Moon Landings: Did They Happen or Not?

[luc]

Thanks for staying engaged Luc.

Never thought of myself as being God and I know I can be wrong. However I don't feel I am fighting with Higher Authority. There is no one to fight with. All this for me is just like shadow boxing. Trying to unravel a puzzle. Moon Landing for me just happens to be such a puzzle.

Leaving that aside however, I would like to apologize to you. After reading through the comments I can see how I may have swung the rhetorical hammer a bit too strong. I could have been a bit less edgy in responding without losing anything of what I was trying to convey. In hindsight what I wrote could be interpreted as being mean spirited. In Life I am nothing like that. I usually side with the underdog and am willing to come and help. In the case of this thread I felt that Brewer was being attacked and I did what was natural for me. I tried to help but it just came out wrong.

So I hope you accept my apology.
Cheers

No worries, Hi_Henry. I think the important point in this discussion is that it's crucial to engage in "second-order thinking", especially in this day and age of complete confusion. In other words, it's not only about discussing facts, arguing for or against a theory etc., it's about being able to take a step back from our own thoughts. This means realizing that we are not our thoughts or thinking patterns. Indeed, we can observe them, observe our minds while they think.

This is the reason why the very process of thinking was brought up by many here, and the suggestion to pretend for a moment that the moon landing hoax theory is just not true, or that you have never heard of it. This is an exercise in "second-order thinking": the observing part in you creates a thought process that is based on the assumption that the theory is not true. You then allow this thought process to play out, unhindered by emotion or identification. It's like You observe a different mind in action.

It's a very useful exercise, regardless of the moon landing question. Because so many things need a very refined understanding, and require a multitude of perspectives that are all valid in different ways, even though they can appear to be contradictory. But that is just because one is strongly identified with a specific perspective, which muddies the thinking and leads to wrong, over-generalized conclusions.

With practice, you can manage to hold different perspectives in mind simultaneously, some of which you cannot reconcile with each other for now. But you can still think them through, and switch perspectives when necessary. This is because You, the observer, is in control, but at the same time you have full access to every thought process and even the associated feelings.

This also relates to my comment about authority. If you don't like the opinion of the majority or the authority, it's easy to say "but sometimes the minority is right". However, it's much wiser in such a situation to create a new thought process that assumes the authority/majority might be right, or partially right, and have that thought process think it through. You gain a new and improved understanding that way and practice "second-order thinking". Notice that this doesn't necessarily mean giving up a certain theory completely, but it sure means giving up identification with a specific theory.

 

[Joe]

1 minute or so that is relevant to recent posts in this topic.

 

[Hi_Henry]

This is because You, the observer, is in control,

As I see it this is the crucial issue. Not an easy parameter to control in the human experience but after taking the dog out magically all seems to come to a more rational setting

I'm a dog lover also

Cheers Luc

 

[Brewer]

Penumbrae
Back to the images in AS1465/KK. Some say the cause of these is a penumbra. I've looked through a large part the archive now, there's over 5000 images snapped on the moon and it takes time. I've also looked at recent images from the Chinese Lunar probes. I can find absolutely nothing that even remotely resembles these LM shadows. Other long shadows cast by rocks, rovers, surveyor 3 and astronaut selfies are single, mostly parallel and and posses normal penumbras. I've seen one double shadow in a small crater buts it's next to a double shadow LM but that's for another post.

I see penumbrae every day, occasionally I help load a patient into a rescue chopper and have stood in it's shadow as it hovers 100 meters overhead overhead. It casts a shadow with a fuzzy but discernible penumbra but nothing like this.

Look at this screen snips, do penumbrae behave this way? Using the 3 craters for reference you'll notice that the pale shadow never moves, only the darker shadow moves. All this happens within one magazine post landing, pre-EVA and ONLY happen when taken from within the LM. Shadows move about .54 degree per hour on the moon and only one shadow is moving and moving fast and in multiple directions. If it's a penumbra then it should move with the the parent shadow. Apollo 17 is the only mission where I see normal LM shadows.

 

[Brewer]

This light and shadow thing seems to be a real sticking point. I've explained how to solve it, but Brewer seems unwilling or unable to engage with the problem in a practical manner.

I have to agree with BlackCartouche; if you're here, you're agreeing to crucible level work, so you need to be prepared to have your sacred cows challenged. I don't, however, want to get sucked into organic portal energy drain dynamics, but at this point it seems I've committed somewhat at least to collecting my own observations here for others and future reference.

And so perhaps I can help lay this 'double' shadow question to rest...
View attachment 30870


View attachment 30871

View attachment 30872

There other examples of strange shadow effects which Moon Hoax proponents like to point to as proof of a grand conspiracy. I'd encourage folks to examine those examples like scientists, to think through the possible mundane explanations. As I've said many times, there is plenty of weird stuff out there which cannot be explained by "swamp gas" answers. Learning how to discern signal from noise is vital to progressing through this stuff. The Moon Hoax question is apparently a good training ground.

Behind the Apollo 12 landing site is no hill but an eroded crater see AS12-48-7091. In front it looks like a shallow depression followed by a rise but when you when you view these images taken from various angles. AS12-48-7152, AS12-49-7248 and AS12-49-7317 the lander appears to be on a plain. So a feature big and bright enough to provide secondary lighting seems absent as indicated by these frontal images of of the lander, AS12-46-6813 and AS12-46-6726. Is there anything reflective enough on the LM to make that neat hole in the shadow? Is there enough light being reflected off the surface to do so? The other smudges of light you circled below the hole are probably the markings that are etched onto the LM windows to assist in landing that are out of focus. As for the single shadow legs I'm experimenting lighting objects with two lights and getting similar results as these and other images. Some parts remain solid, others overlap and small details on the extremities can get obliterated so you see only one rather than two. Building a rig to test it.

