Unbelievable moonbases and wrong science

[Monica]

The biggest block I have with the moon base idea is that if it were indeed true, many other things would not be true.

Like what? Can you give an example?

The problem and (one of) the key differences is that I see is that it is not beyond our ability to disprove. We can't go back in time to examine Venus as it was during Ra's hayday, but we can look at the moon, and indeed even the dark side of the moon. Where are the bases?

We can? How? How can you and I go look at the moon?

Do you see what I'm saying? We can't.

We can only trust others to do it. NASA. WE can't prove or disprove anything unless we happen to own our own spaceship.

what is the more likely explanation? That the government is hiding super futuristic, amazingly high-tech capabilities and has special bases on the moon or under the oceans, or that the comment made by Ra (for whatever reason, confusion, distortion, fill in the blank) was not correct?

Since you and I can't go to the moon ourselves, what it boils down to is: Whom do we trust? Do we trust Ra or NASA? Because either way, whatever we decide, we're going to have to take someone's word for it.

Respectfully, there seems to be a presupposition in your assertion: That the news we've been fed by the mainstream media (which came from NASA) is trustworthy.

I personally trust Ra waaaaay more than NASA!

If you prefer to trust NASA, that's cool! But it is a presupposition. Choosing to believe NASA's version isn't based on your own observation because you haven't actually been to the Moon. So it's still trust...just a matter of whom you choose to trust!

Or lets examine the logical errors, if we have what I would call such high technology as to have secret bases on the moon, why are we still pouring billions of dollars in to space shuttle technology at NASA? Or the ISS (international space station)?

Hoagland's Dark Mission: The Secret History of NASA addresses this in depth. It's a really great read! Meticulously presented and thoroughly researched. If you are interested in pursuing this topic, I would highly recommend this book as the best place to start. There are some supporting youtube videos as well, but there is also a lot of garbage on youtube (imo). I've been following Hoagland ever since the Mars stuff in the 80s and believe him to be among the most credible. His work regarding the Mars mathematics & physics is just stunning! and corroborates Nassim's work as well.

With a government that gets sooo caught up with money problems when it comes to balancing the budget or passing new bills, providing health care, etc. does it make any sense at all to continue funding obsolete space technology?

The $$ isn't necessarily going where you think it's going. There is a lot unaccounted for, and more that's being redirected. The book addresses this. I don't remember the details exactly so I'll refer you to the book (2009 edition).

http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Mission-Histo...967&sr=1-2

The implications of the government having moon bases are so large and so far reaching... the only way they could possibly exist is a government cover-up so far reaching and widespread, and so fundamentally top secret as to be only possible in a work of fiction.

That's the same argument commonly used in attempts to refute 911. As with 911, the argument is easily dismantled. It has to do with a 'need to know' basis. Very few people hold all the pieces of the puzzle. And even then, there are still whistleblowers (many others besides Hoagland).

(now to be fair, I just remembered this: http://benfrank.net/patriots/news/nation..._trillions which may compromise my last argument, lol! (see, I <b>am</b> trying... ))

This supports Hoagland's assertion that this 'lost' $$ is being used to maintain the moon bases (among other things).

Millions of telescopes around the world from amateur astronomers point at the moon everyday on top of this. I find the idea that it could be so easily concealed implausible to the extreme (much less a base in our skies).

Think Star Trek!

...there is such a thing as consensus reality that we all participate in to some degree. For example, we all agree that gravity pushes us down toward Earth, that the United States exists, and that dogs like chasing Frisbees. My point being, some things are, at least in our reality, true regardless of what someone else may think. I think?

That's a good question! I wonder about that! Or...is it like in What the Bleep and, as hypothesized by M Theory, that we all live in multiple realities overlapping one another?

I dunno!

But, aside from that, all it takes is to look around...Think about the everyday life of a homeless junkie...his reality is totally different from yours or mine. Or think about the huge disconnect between the Obama supporters and those who think he's the anti-Christ...these people read the same headlines and yet interpret the same events in totally opposite ways! One person rejoices at his overtures to the Muslim community, while another uses that as evidence that he's the anti-Christ!

Or look at diets...Vegetarians will cite Dean Ornish while meat-lovers cite Dr. Atkins...Ornish and Atkins have totally opposing viewpoints about animal foods in the diet...both cite studies, but interpreted in different ways...can they both be right?

