Whistleblower who explains our Solar systems history

mysterious

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezJJBPAZsCo&feature=player_embedded#


Stewart Swerdlow on Coast to Coast July 2007. Stewart Swerdlow in this radio show talks about reptilian race which lives underground and first came here over 800,000 years ago. This information was imparted to him during the 13 years he served as an experimental subject in a government-sponsored mind control project in Montauk, NY. Between 200,000 to 300,000 people were experimented on in Montauk, and most of them did not survive, he said. Mind control now is employed worldwide via satellites, transmission towers, and electronic devices. Among the details Swerdlow shared about the Reptilians: They originated in the Draco star system, and arrived in our solar system via hollowed-out asteroids. They colonized a Pacific content called Lemuria and later battled with the Atlanteans. Both Lemuria and Altanis continents are now submerged inside ocean. Eventually they formed a hybrid race with the Atlanteans. It is from this group that the Illuminati or ruling families descended. There are seven different species in the Draco empire. Elite type has white segmented skin, cat-like eyes, wings, and a pronounced jaw and teeth. The Illuminati are planning a "staged alien invasion" to trick people into forming a one-world government. This fake alien invasion would be carried out by using holographic technology codenamed Project Bluebeam. Ultimately, they seek to send millions of people out to colonize habitable moons of Jupiter and Saturn.


I love this man! He's one of the few who get the reailty out there. He's a very intellegent man. The info he says is the same info alot of the inside ex NASA whistleblowers.


It's make's you wonder the sort of bull**** NASA fool us with. Like our solar system was existing now as it always has been. LOL.:D

mysterious

PART 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtJOpHFINDA&feature=related

PART 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeQzK1fJwnE&feature=related

The whole 9 parts are on youtube.

indough

who exactly is he blowing the whistle on? noone 'knows' our solar systems history to begin with

Tellox

I love conspiracies, and the general discussion on them - and there are some fantastic arguments to be made for a lot of them..

But seriously.

What the ****.

Have this man committed.

...what the ****.

mysterious

indough wrote: »

who exactly is he blowing the whistle on? noone 'knows' our solar systems history to begin with

How do you know?:rolleyes:


Do you know what the powers of be are aware of? Do you know what NASA knows(even top secret)?, do you know what the Vatican knows? Do you know what the Maya's knew? Do you know what the illiuminati knew or have been keeping secrets. Do you know the secrets of the entire world? Do you know what your neighbours down the road know as well. So how can you blatantly say that others don't know lol. Do you know what a thief is hiding? Do you know what a robber robbed without asking him? Have you asked all these people before you made a silly assumption? Do you know what ex NASA co workers going right back over 50 years? Do you know everyone in the secret service? CIA? FBI? and all the other secret intellegences in the world, are you certain they don't know?


Or your obviously assuming what others are in the know of. Maybe NASA are not telling you. Ever think of that. I did. Maybe knowledge is been kept from you and your waiting for NASA to tell you. I can't see you getting far waiting around for this knowledge.

Just because you don't see whats beyond your awareness or research doesn't mean everyone is on the same level of knowledge you have at this point. You don't speak for others and I should rebuff this point, you cannot speak for others. Lastly do you actually speak for everyone in this universe on their knowledge first hand?



So to correct that inane assumption, you don't know everyone individually on this planet.

indough

no, i am correct

noone knows the history of our solar system

that is not even up for debate to be honest

mysterious

indough wrote: »

no, i am correct

noone knows the history of our solar system

that is not even up for debate to be honest

Your not correct. You don't speak for others. Then don't debate it then, debate with people who may know the history of the universe . It's arrogance to suggest you know what others are aware of without having done your homework first. Your not aware of what the powers of be know.

There is always someone out there who knows more than the next. History has always been rewritten and distorted.

indough

im sorry mysterious but noone 'knows' the history of the solar system, the most we can do is have a stab at theorizing what happened

mysterious

indough wrote: »

im sorry mysterious but noone 'knows' the history of the solar system, the most we can do is have a stab at theorizing what happened

You mean hypotically you know don't know.

