Conspiracy Theories

Huge

State of Origin Rep
6,855
3,798
Ipswich
Stop with this nosense please. The Russians may well have tried to track the latter "missions to the moon" but still now, it would take a purpose built satellites, pointing away from the earth, not down at the earth. If they tried, they failed. The technology didn't exist. All they know is the running dogs sent a space craft up, and outside of the range of the ve
Tracking the missions wasn't a problem.

Our Parkes radio telescope famously supported receiving the television signals on that momentous day. Although many people think the Parkes telescope was the only station receiving the signal, it was the 26-metre antenna at NASA's Honeysuckle Creek space tracking station near Canberra that was the prime station assigned with receiving the initial TV pictures from the Moon and Neil Armstrong's first steps on the lunar surface. (The Tidbinbillla deep space tracking station, today known as the Canberra Deep Space Communication Complex, provided support to the command module in lunar orbit.)

Eight and a half minutes after those first historic images were broadcast around the world, the television signal being received by the larger 64-metre Parkes radio telescope was then selected by NASA to provide the images for the following two hours and 12 minutes of live broadcast as the Apollo 11 astronauts explored the Moon surface.
 

Eta Carinae

QCup Player
373
56
Confirmed Nashy Nashy

I'll say it again, as you may have missed it the numerous times you're been previously informed. The Russians were up there at the same time. Russia had their equipment pointing up there, tracking and communicating with their own spacecraft. It is this same technology that they used to track and confirm America's efforts. The majority of the equipment was Earth-based, not satellites, hence why Parkes was so pivotal, as the observatories needed a direct line of sight.
What do you mean "confirmed"? The bilderburger group = NWO and it's not real but merely a "conspiracy theory"????? WTF? that is the weirdest thing I have read on here yet! Have they discontinued it? I remember the last one in the UK they had to have the army set up razor wire perimeters and police armed with assault rifles to hold the working class back.

Be so kind as to provide a link with some information regarding this phantom "equipment". Maybe it was a high performance moon walking centre? What other kind of "equipment" did/do they have up there?

Just because you can't physically see the dust in the photos does not mean it wasn't there. It was explained that moon dust is very fine, and also very shallow on the surface of the moon.

Same as above, just because the backgrounds look similar, doesn't mean they're the exact same background. You could go out in the desert, take some photos hundreds of kilometers apart, and it would very likely appear like they were all shot on the exact same spot. It would be even moreso like this on the moon, as there is nothing in the way of vegetation, and the surface appearance is so consistent.
Yes, I know. The magic, reflective dust, except where it isn't magic and reflective"ffffuuuuuuuuuu: allowed the astronots to sink into it and leave deep boot prints but the 100s of times heavier landers miraculously only landed in places where there wasn't any or so little dust they didn't leave any impression at all.

As for the background, this is the problem. Mythbusters and all manner of others (but not NASA. They mostly stick to the script. It couldn't have been faked because the Russians are all-seeing, all-knowing demigods.) say that. Of course it's true. But they are not exactly the fucking same.
All I ever claimed was that Mars was the priority. It still is!
Is that all you claimed?
As to why the plans to return to the moon were abandoned, it appears to me that if they're going to sink further billions, they're more interested in Mars as, unlike the Moon, it holds potential to sustain human life.
Ok:tallica:

He did precisely as you said? Now that you know what NWO stands for, please direct us to the quotes on him saying precisely that. As well as the shadows intersecting at right angles. And the other evidence you claim to have been keeping up your sleeve until your demands have been met.
 

Tom

State of Origin Rep
6,269
5,317
What do you mean "confirmed"? The bilderburger group = NWO and it's not real but merely a "conspiracy theory"????? WTF? that is the weirdest thing I have read on here yet! Have they discontinued it? I remember the last one in the UK they had to have the army set up razor wire perimeters and police armed with assault rifles to hold the working class back.

Be so kind as to provide a link with some information regarding this phantom "equipment". Maybe it was a high performance moon walking centre? What other kind of "equipment" did/do they have up there?



