Game-changing video: Moon facts refute ‘official’ story: it’s a spaceship

Posted on January 1, 2013 by Carl Herman

Preface from the owner of Washington’s Blog: I am agnostic about aliens, and have spent no time looking into the issue. I tend not to believe the claims set forth in this post by guest poster Carl Herman, and I wouldn’t have posted it myself. However – because he writes good posts on economics and war – Carl has guest posting privileges.

First: the more we demonstrate leadership to destroy false beliefs when presented with clear objective data, the easier we make this path for others to travel. You and I empathize with:

  • Cognitive dissonance people may experience, and we both present essential facts to understand our human condition regardless.
  • Nobody has time to explore all interesting hidden histories, and we both reject uninformed/unsubstantiated opinions saying something is “impossible” because such voices literally don’t know what they’re talking about.
  • Some topics are more useful than others to different people, and this topic might be among your top few upon examination.

And remember: you said you wanted Truth and promised to follow facts wherever they lead. Among compelling documentaries and resources, perhaps 35-minutes now is a wise investment to be briefed on this area of Truth.

“Official” related stories we already refute because we command facts rather than stories from even the “highest authorities”:

  • The sun and universe orbit Earth.
  • Kings have divine right from the God of Earth and Moon to rule.
  • The Earth is a few thousand years old.

Facts we’ve recently learned that refute authorities’ “official stories.” Please recall when you called proponents “lunatics” or perhaps “Moonies”:

Among the Moon facts that refute official stories:

  • A 1969 NASA Moon experiment (and here, here with NASA confirmation) of a surface-shock caused the Moon to “ring like a bell,” consistent with having a hollow core. MIT analysis of the Moon’s gravitational field agrees with this conclusion. NASA data from an unplanned 1970 Saturn V launch vehicle abortion replicated this data.
  • A 1970 Soviet Academy of Sciences publication (encyclopedia summary here) analyzed Moon surface materials and concluded they are the result of machinery hollowing-out the interior with design to shield the interior from radiation, meteor strikes, and heat. Uniform depth of every large meteor-impact crater is consistent with an hardened shell. Nobel Prize scientist Harold Urey concurred that he could not account for natural occurrence of the Moon’s surface chemistry.
  • NASA film shows massive structures on the Moon that they plainly airbrush-out to hide, and NASA film footage show UFOs they confirm as UFOs; both shown in our 35-minute video.

Helpful resources:

What’s the point of Moon/UFO/ET info? Free and non-polluting energy, discovery of our true history, help in our evolution in unimaginable ways, and unpredictable adventure if we can connect with these beings.

Last and always: res ipsa loquitur (facts always speak for themselves). And that said, the only pathway I see to get our most important facts accessible to humanity on this topic is for Earth’s law enforcement to demand, “Take us to your leaders,” and:

This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.
  • DM

    Just because publicly consumed cosmology does not explain many observable facts does not mean UFOs are the answer. NASA readily admits magnetic fields in planet cores, the sun, and in space are the result of electric fields, and admit that space is a diffuse plasma, yet fail to emphasize anything to do with plasma-electric effects and their role in the formation of galaxies, our solar system, stars, moons, etc. – instead they use terms like “super heated gases” (instead of plasma), “shock waves”, and other kinetic/gravity-centric terms. Electric machining of large bodies, plasma pinches, Birkeland Currents, and other plasma-electric behaviours can easily account for the “surprises” and “confounding” observations that regularly turn up in astrophysical reports. That is the path to follow before going off on other fantastic tangents. I don’t know if the moon is hollow or not, and neither does anyone else, but it is likely that our gravity-centric view has allowed “scientists” to develop faulty planetary development hypotheses. Likewise, black holes, neutron stars, dark matter – they’re all based around “gravity did it” thinking and can never be proven except through inference from faulty premises. Include plasma electric effects, and suddenly all these inventions are no longer necessary nor believable.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Carl-Herman/100000930261713 Carl Herman

      Did you view the video, DM? If so, address this evidence presented rather than abstract scientific understanding of magnetism and other concepts in distraction of a specific body of evidence in this video. So far, your claim of “fantastic tangent” is unsubstantiated, a distraction to this evidence, and we all notice.

