The Mainstream Media created something I´d like to call the Moon Moon.
We´ve all heard the official explanation - it asserts that this Moon Moon is in fact the Moon - if that is the case, then where is it?
I guess, this Moon Moon thingy has really mooned a lot of people.
It´s ridiculously larger than the actual thingy often referred to as ´the moon´and this might explain why there are rumours about people who have gone to the Moon and back to Earth and even breathed air on the Moon´s surface.
This might also explain why the Earth´s REAL moon seems enormous in comparision with the Moon Moon which seems much larger still, supposedly bigger than australia and Pluto and once considered bigger than Earth´s core in a time people thought the Earth had a molten core at it´s centre.
The Moon Moon is probably one of the most fantastic claims ever made by the mainstream media, and one of the most outstanding and long - lived urban legends.
Here are some of my pictures of the Moon, and in those pictures I show depictions of the little known 2003 Russian Moon, as it´s sometimes called, because it was thought at that time that if you looked at it, you´d think it was in the Earth´s atmosphere because it wasn´t - if that was the case it wouldn´t appear as if it is in the Earth´s atmosphere.
I am now officially one of those who believe that the actual or REAL moon, is in the Earth´s atmosphere......
I am also of the opinion that if that is in fact incorrect there may be no moon.
On this picture you can clearly notice that there is something very wrong with the way the official explanation for what the Moon is actually presents the Moon to be.
It presents the Moon to be bigger than it should be by all accounts if it was in fact a space ship brought to Earth 11,000 years ago, and placed into Earth´s orbit, and most probably into Earth´s atmosphere.
Here is another picture of what I call the Moon Moon, explaining how I feel the Moon Moon casts no shadow whatsoever on Earth´s surface........the 2003 Russian moon obviously seems to do, however, assuming it´s large enough to be able to cast such a shadow.
I am not attempting to request people who have their own views on the nature of the Moon here, to believe or accept any of what I am saying - it´s just some random thoughts, that´s all.
There has sometimes been talk about the World World, depicting the official explanation for the Earth.
So I decided to coin the phrase the Moon - Moon, because the official explanation for the Earth must be in an official relationship with the official explanation for the Moon, hence we got a World World vs. Moon Moon relationship.
Make no mistake about it - it must remain a very big problem for today´s proponents of the official lunar explanations to account for precisely why, the Moon Moon casts no shadow, unlike the Moon seems to do.
I´m not saying that the Russians or any astronaut is stupid, etc.
I´m also not saying that I think I know everything about the Moon.
I am simply explaining why I think people have been lied to for a long time about what the Moon actually is and what it is in fact capable of doing, including projecting holographic beams into near - Earth space.......
Where is Earth´s ´moonlight´coming from then?
It appears that the Earth is quite capable of shining it´s own light from within when it comes to depict day and night, in it´s much rumored and talked about Moon relationship.
Assuming that the Moon is as large as it is according to the 2003 Russian Moon, we can conclude that this Moon is by no means capable of projecting ´moonlight´upon the Earth.
This must explain why I felt there to be so little of it when I looked at the Moon, and when it was a clear sky full of stars.
There´d be hardly any moonlight whatsoever shining on the planet´s surface to my knowledge in my subconscious, despite the conscious often screamed yes, of course there has to be a bloody moonlight.
The big shadow on this picture would be cast naturally from the shadow of the Moon Moon - the one presented to me by the mainstream media.
The little shadow on the same picture would be cast equally naturally, from the 2003 Russian moon, if both are correct - therefore we must have two moons, and since we obviously don´t, either of them is really there.
If God really did put Earth´s Moon into orbit 11,000 years ago instead of spacefarers from another planetary system, then I´m going to whip his arse if I get to go to heaven, explaining why so few people have ever gone to heaven if the Bible is correct, which I seriously disbelieve it is as a document.
Guess God must be scared shitless of arse - whippers then, if the world was really created 12000 years ago as opposed to 11,000 years ago or even 6,000 years ago, when in all probability the Earth must be over six hundred thousand to eight - hundred thousand billion years old - who knows how old the Earth actually is, but I heard this account from the book They Fly, on the work and research of Billy Meier.
