In David Icke's latest book he discuss the possibility of the moon being an artificial satellite used to monitor and control the human populace.
discuss.
Printable View
In David Icke's latest book he discuss the possibility of the moon being an artificial satellite used to monitor and control the human populace.
discuss.
i also heard from a channeled source that Saturn(i think) has an artificial moon. and apparently our scientists are aware of it.. :?
It's usually more interesting to speculate about David Icke's state of mind than his ideas. :twisted:
Oliver
:D
It's not just him saying it. I recently listened to an interview on Coast to Coast with Richard Hoagland (astrophysicist) and John Lear and the both believed it too!
I think there has to be a distinction between 'real' and 'natural', and then to attribute nefarious purposes to it. If it is artificial (that is, manufactured) the technologies necessary to produce such an effect would IMO preclude the need to 'spy' on anyone.
If however, it were engineered for terraforming purposes, well, that would make more sense to me, at least. Not quite as 'sexy', but more logical, IMO.
Well, of course it isn't real. It's made of green cheese! Duh! Green cheese is manmade!
:twisted: :P :mrgreen:
Okay, I figured they were on about the same thing. Even so...Quote:
I think there has to be a distinction between 'real' and 'natural'
Yes, me, too. People often use the word "real" when they actually mean something else. In this case, "naturally occurring" or similar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beekeeper
I remember once when I was about seven or eight years old, we went on a trip to Mexico (one of many, since we lived in Arizona), and I got an inexpensive silver ring. I wore it to school and one of the kids asked me "Is that a real ring?" I understood that she meant something like "is it genuine silver" or "is the stone genuine" or similar, but the question still struck me as bizarre. Is it a real ring? Of course it's a real ring. It's on my finger, isn't it?
So the answer is, in fact, of course it's a real moon. It's up in the sky, orbiting the Earth, isn't it? :P
This concludes this episode of Nerdy Fun with Pedantic Use of Language. Tune in next time for a discussion of how aggravating it is when people say "infer" when they obviously mean "imply". :P :shock: :wink:
I thought it was made of barbiqued spare ribs? :cry:Quote:
Originally Posted by CaterpillarWoman
Seriously though. Li Hongzou, the founder of Falun Dafa said it was an artificial structure made by aliens long ago (think he said a billion years ago). I thought it was a wierd thing to say. Science has been struggling for hundreds of years to explain how it got it's strange orbit, size, and composition.
Nope! It's cheese! Even Wikipedia knows about it!Quote:
Originally Posted by Alaskans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moon_i ... een_cheese
:P
I think so, too. That it's a weird thing to say. Not that it's an artificial structure made by aliens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alaskans
Well, it IS peculiar to have a big wheel of green cheese up in the sky, so it's pretty hard to explain that. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Alaskans
Or 'obviously' when they mean 'apparently'. Oops, apparently, it isn't.Quote:
This concludes this episode of Nerdy Fun with Pedantic Use of Language. Tune in next time for a discussion of how aggravating it is when people say "infer" when they obviously mean "imply".
:D
Well, I was actually quoting a Weird Al Yankovic song (because I'm that much of a nerd), but now that you mention it, I'm going to have to consider the implications of "obvious" versus "apparent". Hmmmmmm. Good one.
more talk of heavenly bodies - "Marsgate"
:shock: :wink:
http://www.examiner.com/x-2912-Seattle- ... ny-on-Mars
I followed the link and somehow I expected something different when being promised "heavenly bodies"... :?Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil Templar
;)
Oliver
I followed it too. Suddenly this stuff seems quite prevalent.
