I spoke to a lead person at NASA the other day who will remain anonymous for obvious reasons, but he has given me some very delicate information. Has anyone noticed the recent surge in smashing spacecraft into the moon? Why would anyone want to smash a perfectly good spacecraft into the moon and waste it's valuable skills in gathering astronomical infromation? The answer: to cover up the fact that we never ever landed on the moon. Think about it, when we do actually go to the moon in a few years people will want to see the old evidence that we were there before. So how do we get rid of that evidence? We smash probes and SMART-ONEs into potential landing sites. That way, when the astronaughts get there, "Oops, looks like we crashed a probe where the old landing site was and everying had been smashed into smitherines and we no longer have anymore proof." It's the perfect plan, that is, until i just exposed it. Looks like NASA tried to pull a fast one on us and ruin our perfectly perfect conspiracy theory. Looks like it's time for NASA to go back to the drawing board to find a new way to pull the wool over our eyes... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="3">You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard!</font></p> </div>
- Status
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I spoke to a lead person at NASA the other day who will remain anonymous for obvious reasons, but he has given me some very delicate information. Has anyone noticed the recent surge in smashing spacecraft into the moon? Why would anyone want to smash a perfectly good spacecraft into the moon and waste it's valuable skills in gathering astronomical infromation? The answer: to cover up the fact that we never ever landed on the moon. Think about it, when we do actually go to the moon in a few years people will want to see the old evidence that we were there before. So how do we get rid of that evidence? We smash probes and SMART-ONEs into potential landing sites. That way, when the astronaughts get there, "Oops, looks like we crashed a probe where the old landing site was and everying had been smashed into smitherines and we no longer have anymore proof." It's the perfect plan, that is, until i just exposed it. Looks like NASA tried to pull a fast one on us and ruin our perfectly perfect conspiracy theory. Looks like it's time for NASA to go back to the drawing board to find a new way to pull the wool over our eyes... <br />Posted by brandbll</DIV><br /><br />this is a joke right?</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>this is a joke right? <br />Posted by rubicondsrv</DIV><br /><br />An anonymous man endangereed his life to get us this information and you think it's a joke. No sir, the joke is obviously on you and the deliverer of that joke is none other than NASA. Just think about the information i gave to you. Doesn't it make absolutely perfect sense? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="3">You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard!</font></p> </div>
What worries me about this new information is the obvious tie in between NASA, the Lunokhod programme, <span>चन्द्रयान-१, and the chinese.</span>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> ... Has anyone noticed the recent surge in smashing spacecraft into the moon? Why would anyone want to smash a perfectly good spacecraft into the moon and waste it's valuable skills in gathering astronomical infromation? The answer: to cover up the fact that we never ever landed on the moon. Think about it, when we do actually go to the moon in a few years people will want to see the old evidence that we were there before. So how do we get rid of that evidence? We smash probes and SMART-ONEs into potential landing sites. That way, when the astronaughts get there, "Oops, looks like we crashed a probe where the old landing site was and everying had been smashed into smitherines and we no longer have anymore proof." ... <br /> Posted by brandbll</DIV></p><p>The Apollo moon hoax theory has been completely debunked so many times now, including here at SDC, that I, like Rubicondsrv, find it hard to believe that this is not a joke, especially coming from yourself brandbll, a long-time member at SDC. </p><p>To comment on the part of your post that I quoted, I don't understand this "smashing spacecraft into the moon to cover up the hoax" theory. Surely, people would not believe that <em>everything</em> had been destroyed c<em>ompletely</em> - it would still be suggested that there should at least be <em>some</em> fragments of Apollo left, wouldn't it? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <h1 style="margin:0pt;font-size:12px">----------------------------------------------------- </h1><p><font color="#800000"><em>Lady Nancy Astor: "Winston, if you were my husband, I'd poison your tea."<br />Churchill: "Nancy, if you were my wife, I'd drink it."</em></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Website / forums </strong></font></p> </div>
I recently levitated an armadillo to the Moon. Without much aiming on my part it hit the Apollo 13 landing site. May have been unlucky but perhaps it's da alienz manipulating gravity feilds that's doing it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>... Doesn't it make absolutely perfect sense? Posted by brandbll</DIV></p><p>Uh.. No.</p><p>SNAP OUT OF IT MAN!</p><p><br /> <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/7/7/b75be91b-ea77-49e0-87b4-9dc7257588c0.Medium.jpg" alt="" /><br /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I recently levitated an armadillo to the Moon. Without much aiming on my part it hit the Apollo 13 landing site. May have been unlucky but perhaps it's da alienz manipulating gravity feilds that's doing it. <br />Posted by Mee_n_Mac</DIV></p><p>Haha, I was so focused on the armadillo I missed the other bit. You slip anything past me if you flash an armadillo at the appropriate moment.