Yes, I know. The magic, reflective dust, except where it isn't magic and reflective"ffffuuuuuuuuuu: allowed the astronots to sink into it and leave deep boot prints but the 100s of times heavier landers miraculously only landed in places where there wasn't any or so little dust they didn't leave any impression at all.

As for the background, this is the problem. Mythbusters and all manner of others (but not NASA. They mostly stick to the script. It couldn't have been faked because the Russians are all-seeing, all-knowing demigods.) say that. Of course it's true. But they are not exactly the fucking same.


Is that all you claimed?


Ok:tallica:



You have a humorous habit of providing links that debunk your own claims.

Still waiting on the link where NASA says they are going to aim hubble at the moon. Also the lady from Perth that picked up the transmissions.
 
Last edited:

Cult3

State of Origin Captain
8,742
5,645
No, no. That is the "Bilderburger group" conspiracy only it's real, not a conspiracy. The idea they used to have homosexual orgies with male prostitutes, rape little boys and etc before their meetings became known outside of a small group of people who were labelled "conspiracy theory nuts" by the general public is a conspiracy theory. I haven't seen any evidence of that if any exists.


Stop with this nosense please. The Russians may well have tried to track the latter "missions to the moon" but still now, it would take a purpose built satellites, pointing away from the earth, not down at the earth. If they tried, they failed. The technology didn't exist. All they know is the running dogs sent a space craft up, and outside of the range of the very few satellites they had monitoring the earth for missile launches or other sentisitve military moves on the earth.


And I didn't claim anyone did. I merely commented on the moon being more reflective than the earth. Of course I know it isn't true but if it were, it's curious that your magic, reflective dust is only reflective sometimes.

Also interesting that just in the places the landing vehicles "landed on the moon" was the only place where there wasn't any dust or extremely minimal dust. Given there isn't any atmosphere for the USA flag to flutter in the wind, I can't understand why the dust isn't uniform all over but that is another story.

Also interesting that the background at different places where "moon landings" took place is exactly the same but that is still another story.


I am correct. So now at least the last 3 USA pigs masquerading as presidents have announced they are going back to the moon. And your little story yesterday is false, as I said it was at the time.

Let's see if it's 3rd time lucky. I have my doubts. You know the much heralded tax-payer funded "Space X" rockets use Russian built engines? I'm not sure what time frame was as I don't have an interest. I've heard it all before. I only saw the headline but if it's in the next term for whichever pig they have masquerading as a president, I very much doubt it will happen. If they set a realistic goal of something like 10~15 years, I would be much more convinced.

Wait a second, didn't you say that Head Russian Space Guy personally had doubts about the moon landing? That doesn't seem consistent with this:

Yes, he did say precisely as I said he did. So he is hedging his bets. As i keep saying, the Russians are not all-seeing, all-knowing demigods. They are just people. They are not certain what the truth is but obviously have doubts.
Is Alex Jones the most famous member we've ever had on BHQ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tom

Morkel

International Captain
20,485
16,738
What do you mean "confirmed"? The bilderburger group = NWO and it's not real but merely a "conspiracy theory"????? WTF? that is the weirdest thing I have read on here yet! Have they discontinued it? I remember the last one in the UK they had to have the army set up razor wire perimeters and police armed with assault rifles to hold the working class back.
No no, they exist. They even have a website.

Be so kind as to provide a link with some information regarding this phantom "equipment". Maybe it was a high performance moon walking centre? What other kind of "equipment" did/do they have up there?
When you say "up there", are you meaning in the sky, or in the Northern Hemisphere?

Just a warning, you may want to put on your tin foil hat before you look at the below:



Yes, I know. The magic, reflective dust, except where it isn't magic and reflective"ffffuuuuuuuuuu: allowed the astronots to sink into it and leave deep boot prints but the 100s of times heavier landers miraculously only landed in places where there wasn't any or so little dust they didn't leave any impression at all.
Interestingly, for such erratic and magical dust, it conforms to all known physics, as per intense computational calculations.