      • Gennaro

        Dear Carl,
        I am a first time reader to this site. I applaud your incredible professionalism in responding to others in this post as you have – mature, professional, respectful, etc. This is the hope for the future, that more intelligent people like yourself continue to act in this manner, rather than immature attacks, attacks, attacks over and over and over as others have done here.

        David Icke has been right about SO MUCH over the last 20 years, but yet these finger pointers bring up the alien/reptile thing over and over, as if almost on robotic cue. I’ve personally read 11 of David Icke’s books COVER TO COVER. I wonder how many of those above who are ready to burn him at the stake have done the same – how many books of his have they read COVER TO COVER? It really doesn’t matter, as rational responses, deep research, etc. doesn’t enter their consciousness.

        Just look at these responses, using not facts to create a mature dialogue between “mature” individuals, but immature attacks, such as using the following language: crap, nutcase, insane person, charlatan, useful idiot, lunatic, urtter garbage, oh, and finally the ultimate weapon when all else fails – conspiracy. Can you imagine Gandhi or MLK responding like this? Read their works, then read these comment threads and then shed a few tears about how “far” we’ve come as a species… You know, except for the internet, back in the flat earth days the same brave souls like Icke were ridiculed, ignored, condemned, and then killed – all for daring to think critically. Seems some things never change.

        By the way, to respond to Mr. “Damo”, I have almost 30 years professional experience and a doctorate in engineering and I value David Icke’s research EQUALLY to that of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. They both have made monumental contributions to the truth. And my noting my academic experience is not to put a feather in my cap (because I could care less, formal education simply allows you to understand certain concepts, such as engineering in my case, better than others – it doesn’t make one more intelligent than another), rather I state it because if ANYONE should want to dismiss a “non-educated” person like David Icke outright, it would be someone with a PhD, no? But no, I feel just the opposite – he’s earned his education through 20+ years of supremely dedicated research. Again, I wonder how many other commenters on this thread have spent the last 20 years of their lives researching the same?

        I often wonder if the immaturity, ignorance and complete lack of critical thinking skills which is a hallmark of a majority of our global society today will ever end, and indeed, if we will ever again reach a period of enlightenment. One can only hope.

        Keep up the good work.
        Best,
        Gennaro

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Carl-Herman/100000930261713 Carl Herman

          Well said, Gennaro; thank you.

          I thought about creating an article, “In defense of David Icke,” but it would take a few hours to professionally document his accuracy in ancient history that I recognize as a history teacher. What we do know is that a professional refutation of “reptilian” inter-dimensional influence in response to David’s evidence would be an enormous academic/professional task.

          I read David’s “Human Race get off your knees,” saw one of his presentations live, and one on Internet, and I, too, am impressed with his comprehensive good-faith research. I conclude his explanation of our condition as a valid hypothesis.

  • Bob

    Please take this crap down. It is being used to discredit Washingtonsblog.com.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Carl-Herman/100000930261713 Carl Herman

      Bob: “crap” and “discredit” are your denial of presented claims. Refutation requires you to address the claims, and show us how they are not valid.

    • metalious

      George Washington, how can you destroy the credibility of your work by letting this moronic rubbish on here? It is true, that the insanity of this video does not negate the facts that you have been presenting for years. But from a PR perspective, it is a devastating blow to your credibility and will certainly be used by your enemies to mock and ridicule your otherwise excellent work.

      I am at a complete loss as to how this even happened. You say you’re “agnostic?” Really?

      What evidence does this “game-changing” video contain?

      Let’s see. It starts with a bunch of sentimental remembrances of Kennedy, put to sappy music.

      Then, it cuts to some TV documentary about anomalous sightings of lights and clouds on the Moon throughout history. This is pretty interesting actually, but has nothing to do with the espoused thesis of this post.

      Then, with no introduction, it cuts to a man, who I presume is David Ickes, pretending to give a lecture in front of a live audience that, as far as I can tell, doesn’t exist, who says, “The Moon is actually a hollowed out planetoid…by a very very advanced race. And it was brought here to take the earth over.”

      Wow! Tell me more.

      Turns out, according to the speaker, that the Moon is a spaceship for aliens who use it to take over planets and destroy their civilizations.

