Still not convinced? So you think you´ve seen the Moon? Guess what, so did I, until one day.......
Several years ago, a computer programmer made a startling announcement - he had seen pictures of a cylindrical shaped UFO, which he was convinced was a spaceship, hovering in the Earth´s atmosphere - just near enough to the planet to be part of it´s atmosphere.
According to the official explanation for what the Moon is, this spaceship looks exactly and behaves exactly like the Moon, as opposed to what I call the Moon Moon.
The real moon is officially depicted as a spaceship in the mainstream media now - not what people called the mainstream media over 10 years ago but what´s now being called the mainstream media by some people who are in the truth movement and such movements - but people´re told blatantly that the Moon they´re looking at in front of them is actually the Moon when it turns out to be a holographic projection, and thus not the actual Moon.
It began to make sense to me that the reason most people are not actually seeing the real moon is because it´s being kept hidden from them - it´s invisible.
Because it´s much smaller than it actually is.
However, the real moon can be exposed by sattellite photography, and it is often approaxed by space shuttles when they fly near to it, shortly before leaving the planet´s atmosphere to venture to the great beyound.
This post of mine may seem as nonsential as the other nonsentially appearing post of mine about the Moon Moon.
In that post I exposed the Moon Moon as a holographic projection, with most of the moons people are seeing in the sky appearently being balloons set up to deceive them, designed to last for long periods in time (makes me think about secret projects like Project Mogul).
In that post I showed pictures detailing how it is impossible that the present Moon is where it´s supposed to be if it was a spaceship or a holographic projection.
That UFO which Gary Mc. Kinnon was talking about, was actually photographed by a NOAA sattellite and there were a few photos taken in 1999 released in the year 2005.
That UFO looks to me like it´s been around here for over 11,000 years.
Unlike other UFO´s sighted near the planet´s atmosphere, this thing looks like a death star - exactly like the Moon.
And it´s still being photographed - as of recently in the year 2008!
Note that on the 1999 picture is something to the left which is seen on most of the areas where the Moon Moon is sighted which appears to look like a cylindrically shapes UFO - which strikes me as being the craft Gary talked about.
Here is that spaceship seen with the dark background removed. Now it looks much clearer - like a cylindrically shaped UFO.
Here is the craft again - note that it´s photographed by the sattellite on 21st november in the year 1999.
Here is the craft again - was this picture released before 1999?
Was it taken by another sattellite?
Here is the craft again - looking almost exactly like the moon.
Interestingly it looks like the craft is like a pink ball which is peering inside a window.
It looks to me exactly like the Moon would look like if it was an actual spaceship - and by that I´m referring to a Moon which would be invisible to the naked eye, because this Moon would not be a natural sattellite but a spaceship - cloaked.
It may make sense that it´d be relatively easy to picture a cloaked craft in infrared - much like on this picture.
Now I´d like to ask any of you; is anybody here who has an infrared photo of the Moon?
Remember the stories about a time ´before there was a Moon in the heavens´?
Remember the stories about the ages when there were more than one Moon and the other Moons were Earth´s natural sattellites?
According to these stories, these moons fell on the Earth one by one causing global catastrophes of enormous proportions.
Think of Horbinger´s ´theories´on Fire and Ice - I think he was right because he wrote about the times when there were more than one moon.
It looks to me that this spaceship is almost stuck to the Earth or glued to it via space elevators.
I remember that documentary by Jose Emascilla, his UFO and Moon documentaries, the Moon documentary, where people were shown images of space elevators and vectors.
I noticed how the space elevators connected to other planets - they´d end in very small singularity points and then seemingly stretch themselves into the forever the closer you looked at them.
One of the elevators appears to be stationed through the craft´s centre, giving us a stronger perspective of it.
Interestingly all the ´lines´or ´elevators´on the picture end as they approax Earth´s atmosphere.
I can also notice the craft projecting a shadow on the Earth´s surface which proves to me that this is a real craft and not a holographic projection, and it also has portholes.
Note how the NASA ´UFO Fleet´is nowhere to be seen on these pictures......
Ever wanted to know what the real moon actually does look like?