As for the background, this is the problem. Mythbusters and all manner of others (but not NASA. They mostly stick to the script. It couldn't have been faked because the Russians are all-seeing, all-knowing demigods.) say that. Of course it's true. But they are not exactly the fucking same.
So do you have any proof that it is indeed the same background? I'm sure plenty of conspiracy theorists have pored hours over all of the photos. Have they been able to come up with a landmark or distinguishing factor that shows it to be the same? Or is "looks the same, must be the same" all the proof you need?

Is that all you claimed?
Ok:tallica:
Um, yeah, that's what I claimed. That Mars is the priority. Future missions to the Moon (that aren't simply commercial in nature) appear to support this - setting up infrastructure to support missions to Mars. So...

And the quote where he says precisely what you claimed? I must have missed it.
 
Last edited:

Eta Carinae

QCup Player
373
56
No no, they exist. They even have a website.
So NWO is another nefarious group of "elites" (AKA useless leeches) trying to control the world?

When you say "up there", are you meaning in the sky, or in the Northern Hemisphere?

Just a warning, you may want to put on your tin foil hat before you look at the below:

Is that a radio telescope??? It looks like it. Are you saying the Russians tracked the astronots going to the moon and then cruising around on the moon, planting USA flags to flutter in the breeze and etc using a radio telescope???? All you did is provide an image of a radio telelscope. Not sure what that is supposed to mean.

Interestingly, for such erratic and magical dust, it conforms to all known physics, as per intense computational calculations.
Yes, it does all that...... except where it doesn't. That7s why I call it magic and reflective because it's only reflective in some places. And luckily the astronots knew precisely where it was so they could avoid it and not get the landing gear dirty. Would have sucked to clean.

So do you have any proof that it is indeed the same background? I'm sure plenty of conspiracy theorists have pored hours over all of the photos. Have they been able to come up with a landmark or distinguishing factor that shows it to be the same? Or is "looks the same, must be the same" all the proof you need?
No, it looks exactly the same and the contours for one mission perfectly match the contours for another. Like they had a certain background per-prepared and moved the camera over a few meters when recording one "moon landing" from another.

Um, yeah, that's what I claimed. That Mars is the priority. Future missions to the Moon (that aren't simply commercial in nature) appear to support this - setting up infrastructure to support missions to Mars. So...
Well you grasp of the English language is obviously much better than mine. You stated it seems they aren't interested in going to the moon in favor of Mars. I stated that is absolutely incorrect and perhaps less than a hour later, my postion was confirmed. But I have to admit I had an advantage. The all-seeing, all-knowing Russians told the 3rd pig masquerading as a USA president in a row was about to announce tehy are going to the moon.

And the quote where he says precisely what you claimed? I must have missed it.
He said the Russians were going to verify whether the running dogs of American imperialism had put people on the moon. Does that sound like they definitely know?
- Merged

Is Alex Jones the most famous member we've ever had on BHQ?
Never heard of "Alex Jones".
 
Last edited:

Eta Carinae

QCup Player
373
56
Just a warning, you may want to put on your tin foil hat before you look at the below:

Is it even possible to track such a space vessel with a radio telescope? Obviously if it was transmitting a constant stream of radio waves but were the astronots supposedly going to the moon doing that? Usually the are used to research interstellar or intergalactic astronomical phenomena (like Eta.Carinae:happy:) and of course, search for sentient aliens. Interesting they were apparently used to track astronots going to the moon. Poor Buzz. He seemed ok but after he said "We never went (to the moon)", suddenly he was senile and his sons wouldn't allow him to use his own money.

The running dogs of American imperialism and their media lackeys have a habit of doing that. Solzhenistyn was told if the USSR is so bad, GTFO and don't come back and in USA he was a hero with streets named after him. When he got to USA he said basically "this place is fucking worse" and then suddenly he was no longer a hero but had gone senile......
 

Huge

State of Origin Rep
6,855
3,798
Ipswich
Fake news

Yes and anybody who has any interest in the truth knows what Aldrin was talking about. He is saying we didn't go 'there' referring to the 'place' where discussions on keeping going lunar missions was happening. We, the US government didn't go further with the missions due to the ongoing costs and that discussion is what Aldrin referred to as 'there'. Just like a drunken mate being warned by his friend to not comment about his wife's weight (random example) to not 'go there'.
 