      And then he gives us the evidence: According to a bunch of credible scientist from NASA and MIT, the moon has some strange and unexpected resonant properties that lead a couple of scientist to say it’s almost like it’s hollow. Of course this is nothing new. We’ve known from gravitation calculation for ages that the moon is only 1/2 as dense as earth. But that may not completely explain the ringing phenomenon. But it’s interesting. Still doesn’t have anything to do with spaceships or aliens. Then Ickes jumps to a 1970 paper by two Russians who posed the question, “Is the Moon the Creation of Alien Intelligence?” He then cites some of their evidence – namely, the high content of unusual metals found in Moon rocks. Interesting, but comes nowhere close to providing any evidence for alien anything.

      Then, out of nowhere, the video cuts to another guy speaking to a small assembly of people in what looks like a hotel rentaroom talking about an alien race, cue more sappy music, called the Alphadraconians. This is an alien reptile race. And, according to the speaker, “they’re an incredible race.”

      I used to send skeptics and newcomers to the 911 case to this site. I certainly cannot do that now.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Carl-Herman/100000930261713 Carl Herman

        metalious: “Tell me more” you say? Read more at the “interview” link under “helpful resources” to see more compelling evidence from the authors of the book “Who built the moon?” Among this information is to emphasize what you notice: the moon is either hollow or has a low-density center, unique among all known planetary objects.

        But that’s just one of a dozen of unique characteristics, that along with NASA’s own film evidence of UFOs, testimony of leading US astronauts like Dr. Edgar Mitchell, and in-stone evidence of megalithic architecture with technology we cannot duplicate today point to game-changing evidence of human origins and influences.

        And a note about UNIQUE events in science: that something has characteristics and/or behaves differently from all other known events is in itself a game-changer, metalious. For those of us with some scientific literacy, we recognize this game-changing status and are curious to know more through inquiry. Given the other evidence along with the Moon’s unique objective qualities, this becomes a powerful prima facie case that the moon is not a natural object and therefore a constructed one.

        If this topic doesn’t interest you, fine.

        But the totality of evidence is factually strong: read the interview link and then refute it if you’re up to it. I’d like to see you try. “Moronic rubbish” you say? Go deeper into the evidence and tell me more, I say.

        If the approach to life of Mohandas Gandhi to experiment with truth is too strong for you, then I’m amazed that you’re an authentic reader and not a disinformation agent sowing seeds of alienation (so to speak).

  • BuelahMan

    Since the Apollo Missions are hoaxes and we have never been on the moon to begin with, this means that the “moon rocks”… aren’t.

    If titanium was found in the “moon rocks”, then the explanation is that these “moon rocks” are Earthly.

    Check this out as an explanation:

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Carl-Herman/100000930261713 Carl Herman

      Fair enough that there are apparently valid arguments that we’ve been lied to about NASA Moon missions. All the more reason to have full disclosure of the truth.

      • BuelahMan

        Carl,

        That video is pretty long, but VERY enlightening. It is definitely worth the watch.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Carl-Herman/100000930261713 Carl Herman

          Thanks: at 35-minutes it’s the shortest of the videos I’ve found helpful.

          • BuelahMan

            Yes, sir. And much, much more intriguing and “enlightening” information that some of us (GB) can’t seem to deal with in their itty bitty, controlled brains. Notice how he/she broad-stroked the video and didn’t offer one detail that actually deters from the information provided.

            Very telling, indeed.

            Notice all the NASA official’s and press agent’s rebuttal to questions posed. I don’t know anyone seriously watching that could say they were truthful in their rebuttals (just about like GB). As a matter of fact, GB might be one of those liars from the sound of it.

            To me, this gives me enough physical detail and evidence to question the thing without simply believing it like all the other propaganda that they want us to believe. And btw, I watched the event live and have believed my entire life until very recently.

            Thanks for taking the time to watch. I bet you GB spent no more than 5 minutes on it when NASA called and told him to go to work.

        • GB

          It’s utter garbage, but watch it if you want. Does “enlightenment” have to be truthful? There isn’t much in the video that is truthful. Cleverly deceiving to the less educated or those who are grasping to make sense of life is more probable. It’s more philosophical than educational, and more fiction than fact. This is precisely the same type of crap that led to the Myan theory that so many “enlightened” people grasped onto and believed. That worked out well, didn’t it?