You don't know what others know and you certainly dont realise people who do know don't have to tell you! Lack of evidence can mean any number of thing's like it's classified for example, not publiclised, top secret, dangerous, too hot to handle or all sorts of reasons

Just because you don't know, doesn't mean others don't:)

6th

Ok folks any more piss taking an its an immediate 1 month ban if I get to it.

Indough (when you return from your 1 weeks ban) you can either debate or discuss but just outright dismissel brings nothing to the forum.

Mysterious, ok I get that you like the videos and are passionate about them but maybe you could express why you believe the content of those videos. Simply stating that indough is wrong because he cant know what everyone else on the planet knows is not a valid arguement.

PirateShampoo

So 300 thousand people went missing in New York. I dont think i heard about this Genocid.

Do you know what the powers of be are aware of? Do you know what NASA knows(even top secret)?, do you know what the Vatican knows? Do you know what the Maya's knew? Do you know what the illiuminati knew or have been keeping secrets. Do you know the secrets of the entire world? Do you know what your neighbours down the road know as well. So how can you blatantly say that others don't know lol. Do you know what a thief is hiding? Do you know what a robber robbed without asking him?

Yet you seem to know it all and little old us are idiots and have no idea whats going on in the world.

Why are you priviy to such information on the inner workings of the galaxy. Why havent the NWO came and carted you off for reveling there biggest secrets? Prove to us that one single thing you have suggested is true, just one single thing.

Have you ever stopped to think that maybe your the one on the outside with no clue to whats really going on?

Jazzy

i think ppl that have dedicated their life to the study of the stars which is built on a foundation formed throughout history by some of the most enigmatic and smartest men the world will ever see might have something to say about this. men like Freeman Dyson and Stephen Hawking... ill take their word before some attention seeking american dude who is a bit upset that he isnt as brilliant as he thought he was.

"and arrived in our solar system via hollowed-out asteroids" - cha' right. cant happen

bikeblues

some of what he says is true , quite alot of it
but mistakes like saying the moon doesnt spin , is just stupid - and doesnt assist his theory.

the moon spins one rotation on its axis per month ( ie during one orbit round earth ) - so that it always leaves the same face to us.
pretty much proof of artificialtiy in itself , but the fact has to be pointed it - it does spin

thecommander

mysterious wrote: »

I love this man! He's one of the few who get the reailty out there. He's a very intellegent man. The info he says is the same info alot of the inside ex NASA whistleblowers.

Have you no internal bull**** detector? Why do you so solidly trust this man?

PirateShampoo

mysterious wrote: »

Lack of evidence can mean any number of thing's like it's classified for example, not publiclised, top secret, dangerous, too hot to handle or all sorts of reasons

The lack of evidence could also suggest that there isnt any, and if there isnt any then why do you belive it to be true?

A ex-NASA whistleblower once told me the moon was made of chesse. The evidence is out there but ur mind isnt open and can not c the true reality.

Diogenes

mysterious wrote: »

I love this man! He's one of the few who get the reailty out there. He's a very intellegent man. The info he says is the same info alot of the inside ex NASA whistleblowers.


It's make's you wonder the sort of bull**** NASA fool us with. Like our solar system was existing now as it always has been. LOL.:D

Apparently his psychic powers are so great he can materialise things out of thin air (no really this is what he claims) should be easily verifiable.

bikeblues

bikeblues wrote: »

the moon spins one rotation on its axis per month ( ie during one orbit round earth ) - so that it always leaves the same face to us.
pretty much proof of artificialtiy in itself , but the fact has to be pointed it - it does spin

The majority of large moons in the solar system do this. Even mercury does it with the Sun (sorta).
It's called tidal locking: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking

How exactly does it prove artificiality?

rmacm

If the moon were indeed a hollow body would we not notice too? The tides in the oceans would be measurably different than what they are. I think someone needs to go and check their physics a bit.

mysterious

rmacm wrote: »

If the moon were indeed a hollow body would we not notice too? The tides in the oceans would be measurably different than what they are. I think someone needs to go and check their physics a bit.

Our own planet is hollow too. Our moon is fairly massive, it's bigger than Pluto and even Mercury from my own recollection.

SuperGrover

Bet you a thousand euro that there won't be a (real OR holographic) alien invasion leading to a single world government in the next 3 years.

PirateShampoo

mysterious wrote: »

Our own planet is hollow too. Our moon is fairly massive, it's bigger than Pluto and even Mercury from my own recollection.