Eta Carinae

QCup Player
373
56
Fake news

Really? Seems to me he screwed up, realized he screwed up and then subtly tried to walk it back but I could be wrong. I've never included it in any of the unexplained anomalies. Still, his walk back wasn't enough for the running dogs of American imperialism and their media lackeys. They labelled him "senile" regardless.

Anyway, Morkel Morkel, I'm not being drawn into this conversation for a week! I'm tired of it. I have some other ideas and opinions about the NRL but I spend all my time on this. I'm going to look at the link Porthoz Porthoz posted (though I'm not hopeful it will provide anything original) and the next week revisit the topic.

During that time, please explain to me the background anomalies. I mean, where it's exactly the same or the contours fit perfectly with other missions despite supposedly being 10s or 100s of km away. Looks like they had a background set up and merely moved the camera a few meters over or recorded it from a slightly different angle. Or are you sticking with the Myth Busters nonsense that in fact it's just very uniform. So uniform that it looks exactly the same.

Also, why is the reflective, magical dust only sometimes reflective and magical and for the places where it is reflective and magical, why aren't there several shadows? If it's more reflective or almost as reflective as earth, should be lots of shadows.

To that end, you are sticking with the Myth Busters version about the shadows. Seems completely ridiculous to me. I mean, no one contests shadows should be in perfect symmetry if there is only one source of light but they shouldn't be radically out of symmetry as they are.

Why did one astronot go into a long story about how they were given a lengthy breifing about the Van Allens belts and trained to take precautions (as the NASA document Nashy Nashy provided stated one must) but another astronot didn't have any idea WTF the Van Allens belts were? Too much bourbon whiskey?

More recent, why did the Russians use a radio telescope to track them? Is that even possible? I'm not sure the level of technology back then. I know the smartphone I have in my drawer has 100s of times, if not 1000s, the processing power the astronots used to apparently go to the moon. But I think back then it would be very easy to fool. Just cruise around the earth, send a probe out toward the moon, and relay radio waves from the astronots to the probe and back to the earth.

Finally, can Nashy Nashy or someone in his stead explain to me what the difference between Bilderburgers and NWO is and why it's a "conspiracy theory"? I know for at least 10 years it was but it's been out in the open, common knowledge for over 10 years. Even if it's out in the open, common knowledge, it's still "a conspiracy theory"?

Get back to me on that if you can and ignore any spamming from Huge Huge and Tom Tom.
- Merged

As for dust or lack-thereof where the landers, landed, I'm just going to assume they were very lucky not to land in the dust even though it's apparently all around them.
- Merged

Damit! Nashy Nashy, are my messages being edited again? You say astronaut and I say astro.NOT!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tom

Huge

State of Origin Rep
6,855
3,798
Ipswich
Really? Seems to me he screwed up, realized he screwed up and then subtly tried to walk it back but I could be wrong. I've never included it in any of the unexplained anomalies. Still, his walk back wasn't enough for the running dogs of American imperialism and their media lackeys. They labelled him "senile" regardless.

Anyway, Morkel Morkel, I'm not being drawn into this conversation for a week! I'm tired of it. I have some other ideas and opinions about the NRL but I spend all my time on this. I'm going to look at the link Porthoz Porthoz posted (though I'm not hopeful it will provide anything original) and the next week revisit the topic.

During that time, please explain to me the background anomalies. I mean, where it's exactly the same or the contours fit perfectly with other missions despite supposedly being 10s or 100s of km away. Looks like they had a background set up and merely moved the camera a few meters over or recorded it from a slightly different angle. Or are you sticking with the Myth Busters nonsense that in fact it's just very uniform. So uniform that it looks exactly the same.

Also, why is the reflective, magical dust only sometimes reflective and magical and for the places where it is reflective and magical, why aren't there several shadows? If it's more reflective or almost as reflective as earth, should be lots of shadows.

To that end, you are sticking with the Myth Busters version about the shadows. Seems completely ridiculous to me. I mean, no one contests shadows should be in perfect symmetry if there is only one source of light but they shouldn't be radically out of symmetry as they are.

