Dark History The Secret History of Nasa

[davidbarstis]

I'm interested in peoples thoughts, especially those of people who are/have read the book.
It was mainly written by Mike Bara with most of the info from Richard Hoagland. I am about halfway through and it is just starting to get into the connections to the names of the missions and ancient mythology and ancient Sun worship. That is why I bought the book. It will later get into freemasonry connections so on and so forth.
The first half was some on Cydonia and mostly the glass structures that seem to appear on original Nasa photos of the Moon. The evidence is interesting and it must be left up to the reader if Bara and Hoagland give enough evidence, but one must read it first. I will not go into details about that. I found it kind of interesting that the authors mention in a few paragraphs that they don't believe in the Moon hoax theory and that it was created by NASA to distract from the ancient artifacts found there.
Here is my problem with that. The authors give a websight the reader can go to that shows how the Moon hoax theory is absolute garbage. OK fair enough, I have not visited the sight yet but I plan to. It's the authors Mike Baras Lunar Anomalies web site which is suppose to dismantle claim by claim the Moon hoax myth. The authors say they are conspiracy theorists, but about what NASA is covering up about what it has found but NASA unquestionably did not fake the Moon landings. That seems like a brave claim when they think NASA is lying about everything else.
So, according to them, NASA created the Moon hoax myth to hide that they really found alien structures on Mars and the Moon? The authors also claim that the astronauts were hypnotized either before or after to forget what they saw. Well how about that they didn't go? Isn't that a little more sensical. If NASA didn't want anyone to know, you keep sending unmanned craft, not more astronauts that you need to hypnotize. Like I've stated in other threads, I believe the technology has always existed to go in space and the space missions were set up for public consumption only that we are 'moving ahead' in technology. I do not believe the astronauts would have survived the radiation with no protection and in such a flimsy vehicle, land and take off from the Moon. I do believe in a more advanced craft, it would be easy to go to the Moon. And no, I don't believe people who work at NASA are in on it, only those at the top.
With that said, wouldn't it make more sense that NASA would rather hide the fact that this advanced technology has always existed and they know who built these structures? Those people going to the Moon were from a far more secret group than the true blood American astronauts who you would not want to see what was on the Moon no matter what oath to secrecy they took and the unmanned vehicle pictures taken can easily be airbrushed to hide certain things.
I really don't want to start a debate on if we went to the Moon or not because there are so many other threads on that. But, no one here can reasonbly prove 100% that the Moon landings were real. Why? Because not one of us went. Wouldn't it be so easy to fool people that we did? Any pictures and rocks could have been collected by unmanned vehicles or from the real people who went to the Moon. Why did it have to come from those astronauts? Because they claimed they went? Those people who believe have every right to but can you honestly blame people for not believing with what we know is happening today?
So, it interests me that Bara and Hoagland would need to mention that. I mean, it would not exactly disprove their findings of structures on the Moon, if the Moon landing was a hoax. If NASA is hiding artificial structures, why send a live feed back from the Moon landings? They would have known they were there before that. Can't Hoagland ponder the idea that NASA airbrushed the structures of Mars and the Moon into the pictures? Is that not possible?
One thing those of us on this forum need to keep in mind (I hope), is that we are being lied to majorly about almost everything. We may have ideas we lean towards with proof, but we need to be open minded enough and put our egos aside to admit that we truly don't know where the lies start or ends. We need not to argue things because we may be dead wrong. We need to keep everything open to new discovery.
I am interested in how people feel about Hoagland or Bara? I do not know much about Bara. And their idea that NASA was behind the Moon Hoax to hide the real fact that NASA found structures on Mars and the Moon? In my opinion of this idea of Hoagland and Bara, based on my own findings and ideas, is that if there really are structures on the Moon, NASA would not want nor need to send astronauts to the Moon to see it. I believe those truly in power on this planet know who built them if they exist and would have knon before the Moon landing that they were there and would not risk sending astronauts to the Moon. That the REAL technology it would take to send actual people to the Moon, could not be revealed to the public for obvious reasons, and the Moon landing needed to be faked not because they couldn't do it, but they did not want the public to see the real technolgy that exists.
But I will check out Baras site and see how he destroys the Moon Hoax claim by claim.
Please, I do not want this to be an arguement about whether the Moon landing was real or not, but about what this book says and peoples ideas on the subject or authors. If you do believe the Moon landing was real, then what is your opinions on what this book says about what was found? And if you haven't read the book, maybe theres something online about Hoaglands findings.
When I bought the book, I didn't know there was anything about structures on the Moon in the book. I thought it was all about NASA's secret history and their connection to Freemasonry and the occult. That is what I'm really interested in, is to see where the authors go on that subject. I haven't got there yet. So, opinions and ideas about that subject also welcome.