Really the earth is hollow! At what depth does the Earth become hollow? If the earth is hollow, why hasnt it collapsed in on its self?

Whats the size of the moon got to do with the price of butter?

Mercury is also fairly bigger than the Moon and Pluto isnt even classed as a planet anymore.

mysterious

mysterious wrote: »

Our own planet is hollow too.

No it's not.
If it was there would be any gravity keeping us on the surface.

How do you know it's hollow?

mysterious wrote: »

Our moon is fairly massive, it's bigger than Pluto and even Mercury from my own recollection.

Actually it's only the fifth largest satellite in the solar system.

rmacm

mysterious wrote: »

Our own planet is hollow too. Our moon is fairly massive, it's bigger than Pluto and even Mercury from my own recollection.

Mean radii according to Wikipedia.

Moon - 1,737.10 kms
Mercury - 2,439.7
Pluto - 1,153 ± 10 km

I think Mercury has both Pluto and the Moon beat. If the moon were hollow the crust would have to be extremely dense to account for the measured gravitational values.

http://www.onelight.com/thei/hollowmoon.html

^^^ According to this which seems to support the hollow moon theory the moon has only 60% of the density of the Earth so how does one explain the gravitational values observed.

mysterious

PirateShampoo wrote: »

The lack of evidence could also suggest that there isnt any, and if there isnt any then why do you belive it to be true?

A ex-NASA whistleblower once told me the moon was made of chesse. The evidence is out there but ur mind isnt open and can not c the true reality.

But logic and common sense would tell you its not cheeze.Why, because we farm animals to make cheese. See how decieving it is, to try compare a silly assumption to blatantly ridicule someone who has inside info of what is been kept from us. I think it come's back to you on that point. Why are you trying to make silly assumptions negate the whistleblower?

Maybe because NASA(privately owned may I add) holds back the info, ever think of that? There is a tremendous amount of information where NASA has lied to us and create a lot of conpiracies and then roll them back. Nasa didn't get the tiltle, "Never a straight answer" for nothing. Maybe the man still works for NASA and was told to give out this info via the backdoor, so in pscholigcal sense this real info will get ridiculed by the mainstream. Since we are so trained to believe only mainstream sources. It would be perfect for dis info agents to drill this onto a radio show so people would think this is all fantasy. See how I can be objective and aware of all sides to this.


But People who worked in the system, outside the system etc have speaking out for years going right back to when the space race began. But because these individuals are at life risk and going out on their own up against science, the media the system and NASA itself no one is going to give them much credit. So it really gives NASA all the power it wants in terms of revealing whatever they like, whenever they like and however they like.

I like to keep an open mind in this regard, so I can get ahead of the deception. The truth is out there, and it's very out there. We need to stop been so heavily gullable on following all these corrupt systems, be it NASA, US government, Vatican etc. They have been saying the same bull**** for years. I can't and will not keep putting a blind eye to whats really out there.

mysterious

rmacm wrote: »

Mean radii according to Wikipedia.

Moon - 1,737.10 kms
Mercury - 2,439.7
Pluto - 1,153 ± 10 km

I think Mercury has both Pluto and the Moon beat. If the moon were hollow the crust would have to be extremely dense to account for the measured gravitational values.

http://www.onelight.com/thei/hollowmoon.html

^^^ According to this which seems to support the hollow moon theory the moon has only 60% of the density of the Earth so how does one explain the gravitational values observed.

As I said going by the basis that both Earth and the moon are hollow. Not comparing results where the moon is hollow to Earths "full rocky core"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIRdDA_EDfM

namloc1980

mysterious wrote: »

Our own planet is hollow too. Our moon is fairly massive, it's bigger than Pluto and even Mercury from my own recollection.

Mercury has a radius of c.2,440km as against our own Moon at c.1,779km. On top of that Mercury is far more massive (has a lot more mass) than our Moon. As for the Earth being hollow, given that you claimed the Moon is bigger than Mercury, then it's safe to say....false.

PirateShampoo

mysterious wrote: »

But logic and common sense would tell you its not cheeze.Why, because we farm animals to make cheese. See how decieving it is, to try compare a silly assumption to blatantly ridicule someone who has inside info of what is been kept from us. I think it come's back to you on that point. Why are you trying to make silly assumptions negate the whistleblower?