          Carl, you are asking us to refute the video, but the video itself doesn’t provide any firm links to evidence. Everything in the video was done by amateurs who could have claimed official citings. The videos are horrible and can be easily concocted using any Photoshop or After-Effects photo and video editing packages. The so-called authority talking about ancient civilizations is unbelievably laughable and non-official. So please don’t hound any one of us to try to refute this piece of junk claiming to be educational. It’s not even worth our time. Provable authenticity is absent in this video, despite what you may claim. Unfortunately, provable authenticity is not possible any longer – at least, not second and third hand material as everything is now. There isn’t a single piece of footage from official sources that hasn’t in some way or another been doctored by zealots desperate to prove their point. This post is a great example. One of the men speaking nothing but badly parsed half-truths claims that Uranium can’t exist on the moon. That’s garbage. Of course it can – and it does. It’s on the Earth in elemental form, or the bloody mines that extract it for use in nuclear reactors would be pretty tough to operate. Why not on the moon? Their attempts to screw with the uneducated minds and twist their thinking into belief that the moon is a machine is beyond my comprehension to believe. That guy is seriously a few bricks short of a full load and is no where even close to living in reality.

          I’m not disclaiming that alien life doesn’t exist. I’m sure it does somewhere in the universe. But on the Moon? Come on now… with dozens of amateurs and professionals studying it and observing it night after night, photographing it all the time, and with a good handful of powerful satellites in the last few years alone that have photographed the entire surface in unprecedented detail and measured almost every measurable parameter, you don’t seriously believe that the moon “crawling with alien life” would have escaped all of our attempts thus far? Really? Truly?

          Your protectionistic reactions to those who are not of the same view as you is borderline religious in zealousness. You must really believe this stuff. That’s too bad, because you have obviously lost your objectivity in the process.

  • preventDefault

    I love Washington’s Blog. Getting into UFO’s and aliens only starts to chip away at the credibility of the website as a whole.

    There’s plenty of conspiracy websites out there. Please don’t try to be one of them. We like Washington’s Blog the way it is.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Carl-Herman/100000930261713 Carl Herman

      Good for you. Does your sense of “credibility” include censorship of ideas you make no attempt to refute and only deny?

      If you’re so strong with critical thinking skills, please, talk to us about the evidence from the video and documentation, then refute it.

      If not, well, we’ve heard the insult “conspiracy theory” before and have found it to be a distraction to move peoples’ attention away from important facts.

  • Griffon

    In March 1991, a week after he resigned from the Green Party – and shortly after his father died – the three of them held a press conference to announce that Icke was a son of the Godhead. He said the world would end in 1997, preceded by a number of disasters, including a severe hurricane around the Gulf of Mexico and New Orleans, eruptions in Cuba, disruption in China, a hurricane in Derry, and an earthquake on the Isle of Arran. Los Angeles would become an island, New Zealand would disappear, and the cliffs of Kent would be under water by Christmas. He told reporters the information was being given to them by voices and automatic writing.

    ….

    Alick Bartholomew of Gateway, Icke’s former publisher, said that an early draft of And the Truth Shall Set You Free (1995) contained material questioning the Holocaust, and that Icke was dropped because of it.

    Provided these Wiki entries are in fact true, and this may make some regard Icke as, in fact, ‘the son of the Godhead,’ it does not lend credibility, much less sanity, to a figure purporting to predict the nature of a celestial body; much less a “formerly” respected blog.

    Part and parcel of scientific credibility is to present a rational and credible background; one grounded in scientific evidence, judicious discernment and solid documentation. Icke has pretty much torched that bridge and puts any and all of his claims into the category of extremely suspect.

    This species of histrionics, along with the foreboding soundtrack and suggestive graphics inherent in amateurish hoax productions (see such laughable fodder as “Paranormal State”) diminishes Washingtonsblog.

    I’m sorry to see it.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Carl-Herman/100000930261713 Carl Herman

      “Griffon”: unsourced ad hominem and non-specific insults, repeated after my three admonitions to other “comments” that credible criticism begins with addressing the evidence in the video and/or article, are consistent with Washington’s Blog owner’s article that describes Internet propaganda:

      “How to spot – and defeat – disruption on the Internet: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/08/the-15-rules-of-internet-disinformation.html

      My observation: what is it about this topic attracting propagandists?