If it were true, I'd prefer to go down with the ship than live on a desolate planet - presuming that's what Mars is. I'd go insane without the air, ocean, grass, trees, animals, various cycles and everything else that makes earth home. I'd miss my friends and family too. Besides, I'm heading for the 12th dimension. :wink:
hmmmm, i will agree that the moon isnt at all what we think to see it as. but the conspiracy stuff i believe is a hook for some.
did ya know that moon light is extraordinary light, or that light directly reflected from the sun, that is not as is our ordinary day light censored as it arrives through earth's atmosphere.
i suppose that there is a good side and a bad side to that, according to each personal resonance; which in turn reveals it's present nature as they would truly be seen, whereas in ordinary light one's censored mask presents it's false disguise.
so, his theory is busted, in that daylight would present us all against the odds, while moonlight would level the playing field evenly.
there is a reason why it is called evening, ya know? and a reason why that when the sun rises it is oddly called mourning?
some cultures would grieve for a newborn child, in that the life will undoubtedly be a struggle; they also celebrating the death, in that life's groping struggle is over. such a culture would undoubtedly teach and inform their youth how to best understand what life is and what life is not.
such as is this theoretical 'moon is not real' did not however arise from such a culture, nor is it aimed at such a culture. yet, we live in such times where cultures have blended and in that blending the admixture has lost all sense that would commonly understand in the face of fears dominantly arising out of our great dumbing down so to speak.
but, we gots plenty of techno gadgets to keep us distracted. as we collectively see it, we are most happy when we are plenty distracted. blindness it would seem is our collective forte of solace. in this way the masses pursue their excused 'personal spiritualitys' while the rest of the world can be damned for its constant interruptions.
some would call that an "aha moment" and thereby copyright the phrase.
maybe after all the words are personally owned, we can all just have numbers in place of names.
it sucks that one day i may have to pay royalties to keep my name as Timothy, for it is my god given name, or at least my mama called and calls me by that. growing up my mama was god, if ya know what i mean.
get my drift? or not...
more about an artificial moon orbiting Saturn
http://www.enterprisemission.com/moon2.htm
and then there's this - 8)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8594101.stm
Since your earlier link I've been listening to the Andrew D Basiago interview. If it's fabrication, he's a magnificent liar.
they're not the only folk telling the same story either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beekeeper
i don't think i bookmarked it, but a few weeks ago, i saw another woman's blog, telling her story of how she'd been recruited for this "Mars" project, and how she was manipulated by those in charge... when she came to realise the true intentions of the project leaders she broke free and is now spreading the word about it.
it read like a script for a season of the x-files! :shock:
i'll see if i can find it...
i'm gonna have to listen to that interview now...
Without subscribing to any theory- those sure look like mold markings in Iapetus.
in this saying, "I am my own worst enemy", it is further true that 'we are the conspirators conspiring against our selves".
the relative moon is only as real as is one's absolute moon.
tim
For serious. I'm open to the idea that planets or moons could be ships, or created by an intellegence. But drawing lines between craters to illistrate patterns, or pac-man in a satelite photo isnt evidence of that (Im not picking on you Neil, Im picking on everyone). Just because theres patterns in a moon doesnt mean its artificial. The whole universe is a self perpetuating pattern. The macro of the universe can be found in every micro of the universe, and visa versa.
I once saw a 400 foot photo perfect face of a man on the side of the mountain. The snow, tree's, and erosion composed the immage. It doesnt mean aliens drew it on the side of the mountain. And neither was it neccicarily random coincidence. Some lovestruck girl could have thought of him as she drove that stretch of road while gazing at the mountain dreamily and that thought pattern eventually manifested. It is to say humans and 'gods' create patterns everywhere.
no offence taken man. 8)Quote:
Originally Posted by Alaskans
and i wasn't presenting those links as any supposed evidence.
simply interesting stuff that's surfaced in the past few days .
I know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil Templar
And I only spoke of them in a general sense.
I'm a little more than half done with this new book and so far it's my favorite of his books.
everything else aside, he is much more coherent and cohesive in this book. i'm sure it helps that i'm already very familiar with the subject matter from his stuff and other authors. but i like this book a lot.
I am a "fan" of David Icke, I do get a caring vibe from him, at least I used to. He really was trying to help. His old book are his gold, his regular down to earth stuff, exposing government corruption.
He is not too smart for incorporating the reptilian stuff into his beliefs, because I can quite easily see how all that stuff got there. He says as he travelled the world giving talks he would constantly get people coming up to him saying they saw people in power shift into reptiles. Never his own experiences, just people telling him.
Now if you are in the government, and this man is going around the world speaking from his heart and exposing you what do you do? You somehow (i.e. get hundreds of people to say it to him as he travels so he sees no connection between them (no ones names are ever mentioned)) get people to convince him of something totally wrong and ridiculous that he will then incorporate into his talks and completely discredit them. An obvious tactic, why did he fall for it?
