Jump to content

NASA Conspiracy? What on earth is this all about?


Mylo.X.
 Share

Recommended Posts

In the 1980's, Nasa's challenger exploded killing all 7 astronauts onboard. However, there seems to be photographic evidence that suggests that at least 3 of the astronauts are ALIVE and well today, in 2015. What is going on? Possible explanations I can think of are these;

 

1) Nasa sent up the challenger empty

 

2) There are people with the same name and same facial features etc as the astronauts who died in the tragedy

 

3) A crossing over of alternate timelines (sorry, but I had to throw that into the mix, lol)[ATTACH=full]445[/ATTACH]

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There’s a man also named Michael J. Smith, who bears a striking resemblance to astronaut Michael J. Smith — same horizontal eyebrows, same grey-blue eyes, same vertical indentation in the tip of the nose. This Michael J. Smith is a Professor Emeritus (retired) of Industrial and Systems Engineering at the University of Wisconsin-Madison,[ATTACH=full]446[/ATTACH]

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Born on May 19, 1939, Commander Francis Richard Scobee was 46 when he died in the Challenger explosion. He would be 75 years old if he were alive today.Strangely, there’s a man also named Richard Scobee, the CEO of a Chicago marketing-advertising company called Cows in Trees, who bears a striking resemblance (factoring in the 30-year timelapse) Commander Richard Scobee.[ATTACH=full]447[/ATTACH]

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Born on April 5, 1949, Challenger mission specialist Judith Arlene Resnik, with a Ph.D. in electrical engineering, was the first Jewish American astronaut to go into space and the second female American astronaut. She would be 66 years old today if she had not died in the explosion.If she were alive today, it is not difficult to imagine that after 29 years, astronaut Judith Resnik would look like Arthur Liman Professor of Law Judith Resnik at Yale Law School — same dark curly hair, same eyebrow shape, same dark eyes.[ATTACH=full]449[/ATTACH]

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I favor the single timeline theory with the possibility of paradoxes. So obviously time travel technology was used to save the astronauts. I do keep pointing out that the entertainment industry seems to also be in possession of time travel technology too. The constant reappearance of dead celebrities seems to be proof of this.

 

But however you choose to look at this, NASA gets caught red handed AGAIN telling another whopper of a story.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great find Mylo.X.

 

Apparently, no secret is safe forever. Here's the whole story.

 

On January 27th 1967, NASA experienced the first loss of any astronauts. While this type event was anticipated, the outcry from congress, astronaut families, and the public was less expected. After this event, in an effort to help the space program survive, a "promise" was made to the astronauts... that they would "survive" future catastrophes.

 

The study of cloning, first displayed in 1885, had been on going ever since. In 1952 it was shown that transfer of nuclear material from an embryonic cell to an enucleated egg developed into the original organism and in 1958, a transfer of a nucleus from a differentiated (intestinal) cell to an enucleated egg resulted in the successful development of the original organism. Advances continued with embryonic cells to develop mammalian clones of sheep and cows until the final development of the first successful mammalian clone from a somatic cell, Dolly the sheep, in 1996. NASA's promise could now be realized.

 

NASA, knowing of the studies in cloning, promised to "clone" any astronaut killed in the service of NASA, at a future date when the science became viable, and began taking DNA samples from all astronauts after 1967. The first test of their promise came in 1986 and was conducted 10 years later.

 

Cloning, being a highly debated and controversial subject, has been furthered in secret, in covert overseas labs. It has been used to clone government entities as well as those with the considerable "means" to afford, and there by support, this process. In these secret locations the process has been advanced to the stage where the growth process can be controlled. Some, later individuals, had the opportunity to express a desire to "where/when" in the process they wished to be set and have "begun" their new lives at that point, whether as adults or teens. Those that were unable to have offered a position were stopped at the age they "died". Academics and social experience was offered at an accelerated rate also so they would be at the necessary level of competence needed at the age they were set. Sufficient "back stories" were created to allow these individuals to exist with little, to no notice, in society. That part apparently has failed.

 

You would have thought NASA might be smart enough to at least have changed their names. :confused:

 

This also explains the appearance of "other" dead celebrities, among them, JFK, Elvis, and any others you want to add to the list. ;)

 

That's my story and I'm... stickin to it. :whistle:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mylo.X.;

 

I really meant it when I said great find. Often these internet stories fail to stand up under further scrutiny. This one did not. I checked a few out thinking there might be a close resemblance but the names were added for effect. Seems these were not made up. If someone else has evidence to debunk these, I would like to see it. As it stands, it is an incredible coincidence worthy of looking at. I found more on it here:

 

http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?t=935&p=2395059

 

When I looked into it, I had to wonder how such a coincidence might occur and the cloning popped into my head so I made a little story to that effect.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I favor the single timeline theory with the possibility of paradoxes. So obviously time travel technology was used to save the astronauts. I do keep pointing out that the entertainment industry seems to also be in possession of time travel technology too. The constant reappearance of dead celebrities seems to be proof of this.But however you choose to look at this, NASA gets caught red handed AGAIN telling another whopper of a story.

I'm not sure what to make of this dead-alive-again phenomenon. I must admit, I thought that Za Za Gabor had passed away, and was surprised to find out that she is still alive and kicking. Maybe it's just my faulty memory and I'm confusing it with some other issue relating to Za Za.

But your right, it does appear that NASA have been caught out lying. I find it hard to believe that there could be 2 Judith Resnik's that have exactly the same facial features etc....

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone else has evidence to debunk these, I would like to see it.

Yes, I'd be very interested in seeing this claim debunked. I was kinda hoping yourself, or Darby or Rainman time was gonna offer a plausible explanation, to-be-honest, lol.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I really don't want to say goodbye to any of you people."