 

[Brewer]

In case it wasn't clear, here are the same three pictures I just shot above, with the apparent directions of the shadows, taking 5 examples. Notice that number 5 appears to have a completely different angle. Take a special note of picture two below and how very different the shadows cast there even though it is the same single light source from the first picture, just from another angle/height. And notice in picture three the double shadow "mystery" which is in reality just the Umbra, penumbra and antumbra phenomena, created from the same single source of light. Try it yourself!

View attachment 30890

Here's a picture I took a few days ago in south eastern Australia about midday. I'm working on my fire truck, inspecting the antennae. I do this every week and could take the same picture each time and it wouldn't change. One light, one shadow, parallel with other shadows and with a fuzzy little penumbra the further out it gets. Much the same as would be on the Moon, Mars and Mercury.

 

[Jones]

If you boil it down, there seem to be basically two types of thinking cascades/behaviors/patterns that separate people.

Group one:

1. Idea pops into head either from own volition (guided by a lack of knowledge) or because someone else proposed it or for another reason
2. Own thinking about the idea (and pretty much anything else) is essentially not questioned. People in this group trust their own thinking. Even the possibility of being wrong doesn't really register for them, especially about their own thinking. Their own thinking is always king.
3. Based on their own thinking those people then strongly engage in conformation bias to strengthen their thinking rather than questioning it, because anything else would be too painful
4. The spiral continuous until people in this group are so possessed by their own idea/thinking that nothing else even registers anymore

Group two:

1: This group is less likely to even be attracted to obviously outlandish/strange ideas in the first place, because they have some first-hand experience/knowledge earned by painful experiences. Sometimes they even feel repelled by some ideas.
2: Idea pops into head either from own volition (guided by a lack of knowledge) or because someone else proposed it or for another reason
3: People in this group know that they lack knowledge and can't trust their own thinking from painful experiences, so they stand critical against the idea from the get go. They essentially don't trust their own thinking.
4: They take a skeptical stands against their own thinking/idea. Even more so when they know full well that they have no clue whatsoever about a topic
5: They seek out more knowledge either from books and/or people who know more than them, to get a better idea of the subject because they KNOW that they likely lack quite a lot of data.
6: Sometimes they then go a step further and don't take for granted what is written and said to them but seek out to find it out themselves, either by deep research and/or by experiments and most importantly by networking. They essentially don't trust authoritative statements and want to know it themselves deeply. "Just because someone says so doesn't make it necessarily true" is something important for them.
7: People in this group know that others are human beings too who are as screwed up as they themselves. They are as likely as them to be completely wrong about something and emotional creatures with thinking errors, even if they have big degrees in this or that profession. If a doctor says something for example, doesn't make it much more likely for them, just because he is a doctor.
8: They recognize and appriciate track records. If somebody has a good track record, they are more likely to take what that person says with more weight than a person who has a bad track record.
9: This group is open to pretty much every outcome from the get go, no matter if it accords with their thinking or not
10: They are far less likely to engage in conformation bias compared with the first group
11: After having done their research and networked with others about it, they come to a preliminary conclusion about their originals idea/thinking pattern
12: Sometimes people in this group know from the get go that the time-energy investment into certain topics doesn't pay off and that it would be wiser to pursue other more fruitful stuff instead from the get go

The moon hoax example is such a time-energy investment not paying off scenario for a lot of people and rightly so.

Thanks for these lists. I think I hold some idea's on both - but the 1st list seems like the recipe for growing and nurturing a big strong sacred cow. Handy to have it laid out like that because each step can serve as a red flag of sorts, even if only retrospectively.

 

[Cosmos]

1 minute or so that is relevant to recent posts in this topic.

That is basically the whole crux of the matter summarized in just one minute.

 

[Mike]

I get alerts from the website Medium and this was one of the articles mentioned today. I assume the person wrote it with all the 50th anniversary hoopla going on. Due to following this thread I read it.

I think the place I would start in terms of researching the Moon Landing Hoax theory if I was interested in it is how the theory came about. That is what this article tries to address and it seems that the theory's origin revolves around mainly one person - Bill Kaysing. I have no idea how accurate this article is, but would suggest believers in the hoax (as I was at one point due to reading Dave McGowan's stuff) look into how it all started.

The Moon Landing Hoax Theory Started as a Joke

A freelance writer sowed doubts about the Apollo mission — laying the groundwork for 9/11 truthers, birtherism, Pizzagate, and QAnon

gen.medium.com

With their rambling, tax-evading lifestyle, Kaysing and his new wife and co-writer, Ruth, often came into contact with other social outsiders and dropouts. One was John Grant, a homeless heroin addict and Vietnam vet who bonded with Kaysing over a mutual contempt for the system. One day, Grant suggested that Kaysing could use his influence as a writer to undermine the government.

“Why don’t you write something outrageous?” he said, as Kaysing later explained in an unaired segment of an interview for the 2001 documentary, A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon. “Like, we never went to the moon?”

Such doubts were not uncommon. In a widely reported, though far from scientific, 1970 survey, 1,721 U.S. citizens were asked, “Do you really, completely believe that the United States has actually landed men on the moon and returned them to earth again?” In one community in Washington, D.C., as many as 54% of respondents did not “really, completely believe.” As yet, though, there was no one making the case, in a sustained way, that the moon landing hadn’t occurred.

Kaysing was reluctant at first. He had intended his next project to be Eat Well on a Dollar a Day, a how-to guide packed with nutritional advice, money-saving hints, and wholesome recipes from around the world, including an entire chapter devoted to the excellence of the humble potato. But in August 1974, the same month as Richard Nixon’s forced resignation in the wake of the Watergate scandal and with the Vietnam War still raging, Kaysing signed a contract with Price, Stern, and Sloan, an L.A. publisher, to write a book of fiction called We Never Went to the Moon. Initially the book, like Julian Scheer’s presentation to the Man Will Never Fly banquet, was meant as a hoax. “We agreed,” he told an underground newspaper, the Los Angeles Free Press, “that it would be a spoof, a satire.”