<br /></p>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I spoke to a lead person at NASA the other day who will remain anonymous for obvious reasons, but he has given me some very delicate information. Has anyone noticed the recent surge in smashing spacecraft into the moon? Why would anyone want to smash a perfectly good spacecraft into the moon and waste it's valuable skills in gathering astronomical infromation? The answer: to cover up the fact that we never ever landed on the moon. Think about it, when we do actually go to the moon in a few years people will want to see the old evidence that we were there before. So how do we get rid of that evidence? We smash probes and SMART-ONEs into potential landing sites. That way, when the astronaughts get there, "Oops, looks like we crashed a probe where the old landing site was and everying had been smashed into smitherines and we no longer have anymore proof." It's the perfect plan, that is, until i just exposed it. Looks like NASA tried to pull a fast one on us and ruin our perfectly perfect conspiracy theory. Looks like it's time for NASA to go back to the drawing board to find a new way to pull the wool over our eyes... <br />Posted by brandbll</DIV></p><p>After enduring that endless thread started by Michael Mozina it is certainly refreshing to see something as well-reasoned and as solid as this. Not.</p><p>Some people ought to have to pay for air. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p>Brandbll, if that is what he said, he was pulling your leg. I wish people who should know better wouldn't do this sort of thing, as it just helps perpetuate a stupid myth and therefore helps perpetuate the cumulative stupidity of the human race.</p><p>The argument doesn't even work properly. Conspiracy theorists would have <em>a field day</em> if all the Apollo sites were "inadvertantly" erased from existence by NASA, it would only add weight to their warped theories. And as others have said, there would be no way to completely destroy all the evidence anyway. </p><p>So, the idea that NASA might, whilst knowing that there are actually no Apollo landing sites on the moon, send probes to smash the areas where the landings were alleged to have occured in such a way that would supposedly destroy ALL evidence we were there in the first place, in order to make people believe we <strong>were</strong> there in the first place is.. is.. beyond stupid. It is so not right that it's not even wrong!</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Brandbll, if that is what he said, he was pulling your leg. I wish people who should know better wouldn't do this sort of thing, as it just helps perpetuate a stupid myth and therefore helps perpetuate the cumulative stupidity of the human race. Posted by <strong>SpeedFreek</strong></DIV><br /><br />What, he wuz pullin our legz ! OMG noes, do not say it. So much fur hiz chances of Supine Moderator. </p><p> </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>To comment on the part of your post that I quoted, I don't understand this "smashing spacecraft into the moon to cover up the hoax" theory. Surely, people would not believe that everything had been destroyed completely - it would still be suggested that there should at least be some fragments of Apollo left, wouldn't it? <br />Posted by Smersh</DIV><br /><br />That's an excellent question. Ok, so we all know that the US hasn't been able to locate Osama Bin Laden, right? Well why not? Why can't tehy find him? The answer, to provide nuclear weapons to the US so that we can put them on the probes so that we can incinerate everything that would be in that area. You see, if we use our nuclear weapons people would get suspicious and would know where they were used. So, we set up 9/11 so that Osama Bin Laden becomes this figure that we would never associate ourselves with. We then buy nuclear weapons from him that he purchased off the black market, which no one would suspect us of doing since he is our arch enemy. We use those nuclear weapons, attach them to the probes, and then blow them up as the probes hit the lunar surface making the impact craters enormous and impossible to find anything even if it was there. And so the rabbit hole deepens... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="3">You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard!</font></p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That's an excellent question. Ok, so we all know that the US hasn't been able to locate Osama Bin Laden, right? Well why not? Why can't tehy find him? The answer, to provide nuclear weapons to the US so that we can put them on the probes so that we can incinerate everything that would be in that area. You see, if we use our nuclear weapons people would get suspicious and would know where they were used. So, we set up 9/11 so that Osama Bin Laden becomes this figure that we would never associate ourselves with. We then buy nuclear weapons from him that he purchased off the black market, which no one would suspect us of doing since he is our arch enemy. We use those nuclear weapons, attach them to the probes, and then blow them up as the probes hit the lunar surface making the impact craters enormous and impossible to find anything even if it was there. And so the rabbit hole deepens... <br />Posted by brandbll</DIV><br /><br />nuclear weapons would not be very usefull on the moon.</p><p>there is not enough atmosphere on the moon to form destructive shock waves</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Nice try, these were special nukes developed by the Russians... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="3">You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard!</font></p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Nice try, these were special nukes developed by the Russians... <br /> Posted by brandbll</DIV></p><p>It would be easier for NASA to simply explain, that having been subject to 50 years of constant bombarding by micrometeorites, the landing sites simply turned to dust with almost no man-made artefact left intact... </p>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It would be easier for NASA to simply explain, that having been subject to 50 years of constant bombarding by micrometeorites, the landing sites simply turned to dust with almost no man-made artefact left intact... <br /> </p><p>Posted by <em>aphh</em></DIV></p><p>Of which would result in a minor amount of pitting and scarring of whatever was there, but that's about it.