And no I´m not asking you to believe me or Billy Meier.
And I´m not a member of FIGU.
It sure does get a bit scarier doesn´t it?
People are told to believe when they´re kids, that there is nothing wrong with the official version of the Moon.
Sometimes a kid asks from time to time ´but mom, what if the Moon might fall down from the sky or land on Earth?´and the parent has no answer to tell the kid, because of how badly the mainstream media has treated people with it´s Moon Moon crap.
I am asking ´WHAT THE HELL IS THIS???´because I have been told since I was a kid, that this is actually the Earth´s Moon!
If that is true - I´d like to ask myself again - why doesn´t it cast any shadow?
Why doesn´t it cast any moonlight as it´s supposed to do if it is a physically real body as opposed to a holographic projection?
By all accounts it´s shadow would be enormous in comparision with the Russian Moon´s shadow, wouldn´t it?
It´d be so big, it´d be capable of crossing small portions of entire continents.
Iceland could fit into it, perhaps even England.
Assuming that there is in fact no Moon, Russian or otherwise - it´d be tempting to conclude that the Moon we see in the sky had been a hoax all along.
If that holds true, what if the spaceship supposed to have landed in Earth´s orbit 11,000 years ago left the orbit and then went to Mars´orbit, stationing itself there?
In fact, one of Mars´s moons, Phobos if I remember correctly, reminds me a bit of the descriptions of such spacecraft in the words of people such as Credo Mutwa and others who have talked about a time before there was a moon in the heavens as the Moon depicted in books such as Human Race Get Off Your Knees, The Lion Sleeps No More by David Icke.
But what if ancient cultures did not have any concept of the Moon?
Create a heavenly body, manipulate it to suit the menstrual cycles of women, in a male - dominated society, and you get the Moon, according to an interesting article I read by someone known as The Mad Revisionist.
Before I visited his website, I was told by a strange voice I heard from within, saying ´your beliefs about the Sun and the Moon are about to be shattered´.
I realized this could be from my spirit guides, so I decided to ask further ´what are you talking about?´
´The story you´ve been told of the Moon and the Sun as told by mainstream ´science´is indeed fundamentally inaccurate - soon you´ll join the crew of those trying to challenge this official story´.
Well, yes, I can be one of those who believe that the 2003 moon is in fact in the Earth´s atmosphere - what if it was in fact put there?
It´s easy to construct a balloon, fly it someplace near the Arctic, and have it remote controlled to a region close someplace to Russia, send a team of astronauts or cosmonauts on board a space shuttle, and have the space shuttle observe rather than physically land on the Moon´s surface.
The Russian Moon I am talking about to the left is of course the 2003 Moon and not the big planetary object depicted on this picture which is in fact of course just the Earth.
Replies
Ask yourselves the following question; why have we, the people of Earth, not been to the Moon if ´they´could do it?
Your reply will be ´because our governments are afraid of us going there´.
There´ll be no other alternative but to conclude that if there is a Moon out there and that it´s part of Earth´s atmosphere or apart of it, somebody doesn´t want you to go there.
Isn´t it interesting that if the Moon was in fact an alien spaceship it´d have no dark side from which you´d be able to observe on Earth?
It sure is.......
According to the claim that the Moon is in fact an 11,000 year old spaceship, it´d turn one side towards the Earth, while the other side would be turned away from the Earth, hence, it´d have no dark side.
It´d make perfect sense however, if you´re looking at a large balloon type thingy, whose base is hidden behind it´s front side.
This would explain why the balloon thingy has in fact no dark side.
It´d also explain why the balloon thingy is hardly ever seen while it´s raining.
Because when it rains, the rain fills the exposed side, both sides in fact, damaging the equipment.
It´d have to be a balloon whose physical surface can withstand minus 80 degrees or more celcius, and there are in fact balloons which can withstand such enormous freezing temperatures.
So imagine a balloon capable of withstanding it designed to look like a natural body.
It´d have to look like a moon does.
When sattellites sent from Earth to the solar system take photographs of the natural sattellites of the planet, they take note of the fact that most of those sattellites are placed inside the atmospheres of those planets, or very close to them, like Titan in Saturn´s system, or Europa in Jupiter´s system.