In that 1975 article, Kaysing noted that he’d been inspired by Stanley Kubrick’s 1964 Cold War black comedy Dr. Strangelove and The Report from Iron Mountain, a cunning forgery of a suppressed government document published in 1967. In the book itself, he also cited the influence of Executive Action, the widely derided 1973 conspiracy thriller that fictionalized the assassination of John F. Kennedy and was so controversial that it was pulled from many theaters. As for the actual Apollo 11 broadcasts in 1969, Kaysing proudly claimed he hadn’t even bothered to watch those or paid much attention to news stories about them.

“Playing the devil’s advocate, I began to question every step of the various moon flights,” he told the newspaper. “I found myself wondering,” he also explained, “whether I was working on a hoax or whether I was actually becoming a technical detective. Little by little, the evidence seemed to build in the favor of the Apollo Project itself being a gigantic hoax.” By the time he completed the book, Kaysing’s original satirical intent had given way to a conviction that the moon landing was indeed a lie.

 

[Glenn]

Reading that article on Medium, I found this near the end of the article:


...Did the moon landing conspiracy theory pave the way for the more poisonous and discord-sowing theories of today? The denizens of QAnon message boards sometimes evoke the tone of We Never Went to the Moon and share the determination to erode trust in the system. And they do so while apparently fancying themselves precisely as enlightened and freethinking as Kaysing did.

But today’s conspiracy theories resemble only the darkest, most murderous elements of Kaysing’s thesis. Next to online rumblings about 9/11, President Barack Obama’s birth certificate, Sandy Hook, crisis actors, and Pizzagate, the fantasy of a lunar hoax feels almost wondrous...

 

[Cosmos]

Here is what the C's have said on September 09, 2000:

Q: (L) Okay, moving right along here. We have here a guy who has written a paper that says: "To make interstellar travel believable, NASA was created. The Apollo space program foisted the idea that man could travel to and walk upon the moon. Every Apollo mission was carefully rehearsed and then filmed in the large sound stages at the Atomic Energy Commission's Top Secret test site in the Nevada Desert and in the secured and guarded sound stage at the Walt Disney studios within which was a huge, full scale mock-up of the Moon." Is it true that the Apollo missions were films as described here?

A: No.

Q: (L) Did the Apollo missions actually go into space as we think they did?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) This guy further writes that "All names, missions, landing sites and events in the Apollo space program echo the occult metaphors, rituals and symbology of the Illuminati secret religion. The most transparent was the fakes explosion on the spacecraft Apollo 13 named 'Aquarius' at 1:13 on April 13, 1970, which was a metaphor for the initiation ceremony involving the death, placement of the coffin, communion with the spiritual world, and the imparting of esoteric knowledge to the candidate, rebirth of the initiate, and the raising up of Phoenix, the new age of Aquarius by the group of the Lion's Paw..." and so on and on. Was this occult significance applied to these events, either deliberately or accidentally?

A: Maybe coincidentally.

Q: (L) If there was any coincidence of application of these principles, did it bespeak an underlying synchronous or nonlocal reality of oneness?

A: These ideas being put forth this evening are entertaining if nothing else!

Q: (L) Well, I always said that you could derive occult significance from where the paper man tosses the paper on the lawn if you try hard enough! Nevertheless, this guy further writes that "The tremendous radiation encountered in the Van Allen belt, solar radiation, cosmic radiation, solar flares, temperature control and many other problems connected with space travel, prevent living organisms from leaving our atmosphere with our known level of technology. Any intelligent high school student with a basic physics book can prove NASA faked the Apollo moon landings. If you doubt this, please explain how the astronauts walked upon the moon surface enclosed in a space suit, in full sunlight, absorbing a minimum of 265 degrees of heat, surrounded by a vacuum. And that is not even taking into consideration any of the effects of the cosmic radiation, solar flares, micro-meteorites, etc." Comment please?

A: No comment!

I bet some will even find a way to interpret this in line with the "moon hoax" or proclaim that the C's weren't answering directly about it and thus this is "proof" of a "conspiracy" or that the C's haven't answered it and "would probably say something else" if asked directly. For others on the other hand, the above couldn't be much clearer and in line with what was fairly obvious all along; the "moon hoax" theory is bonkers at best, based on all the data. Also, notice that the same shallow "logic" that person used back then about the moon "hoax" is still in place for many people, basically remaining unchanged since the first "theory" of that sort was mumbled out. No progress.

And here are other interesting statements by the C's about our moon, other moons in the solar system and Mars. All of them are quite interesting and something that actually sounds like a worthy thing to investigate in stark contrast to the "moon hoax" stuff.

Session 7 October 1994:

Q: (L) What are Mars' moons?

A: Disguised bases.

Q: (L) Who built them?

A: Who else? The Lizzies.

Q: (L) The film I saw at Andy 's house, the Mars landing, was that an actual film of a Mars landing?

A: False.

Q: (L) Has there been a landing on Mars by the United States?

A: No.

Session 9 October 1994:

Q: (L) I am going to give a list of planets written about in the Sumerian texts which Dr. Sitchen has interpreted. I would like for you to give me the true translation of these names. What was meant by {the Sumerian word}:

{In the following, the words to the left are what I called out and the words to the right of the colon are the C's responses.}

Mummu: Comet cluster.
Lahamu: Venus
Lahmu: Earth
The Hammered Bracelet: Comet trail of Venus and cluster.
Anshar: Jupiter.
Anu: Moon.
Ea: Sun.
Gaga: Saturn.
Marduk: Mars.
Tiamat: Sirius.