Who knows? We live in distortion. We each see our own tiny sliver of the Truth. Who decides what consensual reality is? Isn't consensual reality based on numbers? If the majority of the population believes a certain way, do they believe it into existence?

And yet, there will always be those living in the same consensual reality who still somehow manage to create their own reality, despite what appears 'true' to everyone else! For example, how much of our consensual reality is believed by Aboriginal shamans to be true? How much more knowledge about other realities do shamans have?

At any rate, while most of us agree that certain things like the law of gravity are accepted as consensual reality, I don't think the question of who did 911 or whether there are moon bases fall into the realm of consensual reality. Why? Because there are too many unknowns, at this point. The law of gravity can be tangibly proven. Any of us can toss a ball into the air and see it fall and bounce, so we can all agree that there's gravity. The difference is that we can't do that with the moon bases issue or how the pyramids were built. We can only research, speculate, and try to put the pieces together. We can't prove any of those controversial issues tangibly and conclusively at this point...which is why they are confined to the realm of conspiracy theories!

I'm not so certain the government is very good at concealing truths at all.

They're not! Which is why there are so many whistleblowers! As they say, The truth is out there. The problem has nothing to do with whether the govt. is successful at concealing truth, but whether the public cares about the truth. Most conspiracy theorists will tell you that, once you start digging into any of these controversies, and your eyes are opened to the vast amount of evidence that's out there, you will be amazed that the govt. hasn't been exposed. How can this be? It's because the public doesn't want to know! The truth is right there, in front of their noses, but most people just don't bother to look at it! The govt. isn't very good at hiding stuff at all...it's almost comical, once you start realizing just how many smoking guns there are in any of these controversial areas! I have often marveled at just how stupid they must think we are...to have left so many clues and outright proof. But none of that matters if people aren't interested in looking at it!

Consider the UFO phenomenon, despite half a century of denial there is still a large and ever growing group of people who are hell bent on disclosure. Same goes for anything else that falls under conspiracy labels.

Right. And the same goes for the moon bases topic. It's there too! Plenty of people pursuing it as well!

I haven't investigated this Hoagland person, but who else is speaking about this? Many people? Are as many people discussing moon bases as are people discussing UFOs or WTC conspiracies?

Yes, lots! Not nearly as many as are in the 911 Truth Movement (that's huge) or as many who believe themselves to be UFO abductees, since it's not as much of a hot button issue, but certainly lots! I don't remember the name, but I remember one ex-NASA scientist in particular who made a very compelling case. He seemed to be working independently of Hoagland. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find that particular video again. And there are lots of others that came up on the search that I have not bothered to watch, due to lack of interest. So I'd say the issue isn't nearly as well-researched as some of the hot button controversies like 911 and UFOs, but there are certainly a lot of people out there who do take it seriously, and some appear quite credible, from what I can tell.

This is something that's an active catalyst for me at the moment. I do not know how others are able to make peace with something like this so easily,

I don't know about others and can only speak for myself. Maybe, in my case, because by the time I was 20 I knew about the Kennedy coverup (I had a friend whose father was murdered because of what he knew), then later I was a huge fan of Star Trek and The X-Files...and I always felt that much of the science in Star Trek was based on truth. So the idea of 'cloaked' moon bases just didn't sound far-fetched to me! After all, in Star Trek they had holodecks and cloaking devices, so why not? Then, probably around the time I read the formerly edited passages in Book 5, I had already developed a devoted trust in our Confederation friends, since I had read the Law of One 20 years prior and had kept up with the Q'uo channelings on and off throughout the years. I had chosen the Law of One as my spiritual foundation way back in 1985, based on the high degree of resonance I felt with the spiritual principles. I found virtually everything in it to be plausible, so when I read the additional passages about moon bases 20 years later, well, I pretty much took it in stride...didn't even raise an eyebrow for me at all!

Then, of course I can add to that my experience researching the 911 coverup. This was something I spent a great deal of time on. So...moon bases? That's nothing compared to 911! Who knows, maybe they're even connected, as some suspect!

So, that's my background. I just never found the subject of moon bases implausible at all.

As for the other issue you find hard to believe - the pyramids - I find Ra's account much, much, much more plausible than the mainstream version. And a couple of years ago saw a documentary that confirmed Ra's timetable...because of the water erosion the age was placed at 12-14,000 years, which roughly coincided with Ra's version. To me, that is so much more accurate than the mainstream story of 4000 years old built by slaves using primitive weapons, that a difference of +-1000 years or so is relatively negligible. The important point is that Ra provided a way to reconcile how the pyramids were built. I find Ra's version plausible, whereas the mainstream version is laughably ridiculous.

especially considering the highly esoteric nature of the Ra contact.

