Moon Matrix by David Icke

This sounds a lot like "They Live" from John Carpenter.
Line 2 is always present!

Icke should go back to sports presenting, he was better at that..

From what I can see his theories are normally a rehash of another fellow loon and as always they have to be taken at face value as he quite happily provides no proof.

I don't know what happened in his personal life that prompted this bizarre behaviour but it truly is some of the biggest tripe I've ever heard someone speak with a straight face.

As soon as he joins your cause you best forget it...

I'm such a huge fan of his...(and Jose )

reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow


Does he have any physical evidence to support this so called revelation? No i suppose.

I like ike and will look at his book when it comes out.



this m may help
www.youtube.com...

thats part 1 of 12 used to like maxwell but now i think the man has had an agenda . and promotes a well known luciferian agenda since the fall of man hes comeing from i wont say the name but it routes are found off attacks especially to or against many a christian religions. his last name maxwell if its his real name says a lot

michael tsarion debunked aswell google tsarion debunked

[edit on 3/7/2010 by dashar]

reply to post by Nventual


Strange that you seem to have plenty of time to read and answer threads on ATS though eh?

Originally posted by autowrench
reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow

 

His most staggering revelation is that the Earth and the collective human mind is manipulated from the Moon, which, he says, is not a ‘heavenly body’, but an artificial construct – a gigantic ‘spacecraft’ (probably a hollowed-out 'planetoid') – which is home to the extraterrestrial group that has been manipulating humanity for aeons.

My theory and thoughts on the matter exactly. Many agree with me on this, and many more suspect it to be so. The Moon is artificial, mostly made of metals which Astronauts were unable to drill into, and the Moon "ran like a bell" when the spent vehicle was dropped, as it did when the Russians dropped their spent rocket to the surface.

The Truth About the Moon

Contrary to popular belief, our Moon is not actually Earth’s natural satellite, but an artificial one that replaced Mother Earth’s natural satellites during the tragic, long-ago destructions of Lemuria and, later. Atlantis. The unmanned probes that landed on the Moon in the early and mid-1960s conducted experiments proving that the Moon ‘rang like a bell’, an unusual phenomenon that resulted from the enormous titanium alloy shell upon which the Moons crust is laid.

www.liveindia.com...

* when the spent sections of the rocket careered into the surface of the moon, it "rang like a gong or bell".
* a massive cloud of liquid has been spotted floating around the moon in a random pattern
* there should be a layer of dust on the moon over 180 feet thick
* There is a huge 70 mile long structure that stands at nearly 1500 feet high, from an aerial view it looks as straight as an arrow
* Over 200 of domes have been catalogued in the last 8 years
* Neil Armstrong relayed the message to mission control that two, large mysterious objects were watching them after landing near the moon module, but this message never reached the ears of the public

home.comcast.net...

In my own theory, the Moon is a spacecraft what aliens came here in. There is a crystalline based computer system there that recycles soul material from people who die, then it sends them back into the Matrix of this created reality we all call Earth.
The Moon was not always there, there are writings of a time before the Moon.

When the Earth was Moonless
www.halexandria.org...

The Earth Without the Moon
www.varchive.org...

wow! Thanks for this amazing perspective - awesome stuff!

Sorry if I'm wrong. But if the moon was towed here... Wait. Ok. I saw something on probably the History Ch about the possible origins of the moon and they took samples and found that theres the exact same percentages of certain minerals (or maybe it was elements) as on the earth, but there was SOMETHING different too and I think thats what led them to believe another planet a long time ago collided with Earth and took a chunk of it out and created the moon. and maybe the rest of the other planet helped to become the astroid belt? I don't pretend to know but just thought that might help someone if they feel like researching it better. I don't.

But I guess the believers of this theory could just say that since it was NASA who took the soil samples, then they must've faked it and in fact NASA never went to the moon and the reason the samples had same percentages of certain elements or minerals was because it WAS a soil sample from Earth. They were just hoping nobody would notice that detail...

[edit on 7-3-2010 by doctor j and inmate c5779]

ok maybe i should read every post before i reply, cuz now theres another few quick things and i really hope this wasn't already mentioned:
Hollow Earth believers say that earthquake vibrations cause the earth to "ring like a bell" or at least thats how the vibrations move throughout the earth is in the same pattern as it would were it a bell. so i guess if u believe the moon is hollow then the earth must be too. And I think I figured out why the moon has dirt similiar elements as earth. I watched something about the Nazca lines. theres mountains in that area with the cool designs that look as if the top of the mountains were "sheared off"
leaving a huge flat plateau type thing (but definitely not similiar to any natural plateaus) and there is NO SIGN of all that material that had to go somewhere from the tops of those mountains. Maybe they used that material to cover the metallic sphere that is inside the moon.