Maybe because NASA(privately owned may I add) holds back the info, ever think of that? There is a tremendous amount of information where NASA has lied to us and create a lot of conpiracies and then roll them back. Nasa didn't get the tiltle, "Never a straight answer" for nothing. Maybe the man still works for NASA and was told to give out this info via the backdoor, so in pscholigcal sense this real info will get ridiculed by the mainstream. Since we are so trained to believe only mainstream sources. It would be perfect for dis info agents to drill this onto a radio show so people would think this is all fantasy. See how I can be objective and aware of all sides to this.


But People who worked in the system, outside the system etc have speaking out for years going right back to when the space race began. But because these individuals are at life risk and going out on their own up against science, the media the system and NASA itself no one is going to give them much credit. So it really gives NASA all the power it wants in terms of revealing whatever they like, whenever they like and however they like.

I like to keep an open mind in this regard, so I can get ahead of the deception. The truth is out there, and it's very out there. We need to stop been so heavily gullable on following all these corrupt systems, be it NASA, US government, Vatican etc. They have been saying the same bull**** for years. I can't and will not keep putting a blind eye to whats really out there.

Thats the reality the Illuminati want you to believe. I cant open your eyes for you. The truth is that the moon is in-fact man made and its made of cheese.


Any come back on ur suggestion that the Earth is Hollow?

mysterious

namloc1980 wrote: »

Mercury has a radius of c.2,440km as against our own Moon at c.1,779km. On top of that Mercury is far more massive (has a lot more mass) than our Moon. As for the Earth being hollow, given that you claimed the Moon is bigger than Mercury, then it's safe to say....false.

I said from my recollection, I knew it was bigger than Pluto, I wasn't sure of the mass of Mercury, as I've forgotten.

It's human nature.:rolleyes:

Diogenes

mysterious wrote: »

As I said going by the basis that both Earth and the moon are hollow. Not comparing results where the moon is hollow to Earths "full rocky core"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIRdDA_EDfM

You're claiming the moon isn't made from cheese, using "logic and common sense", yet in the next post repeat the claim that the earth is hollow, without anything to substantiate the claim? Really?

6th

PirateShampoo wrote: »

Thats the reality the Illuminati want you to believe. I cant open your eyes for you. The truth is that the moon is in-fact man made and its made of cheese.

Funny man .... next time its a ban.

dlofnep

What are this man's credentials, and please provide evidence for such.

MarkR

I didn't get a chance to look at the videos yet, but how much or the earth is purported to be hollow? To what depth approximately?

Undergod

bikeblues wrote: »

the moon spins one rotation on its axis per month ( ie during one orbit round earth ) - so that it always leaves the same face to us.
pretty much proof of artificialtiy in itself , but the fact has to be pointed it - it does spin

King Mob wrote: »

The majority of large moons in the solar system do this. Even mercury does it with the Sun (sorta).
It's called tidal locking: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking

How exactly does it prove artificiality?

And interestingly, Pluto and Charon are both tidally locked to each other. So it's actually pretty common.

koHd

Leaving aside what I believe. I'd love if these guys that believe this would write a sci-fi book. Now, it has to be a sci-fi. Not a fact based book. I know that might be hard for them to lable it sci-fi if they believe it. But they could earn quite a bit of cash. It's an interesting story.

And I'm not taking the piss. I'd buy it.

Or maybe there is already a sci-fi book out there that's based on this exact story?

EDIT: oh, and the video won't work for me.

EDIT2: scratch that, it's working now.

Diogenes

koHd wrote: »

Leaving aside what I believe. I'd love if these guys that believe this would write a sci-fi book. Now, it has to be a sci-fi. Not a fact based book. I know that might be hard for them to lable it sci-fi if they believe it. But they could earn quite a bit of cash. It's an interesting story.

And I'm not taking the piss. I'd buy it.

Or maybe there is already a sci-fi book out there that's based on this exact story?

I've got a copy of Our Mysterious Spaceship Moon sitting in my parents attic, while not claiming to be sci fi, it really should be.

Apparently the David Webber series Heirs of the Empire may be what you are looking for.

