Session 6 December 2025

life said:
yes i do; i see it bothers you. lol


absolutely ! ... but it's an opinion, SocioA, so who gives a flying fart ? besides you ? in fact if you look back a few months where i expressed an opinion about Charlie you will read where i followed up with an admission that opinion was formed without the awareness of additional evidence - to wit, i further revised that opinion after even more evidence was provided.

have you, SocioA, considered that you've bitten off more than you can chew here trying to make me look like a bad guy just because i've challenged a statement on this forum ?


anything ? anything

dude you're projecting and speculating about my rational for stating my opinion. sounds like you have a very strong opinion about my opinion ! hahahha !


strongly attached ? do you mean, like with glue or duct-tape ?
you've never been involved with research, investigation, or any field work, have you SocioA, because if you had, you'd realize what you just said, given the scope of the question and the resulting answer. good try.

what about those occasions, for example, when the questioners were asking about Caesar - there were follow up questions then ? there are likely many many more examples. another good try bud !

"food for thought" ?? what is that ? do you mean a condiment ... like ketchup ? (you see what i did there SocioA ? hahaha)

reservations ? like, at a restaurant ?
good grief man ! i said "over a decade ago" ! this means, SocioA, that prior to that date i did not have any qualms about the material, sooooo... why would that change, eh ?


i gave an opinion based on my observation over three decades.

and i stand by it.

there were no personal or familial accusations, just your attempt to put words in my mouth; what you infer from my comment is what you infer - and i said "creative fiction", so get it right.

have you heard the saying: " there are two types of people:1) those who can extrapolate from incomplete data " ? which one are you ?



have any other of my posts shown i was critical of the C's comments ?
no.
i'm curious, SocioA, are you some kind of professional intellectual ?



whoa, hang on, you've just been beating me up and now you're telling me that my comments are "fine" ? wtf dude ???


it's like Costco, i come here for the freebees.
soooo ... you... don't want me here ? ... :cry:



oh fffs dude. do you realize what an utter jackass you look like because you didn't like that i disagreed with the narrative ?

i can't give this anymore energy, so good night SocioA ... i better quit before the 'ol lady yells at me to take this to some other forum.

SocioA, most times it's best to keep your stick on the ice, and your gloves on, cheers bud, i admire your attempt to stand up for your others.
Click to expand...
Well, that was rude and abusive. Not how we normally discuss matters on the forum. Clearly you are super invested in your opinion, enough that you would try to disparage somebody pointing out where you might be off. And yes, your comments about the C's and Laura are enough to make one wonder why you are still here. This could be a great opportunity for you to re-read your post and learn something about your self - self -observation in action. Or, you could ignore it and remain confident that you are right and all who disagree are wrong.
 
flashgordonv said:
Well, that was rude and abusive. Not how we normally discuss matters on the forum. Clearly you are super invested in your opinion, enough that you would try to disparage somebody pointing out where you might be off. And yes, your comments about the C's and Laura are enough to make one wonder why you are still here. This could be a great opportunity for you to re-read your post and learn something about your self - self -observation in action. Or, you could ignore it and remain confident that you are right and all who disagree are wrong.
Click to expand...
Or what you could do is , first work out a list of questions that for you would clarify matters around the moon landing and submit them for inclusion in the next session. Then you could attend the next session and be available to ask ancillary questions based on the Cs answers. That would be a respectful path forward, assuming you were prepared to make the effort.
 
Ant22 said:
I never delved particularly deep into this topic but it interested me enough to read the stuff I bumped into and snoop around it a bit. But I've never heard or read of any reports, hints, or anything that would imply the astronauts revealed anything about it. I wonder how they silenced them to keep this hush so successfully. And I'm also super curious to know what that altered reality was!
Click to expand...
I think Buzz Aldrin was the one who mentioned life being 'something that probably exists in the depths of the universe'. So if they had seen aliens, he would have been using a white lie. But maybe he also denies that he could have seen anything. Though he claims believing in their existence.
It probably wasn't difficult to convince them - even without threats. Look at the panic caused by the broadcast about the Martian invasion (later parodied in the Tim Burton's comedy 'Mars Attacks!' as if it had really happened): Orson Welles' famous 'The War of the Worlds' radio play, which was mistaken for a true account of the invasion. Mass hysteria ensued. Even if it's exaggerated, I think that argument might have been enough in the '60s/'70s. Space travel fired the imagination. I think for the astronauts themselves, especially if they were unprepared, such a sight was mind-blowing, because they didn't expect them to actually be there, and just a stone's throw away (nomen omen). Maybe we haven't been pushing ourselves into space since then because of that, after all?
The question is whether NASA knew about the aliens. Then again, who would know if not they? But just recently, during a UFO conference, they were spouting nonsense that they hadn't detected any contact. I think some sections of the staff might not know – something like yellow and red access levels, etc. Some are probably in the know, others are being lied to. So, technically speaking, they're not lying when they say they didn't detect anything.The astronauts - perhaps they were psychologically tested. Perhaps they were adequately prepared for the eventuality.I think there was an audio recording of them seeing something - Aldrin later attributed this to a part of the rocket.The same Aldrin punched someone in the face because of allegations that the landing was a hoax. By the way, nowadays officials no longer call them UFOs; they call them UAPs. That means if you Google anything, you'll see old information.
My information suggests that (taking into account conferences on aliens and increasingly frequent statements from active officials and the military) we'll hear more officially within a year. This will likely coincide with the peak of artificial intelligence development. This is just speculation, but I've been interested in this long enough to believe so. Besides, I've heard hypotheses that alien vehicles are largely created by artificial intelligence. After all, the grays themselves are, to a certain extent, AI. This is taking place on Earth in the Pacific Ocean - our 'dark side of the Moon', which no one takes into account. And the increased observations are linked to global events, such as the end of World War II, the formation of the European Union, the war in Ukraine, perhaps even a world war.
 
Thank you guys for the session. What I found interesting is the confirmation that they really went to the moon... I was certain that they did not or at least not with the advertised 1960 technology with missing blueprints... So the truth seems to be somewhere in between.
Merry Xmas all and stay strong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom