This is exciting archaeological evidence that was recorded on the Moon, showing us vast ancient ruins of what was probably once lots of magnificent buildings. There's an old saying that I often come back to time and time again, because it's an anchoring "back to basics" block and a simple concept.
- If it's not ours, then whos is it?
- Why did the US government blow up these ruins?
- Was there other possible in tact buildings on the Moon?
- Was it really to keep the Russians from getting them?
If it's an intelligently created building on the Moon or specifically made to a design and it's in space, then it simply cannot be ours.
Even if it's a building on the Moon from 1968, just one year before mankind set foot on the Moon, that means they "simply cannot be ours"!
- Real videos of any kind, on any subject can be put through a filter to make it look like a fake.
- Real videos of Aliens or UFOs in the right hands can be made to look like "ever so slightly" a faked video.
- In the right hands a real video can be made to look like a hoax but "only to another expert" when examining it.
- In other words, experts can be fooled by other so-called better experts and that is just a science fact of reality.
I think what I'm trying to say is this:
Whoever has the most to either gain or lose - is going to get their own way and demand the outcome is in their favour, no matter what the objectives or the consequences are? In this case it would be NASA.
If it's not us in the past on the Moon, then it has to be an "ancient Alien race" right? That's just common sense if indeed the structures and ruins on the Moon are real?
Albeit it's a bit old news this, but it's relevant to everything and there's definitely someone out there "right now" starting out in the Ufology research field and this is relevant to them because it's evidence of Aliens.
So when people comment on this and say "old news - next" or this is fake, I say show me "your evidence" to back that claim up because I've showed you mine...
So, this is and always will be very relevant in Ufology terms and the information is good. If anyone says it's been debunked I say, no it hasn't. Because like I say, whoever wants an outcome will get it whereas this is, what it is! Maybe it's a paradox going round in circles endlessly?
The Lunar structures in this video suggest that there was once a strong community of workers both building these Moon structures and then using the said same buildings, after their construction was completed.
It also suggests that because the Moon is effectively a dead Moon, with no volcanic or underground activity then the ruins are from many thousands of years of asteroid bombardment and subsequent violent Lunar quakes triggered by the constant bombardment of objects hitting the Moon?
Is this why the Moon was abandoned or was this the reason why it was all moved underground? It would make sense.
Is this why the Moon was abandoned or was this the reason why it was all moved underground? It would make sense.
This video here of structures and ruins on the Moon has had over 3.14 million views online since it was uploaded:
That's just my opinion though, but it makes sense as it's violent, it would shake the Lunar surface and they've been happening a lot on the Moon over hundreds of thousands of years - if it's anywhere near the truth then I'm happy with that.
It fit's the right categories though what I've just said.
Source NAlexo YouTube.
This video shot by Neil Armstrong in 1969 of ancient Alien ruins and structures is controversial because people can't get their head round the fact that Aliens are real and that NASA wouldn't lie to them. These images of blurred out towers and structures are proof that NASA is keeping Earth shattering information from the public. Well, they're trying but people are waking up now.
ReplyDeleteYou do realize this makes no sense? The camera motion is too smooth like CGI. The building designs make no sense. No straight lines? For a space faring species constructing in a no atmosphere environment. Back to the camera motion. Who walks backwards and side ways in a pressure suit with limited field of view? Who can keep a camera still and with such smooth motion when in the setting we see fallen pillars and other items blocking his path and needing to be stepped over?
ReplyDeleteFinally consider the Hassleblad cameras were mounted to their chests and did not have viewer capabilities.
Come on folks this video has been passed around for a decade and you never thought about it logically?
I am a Broadcast Engineer I ran a television station in Alaska before retiring. We did the news as well as all of the shows live and recorded. That "filming" acts as if it was done in a studio on a camera pedestal.