      • Griffon

        ““Griffon”: unsourced ad hominem and non-specific insults, repeated after my three admonitions to other “comments” that credible criticism begins with addressing the evidence in the video and/or article, are consistent with Washington’s Blog owner’s article that describes
        Internet propaganda:”

        The information I posted is not ‘unsourced. My observation of the credibility of the author, Icke, is indeed relevant to the point of the article. Icke is a writer, not an astronomer, nor are his ideas apparently that distant from other groups such as Scientology. Echoed as well in the movies ‘They Live’ and The Matrix.

        Further, rather than refute Icke’s theory, the onus is on Icke to prove his hypothesis, which he certainly has not done. No tangible evidence, no conclusive or incontrovertible proof; only reinterpretation of older documents, cherry-selected reports and a litany of hearsay during the early emergence of modern astronomy.

        Notwithstanding your objection/perception of my attitude toward Icke is Icke’s condescension with theories he disagrees with, as clearly presented in the accompanying video. Icke draws unsupported conclusions from scientifically unanswered questions such as the levels of titanium and other elements. Icke provides no hard evidence for his leap of logic outside of the inexplicabe presence of so-far unexplained phenomena.

        Suniti Karunatillake of Cornell University suggests that there are at least two ways to determine the distribution of mass within a body. One involves moment of inertia parameters, the other involves seismic observations. In the case of the former, Karunatillake points out that, “[O]ne such parameter, the normalized polar moment of inertia, is 0.393+/-0.001, which is very close to that for a solid object with radially constant density (0.4; for comparison, Earth’s value is 0.33). As for the latter, he notes that the moon is the
        only planetary body besides Earth on which extensive seismic observations have been made. These observations have constrained the thickness of the moon’s crust, mantle and core, suggesting it could not be hollow.[5] Karen Masters of University of Portsmouth similarly suggests that, based on the behavior of objects interacting with the gravitational field of the moon, we can determine the mass of the moon. Given the observable size of the moon, we can then calculate the density, which strongly rejects the notion that the moon could be hollow.

        Included is a lecture on some race of beings called the Alpha Draconians? Seriously?

        No proof, no evidence, just assertion and then, by you Carl, a demand that I disprove what has not been proven or substantiated; not unlike employing the fallacy of demanding that agnostics prove God doesn’t exist. It is the domain of charlatans and snake-oil salesmen that the onus is put on the audience when the author makes wildly unsupported claims backed by not-necessarily accurate interpretations of “evidence.”

        Icke shows low-resolution, archival footage of ‘something’ yet authoritatively informs the viewer, with absolutely no corroborating evidence of any kind, that the scene represents a UFO or a machine or some sort. Or ‘flying serpents.’

        This whole video frankly stinks to high heaven and is certainly not the work of a detail-oriented and conscientious scientific methodology. It is, however, very consistent with someone who considers themselves the ‘Son of the Godhead.’

        • Carl Herman

          “Griffon”: you open with ad hominem of one of the messengers in the video (David Icke, while ignoring NASA), when, again, only propagandists do so when the information provided is subject to academic and professional consideration on its merits.

          All of us who are serious about getting the data on a topic notice your distraction from this work, “Griffon.” You’re free to name-call and character-attack if that’s what you most want, but those of us who want Truth and facts never bother when factual claims speak for themselves.

          I appreciate you, “Griffon,” for making this difference between a factual burden of proof and propaganda so clear.

          “Griffon” then characterizes Mr. Icke’s information as “reinterpretation of older documents” and other insults, ignores all other data on the video, and then provides obfuscating jargon rather than clear explanation of a specific claim that expert witnesses are supposed to provide. In this example, the science would need to help an audience understand how seismic data translate into answering the question whether the moon is hollow. “Griffon” would then need to address and refute both NASA reports, and the Soviet Academy of Sciences.

          This is a significant burden of proof that “Griffon” ignores, and that nobody serious in academics and professional factual claims tolerates. Propagandists, not professionals, throw general science onto walls hoping they can distract the public. In contrast, professionals work to help the public understand with clear explanation, point to the data, and allow the data to become visible.