Session 22 October 1994:

Q: (L) When and how did planet earth acquire its moon?

A: Was caused by the regular passage of a large comet cluster which caused a gravitational disruption allowing a large chunk of the original earth's surface, which was somewhat less solid at that point in space/time, to break away from the main body and assume a locked in orbit around the main body.

Q: (L) When did this happen?

A: This occurred approximately 3 billion years ago.

Session 25 October 1994:

Q: (L) Are there alien bases on the Moon?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Who do the bases belong to?

A: Grays.

[...]

Q: (L) How did Marduk slay Tiamat?

A: Wrong.

Q: (L) Marduk did not slay Tiamat?

A: No.

Q: (L) What did it mean when it said "putting Tiamat's head into position?"

A: Mars conjunct Moon.

Q: (L) How did Tiamat's head form the "hammered bracelet"?

A: Comet trail.

Session 19 November 1994:

Q: (T) Is there such a thing as "alternative three" the plan to take all the brains off the planet?

A: No.

Q: (T) Is that more disinformation?

A: Yes. So is Mars landing but not Mars monuments.

Q: (TL) Who made the monuments on Mars?

A: Atlanteans.

Q: (T) So, the Atlanteans had inter-planetary ability?

A: Yes. With ease. Atlantean technology makes yours look like the Neanderthal era.

Q: (T) Who created the structures on the moon that Richard Hoagland has discovered?

A: Atlanteans.

Q: (T) What did they use these structures for?

A: Energy transfer points for crystalline power/symbolism as in monuments or statuary.

Q: (T) What statuary are you referring to?

A: Example is face.

Q: (T) What power did these crystals gather?

A: Sun.

Q: (T) Was it necessary for them to have power gathering stations on Mars and the Moon. Did this increase their power?

A: Not necessary but it is not necessary for you to have a million dollars either. Get the correlation? Atlanteans were power hungry the way your society is money hungry.

Q: (T) Was the accumulation of this power what brought about their downfall?

A: Yes.

Q: (T) Did they lose control of this power?

A: It overpowered them the same way your computers will overpower you.

Q: (V) Is it similar to them gaining a life and intelligence of their own?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) You mean these crystalline structures came to life, so to speak?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) And then what did they do?

A: Destroyed Atlantis.

Q: (L) But I thought that Atlantis was destroyed because of the close passage of another body of the solar system?

A: Was damaged but recovered.

Q: (L) So Atlantis was damaged by a close passage of Mars or whatever and then recovered from that damage, is that correct?

A: Part of landmass, but not all, was destroyed.

Q: (L) So, how many seperate destructions did Atlantis experience?

A: Three.

Q: (L) One was caused by the close passage of Mars?

A: Yes. And comets.

Q: (L) Was Mars and the comets loosely interactive?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) And the second was caused by what?

A: Venus.

Q: (L) And the third and final destruction was caused by what?

A: Crystals.

Q: (T) Are the crystals still active?

A: Bermuda triangle.

Q: (L) I thought that was a myth?

A: No.

Q: (L) And what does that crystal do? Is it continuously active?

A: No. Erratic.

Q: (L) Is it still active in the sense of being a conscious or sentient entity?

A: No.

Q: (L) What activates it?

A: Many factors.

Q: (L) And when it is activated, what does it do?

A: Transdimensional window is blasted open.

Q: (L) Say a person was sailing along in the Bermuda Triangle and the window was blasted open and these people passed through or were engulfed in it or whatever, in what condition would they find themselves?

A: Something akin to suspended animation.

Q: (L) Would they be conscious of their state of suspended animation or would their consciousness also be suspended?

A: Either or.

Q: (L) Do they stay in this state forever, or do they come back out, or do they come out somewhere else?

A: Open. All are possible. Same thing happened to Philadelphia experiment participants.

Q: (L) If an individual were in this interdimensional state of suspended animation, does this mean they are stuck there forever?

A: Maybe.

Q: (L) Can they not die, is that what you are saying?

A: To them they may perceive something like waiting for millions of years.

Q: (L) Is there no one or no way to rescue them from this state?

A: Why do you think those sailors were hopelessly insane?

Q: (L) Besides the crystal in the Bermuda Triangle, are any of the others still active?

A: Yes.

Q: (T) Does the government know about them?

A: Semi.

Q: (L) Where are the others located?

A: Off Japan; in Brazil; in Ural mountains of Russia; North and South Poles.

Q: (T) Are the ones on the Moon and Mars active also?

A: Yes.

Q: (V) Are they responsible for any of the earthquakes like the one in Japan?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) If one crystal is found and the technology is deciphered, and another is found, does it increase the power...

A: Let us answer this way: If Neanderthals found a 747 would they know how to use it?

Q: (L) What were the physical dimensions of these crystals and were they cut or naturally grown?

A: Varied. Were synthetic.

Q: (L) Were they faceted?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) In their faceting, what was the general configuration?

A: Pyramid.

Q: (L) Was that an absolute pyramid with the same proportions as say, the Great Pyramid at Gizeh?

A: Close.

Q: (L) How large was the largest from base to apex?

A: 5000 feet.

Q: (L) What was the average size?

A: 500 feet.

Q: (L) And was the one that was 5,000 feet tall, is that one still in existence?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Where is that one located?

A: 380 miles due East of you?

Q: (L) Some years ago a pilot reported seeing a pyramid near there in the water...

A: That is just the top sticking out of the ocean floor. It is 90 per cent buried.

Q: (V) In meditation, I saw crystals coming up during Earth changes. Is this what is going to happen?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) How come this crystal didn't shatter or break up during the subsidence of Atlantis?

A: Extraordinarily strong. An atomic bomb would not shatter it. The chain reaction of a thermonuclear explosion would be absorbed into the crystal and transferred into pure energy. That relates to the design function.

Q: (L) And then what would happen?

