David Icke- the moon is not real.

[CFTraveler]

Without subscribing to any theory- those sure look like mold markings in Iapetus.

[Tutor]

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

[Alaskans]

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.

[Neil Templar]

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.
and i wasn't presenting those links as any supposed evidence.
simply interesting stuff that's surfaced in the past few days .

[Alaskans]

no offence taken man.
and i wasn't presenting those links as any supposed evidence.
simply interesting stuff that's surfaced in the past few days .

I know.
And I only spoke of them in a general sense.

[personalreality]

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.

[Cal]

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

[CFTraveler]

(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 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.

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.

[asalantu]

¡Hi, Neil!

more about an artificial moon orbiting Saturn
http://www.enterprisemission.com/moon2.htm
and then there's this -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8594101.stm

¿Is Art imitating Nature or Nature imitating Art?

The first is an interesting possibility, specially at light of paranormal viewpoint. (Consider Arthur C. Clarke's "2001: A Space Odissey")

My best regards,
Ángel

[Tutor]

¡Hi, Neil!

more about an artificial moon orbiting Saturn
http://www.enterprisemission.com/moon2.htm
and then there's this -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8594101.stm

¿Is Art imitating Nature or Nature imitating Art?

The first is an interesting possibility, specially at light of paranormal viewpoint. (Consider Arthur C. Clarke's "2001: A Space Odissey")

My best regards,
Ángel

hi 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