This explains why images sent of those sattellites look like authentic images taken on Earth by astronauts in space.
Early pictures taken on Earth probably don´t exist in the mainstream media these days - those pictures would have shown a shadowed Earth, overshadowed by the effects of space itself.
There´d have been a small shadow, that of the sattellite taking the picture.
Modern pictures have been ´image - enhanced´or ´airbrushed´or ´overexposed´or whatever, so they don´t show Earth in her true colours, and so appear nearly always fake.
Isn´t it curious that when people take pictures of the Moon, and observe it for some time, they notice that it´s always like there is something behind the Moon which looks like another Earth?
What if it looks like another Earth, because it´s a mirror, which casts the Earth´s reflection?
Somebody posted a youtube.com video many months ago which clearly showed another Earth operating behind the Moon, but it stroke me as looking like a mirror casting the Earth´s reflection rather than being a plaetary object of some sort.......
I remember when people spoke in fairy tales how it was possible to lure and deceive people with mirrors, and how some mirrors worked like this; you´d enter the mirror and enter another reality, which would often look like a copied version of this one except that it´d be upside down - , like the trees growing upside down and magazines having upside - down letters.
Now, ask yourselves; who the bloody hell doesn´t want us to go to space and explore things?
Why are ´they´always talking about space buses and space elevators and finding ways to put passengers into space, but never actually seriously trying it?
What if your supposed ´elite´do not want you to go to the Moon because they know there ain´t one?
That´d mean that helium is such a rare natural resource that in the Earth´s case it can be found only on Earth.
Remember the Moon always being talked about as ´a major helium resource?´
Why isn´t any of the moons of the solar system, like Phobos and Deimos, talked about as ´a major helium resource?´
Now ask yourselves another sinister question; ´what objects or phenomena on Earth use helium the most of all?´and the answer you´ll get will be ´those that do, such as balloons´.
Yes you got it right - your elite, your governments, even most of your lunar laboratories always talk about the Moon as if it´s a balloon, because only a balloon would have that much of or more helium put into it.
What about UFO´s caught entering the Moon and leaving it?
Well, they´d be much farther away from each of the ´moon balloons´than they´d actually be, explaining why the ´moon balloons´depicted them as smaller than they actually were in comparison with those photographed on or near the Earth´s surface or in the Earth´s atmosphere, like the Mexican ´supposed UFO´thingies......
Then, the Alex Collier fans amongst you might ask ´what about Alex Collier? He knew that there are Aryans living on the Moon´s surface´.
Then, even some of the most extremely skeptical amongst you might ask ´what about people who claim to be from the Moon and who said ´if you´re looking for trouble, you might just get it´?
I don´t want to belittle those people - they may have been from some moon, my goodness me, I have a constitutional, inalienable right to doupt the existence of a moon which behaves like our supposed moon is supposed to behave, just like the Mad Revisionist does - he has that right, I have that right - and if no constitution can give us that right, we´ll damn well as hell give them to ourselves then.
Because the right to doupt the existence of the Moon is verified by every Constitution and religious and legal code on Earth, including even the so - called Biblical Commandments, however naive they may appear to some and they certainly appear naive and old - fashioned to me, such as ´thou shalt not lie!!´
It´s inevitable - if the Earth had a presently operating natural satellite known as the Moon, it´d be working just fine, and there´d be no reason for it not to be the Earth´s natural sattellite.
As Deliah7777 put it so well ´the most sinister thing I see, is people making up stories, to distract them from what´s really important in this world´- and despite he chooses to believe in the Moon, I have chosen to remain skeptical.
I have every right to be, until I can stand on this bloody moon´s surface and prove to other people that I´m really being there when and if that moment arrives in my life.
There is no need for me in the meanwhile to ask people here to agree or disagree with my view on the Moon or my views on ´the elite´or whatever - there have been elite in my family and they never needed to spend as much as a second in their lives thinking much about things like the Moon, let alone my ´Moon Moon´.
We are being told by the mainstream media that the Moon
1. is supposedly bigger than Pluto.