A: Energy dispersal unless focused as engineered by the Atlanteans.

Q: (L) Where did they get this technology?

A: They evolved it.

Q: (L) They invented it themselves?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Did they interact with any aliens?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Did they get any help at all from these extraterrestrials?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) And who were these aliens?

A: Lizards.

Q: (L) What kind of power frequency did these crystals use?

A: Full range.

Q: (T) How many of the crystals have been discovered by the governments of the world?

A: All.

Q: (T) Are they trying to use them?

A: Pointlessly.

Q: (T) Are they trying?

A: Maybe.

Q: (T) Is that why they backed off from the Moon and stopped the space program?

A: No. Government doesn't understand technology.

Q: (T) Have they backed off from their activities on the Moon?

A: Open.

Q: (T) Are the crystals on Mars why they want to get there so badly?

A: Yes.

Q: (T) Because of the crystals or because of what is stored in the monuments?

A: Neither.

Q: (T) Why do they want to get to Mars?

A: Explore.

Q: (T) Are the top echelons of the human race all the fools that they seem?

A: Subjective.

Q: (L) Can we utilize that crystalline shape to generate electricity?

A: Possible and has been done.

Q: (L) Is it complicated?

A: Yes.

Session 4 March 1995:

Q: (L) Georges Gurdjieff proposed the idea that the earth is, in a sense, food for the moon. What he meant was, what he had learned from these ancient teachers was that earth was a food source for some level of being, and that possibly these beings had encampments or bases on the moon, but that earth was eventually to become a star and that then the moon would become an inhabited planet as the earth was, and so on... Is this a fairly...

A: Close.

Q: (L) Is the Moon a second density planet?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) And the Moon is used as a base by other beings?

A: On different densities.

Q: (L) Are there 2nd density beings that inhabit the moon in a full time way?

A: No.

Q: (T) Are there 3rd density beings?

A: No.

Q: (T) Are there 4th density beings?

A: Yes.

Q: (T) Are they Grays?

A: They don't inhabit the moon, they just use it.

Q: (T) Are there 5th density beings there?

A: 5th uses all.

Q: (T) Are there 6th density beings there?

A: Ditto.

Q: (T) Is the 7th density being there?

A: That is union with the One.

Session 18 March 1995:

Q: (B) The dream was very distinct. I went to the moon and I was taken to the interior of the moon, and there was a very realistic interior to the moon. There were some parts that were hollow inside. And, when I went inside a big cavern there was 1920's art deco style, and it was so clear. And, it was to learn more about who we are and where we are... (L) Did you know that, symbolically, the Moon represents the mother or the feminine principle? And, you are talking about going inside a "cavernous" area "inside" the Moon, or inside the "mother." The womb. (J) Twenties Art Deco? {laughter} (B) Yeah...

A: Thirties art deco.

Q: {Laughter} (S) Did it have something to do with Miami Beach? That's thirties art deco all over the place. (B) Yeah, I've been there a few times. (T) What did the thirties art deco...

A: Cross reference: perhaps your interest in UFOs and related has some connection to your bloodline?

Q: (B) So, if I was to explore this relationship... go back and find this woman who was my mother, she might be involved in some way with metaphysical subjects or UFOs?

A: More than you realize!!!!!

Q: (L) Maybe she's an alien! {Laughter.} (B) My mother's a Cassiopaean! (S) In disguise! An Orion! (T) Well, we are looking for an Orion. We are not going to find them, they are going to find us. (J) It's not like we can put an ad in the paper. (L) Why not? (J) No, no, no, no, no! (S) We'll give your phone number, Laura! {Laughter}

A: For Brad's benefit, Mars monuments are atlantean, some on Moon are others; are ET.

Q: (S) Yes. Edgar Cayce said that the Atlanteans were going to other planets...

A: Yes. With the same relative ease with which you would fly to Atlanta.

Q: (B) Strange!

A: Pun intended! Triple! What is the base root of the name?

Session 11 August 1996:

Q: (L) So, there's not going to be a massive UFO landing between August 29th and December 31st of this year? (T) Only if you go and see Independence Day!

A: No comment!

Q: (L) Well, I just... (T) That's what the press secretary says for Clinton: no comment! 'Can you describe this woman?' 'No comment!' (L) Is that so pusillanimous as to not deserve a comment? OK, well, so we won't have to worry about Sheldon Nidle's aliens coming and taking over... (T) They can come and take Sheldon away! (L) Well, OK, but is this Mars Rock, and is this opening of the doors concept, is this leading up to some definite, overt interaction with aliens? (T) They told us, we know it, yes!

A: Gradually.

Q: (T) That's what it's all about. They're opening it up, and they're going to take the money... If they want to go to Mars to look for civilizations and stuff, which they're going to lead up to, and back to the moon here, and all this, and they're going to make Hoagland feel really good, because he's right! They've already done that!

A: Notice how you heard nothing about the Mars Probes until the rock announcement?

Q: (T) This is the new stuff? (L) Is this right?

A: The excavation robot spacecraft. One Probe is already on its way, another to follow. No further explanation about "loss" of Mars Explorer.

Q: (L) What did happen to the Mars Explorer?

A: Blacked out. You see, 'Too risky.' And too much too soon, due to pressure from Hoagland and others.

Q: (T) My own opinion is that they've already been there, and they know what's there.

A: No. Microbes are easier to swallow than humans in togas!

Q: (T) Cleopatra and Antony are not going to go over real big this week! Especially with the Bible scholars. (F) And the scientists! (L) I want to throw in a quick one about this plane crash. Several people have written and asked me. We've discussed it ourselves. There's all of these plane crashes, with the possibility that we are actually in some state of conflict, and that we just don't know about it. It was suggested that they've been shot down by the Lizzies, or something along that line?

A: No.

Q: (L) OK, well, then forget it. OK... (T) Back to Mars. OK? (L) Forward to Mars.