I'd also recommend the children's show: Shadow Raiders.

The plot involved a lone alien trying to convince his skeptical government of impending doom from a shadowy planet entering their solar system.

Also later in the series it's found the planets are hollow and house planetary engines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_Raiders

Eerie or what.

koHd

Cheers lads.

*gets santa list out*

nullzero

indough wrote: »

im sorry mysterious but noone 'knows' the history of the solar system, the most we can do is have a stab at theorizing what happened

Well as far as most peope are concerned you're right. But you're assuming that "no one" would have that information based on societal norms. Whilst the odds are stacked in your favour in terms of what accpeted norms are seen to be there is always a chance that "some one" might know these things. What that some one might be or how they would come to know it is very debatable, but you're kind of in the domain of the unprovable, while it's not right, its also not wrong so therefor it has to still be confirmed.
It's a bit like Dawkins saying there's no god because it cant be proven, but in saying that you're admitting god's existence cannot be disproven so therefor it's a grey area that still requires confirmation.
While Stweard Swerdlow might not be able to prove the history of the solar system, mainstream science cannot dis prove his theories conclusivly.
So it's a open to debate, but definitve statements about things that are so from being proven or disproven are probably unadvisable.

nullzero

nullzero wrote: »

While Stweard Swerdlow might not be able to prove the history of the solar system, mainstream science cannot dis prove his theories conclusivly.
So it's a open to debate, but definitve statements about things that are so from being proven or disproven are probably unadvisable.

I'm pretty sure mainstream science hasn't and can't disprove the existence of invisible pink unicorns or Russel's teapot or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or any of the million things I can just make up off the top of my head.

Is the existence of these things as open for debate as this guy's theories?

How are his theories any different from pure fantasy?

Mahatma coat

Teapot you say!



looks like one right there, just between Earth and Mars on a slightly eliptical orbit, now if we wait a minute the Comet made of TimTams will be along.



theres a very interesting series on SBS at the moment about Whistleblowers and the Horror that befall them, its called Law and Disorder, altho I think I'll start a thread about it in a week or two when the series has aired a bit more.

studiorat

dlofnep wrote: »

What are this man's credentials, and please provide evidence for such.

Hey Mysterious!
Did you actually read this bozo's book or are you just believeing everything you read on the internet again.

"I cannot offer you physical proof at this time."

Stewart Swerdlow, Blue Blood True Blood: (Saint Joseph, MI.: Expansions Publishing Inc., 2002), Preface.

^^^
That there is what's called a citation. It say's in the preface of his book he hasn't got any proof.

The same Stewart Swerdlow who admitted in 1992 to embezzling hundreds of thousands of Dollars..

Lets look at another quote about Swerdlow,

I knew Stewart Swerdlow when he as just an ordinary guy, living on Long Island and bull****ting his way through life
The fact that he embezzled money from a local company and went to prison is a fact. He has been a narcissistic sociopath for years.
Trying to prove to himself and everyone else around him that he was on a higher plane was his way out of being a dorky, geeky, Jewish boy from Brooklyn who had thoughts of grandeur. Her would step over anyone and anything to get what he wanted in life, mostly wealth and notoriety.

Also goes on to mention how Stewart admits to being responsible for murdering 300,000 children. Sounds like delusions of grandeur to me, sure sign of a nut job.

And BTW if he has taken part in ritual child rape as part of his programming, how come the police have not taken any notice. COuld it be because they know he is a nut job???

Excellent credentials for one of Mysterious' sources as usual.

PirateShampoo

King Mob wrote: »

I'd also recommend the children's show: Shadow Raiders.

The plot involved a lone alien trying to convince his skeptical government of impending doom from a shadowy planet entering their solar system.

Also later in the series it's found the planets are hollow and house planetary engines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_Raiders

Eerie or what.

I remember this show, i didnt know it was based on real life events.

nullzero

King Mob wrote: »

I'm pretty sure mainstream science hasn't and can't disprove the existence of invisible pink unicorns or Russel's teapot or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or any of the million things I can just make up off the top of my head.

Is the existence of these things as open for debate as this guy's theories?

How are his theories any different from pure fantasy?

