculated costs for constructing three different sized tunnels in the
Southern California area in 1974. The three tunnel diameters were:

a) 3.05 meters (10 ft.)

b) 4.73 meters (15.5 ft.)
c) 6.25 meters (20.5 ft.)

Comparing the cost of using NSTMs to the cost of mechanical TBMs, A.A. Mathews
determined:

Savings of 12 percent for the 4.73 meter (15.5 ft.) tunnel and 6 percent
for the 6.25 meter (20.5 foot) tunnel were found to be possible using the
NSTM as compared to current methods. A penalty of 30 percent was found
for the 3.05 meter (10 foot) tunnel using the NSTM. The cost advantage
for the NSTM results from the combination of,

(a) a capital rather than labor intensive system,

(b) formation of both initial support and final lining in
conjunction with the excavation process.

This report has a number of interesting features. It is noteworthy in the first place
that the government commissioned such a lengthy and detailed analysis of the cost
 of operating a nuclear subterrenes. Just as intriguing is the fact that the study found
that the tunnels in the 15 ft. to 20 ft. diameter range can be more economically
excavated by NSTMs than by conventional TBMs.

Finally, the southern California location that was chosen for tunneling cost analysis
is thought provoking. This is precisely one of the regions of the West where there is
rumored to be a secret tunnel system. Did the A.A. Mathews study represent part of
the planning for an actual covert tunneling project that was subsequently carried
out, when it was determined that it was more cost effective to use NSTMs than
mechanical TBMs?

Whether or not nuclear subterrene tunneling machines have been used, or are being
used, for subterranean tunneling is a question I cannot presently answer.

__________________________

Support Project Camelot - make a donation: Bill Ryan and Kerry Cassidy

Donations are not tax deductible for U.S. citizens kerry@projectcamelot.org

Thank you for your help. bill@projectcamelot.org

Your generosity enables us to continue our work.