 

Christa McAuliffe (Nasa astronaut)

 

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/c/christamca352980.html#45UHGeojT4uJhFZu.99

 

So the 2015 lawyer Christa "Sharon" McAuliffe was born on the same day as the challenger astronaut, Christa McAuliffe and actually born in the same place???? Wth is going on?

 

Additonally, if the Michael J Smith of the challenger disaster was alive today, he would be 69 years old. Guess how old the 2015 Michael J Smith is? This can all be verified by doing a bit of investigative research online. This is really an intriguing coincidenc.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Busted! Good ol' Snopeshttp://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/challenger.asp

Still, one of the more interesting conspiracy stories.

Thanks for the snopes link. It really is an uncanny case of coincidence due to likeness and the lookalikes having the same names. However, I do take issue with this comment by Snopes. How "they" could say that both Judith Resnik's have differing facial structures is beyond me.

"Nobody familiar with either person would confuse these two Judith Resniks with each other, as they have very different facial structures. And while Judith Resnik the electrical engineer was engaged in work and study at RCA, NIH, Xerox, and NASA in the 1970s and 80s, Judith Resnik the lawyer was teaching law school classes at Yale and USC. How someone could have been simultaneously (not to mention secretly) holding down two completely disparate jobs at opposite ends of the country remains unexplained."

 

Also, it would have been helpful if Snopes would have provided a source to back up their comment of Judith Resnik the lawyer teaching law school classes at Yale and USC during the 70's & 80's.

 

Additionally, I noticed that Snopes did not comment on Michael J Smith, who I personally think is the most convincing lookalike/double. For 2 seperate people to look so alike (even down to the same indentation on the nose) and to have the same name is truly remarkable.

 

Anyway, thanks again for the Snopes link. However, I am not totally convinced (only about 80%) lol.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

hi @ll,

 

maaaaaaan you got me into this again.

 

Following up your post i stumbled on some footage on YT i have never seen before.

 

Just take a look at it and give me some input.

 

I like the way this debunk went down...so how about to tackle the next one.

 

 

From my point of view i do not agree with all of what is said in this video.

 

- The Rainbow Shadows in the beginning get me thinking. (not to bad so far)

 

- NOW the bag footage is insane. (and please somebody tell me i do not see it moving)

 

- The strap is behaving strangely as well...but what da hell do i know about 1/6th of gravity and no atmosphere (whats up with the throwing-away-everything anyway?????)

 

- Dirty camera....hmmm dont get the physics nor the cover up-try afterwards

 

- OK, we go on with the little stuff they mention and so on,just watch it for yourself please.

 

- The most intriguing part comes in the end.You better watch and LISTEN it for yourself.

 

The reflecting light he talks about is just BSx10. Clearly the glove reflects the sun and the spot moves perfectly in sync with the arm.Same opinion on the hole he says the guy has in his pants.

 

So cause the debunking is on fire here i really would like to know your opinions on this and ideally debunk it.

 

I personally never saw this footage before ,first timer for me... just wondering how i could get past all this the past three decades???????

 

ok ppl thx and have fun debunking

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched the first 20 min of this video and that was enough to tell me, (actually, I knew it in the first 3 1/2 but I gave it more time just to be fair), this was simply another aspirant for YouTube fame and glory. He displays maybe a high school level of scientific understanding and forces evidence to fit his premise when it has a far simpler and correct interpretation.

 

He, like some others here on this site, has no understanding of perspective. At the 3 min area of the video he is going on about how it is "impossible" to have a shadow "completely" cover the area between the camera and the astronaut in the distance. Obviously, this wannabe debunker, is unaware that the shadow "could be" and IS passing across the lens... not the landscape.

 

The moving bag? Darby or RainmanTime are far more qualified to answer this than I but for my 2 cents... It's inertia. Once the bag is started in motion it will continue to be in motion, until acted on by another force. Since it is hanging by straps and is unable to move off in a constant direction... it appears to swing. It is "the lack" of atmosphere that allows it to, seemingly, move for a longer time than a person, used to the effects of motion here on Earth, would expect.

 

I watched the last few min since, heka, said there was an interesting part there.

 

Most people know that sound needs a medium to travel through to be detected. With no atmosphere on the moon... or in space, which gave rise to a tagline for the awesome space horror film, Alien (1979) "In space, no one can hear you scream"... sound will not "carry". The noise mentioned in the last few min of this video is used as another example of proof of a hoax. Almost pretty good evidence... almost.

 

Sound needs a medium to travel in... any medium... metal is a good "conductor" of sound waves. If you look closely, you might notice the astronaut's hand in contact with the Lander by way of the table he is touching. The sound wave would easily pass into his glove and be detected inside his suit by his mic. It doesn't need "air" to travel... the lander's structure will do the job quite nicely. The same is true for the hammer sounds traveling through the glove. He makes a big deal out of a story that "NASA disappeared" from their internet site, that the hammer made no sound, in contrast to other statements about the sound that was obviously heard. I think the article was talking about sound ON the moon... not the same as sound "within" the astronauts suit.

 

The "hoax" claims about the moon landings have already be busted by several credible sources but if you want to see a good one, watch MythBurters episode 104 from 2008. There is plenty of proof that we did, in fact, go to the moon. There are images from the LRO, (Google LRO images, you can easily lose half a day looking through these pics, like I did awhile back). The Russians, who were not our friends during this time, nor are they now, admitted the radio transmissions originated from the moon.

 

More info here:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its not all that uncommon for people to have the same first and last names.

And the same facial features? Check out the 2 Michael J Smith's; take note of the vertical indentation on their noses and the same shape mouth when smiling and same coloured eyes (and take into account a 30 year time lapse). I would say that is NOT common at all.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...