2. Is either an artificial body, i.e. a spacecraft, or a natural sattellite
3. Has been here all along, perhaps before Earth came into existence
4. Has been here only for a short time - about the time religion as we know it began
5. Is supposed to be an evil thingy capable of deceiving the whole human race into living by a moonopoly.
6. Is supposed to be a deceased, planetary body, or a live, alien spacecraft, at least, a hollowed out planetoid according to that demonstration.
7. Has had a clear photograph taken of itself sometime before the last century began. At that time, the photograph looked like it had been taken of a huge, balloon like object placed into near - Earth orbit, or designed to operate someplace in the Earth´s atmosphere for long time periods.
8. Is supposed to have major impact on womens´menstrual cycles - if this is in fact the case, why has no woman ever made a link to her menstrual cycles via the moon and told me about it?
9. Is supposed to look exactly the same on all pictures of it - yet, it has been demonstrated on at least two pictures sent to me by a viewer of my article - that it is clearly not so.
10. Has no geological motion of any kind whatsoever including earthquakes - we´re assumed to believe that since the Moon is a natural sattellite orbiting the Earth - it must have some geological experiences of some kind, i.e. earthquakes and volcanic eruptions - yet there are no earthquakes or volcanic eruptions which have been detected on the Moon´s surface and if there have been they´ve usually been ridiculously small in comparision to those taking place on Earth.
11. Is supposed to be able to make men go ´lunatic´despite there is clearly absolutely no proof to demonstrate that to be the case
12. It appears to me that the magickal, occult ritual often known as ´drawing down the moon´has worked beyound the wildest dreams of the people who thought first of it to the point that now, people are beginning to wake up to the probability that perhaps, large numbers of ´moons´have been placed into our atmosphere to deceive large masses of people into believing that there is in fact just one.
13. Is supposed to look exactly the same all times of the year, despite there is clear evidence by recent analysis, that the moon, at least Moon Moon ´thingy´is supposed to have seasons.
14. If the Moon was Earth´s natural sattellite, there´d be not a chance to indicate the possibility that it could shine as brightly as it does in the Earth´s atmosphere during night - it´d appear dark, like Europa and Io do when viewed from a rock residing someplace in Jupiter´s atmosphere.
15. If the moon is such a natural and perfect world, and therefore Earth´s natural sattellite, why is it that there are scientists out there, particularly major Russian moon experts who have asserted openly that ´by all probability it shouldn´t even be here´, and why have they been quoted by major revisionist and conspiracy research figures, i.e. David Icke?
16. The Moon is supposed to be able to project a signal from it´s otherwise appearently non - existent physical surface to Earth - if the moon was indeed a hologram it´d be totally impossible for any signal projector to be located on the moon´s surface.
So it is clear that whatever information, judging by the remote probability of an accuracy in reference to that statement, pointing out to the possibility that the moon works as David Icke´s latest book attempts to demonstrate must be inaccurate - if we are assuming that we´re talking about multiple, large balloon type thingies placed in near Earth orbit over countries like the USA, like Canada, like Russia, and so on......
Again I am not asking anyone here to agree with my views on the Moon.....they´re just views and that´s all they are.
Marique I saw a 2003 Russian picture of the supposed Moon someplace on the internet but I haven´t found it since. The picture to the right is not that picture though.
Are these the moon pictures you are talking about. I can see your point a bit. But I believe the difference is in the camera perspectives and not that they are not the same moon...could be wrong but you did put a lot of thought into this discussion...Just wanted to say I could see what piqued your interest.
I f you notice my pictures you notice I give room for the possibility of the 2003 Moon the Russians supposedly took pictures of being able to cast a shadow on Earth´s surface.
If the Moon is as big as it actually is, provided it is really there, this could be that body - and perhaps it could be that spacecraft put here 11,000 years ago - or perhaps, that was transferred someplace else, who knows.
One thing I do know and that is I do not have a right to ask you to agree with me on this issue.
And in light of that fact you´re most correct to point out to me that I should not ask people here to agree with my thoughts and reflections on the Moon in this post - they´re thoughts, reflections, that´s all......
Here is a moon for you to explain, lol...Sorry I could not resist.
The most sinister thing we can do is create deception for our selves to focus on.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next