reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow
I admire your passion and resolve on this issue.
Let me clear something up though: Sometimes things I say on different threads may seem somewhat contradictory but they are not. I take perspectives on
things from a public knowledge stance, a conspiracy stance, while balancing it with neutrality and science. Because I offer rational explanations to
something, while still believing in a cover up on the very same thing DOES NOT mean I am debunking all conspiracies or think they are bunk. It does
not mean I am contradictory, I simply use the Ufology philosophy I feel is best, neutrality with multi perspective objectivity
. If there is
something I feel is a cover up, but have no solid evidence of it
, I will, when speaking 'officially', give a response based on current public
knowledge, possibly intertwined with innuendos of a cover up, or something more. If it is something I am pretty sure is a cover up I will speak from
that perspective. I will ALWAYS however, give my opinion in the most neutral and scientific manner possible. Since my interests are both in mainstream
science and Ufology I must balance those out and not skew the two together too much
. I think all who investigate this epic
should act the same way, but this is only IMHO.
So why that long opening all about my ideology? Well you asked me "what do I think is on the Moon", and accordingly I have two answers. What I
is one the Moon is the following: human bases, alien bases, joint bases, mining operations and more. What I KNOW is on the Moon
(based on common public knowledge from very credible sources and documentation) is the following: Regolith, many craters, a few crashed probes,
rovers, Lunar Landers, a US flag, a laser reflection device (for measuring distance), and anything else I left out that is common knowledge. So when
looking at the evidence from a pure empirical, logical, and neutral standpoint
one must challenge EVERYTHING before coming to a definite
decision that counters the widespread, commonly accepted mainstream views. This is how we will be taken seriously my friend, not by blindly believing
(and staring and flagging) any story we hear that sounds good and perks our interests that we want to be true.
I think John Lear said it best in his signature...
Courtesy John Lear
I seek only the truth. But let me make it perfectly clear how little I think I know:
1. All of my claims are only possibilities.
2. I could be completely misinformed.
3. All of what I believe might not be true.
There are some things I have been told and learned that despite the hard evidence I will believe and openly and 'officially' insert into my beliefs
and statements, this is due to long research and cross referencing, plus my opinion of the credibility of the source of information. I am constantly
building knowledge, I am always trying to build a legit and plausible "Global Conspiracy", I have yet to and I challenge anyone who has that they
might want to hold of on calling it the truth until more facts can be assured.~Justin
[edit on 6/17/2009 by jkrog08]
[edit on 6/17/2009 by jkrog08]