I can appreciated what you're saying.
However, as a species we have a very limited understanding of the world we live and indeed the universe we live in. So for a human to make sweeping statements about what is and isn't possible, regardless of how outlandish it may be is a bit "rich".
It's not too long ago we all thought the world was flat and that the sun spun around the earth.
I can see that you feel people are wasting their time discussing things such as your flying spaghetti monsters etc... but at the end of the day each person is living their own life on their own terms, and they ultimately couldn't give a fvck about whatever anybody thinks of them.
Sure we're conditioned to worry about what other people think, but I think that most people as they get older and experience more of life just dont care if other people think their mad or not.
You can demand evidence to support theories of flying spaghetti monsters from those who belive in them but ultimately two things will not change after that discussion, A: You're belief that the other person must be mad to believe it and B: The other persons belief that you must be mad not to believe it.

nullzero

nullzero wrote: »

I can appreciated what you're saying.

I don't think you actually do.

nullzero wrote: »

However, as a species we have a very limited understanding of the world we live and indeed the universe we live in. So for a human to make sweeping statements about what is and isn't possible, regardless of how outlandish it may be is a bit "rich".

First limited understanding doesn't mean no understanding. Second I'm not saying that it isn't impossible just unlikely with no supporting evidence.

The question this guy should be answering is "How does he know?"
If he produces anything less that clear verifiable there is no way to tell if he is just making **** up.

nullzero wrote: »

It's not too long ago we all thought the world was flat and that the sun spun around the earth.

Actually...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

And as for the sun going around the Earth that wasn't exactly a wild guess.
The idea was based on the best available information at the time.

And these theories weren't debunked because scientists just felt like it either. It was through clear verifiable evidence and solid reasoning.

And this guy is lacking in both, making his claims indistinguishable from pure fiction.

nullzero wrote: »

I can see that you feel people are wasting their time discussing things such as your flying spaghetti monsters etc... but at the end of the day each person is living their own life on their own terms, and they ultimately couldn't give a fvck about whatever anybody thinks of them.
Sure we're conditioned to worry about what other people think, but I think that most people as they get older and experience more of life just dont care if other people think their mad or not.

But surely wouldn't a discussion on these things actually entail discussion on whether or not they exist as well as inconsistencies in the claims?

CTers and UFOers often rattle on about questioning everything and keeping an open mind but rarely consider the possibility that they are wrong or question their own claims.

nullzero wrote: »

You can demand evidence to support theories of flying spaghetti monsters from those who belive in them but ultimately two things will not change after that discussion, A: You're belief that the other person must be mad to believe it and B: The other persons belief that you must be mad not to believe it.

No, my belief is that there isn't any good evidence to support this guy's claims. I cannot say whether he is mad or not, though it is a possibility. Other possibilities that he's lying or just very wrong, but there isn't enough evidence to conclude one way or the other.

However when a person claims something but then refuses to provide any evidence for that claim because "it's just what he believes" one thing is certain. He hasn't provided any evidence to back up his claim.
And without evidence what's the difference between his claim and ficiton?

nullzero

King Mob wrote: »

I don't think you actually do.

First limited understanding doesn't mean no understanding. Second I'm not saying that it isn't impossible just unlikely with no supporting evidence.

The question this guy should be answering is "How does he know?"
If he produces anything less that clear verifiable there is no way to tell if he is just making **** up.

Actually...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

And as for the sun going around the Earth that wasn't exactly a wild guess.
The idea was based on the best available information at the time.

And these theories weren't debunked because scientists just felt like it either. It was through clear verifiable evidence and solid reasoning.

And this guy is lacking in both, making his claims indistinguishable from pure fiction.

But surely wouldn't a discussion on these things actually entail discussion on whether or not they exist as well as inconsistencies in the claims?

CTers and UFOers often rattle on about questioning everything and keeping an open mind but rarely consider the possibility that they are wrong or question their own claims.

No, my belief is that there isn't any good evidence to support this guy's claims. I cannot say whether he is mad or not, though it is a possibility. Other possibilities that he's lying or just very wrong, but there isn't enough evidence to conclude one way or the other.

However when a person claims something but then refuses to provide any evidence for that claim because "it's just what he believes" one thing is certain. He hasn't provided any evidence to back up his claim.
And without evidence what's the difference between his claim and ficiton?