Here is a picture of a portion of it´s surface shown by Richard Hoagland on one of his lectures.....
Note that the background is blue while the foreground is gray. It appears as if the foreground is fake but that the background is for real.
Look at the monolith like thingy in the foreground.
Take a closer look at what´s beyound the monolith - what appears to look like a space elevator.
It appears to me that this is a composite picture composed of three pictures.
Instead of being actually part of some actual surface, the monolith appears to go right through the foreground.
This could not be possible unless the foreground picture was added up to another, and then the monolith image is added which appears to be part of another image - we´re dealing appearently with two images or perhaps even three, as opposed to just one which seem to me to be compressed into one image.
I´m not saying this is so though but I am saying I´m pretty sure that the monolith is going through rather than being part of the foreground.
Hoagland argued that the photographs that were being taken took place in front of or even inside some kind of enormous glass like structure and that what was actually being looked at was a series of huge, glass structures or buildings.
If this was true then the glass like buildings would have surfaces more easily detectable which appears to me to be certainly the case as I viewed those photographs in one of his lectures.
What if those are not buildings on the Moon Moon, but on that spaceship?
That´d make perfect sense to me.
It´d have made sense to me that some of the astronauts would have parked a space shuttle or some kind of craft near one of the elevators, and used that elevator to transfer themselves up towards the craft because the elevator was attached to it.
It´d be possible in my opinion that the craft has forests and lakes and all that but that that is mostly inside the craft.
It may also be possible that perhaps this craft is what the moon looked like and that it´s surface was painted and then later used to create smaller objects put into the atmosphere designed to convince us that they´re the moon rather than the Moon itself.
When I began to realize that perhaps the Moon has been visible for a far less time than most people would like to believe, I realized that the Earth´s gravitational field is what causes the tides.
Here is a picture Hoagland has depicted of one of the astronauts. Notice how he´s walking on the surface of what appears to me to be a craft. There is a building like thingy behind him in the distance. There is appearently several or multiple space elevators behind him - the dark stribes.
Those are what people like me call space elevators and we don´t ask you to believe us.
I don´t think anymore that Richard Hoagland is a man I can trust, because of why I think he kicked me from his page.
It was not because I liked to poke fun out of him in a few in - jokes, but because he supports Obama and because I don´t, and because I know stuff most of his supporters don´t know which I think he´d not like them to know.
Now, compare this picture with the other moon picture of that astronaut walking on that surface and take note of the black stribes - they appear also on the picture of the giant craft.
You´ll begin to realize that what you have been taught is in fact the Moon, is not, and that perhaps, you´ve never actually seen it your whole life with your physical eyes.
Notice how differently the surface of Earth looks like compared to the supposed surface of the Moon Moon and compare it with this craft´s surface......here is a picture of Iceland´s volcano Katla and one of it´s nearby regions.......
Note how smooth and non - uniform the landscape is. This appears undeniably like a real landscape would.
Most people would ask ´if I was a Moon where´d I hide´? I´d not do that - I´d ask ´ if I was a moon, what´d my surface look like?´......Something like this, Titan´s surface......
Again you notice how undeniably similar to a natural moon´s landscape Titan´s landscape is, even when imagined or visualized by creative artists. It looks strikingly like a natural moon because that means that if it looks like a natural moon and feels like a natural moon - it is one.
Here is a picture of the Moon Moon´s supposed surface.......
And compare this with what a natural moon´s surface would look like - Titan´s.
It appears to me that this is an artificial simulation of a clear view of one of the portions of the surface of that spaceship - or perhaps some other moon than the Moon Moon.
Or perhaps it´s made up entirely as a part that was supposed to work like an illusion of surfacial feature details.
Titan´s surface appears to look strikingly like Earth´s, and this is also true for Titan´s atmosphere as well as Mars´s atmosphere, and even in mainstream astronomy litterature Mars and Titan are said to have atmospheres, in fact they of course do.
If I am right, the bottom line here is; Earth has no natural moon.
Source; www.abovetopsecret.com.
Source; NOAA website.
Source; www.enterprisemission.com
Source; www.discovermagazine.com
Replies