          “Griffon” claims the video is somehow not credible, so that’s his burden of proof, not anyone else’s. This is real-world training for the public to weigh credibility of what is claimed.

          The film evidence from NASA of UFOs, as any other evidence, is certainly unconstrained from the public interpreting the film as they will. “Griffon” is eager to characterize that evidence for the public rather than submit it for their careful consideration. In this case, it is the highest resolution available from the highest source capable of providing it, to contrast with “Griffon”’s choice of language.

          Propagandists are eager to herd public opinion.

          I’m happy to provide this 35-minute film and other resources for interested readers to explore and come to their own conclusions.

        • Carl Herman

          1 of 2:

          “How to spot – and defeat – disruption on the Internet: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/08/the-15-rules-of-internet-disinformation.html

          “Griffon”: you open with ad hominem of one of the messengers in the video (David Icke, while ignoring NASA), when, again, only propagandists do so when the information provided is subject to academic and professional consideration on its own merits.

          All of us who are serious about getting the data on a topic notice your distraction from this work, “Griffon.” You’re free to name-call and character-attack if that’s what you most want, but those of us who want Truth and facts never bother when factual claims speak for themselves.

          I appreciate you, “Griffon,” for making this difference between a factual burden of proof and propaganda so clear.

          “Griffon” then characterizes Mr. Icke’s information as “reinterpretation of older documents” and other insults, ignores all other data on the video, and then provides obfuscating jargon rather than clear explanation of a specific claim that expert witnesses are supposed to provide. In this example, the science would need to help an audience understand how seismic data translate into answering the question whether the moon is hollow. “Griffon” would then need to address and refute both NASA reports, and the Soviet Academy of Sciences.

          • Carl Herman

            2 of 2:

            This is a significant burden of proof that “Griffon” ignores, and that nobody serious in academics and professional factual claims tolerates. Propagandists, not professionals, throw general science onto walls hoping they can distract the public. In contrast, professionals work to help the public understand with clear explanation, point to the data, and allow the data to become visible.

            “Griffon” claims the video is somehow not credible, so that’s his burden of proof, not anyone else’s. This is real-world training for the public to weigh credibility of what is claimed.

            The film evidence from NASA of UFOs, as any other evidence, is certainly unconstrained from the public interpreting the film as they will. “Griffon” is eager to characterize that evidence for the public rather than submit it for their careful consideration. In this case, it is the highest resolution available from the highest source capable of providing it, to contrast with “Griffon”’s choice of language.

            Propagandists are eager to herd public opinion.

            I’m happy to provide this 35-minute film and other resources for interested readers to explore and come to their own conclusions.

          • Griffon

            “The film evidence from NASA of UFOs, as any other evidence, is certainly unconstrained from the public interpreting the film as they will. “Griffon” is eager to characterize that evidence for the public rather than submit it for their careful consideration. In this case, it is the highest resolution available from the highest source capable of providing it, to contrast with “Griffon”’s choice of language.”

            In other words, it is as I said: low res and grainy video. Not the stuff of incontrovertible, or even compelling, proof.

            However, my contention is that Icke’s absolutist conclusion as to what these ‘objects’ are is unsupported by any evidence whatsoever, much less any that Icke has advanced.

            Because a fact or bit of research, such as the amount of titanium on the moon, remains unanswered does not present the opportunity for said fact or bit of research to automatically revert to Icke’s thin-beer theories. Because a bit of unexplained light appears on a grainy video feed does not bestow reptilian intelligence or origins.

            As far as the ‘UFOs’ cited in Icke’s collection of space footage, there’s some 6 tons of “orbital debris” (space junk) floating in the atmosphere and some of that junk can reflect sunlight creating all manner of blinks and flashes on tape. That doesn’t make them sentient and lizard-like.

            Your only response is to attack me rather than provide substantial proof outside of innuendo and loosely circumstantial interpretation of selected scientific findings.

          • Griffon

            ““How to spot – and defeat – disruption on the Internet”

            That’s your response? To try and label me a troll because I have sourced and
            credible information that calls Icke’s judgement and credibility into question, refutes Icke’s claims in the video and calls out Icke’s unilateral and entirely unsupported allegations of UFOs appearing in grainy, low-res archival footage without a shred of proof, evidence or incontrovertible corroboration?