You should probably calm down a bit.
I actually do know where you're coming from and I understand your reasoning perfectly.
I'm sick of you jumping on people and tearing lumps out of them all the time.
I wasn't arguing with you or even picking up on anything you said.
I merely made a point that we all have the ability to create our own "realities" and live in our own little worlds where the logic that applies to most people has no value at all.
Just look at religion. Most religions are based on mad stories with no actual evidence to back them up, yet most people follow one of the major "faiths" even in this age of supposed enlightenment.
These juxstapositions are everywhere in the world, we can see their illogical nature, but we just have to accept that individuals are free to believe whatever they wish, even if we can't understand why.
I see you here all the time looking for evidence from people who are clearly sold on some idea you have no time for.
They don't care what you think and you dont care what they think. It's like you're chasing your tail sometimes. You're not getting the evidence you ask for which you see as vindication of your stance.
This forum is usually based on someone posting about a subject and you replying asking for evidence. All very fair it must be said, but when you've been doing it for so long and getting to the exact same conclusion every time, it makes me and others wonder why you bother, but even that is your own perogative, you can do as you please. What I and others take issue with is the way in which you address people. You're surly and rude, you treat people with contempt and have a condescending tone built on some vague sense of superiority.
You'll never stop asking for evidence of wild conspiracy theories and never change your demeanour, but if you think the "CTer's" are wasting their lives away perhaps you should look at how you spend your own free time before deriding their choices.

You have every right to post here in the way that you do but it would be nice for you to start being a bit more respectful of other posters, just because, you know it's nice to not be nasty to people just because they have different beliefs to you.

I never would have posted the above comments about you had you treated me with some respect instead of jumping all over me without stopping to think about what I had actually said.
Sure, you won't care one bit that I've pointed out how horrible you are to other posters here, you'll point to your right to say whatever you like etc...
It doesn't make you right, although by some twisted logic I'm sure you think it does.

So just gonna bitch about me then?

Not going to address the actual topic or any of my points?

nullzero

King Mob wrote: »

So just gonna bitch about me then?

Not going to address the actual topic or any of my points?

You're a slick operator.
I'll give you that.

Mahatma coat

OK run us through your points again Mob and how they relate to the OP.

list your Positive contributions to the thread please

Mahatma coat

Mahatma coat wrote: »

OK run us through your points again Mob and how they relate to the OP.

Simple they outline why just because something is possible doesn't mean it's likely, and that unless the is positive evidence for a claim it is indistinguishable from fantasy.

It relates to the OP because the video in the OP makes a lot of far out unfounded claims that are indistinguishable from fantasy.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

list your Positive contributions to the thread please

Like this maybe?

King Mob wrote: »

The majority of large moons in the solar system do this. Even mercury does it with the Sun (sorta).
It's called tidal locking: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking

How exactly does it prove artificiality?

So what was the point of this post of yours?

Mahatma coat

It relates to the OP because the video in the OP makes a lot of far out unfounded claims that are indistinguishable from fantasy.

IN YOUR OPINION


thats the bit you seem to be missing out on here, this is a theory from someone else, in their head it makes sense, it matters not a Fooook if you agree with them or not.

Some of us wish to discuss the crazy off the wall theories, one theory leads to another theory and before you know it you are looking at something in a whole new light that you didnt expect.

to paraphrase
Just because something is unlikely dosent mean its impossible.

Mahatma coat

Mahatma coat wrote: »

IN YOUR OPINION


thats the bit you seem to be missing out on here, this is a theory from someone else, in their head it makes sense, it matters not a Fooook if you agree with them or not.

Some of us wish to discuss the crazy off the wall theories, one theory leads to another theory and before you know it you are looking at something in a whole new light that you didnt expect.

And if you read my previous points you'll see I asked wouldn't a discussion on such theories involve discussion on whether or not they are true.

It might make sense in their head but they could be using bad reasoning that leads them to a conclusion in contrary to actual evidence.
For example, since the moon only show one side to the Earth the only explanation is that it is artificial.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

to paraphrase
Just because something is unlikely dosent mean its impossible.

No it just means it's unlikely.
The existence of Russels teapot is "unlikely" but does discussing something that obviously is made up as if it's true shed any new light on anything except the folly of believing something that isn't true?