Ok but joking aside, I did see another show about the moon and the whole show was about what it would be like if we didn't have the moon. And from watching that its hard to believe that there was a time we didn't have it. It would be an entirely different world thats for sure. Think about the tides and the rythms of the earth that are created by the moon. Ive heard all kinds of cycles that run based on "moon time". Check it out. I'm not sayin that its not possible, but as many of the wiser people on here will tell you, "Don't take my word for it, do your own research!" and if you try and fail, message me if u wanna talk more. But I pretty much only watch the History channel, History International, Science Channel, Military channel, Discovery, and Investigation Discovery (ID), Biography, oh and can't forget NatGeo! So it was on one of those 8 channels. Probly not on Bio, or ID, or Military.





[edit on 7-3-2010 by doctor j and inmate c5779]

It is my belief that David Icke realizes the inevitable, and he expresses in terms of the looney and the concrete. What he says is reflective of quite insightful psychological and spiritual understanding, a quite good understanding of the relational nature of things and a bigger picture. That being said, he discusses the aspects of our need for control and our reptilian brain stems in term of reptiles from outer space. He refers to a moon matrix in reference to our lack of seeking for truth; instead, many merely reflect the world around them, and use their reflections of BS in an attempt to remove themselves from BS. Maybe many cannot understand the abstract and metaphysical as of yet. I believe him to be exploiting a certain segment that needs certainty, when the only way this segment will gain a better understanding and power in their own right is to truly have a recognition of a dynamic set of interactions. In this, there is ambiguity and not so much certainty. The only certainty that can be gained in this sort of mind is that of a general nature of interactions. I said my piece. Peace.

to anyone who has studied the moon at all, it is clear there are a lot of anomalies and unaswered questions about all sorts of aspects of its shape, orbit, structure, influence

whether DI will be correct or not on this issue is less of the point, the fact he is opening up discussion about this very odd "sphere in space" is a good thing.
anything odd in our universe should constantly be questioned

reply to post by Hermes8


But why is it odd?

Many planets have moons,why is ours so odd?


I mean its great and everything,but is it odd?

reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow


Ok I'll bite. Besides the Susan Robert's wink, I have yet to see any strong evidence about reptilians. (I love that video! LOL) so in the spirit of denying ignorance: A) What is the best evidence that you have ever seen that caused you to believe David Icke? B) Why should we believe that he is privy to any inside information when it appears that what he is presenting is merely a theory and not evidence?

Yes I have read quite a few documents and websites but nothing that convinces me yet.

Cheers!

Well I am not a fan of Icke (not really for any particular reason) but I will say the moon is most mysterious.

I read that it is highly electric and they walking on the moon will cause your hair to stand on end all over the body.

Then we have the theory of the electric universe...could it be that electric/magnetic things are holding the moon to the Earth...this possible playing a part in why the same side of the moon is always facing our direction?

I dont believe in evil reptilians but I do think it is somewhat a tiny bit possible that the moon is not so much artificial...but had been moved into its place with some additions to it.

I have heard theories of it being a trap for souls...not allowing souls/spirits to move on from here. This is a frightening idea and I try not to consider it much.

Some say full moon can effect people with its energy....I find that the dark moon or no moon is a better time to be able to clear the mind and really tap into the self. The full moon seems distracting...at least in my experiences of meditating with it.

Originally posted by Silcone Synapse
reply to post by Hermes8

 

But why is it odd?

Many planets have moons,why is ours so odd?


I mean its great and everything,but is it odd?

asking questions is always a good thing!...
Check out THIS Moon
THE MYSTERIOUS MOON OF SATURN IAPETUS

Whenever someone says "hollow earth," this image has to be posted.

SIZE
The moon's diameter is 2,140 miles (3,476 km), 27% of the diameter of the Earth (a bit over a quarter of the Earth's diameter).

The gravitational tidal influence of the Moon on the Earth is about twice as strong as the Sun's gravitational tidal influence. The Earth:moon size ratio is quite small in comparison to ratios of most other planet:moon systems (for most planets in our Solar System, the moons are much smaller in comparison to the planet and have less of an effect on the planet).

I don't know if this holds water or not, but isn't our moon very large compared to the Earth in respect to other planets in the solar system? (www.enchantedlearning.com...)

Cheers!

I dont think I am going to shell out money to listen to him, but will wait for it to float down the line and watch the free stuff.

I like Icke...I do not agree with...hmm...most of what he states, but I always enjoy listening to people whom think differently. The more people challenge my understanding of "reality", the more I thank them.

