I wont go into the connections between Saturn and the Moon here though I'm pleased that David Icke has, in this interview above, begun to draw attention to the frequency matrix triangulated between all three celestial bodies (including Earth). Since I've been researching the occult (hidden issues) I've come to the conclusion that some of the most talented people in the artistic world have intuitively tapped into moon themse. I think Pink Floyd suspected the moon isn't a naturally orbiting body, and I also suspect that David Bowie knows full well that Phobos is artificial and that Mars seemingly has ancient ruins on it just like our Moon.
Unlike most of the research I have done lately, I can say with a clear conscience that the moons artificiality or rather it's intelligent positioning and size is mostly a gut instinct thing because I've been staring at it for decades with a curious feeling of wonder and mystery inside. That mysterious feeling condensed into an important question when I learned its anomalies that are too hard to ignore.
The moon is a perfect sphere. You can see it for yourself. No other celestial body is as geometrically perfectly formed. Our planet, like all planets, bulges at the middle but there's a Swiss watch precision to the geometry of the moon that is both beautiful and slightly menacing. But that's my gut reaction. Here's why you might want to let go of old information in pursuit of truth. The moons size is unprecedented. It's actually too big to explain but do your own research and try and fine anything in the universe like it. You wont. Some scientists prefer to call it a twin planetary system.
Harvard Astrophysicist Irwin Shapiro had an interesting quote. He said that trying to explain the moon's presence is harder than explaining it's absence. Or rather "the best explanation was observational error — the Moon does not exist". That's the sort of scientific thinking I applaud. The one that says we don't know instead of some stupid 'whack' theory where the moon is meant to be a chip off the old block. Well I know a lot of you like your Hollywood served up preprogrammed so here you go.
Like two peas in a pod. The resemblance is uncanny, what with them being both spherical.
For some reason NASA is fixated on bombing the moon since it mysteriously gave up landing on it, and the results are it rings out like a gong.
As if it is hollow.
That hollowness would explain why it can orbit the earth without it's gravitational effect creating the kind of tidal waves that would be a bit deeper than a few feet. You can use your common sense when thinking about that using the picture above.
As if it is hollow.
That hollowness would explain why it can orbit the earth without it's gravitational effect creating the kind of tidal waves that would be a bit deeper than a few feet. You can use your common sense when thinking about that using the picture above.
NASA scientist Gordon MacDonald believes the only explanation for the moon's density is that it must be hollow. The moons positioning is extraordinarily precise in so much that it's solar eclipse effect is perfectly positioned to within an inch (or two) to give us a perfect match against the sun yet not too much to block out a coronal effect.
Carl Sagan says that a natural satellite cannot be hollow. Furthermore Alan Butler author of Who Built The Moon interviewed Ken Johnston Manager of NASA data and photography was informed of anomalies about the moon that just don't make sense.
You might find Sergeant Karl Wolf of Langley Virgina's Airforce Base (CIA) testimony about structures, bases, towers and domes on the moon interesting too.
The airbrush team at NASA are very busy when it comes to the moon and so we're left wondering why so much is concealed from us. David Icke says that the moon has masking vibrational frequencies that would enable us to see more of the world and with respect to that kind of thinking, which isn't scientifically impossible; maybe his ideas on John Lash's Archons is worth revisiting.
Good luck with that, it's a road littered with weeping uncontrollables who just want their old reality back. I'm still looking for one that makes sense with the current input data.
Then I can relax.
Till then nothing is counted out unless proven otherwise. You may also want to read up on Richard Hoagland's work on the subject of structures on the Moon and Mars. His output is too robust for the professional debunkers to tackle. That's when you know you're getting close. I only get one or two try it on with me, but then I'm late to the game.
Good luck with that, it's a road littered with weeping uncontrollables who just want their old reality back. I'm still looking for one that makes sense with the current input data.
Then I can relax.
Till then nothing is counted out unless proven otherwise. You may also want to read up on Richard Hoagland's work on the subject of structures on the Moon and Mars. His output is too robust for the professional debunkers to tackle. That's when you know you're getting close. I only get one or two try it on with me, but then I'm late to the game.