A: Yes.

Q: (T) OK, you just mentioned that somebody from this planet already launched a Mars Probe. A new Mars Probe, that no one in public knows about. Because it's never been talked about. So, it's a secret probe. Who does it belong to?

A: Was secret US government.

Q: (T) Was it something that one of the Shuttle missions put out?

A: No.

Q: (J) When did it go up?

A: September of 1995.

Q: (T) Last September, a year ago. So, it's gone for a year. It takes it a year, two years to get there? Maybe not that long. So, it's over half-way there at this point.

A: Yes.

Q: (T) What's it going to do?

A: Next year.

Q: (T) Next year for the next probe?

A: Yes.

Q: (T) Is this going to be one of those public ones? A publicly announced one?

A: They both are.

Q: (T) What is the purpose of these probes?

A: Excavation to display living organisms.

Q: (T) Display? (L) Yes, for public consumption. In other words, not only do we have a rock now, that shows evidence that there was... (T) Oh, display, as when they find it and dig it up, they're going to show it on camera! (L) Yes! (T) Katie Couric will interview it! (L) Right! (F) First they said they found no evidence, then they said it was inconclusive... Now, who the hell knows what they found! In revealing things, we'll start with fossilized life, and then move on... (L) So, they're going to display the discovery of living organisms on Mars to take the next step to acclimate...

A: Yes.

Q: (L) So, in other words, this process is going to be something of an on-going thing, and that all of these people who are cranking around about, you know, alien landings...

A: No faces, though.

Q: (L) There's not going to be any 'Faces On Mars?' They are not going to show us...

A: Won't be revealed, what do you think happened with Mars Explorer?

Q: (L) Well, what did happen with the Mars Explorer? (T) Now, now, now, let me...

A: Hoagland forced their hand.

Q: (T) What do we think happened to the Mars Explorer? I think they switched channels. They just moved it from one communication post to another, and it's doing exactly what it's supposed to be doing. And they did it in such a way, that the NASA people really didn't know what happened, so that when they were asked, they could say, 'We don’t know what happened to it!' Because they really don't know what happened! (L) When we're talking about attack, as we were before, as in plane crashes, the Olympics, all these different things - this dealing with these Mars Explorers - is all this stuff, or most of this stuff, coming from the 4th density manipulations of human minds, rather than...

A: Yes.

Q: (L)... rather than actual, physical entry and doing of deeds? Is that it?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) OK, so what these people are doing with this Mars Probe, with all of these things, they're being manipulated to do these things, and there's obviously an objective. What is the objective?

A: Too complex.

Q: (L) Too complex. So, it's not just control, there's control for a reason.

A: To explain to you.

Q: (T) Because there's 4th density, fifth density and sixth density reasons involved.

A: Just 4th.

Q: (T) I have a question. They're going to display live organisms, like, how did they put that 'Living organisms'? How big are these living organisms going to be? How advanced?

A: Teeny-tiny.

Q: (T) So, we're still talking about microscopic organisms here?

A: Yes.

Q: (J) So, they won't wave at us!

A: But these will be alive. Can't you see the progression here? "Don't want to scare Grandma Sally Bible Thumper/Stockmarket Investor!"

Q: (L) Do you have any more for us tonight?

A: No. Goodbye.

End of Session

Session 28 December 1996:

Q: (V) When you are on 4th density and look at the Sun, do you see the same thing we see here? When you look at the Moon, do you have the same visual experience?

A: No. Awareness is broader.

Q: (L) Well, what would you see when looking at the Sun?

A: Entire visual spectrum.

Q: (L) You mean we would be able to see all the things that we can now only see with instruments? Like the corona, the solar wind, et cetera?

A: The entire sphere from all possible angles of realization?

Q: (L) Would we be able to HEAR the Sun?

A: If chosen.

Q: (L) What does the Sun sound like?

A: Not answerable.

Q: (L) Do planets and Suns talk to each other? Are they angels and archangels?

A: Laura, let us not go over the "deep end." [laughter] Boys are all snails and puppy dog tails... Girls are really sugar and spice, and everything nice...

Q: (L) So, you are making fun of me!

A: Sure, why not?

Session 31 July 1999:

Q: I know it's vague. Just another of the endless rumors and obfuscations. These people must sit up all night thinking of this stuff! Now, somebody sent in a question: Was the moon placed in orbit around the earth for a purpose?

A: ?!? That is a leading question, i.e.: when did you stop beating your wife? Presumptuous.

Q: Let me ask it this way: was the moon added or placed deliberately?

A: Okay. This is impossibly complex because in one way or another, everything is part of a "plan."

Q: So, if we go far enough back or deeper into the considerations of the various densities, you will find out that everything is part of a grand plan. Can you give us just briefly any of the significant effects of the moon in its position in relation to the Earth?

A: These are basically known.

Session 22 January 2000:

Q: Now, we have this picture of this sort of "track" on the Moon here. It is 29 KM long and about 1 KM wide, and they are calling it a "landing strip." Well, it's pretty big to be a landing strip, in my opinion. What is it?

A: Residue of ancient mining operation.

Q: How ancient, by our calendar?

A: 350,000 years, approximately.

Q: In specific, how does this mark relate to a mining operation? Was it like strip mining, or where mining machines were driving back and forth, or what?

A: Underground channel mining.

Q: So, it is a depression caused by an underground mine. What was being mined?

A: Lignite and gold.

Q: Who was doing the mining?

A: Who made you?

Q: Orions?

A: Yes.

Q: What did they use this lignite and gold for?

A: Conduction of electromagnetism.

Q: Did they take this material out of our solar system to use elsewhere?

A: Some.

Q: (A) I don't understand something here. These alchemists, who were not so clever as 4th density, were apparently able to produce gold. Now, these Orions who are so much more advanced, one would suppose, could not do transmutation, but needed to engage in mining? If they are so clever, why couldn't they transmute iron to gold? Why did they have to mine the gold?

A: Have to? Not necessarily. Greed dictates that when it is there for the taking, do so. Does the counterfeiter walk away from a stash of cash?

Session 31 July 2002:

Q: (Brainwave) What do we want to say on this? (L) You know they throw you something you don't expect and what do you do? You have all your little preconceived notions and you have it all figured out and you think you're going to get a little confirmation and then they toss you something that says uh-uh. (S) Well this is a whole new concept...well not really. (Brainwave) Well they are more in tune with the Earth so, and they say it's the awareness they manage to generate. So if we don't generate this awareness they're going to transduce a different kind of energy? (L) They'll tranduce into STS I guess. The energy is free it's just...(S) It just depends on our awareness. (Brainwave) Yeah because STS needs light also. (S) So should we ask does it...(Brainwave) Depend on how much awareness we generate?

A: They can be "food for the moon" or food for the soul.

Q: (Brainwave) Well, God they've been food for the Moon for a long time. (L) So has everybody else. (S) It's the same for all of us though, so is there anything special about them or different than anybody else?

A: Absolutely.

Q: (Perceval) So their genetics...it's a function of genetics... (A) I would ask if there is any other say nation or tribe of similar make-up? (S) Yeah, maybe there's a tribe in every section of the world, or something.

A: There is a "spectrum" as Mouravieff suggests, however the Zulu compose a sort of "drone" tone.

Q: (S) So is this something they do deliberately or is it something unconscious?

A: It is a function of the 4th density energies they "represent."

Q: (A) Okay, so it is a drone tone. That is the main tone which is foundational to the harmonics. You build the music on this infrastructure, so to say. (L) There's the drone, there's the bass, there's the melody. (Brainwave) Listen to his voice, what does his voice sound like to you? I don't know...(Perceval) Yeah, there is a resonance. (Brainwave) Yeah, in his voice. (Perceval) They said a spectrum as in Mouravieff, the spectrum of the genetics able to carry light or to act as a light for transition. I'm not really sure on how that...(L) I think they're talking about a soul tone. (Brainwave) That singing that they do, that special kind of singing is it symbolic of that drone tone.

A: Indeed, as is all of reality symbolic of things at other levels and "depths" of being.

Session 14 September 2002:

(L) Okay, so where were we, ah yes, Whitley's ubiquitous grays. There really are some grays, but they may not look like Whitley's gray...are there grays that look exactly like Whitley's grays, real ones?

A: He missed the mark.

Q: (V) What I saw in that abduction that I remembered were not like exactly like Whitley's grays. What were those little guys?

A: The real thing.

Q: (V) Okay, are they based on the moon?

A: Most are based on Earth.

Session 12 July 2014:

Q: (L) I notice your hitting to the side tonight. Okay, somebody get me that piece of paper that's by the printer. Okay, we have some questions that somebody on the forum was asking. It says:

"Wal Thornhill has suggested that Earth, Mars and Venus were moons of Saturn when it was a Red Dwarf star, prior to capture by Sol (our sun), and were contained within its chromosphere. When captured by Sol, Saturn lost its chromosphere and the three large moons were disrupted by the electrical interaction and ended up being "blasted" into orbits around Sol instead of Saturn. Was Saturn a former Red Dwarf?"

A: No, it was a product of accretion. It may become one someday, but so far in the future that it is not important.

Q: (L) Okay, well. If Saturn was not a former Red Dwarf, then Earth was probably not a moon in Saturn's chromosphere. So, let me just ask the next question here: "Was Earth a moon in Saturn's chromosphere?"

A: No.

Q: (L) "Where there civilizations present during that period?"

A: Irrelevant.

Q: (L) "Are the scars on Mars' surface a result of Saturn's entry into the solar system?"

A: No, as has been described, Mars interacted with Venus, the newcomer.

Q: (L) Well, that takes care of that. So these guys with their electric universe business kind of seem to have a little problem, and I wonder what their main problem is?

A: Too much electricity and not enough astronomy.

Q: (L) So, are you saying that they have kind of gone way elaborate with their electrical theories and haven't taken into account... I mean, I don't understand.

A: There is some validity to certain astronomical models.

Q: (Pierre) The electric universe supporters threw out the baby with the bath-water, and they rejected ALL astronomical theories, but some of them are valid.

A: Accretion does occur around most stars.

Q: (L) So, you're talking about the accretion disk theory of planetary formation?

A: Yes. But other bodies can arrive whole. Plus, Thornhill and pals neglect a companion star.

Session 18 July 2015:

(L) There's another problem. There are two things I've noticed from various people on the forum. There are the ones that are so horrified by the terror of the situation, like, "I don't belong to this world! I'm not part of this! I can't eat meat! I can't eat vegetables. I have to live on air and sunshine because it's so awful and horrible that I just can't stand it!" So, there's that reaction. And then there's the other one where when we have a session, ideas are promoted, people start to do things or try things before they themselves have done a little of the research, ya know? I think there are the people who don't want to learn anything, and then there are people who want to do and achieve, but they want an easy way.

(Pierre) For proper acquisition of knowledge, you need a sufficient amount of time and effort and... suffering, basically.

A: There is no free lunch except maybe for parasites!

Q: (L) And we're their lunch as long as we think there's a free lunch!

A: Yes!

Q: (Data) Is that the meaning of humanity being "food for the moon"?

A: Close, though Gurdjieff did not fully understand all the particulars.

Q: (L) Well, one of things I noticed from reading this book "Plague Time" that I just finished is that many of the most insidious of the long-term chronic disease parasites are what they would call sexually transmitted: by sex, kissing, close contact, etc. It seems to me that based on what I was reading in this book, some of the ancient ideas about extreme sexual morality were directed at preventing just these kinds of conditions. Am I reading too much into it?