I do think that after he tried with his serious old work, the world didn't care, and he still went through hell being ridiculed he just though "screw it" and tried to make a living writing interesting books, maybe looking at Alex Jones' mansion and thinking "yeah lets have a go".
All I know is that the moon is there for some reason, it plays an important role in our consciousness, I don't think we would be here if it wasn't, at least not how we are now.
That's my thought on DI at least.
Cal
I don't think you need hundreds of people- just ten or twenty, well placed, because people overhear things, and take them in as truth, and when they hear something similar from someone else, assume it must be true, and just run with it.Quote:
(i.e. get hundreds of people to say it to him as he travels so he sees no connection between them (no ones names are ever mentioned)) get people to convince him of something totally wrong and ridiculous that he will then incorporate into his talks and completely discredit them. An obvious tactic, why did he fall for it?
I witnessed similar development in the height in the chupacabra emergent phenomenon, which started in Puerto Rico, and knew some of the 'witnesses' that reported it. Now it's globalized in most hispanic culture, has become folk legend.
¡Hi, Neil!
¿Is Art imitating Nature or Nature imitating Art?Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil Templar
The first is an interesting possibility, specially at light of paranormal viewpoint. (Consider Arthur C. Clarke's "2001: A Space Odissey")
My best regards,
Ãngel
hi asalantu,Quote:
Originally Posted by asalantu
i love the question: Is art imitating nature or is nature imitating art?
is like, i am therefore i think or i think therefore i am
i see like it is an equation on the chalkboard of life, always there, and we come back to it everyday to try and resolve an answer. but in keeping with that equations rules for being solved, both side of it have to be worked simultaneously, as if the "or" amidst is an equal sign. from there, the process of elimination arises.
one can say either side of it, there is only 'is', there is only 'art', there is only 'imitating', there is only 'nature'. therefore both sides lose these manifold redundancys, bringing one closer to the answer, which in this case is 'or'.
to be or not to be, 'or not' being the answer. Ripley's believe it 'or not'. the choice is ours, as each.
words like 'and', 'or'; there provide connection where otherwise there is none to be had. Being in and of itself dictates duality, where the same aspects would take on seeming differences to their given extremes.
one can say, nothing is impossible. one can say, everything is possible. either one has said the same, and in having said so, the field of possibilitys opens wide to expose 'being' in all of its glory revealed, and in all of its inglorious revealed.
'or' presupposes varied choices from which to choose from. these choices arise in the perceptual field of conceptualized images. to presuppose is to aniticipate an answer, to capitulate thoughts into it toward a constructive resolution.
i think this is what Clark was trying to reveal in his book 2001 S.O., man's destiny of having created an unfailing machine that sees this 'or' and all which would construct around it, impersonally paired against a simple but personal human being.
the very beginning of it, primate picks up weapon in the fight over this 'or'. to be or not to be, within the survivalistic paradigm of animalistic being. yet, in the book 2001 S.O. is imagine that Hal represented human intuition and the man represented human instinct, both arriving within the human's fuller breadth of understanding. perhaps the visuals in the movie served to fill the void of what words could not realy lift from the page toward envisioning the message.
a mother with her children all day has to pick and choose her battles, often she says to the most unruly, wait until your father gets home. she does this simply because, to have allowed the overall atmosphere of her mothering day to erupt into parental negativity would have as well punished all present in that day, herself and all the children. so she defers to a detached agency whom is arriving later in the day, not so he will be the severe hammer of punishment, but because he is detached and will deal with it more gently, as opposed to had she dealt with it when her emotions were running high.
in this, the child is the central import, the 'or' of being's birthed arrival, new light upon the face of all. analogously speaking of course, and literally.
one might say, it isnt the moon nor the sun, it is the earth that is of central import; for upon it all chidren are.
is that artificiality? i guess this depends upon the child's believability in and of all that which from central import looks out and round about, in awe and wonder to behold.
tim
incidentally, David Icke is interviewed on conscious media network this month, talking about this very subject... 8)