            Wow. What an intellectual coward you are, Carl.

            I’ve no problem with your wanting to ‘believe,’ however outlandish and unsupported your beliefs; but to try to pass off an amateur film, baseless claims and reinterpreted reports to try to sell what amounts a sci-fi movie script as anything approaching fact is the refuge of the reality-denying fanatic.

            “All of us who are serious about getting the data on a topic notice your distraction from this work, “Griffon.””

            You’re an even bigger intellectual coward than I thought. You really need the pathetic crutch of nosism to give your position the illusion of weight and consensus?

            Icke simply does not prove his case. No basis, no evidence, no hard irrefutable authentication. Icke’s entire video case is made up of baseless conclusions borne of a selected collection of scientific observations. That’s not validation.

            That’s Battlefield Earth II.

            Produce a peer review that Icke’s Hollywood script had weathered. Produce valid proof that the grainy, low-res videos are, in fact, intelligent/extraterrestrial in nature as Icke clearly and baselessly implies. Produce anything remotely supporting ‘Flying Serpents,’ or my personal favorite, the ‘Alpha Dracs.’

            Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Icke has provided none and your seeming position of Public Relations Apologist and labeling trolls of all who call your pet beliefs into glaring question does far more harm than good in your injudicious attempt at legitimizing this fantasy story.

          • Carl Herman

            Thanks for your time, Griffon. People have more than enough info and comments to make their own minds up.

          • Griffon

            It’s been fun.

  • Damo

    I think that critics of having a David Icke video on this blog have firm footing to stand on. It doesn’t matter if the information in it may or may not be scientifically accurate. I’m not an astro-physicist so I can make that determination. However I do know enough about David Icke to know that he’s a far out nutcase. If you wanted merely to spread the possible facts covered in the video maybe you should have just written a story about that information. As your previous blog postings have been pretty good your story would have had a certain level of credability. But you chose to post a David Icke video. David Icke, one of the worlds most notorious charlatans. A useful idiot that poisons the well of truth merely by having truth pass through his thoroughly discredited lips. A madman used to make truth seekers look like nutters by association. Do you see my point? If you were going to write a 9/11 truth article would you attach a video by Architects and Engineers or would you attach a David Icke video were he talks about some of the research from actual scientists like Steven Jones and Neil Harrits and then talks about his Reptilian alien invaders? I’m not arguing that we should ignore Soviet scientists of concerned officers of the US Air Force when they try to bring attention to UFO activity to society. I’m not a disbeliever. Hell I’ve seen a UFO personally that defied what I think I know to be the capabilities of human aircraft. But putting an insane person up on stage to be the speaker, and propping him up as a so called leader of those seeking truth will only hurt the overall movement to get at that truth.

    • Damo

      typo – I’m not an astro-physicist so I can’t make that determination

    • Damo

      typo – Soviet scientists or concerned officers of the US Air Force.

      I wish you could edit posts.

    • http://twitter.com/Carl_Herman Carl Herman

      More ad hominem, folks.

      The basic choice for Truth is addressing the relevant facts or not. When claims can be evaluated on their merits, shall we evaluate the messenger and ignore the data? That is the basic argument of the propaganda here.

      • Damo

        These people complaining are not propaganda Carl. The issue we have is not with the information. It’s with David Icke. We’re not saying ignore the data, but we are evaluating the messenger. Our complaints aren’t propaganda. David Icke is about as uncredible a person you can get, up there with the likes of Dick Cheney. Hell, he’s probably on Dick Cheney’s payroll. I’m David Icke and I say reptilian aliens carried out the 9/11 attacks as part of their plan to usher in a new world order. The real explanation couldn’t possibly be as simple as the neoconservatives carrying out their 100 year plan for world domination. Why are you defending a lunatic? You’re making yourself look bad, and worse you’re making Washingtonsblog look bad. I’ve been reading this blog since way before you started posting here and I don’t appreciate you damaging it’s reputation by bringing David Icke anywhere near here. If you want to write a story about how you think the moon is hollow and government reports on extraterrestrial activity, and want to speculate that we haven’t returned to the moon because it’s crawling with aliens fine. Just don’t bring David Icke around with you because he’s a giant fraud. Why don’t you be the messenger of the information, instead of having David Icke, since he has no credibility as a source of information.