It is the highly esoteric nature of the Ra contact that reinforces Ra's credibility, for me.

...imagine that you're reading the Ra material one day and all of a sudden your eyes fall upon a passage you never noticed before. It reads: "I am Ra. Hello LOO reader. We just wanted to let you know that if you open your left hand, you will find a shiny green M&M courtesy of your friendly local social memory complex. Adonai, Adonai." In many ways, this scenario with the M&M is about equal to the statement about moon, ocean, and sky(?) bases (and to perhaps a lesser extent, pyramids, maldak, and so on). At least, that's how I see it at the moment.

I understand that that would indeed create quite a quagmire! However I still don't quite understand why you consider the info about pyramids, Maldek, moon bases, etc. to be on the same level as the green M&M. So the question is: Why are these issues so difficult to consider plausible?

My suggestion is to simply do some research. I suggest starting with Hoagland, since he's intelligent and well-documented. Perhaps some research into some of the other conspiricies (such as 911 for example) might lend more credibility as well...if you find evidence for one govt. coverup, it's less of a stretch to believe them capable of others.

Put simply, I'm attempting to make sense of how to accept information from an un-seen source when said source has given information that I know is (or at least strongly, strongly suspect) not true.

Ultimately, these subjects are transient. But, if they are getting in the way of fully appreciating the beautiful, spiritual gems in the Law of One, then I can see how such exploration might be very important to you.

May well be that I have not fully mastered the art of 'putting it aside'. I do not hold any being as superior to myself or anyone else, so I cannot give Ra any more superiority than old Fred who hangs out at the bar on Wednesdays.

I don't think it has anything to do with superiority. I consider Ra as simply having a viewpoint that reaches farther than what I can currently see with my own eyes. Sort of like asking my friend who lives in Colorado to tell me what the weather's like there. Except, in this case, Ra sees multiple worlds and even timelines too!

I equate a conversation with Fred as in some ways equal to a conversation with Ra, in the sense that if Fred starting talking about neon pink gnomes that live in his attic and heckle him in the night, I might question anything else he has to say as well. (this is why I seek explanations (i.e. distortion) for moon base comments)

Hmmm...that's where I would differ. If I know someone is, say, a brilliant musician, I don't negate his musical skill just because he doesn't know how to program a computer. My husband & I used to see a chiropractor who was so amazing that we mourned the loss when he died recently! He was an amazing healer in his chosen field! But yikes, every time we went to his office, I had to ask him to please turn off the radio...I didn't want to listen to Rush Limbaugh while he adjusted my back! My hubby and I wondered at the incongruency...his polticial views were so extreme...but hey, he was a fantastic chiroproactor!

Often of late I have mentally pulled back so to speak, and looked at the entire package of information offered by Ra in perspective. When I get right down to it, although helpful at times, there is nothing included there that I <b>need</b> for my spiritual evolution. In that sense, it may be wiser on my part to take the whole thing less seriously. Indeed it was certainly my wish to take the Ra material seriously that created the emotional charge / catalyst for me in the first place.

Well, that's something only you can decide! I invite you to consider whether you might be missing something of value due to preconceived dogmas. Scientific and political dogmas can be just as confining as religious dogmas. For example, many people scoff at homeopathy just because the mainstream medical community doesn't accept it. But, if you research the issue, you'll find that the studies done on homeopathy were inherently flawed - they didn't take into consideration certain key principles that are crucial to understanding how it works - and yet there are many, many thousands of MDs who have millions of cases of clinical evidence that it does indeed work! Many people miss this clinical evidence because of their preconceived dogma that only that which is accepted by the mainstream is credible.

Ultimately, it's all about resonance...and what you choose to believe. In cases in which we don't resonate with something, we can either a.) take the useful parts and discard the rest, or b.) discard it altogether (effectively throwing the baby out with the bathwater), or c.) put the parts we don't like on a shelf for possible future reference (ie. pull it out every now and then for re-evaluation) or d.) see it as a challenge and actively expand the parameters of our paradigm, thus opening our mind to new possibilities...and possibly resonance with something that didn't resonate before.

No choice is any better than the others.