You and I have vastly different philosophies then. I’m more of an objectivist; I believe that reality is distinct from human perception and not dependent on it.
While I would agree that hostile, Satan-worshiping organizations have infiltrated government and academia for centuries, this doesn’t mean that everything they say is a lie. If everything was a lie, including space, it would be a lot easier for ordinary people to debunk and expose the lies. From a purely strategic perspective it’s better for the cabal to mostly tell the truth (or at least something close enough to it) and save the big lies for stuff that’s harder to disprove (or more important to their agenda). The more lies you tell, the harder you have to work to keep your lies straight and not contradict yourself. With regards to space, it’s relatively easy to prove that the Earth is a sphere, that it orbits the Sun, and that other objects in the solar system are millions/billions of miles away. It would not be wise for the cabal to lie about something that anyone with a telescope and math can disprove.
Furthermore, if you’re going to postulate an alternative theory for how space or the universe works, then that’s great, so long as you have evidence and sound reasoning for it. If you want to say that the moon is a space station or made out of cheese, but don’t have any evidence for it, then your theory isn’t any more helpful than whatever the mainstream theory is.
With regards to the Earth/Moon ratio, it’s not quite as anomalous as you think. Pluto/Charon is even more extreme, Pluto just isn’t classified as a planet anymore so it makes Earth look more anomalous compared to other planets. And other more plausible theories exist, with the most defensible in my opinion being direct creation.
“The only absolute is consciousness itself”
If reality is a hologram, how do you know that consciousness is absolute? How do you know that you’re experiencing legitimate consciousness? How do you even define consciousness since words and their meanings are part of the simulation? In my opinion once you deny the existence of objective, independent reality you start rapidly descending into absurdity. Once you start questioning the validity of logic, words, and definitions then you take away the very tools with which to defend your position.
You and I have vastly different philosophies then. I’m more of an objectivist; I believe that reality is distinct from human perception and not dependent on it.
While I would agree that hostile, Satan-worshiping organizations have infiltrated government and academia for centuries, this doesn’t mean that everything they say is a lie. If everything was a lie, including space, it would be a lot easier for ordinary people to debunk and expose the lies. From a purely strategic perspective it’s better for the cabal to mostly tell the truth (or at least something close enough to it) and save the big lies for stuff that’s harder to disprove (or more important to their agenda). The more lies you tell, the harder you have to work to keep your lies straight and not contradict yourself. With regards to space, it’s relatively easy to prove that the Earth is a sphere, that it orbits the Sun, and that other objects in the solar system are millions/billions of miles away. It would not be wise for the cabal to lie about something that anyone with a telescope and math can disprove.
Furthermore, if you’re going to postulate an alternative theory for how space or the universe works, then that’s great, so long as you have evidence and sound reasoning for it. If you want to say that the moon is a space station or made out of cheese, but don’t have any evidence for it, then your theory isn’t any more helpful than whatever the mainstream theory is.
With regards to the Earth/Moon ratio, it’s not quite as anomalous as you think. Pluto/Charon is even more extreme, Pluto just isn’t classified as a planet anymore so it makes Earth look more anomalous compared to other planets. And other more plausible theories exist, with the most defensible in my opinion being direct creation.
“The only absolute is consciousness itself”
If reality is a hologram, how do you know that consciousness is absolute? How do you know that you’re experiencing legitimate consciousness? How do you even define consciousness since words and their meanings are part of the simulation? In my opinion once you deny the existence of objective, independent reality you start rapidly descending into absurdity. Once you start questioning the validity of logic, words, and definitions then you take away the very tools with which to defend your position.