        • Carl Herman

          Damo: I’m fine standing relatively alone with the Enlightenment-era victory that claims stand on their own merits. And why your focus on just one of the messengers for this video and topic? NASA’s own video shows UFOs they acknowledge. NASA’s own film shows airbrushed-out giant structures of some kind on the Moon.

          The other resources I point to are rich with data and first-hand US astronaut testimony of ET life. This topic, I suggest, is huge. If you want to ridicule one messenger, Damo, that’s your call. And that said, as a professional teacher of history, the idea that rulers came from outer space is what ancient civilizations claimed as their history, with megalithic architecture providing literal in-stone history of technology we cannot replicated today.

          I also understand not all topics are for each person. I appreciate your attention to the topics on this blog that attract your interest, and the communication you have to build a brighter future.

          • Mark OBLAZNEY

            Claims do stand on their own merits, even from a liar, who must be proven as such. For anybody from Missouri, show em’.

          • this is lame

            Why would NASA airbrush photos instead of just releasing ones where there are no structures? If it’s going to be obvious to anyone later that the photos were airbrushed isn’t that a bit of a security issue? Why would they risk it when they could just release other photos of desolate moon?

            This is bullshit, you need to go back to whatever bullshit website you came from.

    • gozounlimited

      You have also been reading comments on Washington’s blog brought to you by extraterrestrials …. mr big pants astro-physicist. Here you will like this …. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1b8W1tFFs3M

      • Damo

        I wonder how many tries it took to get the kick pass down. And I’m not an astro-physicist.

  • gozounlimited

    Carl gets it …. the rest of you can go back to sleep …. doesn’t apply to you.

    • Griffon

      Of course Carl gets it…and I’d like to buy a bag of it ‘cuz it’s reality-altering, obviously.

  • Jubal

    This is no way diminishes my appreciation of Washingtons Blog.

    I don’t care one way or the other but clearly some folks are inordinately emotionally invested. It’s like atheists who battle tooth n nail over anothers’ belief in God, or visa versa. If you believe fine, if you don’t fine but all the unnecessary drama suggests one or the other isn’t secure in their professed beliefs.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1672891012 Greg Burton

    With apologies to Carl Herman, who is one of my good Facebook buddies…

    Pay no attention to that hyper-inflated, homeless, jobless, fracked and oil-soaked, irradiated police state we foisted on you via the 911, Madrid 3/11 and London 7/7 false-flag attacks!

    Here is a story about space lizards livin’ on the moon! Here is a Mayan dude sayin’ it’s the end of the world! Here is a weird noise in the sky for you to go “WTF?” at! Here is a piece of toast with the face of Jesus on it! Here is (another one?) photo-shopped image of a TERRORIST guy who’s been dead since 2001!

    ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE! ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE!

    Here is a Project BLUE BEAM Virgin Mary in-the-sky to keep you in la-la land!

    Meanwhile, we will continue our de-population, loot and pollute the planet scheme we hatched at a secret Illuminati meeting, from our REX-84, continuation of government, radiation proof D.U.M.B. undisclosed location where we protect our elite DNA genome blood-line! C-Ya!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1672891012 Greg Burton

    With apologies to Carl Herman, who is one of my good Facebook buddies…

    Pay no attention to that hyper-inflated, homeless, jobless, fracked and oil-soaked, irradiated police state we foisted on you via the 911, Madrid 3/11 and London 7/7 false-flag attacks!

    Here is a story about space lizards livin’ on the moon! Here is a Mayan dude sayin’ it’s the end of the world! Here is a weird noise in the sky for you to go “WTF?” at! Here is a piece of toast with the face of Jesus on it! Here is (another one?) photo-shopped image of a TERRORIST guy who’s been dead since 2001!

    ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE! ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE!

    Here is a Project BLUE BEAM Virgin Mary in-the-sky to keep you in la-la land!

    Meanwhile, we will continue our de-population, loot and pollute the planet scheme we hatched at a secret Illuminati meeting, from our REX-84, continuation of government, radiation proof D.U.M.B. undisclosed location where we protect our elite DNA genome blood-line! C-Ya!

 

 

Twitter