A: No, the knowledge was passed down until the reasons were forgotten.

 

[Mike]

Reading that article on Medium, I found this near the end of the article:

...Did the moon landing conspiracy theory pave the way for the more poisonous and discord-sowing theories of today? The denizens of QAnon message boards sometimes evoke the tone of We Never Went to the Moon and share the determination to erode trust in the system. And they do so while apparently fancying themselves precisely as enlightened and freethinking as Kaysing did.

But today’s conspiracy theories resemble only the darkest, most murderous elements of Kaysing’s thesis. Next to online rumblings about 9/11, President Barack Obama’s birth certificate, Sandy Hook, crisis actors, and Pizzagate, the fantasy of a lunar hoax feels almost wondrous...

I noted the end of the article as well, but didn't have time before work to untangle it. In terms of what is happening currently with censorship via Google, Youtube, etc, they are using the people and their less than objective ideas about conspiracy to justify shutting down most people's ability to find information via searches on any conspiracy theory topics and discussion about them that are relevant and justified.

I also noted this bit:

In the author’s dedication of his 1988 book, Bill Kaysing’s Freedom Encyclopedia, Kaysing notes that his wife, Ruth, thinks “that I have a messiah complex, that I want to save the world … and, as usual, she’s right. That’s really all I intended to do in the first and last place.”

Who knows, maybe this messiah complex of his was used as a hook via 4D STS manipulation to get him to spread disinfo in order to later be used to justify the crackdown on anything conspiracy related that we see unfolding now. Kind of like a long term plan, but who knows. Also, I could see 3D players playing into his and others that ran with this conspiracy theory to make all people interested in such topics look crazy and point to them to the wider public as examples of unhinged individuals. I mean it is really interesting that NASA 'lost' video and other information about the moon landing, etc. Hoax believers point to this as proof of the whole conspiracy, yet don't even think that it is a deliberate ploy to get people worked up, acting crazy and running with theories and acting like this guy Kaysing. Then gov't and NASA, etc can say "see look at these crazy nutters, all conspiracy theory topics and discussion is just crazies acting crazy." Kind of like what the author of the article did and the very end.

The whole article and this guy Kaysing also reminded me of what Laura quoted the C's saying and what she wrote previously in a thread about Dave McGowan and the bolded part seems to apply to the guy that started the Moon Landing Hoax topic (yet I'd have to dig into it more to see if what the article details is really the case of how it unfolded):

As the Cs once said: "Paranoia will destroya."

They also said: "It is just as dangerous and just as useless to "see" conspiracy in everything as it is to "see" conspiracy in nothing. We tire of conspiracy "buffs." They are nutty, and serve as perfect false sponsors to those who really DO seek to conduct widespread mental/psychic manipulations and control."

And: " Also, false information is worse than no information at all."

All the problems that Lobaczewski describes as stemming from the "natural ego" seem to be in play here. It is just that factor that the Work on the self seeks to correct in the reading instrument. And, as we pretty well know, it can't be done without a network.

Over and over and over again we observe researchers, seekers, commentators, who come along and get involved in finding answers to mysteries of reality, only to go over the edge because of ego and lack of network. That is, a person MUST have a pretty clear understanding of their machine and its weaknesses, have done all they can to correct those weaknesses, and for the ones that cannot be corrected (and there are some - it's part of being human), rely on a good network, before they venture in where angels fear to tread.

 

[Wandering Star]

Here is what the C's have said on September 09, 2000:




I bet some will even find a way to interpret this in line with the "moon hoax" or proclaim that the C's weren't answering directly about it and thus this is "proof" of a "conspiracy" or that the C's haven't answered it and "would probably say something else" if asked directly. For others on the other hand, the above couldn't be much clearer and in line with what was fairly obvious all along; the "moon hoax" theory is bonkers at best, based on all the data. Also, notice that the same shallow "logic" that person used back then about the moon "hoax" is still in place for many people, basically remaining unchanged since the first "theory" of that sort was mumbled out. No progress.

And here are other interesting statements by the C's about our moon, other moons in the solar system and Mars. All of them are quite interesting and something that actually sounds like a worthy thing to investigate in stark contrast to the "moon hoax" stuff.

Session 7 October 1994:



Session 9 October 1994:



Session 22 October 1994:



Session 25 October 1994:



Session 19 November 1994:



Session 4 March 1995:



Session 18 March 1995:



Session 11 August 1996:



Session 28 December 1996:



Session 31 July 1999:



Session 22 January 2000:



Session 31 July 2002:



Session 14 September 2002:



Session 12 July 2014:



Session 18 July 2015:

Very good collection of fragments related to the subject.

There were / there are some animated drawings that ended with the phrase, "That's all folks!"

 

[luc]

Since I'm currently reading "The Origins of the World’s Mythologies" by Michael Witzel (thread), it occurred to me that reading a good book by a respected mainstream academic might be a very useful exercise for those who are a bit too crazy about conspiracy theories.

It can be tedious, it requires focus and straight thinking, it requires some weeding out the wheat from the chaff... and it also makes you appreciate the enormous work and effort that often goes into science. I have much more respect for a work like Witzel's than for any conspiracy apostle who's literally chasing shadows!

And the same applies to NASA's science. Yeah, they got corrupted by ideology and general idiocracy, especially now, and obviously they are part of a dogmatic establishment, something wide-spread in science unfortunately. But jeez, give those guys some credit! Especially the "old schoolers" who accomplished so much. I don't like it when people go all black and white and refuse to acknowledge the enormous and tedious work many scientists are engaged in based on some click bait YouTube videos...

So perhaps pick a good academic book from the forum's reading list and go for it, and leave those moon shadows alone for a while

 

[Joe]

Another relevant idea.