POLL (bomb the moon?)

by **Guest** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 11:38 am

mindkind wrote:There is a planned October 9, 2009 bombing of the moon by a NASA orbiter that will use a 2-ton kinetic weapon to create a 5 mile wide deep crater as an alleged water-seeking and lunar colonization experiment. This act is said to be contrary to space law prohibiting environmental modification of celestial bodies. (The U.N. Outer Space Treaty, which 98 nations have ratified and 125 nations have signed.)

There is also confirmed reports of an extraterrestrial presence on the moon from U.S. astronauts, NASA employees, Soviet scientists and from witnessed NSA (National Security Agency) reports some of which make mention of an actual base that is located on the dark side. If that information is indeed factual, could this Centaur rocket qualify as a space-based kinetic weapon? If so, could the true intent of the LCROSS mission be perceived as a hostile act by NASA (and perhaps us on the Earth)?

On behalf of the human race, please feel free to cast your vote on this...

Thanks

This is Vorte, many years ago we made ourselves visible you what you know as Apollo 11 and many more, we gave reasonable notice that earth's presence was not welcome. We have been at dialog for some time and supremacy is the ambition of Earth to concor moon surrounding Earth.The bombing was not an attempt to look for water as you were told, it was an attack on one of our exits from the surface of your moon. We know what the extent will be. Yes, we voted NO NO NO but you said YES YES YES.

huanic · by **huanic** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 2:51 am

located on the dark side. If that information is indeed factual, could this Centaur rocket qualify as a space-based kinetic weapon? If so, could the true intent of the LCROSS mission be perceived as a hostile act by NASA (and perhaps us on the Earth)?

On behalf of the human race, please feel free to cast your vote on this...

Unbeliever · by **Unbeliever** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 4:09 pm

Unbelievable. They went ahead with it and, incredibly, no moon men appeared to get revenge.

by **Freedom** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 8:32 pm

I can now say I've found the most hilarious posting on these forums.

Excellent stuff.

devil666 · by **devil666** » Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:30 pm

Unbeliever wrote:Unbelievable. They went ahead with it and, incredibly, no moon men appeared to get revenge.

Of course not, mankind hasn't got there yet :lol:

Unbeliever · by **Unbeliever** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 3:03 am

devil666 wrote:
Unbeliever wrote:Unbelievable. They went ahead with it and, incredibly, no moon men appeared to get revenge.

Of course not, mankind hasn't got there yet

Oh god...

We did, all right? We just did.

Fool · by **Fool** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 4:24 pm

I think he means it was an unmanned mission.

devil666 · by **devil666** » Sat Oct 31, 2009 7:35 pm

Fool wrote:I think he means it was an unmanned mission.

Hi fool. I was referring to the recent mission to the moon being a possible prelude to a base and the blast would serve 2 purposes: reveal water suspended in ice below the surface as other finds prior to this insignificant, to support missions and the excavation of the blast the site of a base. and this next bit are facts you should know, the space rocks brought back had unusual properties. If I remember, it had to do with nuclear fusion. But your the man to ask about this, will check web. See you later.

Unbeliever · by **Unbeliever** » Mon Nov 02, 2009 1:05 pm

devil666 wrote:
Fool wrote:I think he means it was an unmanned mission.

Hi fool. I was referring to the recent mission to the moon being a possible prelude to a base and the blast would serve 2 purposes: reveal water suspended in ice below the surface as other finds prior to this insignificant, to support missions and the excavation of the blast the site of a base. and this next bit are facts you should know, the space rocks brought back had unusual properties. If I remember, it had to do with nuclear fusion. But your the man to ask about this, will check web. See you later.

Are you talking about Helium-3? It's an isotope of helium that is perfect for a fusion reactor, and has been found in abundance on the moon.

devil666 · by **devil666** » Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:05 pm

Unbeliever wrote:
devil666 wrote:
Fool wrote:I think he means it was an unmanned mission.

Hi fool. I was referring to the recent mission to the moon being a possible prelude to a base and the blast would serve 2 purposes: reveal water suspended in ice below the surface as other finds prior to this insignificant, to support missions and the excavation of the blast the site of a base. and this next bit are facts you should know, the space rocks brought back had unusual properties. If I remember, it had to do with nuclear fusion. But your the man to ask about this, will check web. See you later.

Are you talking about Helium-3? It's an isotope of helium that is perfect for a fusion reactor, and has been found in abundance on the moon.

yes that's the stuff, its probably the real reason for renewed interest involving Luna missions, just greed. Anyway, if it works good stage post for missions to other planets.

by **Guest**

Re: POLL (bomb the moon?)

by Guest