Why did one astronaut go into a long story about how they were given a lengthy breifing about the Van Allens belts and trained to take precautions (as the NASA document Nashy Nashy provided stated one must) but another astronaut didn't have any idea WTF the Van Allens belts were? Too much bourbon whiskey?

More recent, why did the Russians use a radio telescope to track them? Is that even possible? I'm not sure the level of technology back then. I know the smartphone I have in my drawer has 100s of times, if not 1000s, the processing power the astronots used to apparently go to the moon. But I think back then it would be very easy to fool. Just cruise around the earth, send a probe out toward the moon, and relay radio waves from the astronots to the probe and back to the earth.

Finally, can Nashy Nashy or someone in his stead explain to me what the difference between Bilderburgers and NWO is and why it's a "conspiracy theory"? I know for at least 10 years it was but it's been out in the open, common knowledge for over 10 years. Even if it's out in the open, common knowledge, it's still "a conspiracy theory"?

Get back to me on that if you can and ignore any spamming from Huge Huge and Tom Tom.
- Merged

As for dust or lack-thereof where the landers, landed, I'm just going to assume they were very lucky not to land in the dust even though it's apparently all around them.
- Merged

Damit! Nashy Nashy, are my messages being edited again? You say astronaut and I say astro.NOT!
The admins aren't going to give you unreasonable support. Tom Tom and I aren't spamming as you know. We ask you questions you want to avoid because you cannot support your nonsense. There's hours of footage of all 6 successful moon landings, videos and stills. Evidence galore and irrefutable but you pretend it doesn't exist. Delusional and blinded. Anomalies that aren't when tested with science. Nothing unexplained and easily understood.
 

Tom

State of Origin Rep
6,269
5,317
I'd be happy to stop asking the same questions if Reyter would either answer them or admit that he lied to try and strengthen his argument. He was happy to make the claim, now he has to back it up. Debate skills 101.

Reyter, who was the lady in Perth that picked up on the transmissions? Also could you link me to where NASA said they were going to point hubble at the moon.
 

Porthoz

International Captain
I'd be happy to stop asking the same questions if Reyter would either answer them or admit that he lied to try and strengthen his argument. He was happy to make the claim, now he has to back it up. Debate skills 101.

Reyter, who was the lady in Perth that picked up on the transmissions? Also could you link me to where NASA said they were going to point hubble at the moon.
I wouldn't hold my breath mate... he's got an old shitty video which has been thoroughly debunked, and made up statements from imaginary people to back his delusion, although at this point he's just trolling for reactions.
 

Eta Carinae

QCup Player
373
56
I wouldn't hold my breath mate... he's got an old shitty video which has been thoroughly debunked, and made up statements from imaginary people to back his delusion, although at this point he's just trolling for reactions.
There you go again. Another emotional outburst! Tom Tom asked me an idiotic question about flat earth or something like that. I warned him not to ask me idiotic questions but he pushed on so insofar as this topic, he is merely trolling and I don't reply to trolls.

I'm going to revisit this topic next week. I will have a look at the link you provided. I've been meaning to do it but have been busy. In the meantime:
1. Have you watched the video(s)?
2. Be so kind as to provide a link to a the phantom information which has "thoroughly debunked the shitty video".
3. Feel free to answer the questions I asked Morkel Morkel but I won't hold my breath while waiting.

If you find it easier and more comforting to rave something about "Russians, Russians, flat earth, NWO", I will understand and forgive you.
 

Eta Carinae

QCup Player
373
56
I thought you were disappearing for a week?
Never said that, did I? I'm not discussing the moon landing hoax and the astronots for a week. I suggest you use the time to reload with some more completely irrelevant theories about single points of light and shadows and some more pictures of very nice looking radio telescopes which are meant to prove something though not idea what.
 

Huge

State of Origin Rep
6,855
3,798
Ipswich
Never said that, did I? I'm not discussing the moon landing hoax and the astronots for a week. I suggest you use the time to reload with some more completely irrelevant theories about single points of light and shadows and some more pictures of very nice looking radio telescopes which are meant to prove something though not idea what.
Definitely trolling.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create free account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Top