</p><p>I have to add about the OP, the sheer amount of technology and engineering that went into Apollo - which was clearly designed for the transport of humans to and from Luna - is beyond any counter "hoax" explanation. Unless one wants to postulate we were willing to expend such vast amounts of money - and at a time when we were in the Cold War AND active Operations in the RVN - for nothing, which is highly unlikely. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis: </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That's an excellent question. Ok, so we all know that the US hasn't been able to locate Osama Bin Laden, right? Well why not? Why can't tehy find him? The answer, to provide nuclear weapons to the US so that we can put them on the probes so that we can incinerate everything that would be in that area. You see, if we use our nuclear weapons people would get suspicious and would know where they were used. So, we set up 9/11 so that Osama Bin Laden becomes this figure that we would never associate ourselves with. We then buy nuclear weapons from him that he purchased off the black market, which no one would suspect us of doing since he is our arch enemy. We use those nuclear weapons, attach them to the probes, and then blow them up as the probes hit the lunar surface making the impact craters enormous and impossible to find anything even if it was there. And so the rabbit hole deepens... <br />Posted by brandbll</DIV><br /><br />Uh, whoa dude - you need to take a rest and get a grip. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p>Gads! This final piece of evidence makes it all so clear. I, for one, am convinced! </p><p>Have to go take my lithium now....</p>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That's an excellent question. Ok, so we all know that the US hasn't been able to locate Osama Bin Laden, right? Well why not? Why can't tehy find him? The answer, to provide nuclear weapons to the US so that we can put them on the probes so that we can incinerate everything that would be in that area. You see, if we use our nuclear weapons people would get suspicious and would know where they were used. So, we set up 9/11 so that Osama Bin Laden becomes this figure that we would never associate ourselves with. We then buy nuclear weapons from him that he purchased off the black market, which no one would suspect us of doing since he is our arch enemy. We use those nuclear weapons, attach them to the probes, and then blow them up as the probes hit the lunar surface making the impact craters enormous and impossible to find anything even if it was there. And so the rabbit hole deepens... <br />Posted by <strong>brandbll</strong></DIV><br /><br />R U goin to blowz up my armadillo ? Sounds like U B lukin for job az Supine Eviscerator. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Of which would result in a minor amount of pitting and scarring of whatever was there, but that's about it.<br /> Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>Do we know this for certain? Do we have actual data of inspection of items exposed to moon for 50 years?</p><p>I mean, if we're going to go back to stay, I would think studying artefacts for the long term exposure to Moon conditions would be interesting.</p><p>This means we would actually need to return to the Apollo bases, either by robots or a man, to see how they fared. Even bring something back to examine in a lab.<br /> </p><p>I don't see such motivation mentioned as a reason to study the moon. Am I missing something here? </p>
<p>I think the OP is just yanking chains here but for those lurkers out there that are even giving this rather lame CT variant consideration you'll need to elevate the conspiracy beyond merely NASA and make it a global one to explain why independent parties that tracked the Apollo missions didn't blow the whistle.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think the OP is just yanking chains here but for those lurkers out there that are even giving this rather lame CT variant consideration you'll need to elevate the conspiracy beyond merely NASA and make it a global one to explain why independent parties that tracked the Apollo missions didn't blow the whistle. <br />Posted by archer17</DIV><br /><br />The Russians didn't blow the whistle on the hoax because they knew that one day Osama Bin Laden would buy some of their 'special moon nukes' to destroy the landing sites that don't exist. Diabolical, isn't it?</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><span style="border-collapse:collapse;font-size:13px" class="Apple-style-span"><span style="font-weight:bold" class="Apple-style-span"><span style="font-style:italic" class="Apple-style-span">Ok, so we all know that the US hasn't been able to locate Osama Bin Laden, right? Well why not? Why can't tehy find him? </span></span></span></p><p>Hmmm, this must tie in to the OP somehow...... I know! Osama is <span style="font-weight:bold" class="Apple-style-span"><span style="font-style:italic" class="Apple-style-span">hiding</span></span> on the moon, right? <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-tongue-out.gif" border="0" alt="Tongue out" title="Tongue out" /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<strong>Moon hoax? What moon hoax? Are you saying the moon doesn't exist? Are we imagining it? The moon is a hoax? Who perpetrated this hoax? There's no moon? If there's no moon then what is that thing up in the sky? I think the Obama administration should get to the bottom of this as soon as they're done unpacking.</strong> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
TRENDING THREADS
-
Watch the Full Pink Moon 2024 bloom in the night sky tonight
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 2
-
NASA's Voyager 1 spacecraft finally phones home after 5 months of no contact
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 2
-
Slovenia signs NASA's Artemis Accords for cooperative space exploration
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
A video made by me about space and the loneliness in the universe- Started by drakotol
- Replies: 54
-
Watch 4 solar flares erupt from the sun at nearly the same time in extremely rare event (video)
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
This is a possible explanation for why ‘c’ interaction is independent of our speed, maybe
- Latest: Classical Motion
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram