I wanted to give a heads up about the moon psyop the deep state is running.
They are saying we never landed on the moon to promote their flat Earth psyop.
They did land on the moon but it wasn't Buzz Aldrin. It was other Deep State agents. Buzz Aldrin, Stanley Kurbric and others just made a Hollywood version of the Moon landing for the People's consumption. They don't want us to know that aliens exist on the dark side of the moon (the Greys). The craters you see on the moon was from ancient war they had. There are also computers in the moon that bounce a beam off Saturn onto our Planet which oppresses our consciousness and vibe frequency so we feel like we are living in a 3D hell hole. The good news is our natural evolution is on the brink of breaking through that illusion so the deep state has been trying to spread fear and misery to lower our vibe down. No worries though. They are on their last leg and will fall once we break through here soon.
I don't have a source of all this. I just read dozens of books and put the pieces of the puzzle together.
Is there evidence of this, or is this just from the conclusion that the current narrative is incorrect?
Sure, but evidence is not the “slam dunk” it is often misrepresented as.
The primary evidence is that the idea that a large rock could float in the skies perpetually is stupid, and a violation of many scientific laws - most notably the law of gravity (which is thousands of years old, not merely hundreds).
Another evidence is the astronomical observations of stars seen through the darkened portion of the moon over the years. Lunar transient phenomena are also an evidence that something is fundamentally amiss about our modern conceptions (mythology actually) of the moon.
The monochromatic color scheme of the moon is also another evidence, as well as its relatively uniform luminescence - which is inconsistent with a spherical reflector of any kind.
You may be intrigued by the statements, from a man claiming to be a scientist, by the name of professor foster recorded by the australian broadcasting company prior to the supposed moon landings - providing yet more anecdotal evidence - though sadly he does not go into the specifics of the methodologies employed to make his scientific determinations.
Yeah, that evidence isn't really that convincing.
The monochromatic color scheme, for instance...I'm not sure how that proves that it's not a rock. Most rocks are monochromatic and reflect light similarly. (That said, I'm not asserting that this is proof that the moon is a rock)
However, the current narrative at least has explanations to questions asked. I've asked you and other similar minded people before what the moon is if not the current understood narrative, and you don't seem to have an answer for that. It seems odd that you are confident in the assertion of what the moon cannot be without having done any research on alternative explanations
The primary one inarguably is, but not to someone such as yourself steeped in belief. Without those beliefs (learned through conditioning by rote from a very young age) the idea that the moon is, or could be, a giant rock which floats above us perpetually is profoundly stupid and inconsistent with reality (and the law of gravity etc.)
It is very easy to contrive explanations. That’s the origin of all mythology! What matters is not having explanations, but validating they are correct! Also, lacking an alternative explanation obviously doesn’t prove that a given explanation is correct - as it appears you are assuming.
My answer is freely available, but as i said - having or not having a contrived explanation is pretty meaningless.
Not really (though that obviously isn’t the case in this instance anyway). Refuting/criticizing something does not require a replacement for it - that’s silly!
The primary one isn't evidence, it's just a thought. "Isn't this idea ridiculous" isn't any more evidence than if someone else were to say "boy that's a great idea." I'm not sure how you were taught, but my education did not include the explanation that the moon could be a giant rock which floats above us perpetually.
Well, sure...any explanation can be contrived. I am talking of reasonings that reflect reality, that either come from hard evidence or some sort of confirmed repeated observation. If there is no explanation that you have on what the moon is, then there is no way to verify if you're even correct in your theories.
I would be interested in learning your answer. It would bring meaning to the discussion if you brought forth a theory as to what the moon is.
But the moon is something. It's a sight that we both have observed on a near nightly basis, either because it is a solid floating object, a projection onto a screen, or something in between. Do you just not have any explanation to what the moon is and you're comfortable with that?