[de_shit]

Nice find man. What you've said so far makes sense.

[hagbard_celine]

I'm interested in peoples thoughts, especially those of people who are/have read the book.
It was mainly written by Mike Bara with most of the info from Richard Hoagland. I am about halfway through and it is just starting to get into the connections to the names of the missions and ancient mythology and ancient Sun worship. That is why I bought the book. It will later get into freemasonry connections so on and so forth.
[INDENT]The first half was some on Cydonia and mostly the glass structures that seem to appear on original Nasa photos of the Moon. The evidence is interesting and it must be left up to the reader if Bara and Hoagland give enough evidence, but one must read it first. I will not go into details about that. I found it kind of interesting that the authors mention in a few paragraphs that they don't believe in the Moon hoax theory and that it was created by NASA to distract from the ancient artifacts found there.

I'm not going to buy any books for a while because I have a massive backlog to read, but this book will be high on my list the next time I visit a bookshop!

Here is my problem with that. The authors give a websight the reader can go to that shows how the Moon hoax theory is absolute garbage. OK fair enough, I have not visited the sight yet but I plan to. It's the authors Mike Baras Lunar Anomalies web site which is suppose to dismantle claim by claim the Moon hoax myth. The authors say they are conspiracy theorists, but about what NASA is covering up about what it has found but NASA unquestionably did not fake the Moon landings. That seems like a brave claim when they think NASA is lying about everything else.
So, according to them, NASA created the Moon hoax myth to hide that they really found alien structures on Mars and the Moon? The authors also claim that the astronauts were hypnotized either before or after to forget what they saw. Well how about that they didn't go? Isn't that a little more sensical. If NASA didn't want anyone to know, you keep sending unmanned craft, not more astronauts that you need to hypnotize. Like I've stated in other threads, I believe the technology has always existed to go in space and the space missions were set up for public consumption only that we are 'moving ahead' in technology. I do not believe the astronauts would have survived the radiation with no protection and in such a flimsy vehicle, land and take off from the Moon. I do believe in a more advanced craft, it would be easy to go to the Moon. And no, I don't believe people who work at NASA are in on it, only those at the top.
With that said, wouldn't it make more sense that NASA would rather hide the fact that this advanced technology has always existed and they know who built these structures? Those people going to the Moon were from a far more secret group than the true blood American astronauts who you would not want to see what was on the Moon no matter what oath to secrecy they took and the unmanned vehicle pictures taken can easily be airbrushed to hide certain things.


I've thought that. "Apollo did go but found artifacts" and "We never went at all" theories clash badly. If you take into acount the secret research into esoteric propulsion thaty goes back at least to the era of the Nazis then you can see that there has to be a secret space programme. So many insiders have come out saying that there are bases on the moon and planets. The way I see it is that NASA orchestrated the fake Apollo missions for the same reason that Christopher Columbus's mission made the existance of the Americas public.

For whatever reason, probably something to do with the Cold War, the Elite decided that it was necessary for the people to think that humans had gone to the moon for the first time. However they’re hardly going to come out and admit that they’d been visiting the moon for decades, shaking hands with aliens and using antigravity technology to get there! No, the trip to the moon had to be seen to be achieved using the technology that openly exists within the public paradigm. So they invent this story that they sent a few astronauts there using chemical combustion rockets and they stayed there for just a few hours then came back, and we’ve never been back since.

[vandalis]

Heh i bought the book. I already new alot of the information in the book but there was still a few things a didnt know. And the pictures... WOW, that robot head is awsome! What i like about hoaglands work is that he suplys the facts and the proof to back it up. Its well worth the money. Even my mum read it lol.

What i like about it is that David Icke doesnt go into the Moon/Mars or secret space stuff or what NASA has been up to. So you can mix the two together to get a bigger picture.

Sooner or later NASA is gonna have alot of explaining to do!

[sunyatta60]

Hi David
I would implore you to check out the thread about Gary McKinnon there you will find a link to an interview that he did that Google took down. McKinnon is a guy living in North London who hacked into Nasa and the Pentagon he claims that they are sending Military personel to other planets this would fit in with what Hoagland is banging on about.