Anyone whom becomes angry when your reality is challenged may want to consider that for a bit...not just "smurfs run the universe" nonsense...but plausable patterns.

Good ole David Icke. Always coming up with loony stories for us to enjoy . So... he's a Science Fiction author? Wait... he's not? You mean he expects people to believe his stories as FACT?! Why didn't I think of that? Kinda sucks he had to rip off The Matrix to come up with this new fiction story.

Icke is on to something and so is Autowrench.

People don't give Icke credit for anything because they are unable to believe the truth, as unfortunate as it might be.

reply to post by BlastedCaddy



Love it!!

The problem with people like Icke and crew is that there is a need to constantly up the ante... from one book to another. Otherwise they become old hat very quickly and people won't read their books... so there is a need to embellish and create new scenarios that have absolutely nothing to do with reality.


The problem is that all Ickes 'fans' have been carefully drip fed bunk and had their common sense whittled away over time in a manner that is unnoticeable to them.. so they readily accept the new installment of tall stories without any measure of question or critical thinking.

Icke creates intellectual zombies! End of story!

IRM

Hmm... well, to all of you who say that people who don't believe Icke do so because they just can't handle the truth, you are wrong. It's not about being able to handle anything. When someone tells you a crazy story that is in complete disagreement with all of the beliefs that you rely on on a daily basis, you are justified in being suspicious of it, at the least.

Since you have no evidence, yet you accept what he saying, does that mean that you would believe literally anything that anyone tells you? Or just anything that Icke tells you? Or are there only certain baseless assertions that you would accept? How would you characterize those?

Since this entire discussion can only be had when one side completely rejects the scientific worldview, I will not appeal to said worldview in my response. Just realize that the claims of Icke are in complete disagreement with that worldview, and that the scientific worldview has proven its legitimacy a million times over. I base this claim on successful predictions made by scientific theories and the existance of a tremendous amount of working technology based on those theories.

My response is this: these claims are self contradictory. If the moon exists as a tool of deception which projects an artifical reality into the mind body system, does it also project the fact that it is a tool of deception as part of its illusory world? Because, if it does, that would be self defeating. If you could project a false reality into the minds of people you were trying to fool, you wouldn't include within that projection the fact that you were trying to fool them(the jigg would certainly by up as soon as anyone stumbled upon this part of the projection). Yet, here we are talking about it, so it must be included within the part of the projection that we are having this conversation in. It doesn't make sense that this should be the case.

If it doesn't include the fact that it is creating a false reality in its false reality projection, how does Icke know about it?

Several of you have cited supposed anomalies discovered by NASA in their trip to the moon as evidence for Icke's proposal. That would imply that NASA somehow accessed the truth of the matter, and broke through the artificial projection. Yet, this does not make sense. NASA went there with space ships they built on earth, and they sent humans. If our human earthy experience were an illusion, how could we build machines(the space ships) within this illusion which we could use to fly to moon and discover the truth(presumably escaping the illusion)? How could the astronauts who reported the anomalies break through the illusion and see the anomalies?

Previous posters have mentioned a radio interview in which someone with similar views as Icke says that they have talked to NASA scientists who agree with the idea that the moon is artificial. Yet, this is not NASAs position on the matter. Either we trust NASA, and the moon is not artificial, or we don't trust NASA, which would make the claims of the NASA employees worthless evidence. You can't cite NASA as a source of evidence that the moon is artificial, because NASA doesn't think it's artificial. Responding to this by saying that this was private conversation or off the record doesn't make sense. Those scientists knew who they were talking to, and there would have been no reason to share this information with him if they did not intend for him to use it.

This is an example of a common fallacious argument. You have claimed a respected source endorses a certain position, thereby adding credibility to the position. But, the respectable source does not endorse this position, and any particular elements within that source which do endorse the position do so in direct contradiction of the official position of the respected source.

Finally, some fellow on page one suggested that Icke is a respectable character because "his idea" of Action-Reaction-Solution(or something to that effect) is seen all around us everyday. I might add that this suggestion was made in a beligerant and disrespecful tone, towards those who reject Icke's claims on the principal that he is a loon. I suggest that those people who were the target of this rudeness ought not take too much offence. You are dealing with an idiot. The notion of Action-Reaction-Solution or however you choose to say it is clearly an approximation of a much earlier notion. German philosophers(Hegel, Kant, Fichte) developed the notion of "Thesis-Synthesis-Antithesis" at least as early as the 1700's. The meaning is the same, and the concept is well known as the Hegelian dialectic. Not the Ickian dialectic.