with every photograph
i've come to realize
that:
i barely recognize
myself...
in that:
i don't! i can't recognize
myself!
antithesis of
the Victorian prejudice...
a photograph doesn't
steal a soul...
to be frank:
i've been robbed
of a memory!
how else will you explain
paranormal
phenomena...
within the confines
of the anti-matter
Noumenon?
isn't anti-matter
crucial
in providing an explanation?!
why is, or how are,
the 2st century peoples,
the justified excuse makers?!
it's the 21st century!
a common argument...
so what?!
the faact that it's the 21st century
us no excuse to market the
past centuries,..
what is this... ******* Utopia?!
i'm the sort of people
who says a moon landing never happened...
because it's anti-Pythagorean...
to draw a hypotenuse...
you need to points...
the vortex of coordinates,
a (0, 0), and a (1, 1)...
you would have
landed on the moon,
have you landed on it, twice...
once?
once, upon once, it can be faked...
you need to land on the ******* thing
twice... before it can can be
solidified...
and agreed upon...
shame...
the Soviets sent Laika into space...
but the h'Americans sent
the long lost cousin of Darwin...
Albert Jr...
i'm not arguing that
man never managed to land on
the moon,
i'm arguing... he never managed
to land on it the second time...
which is slightly worrying...
i can give you: landing on it the first...
but the fact that it didn't
for a revisionist second?
slightly worrying...
in the least...
a photograph steals a memory...
come to "think" of it...
why would a photograph steal
a soul, and not a memory?
and why would the first
moon landing be a success...
while Apollo 13 be a failure?
this is no conspiracy theory...
but it's somehow odd...
first come first served
success story...
i'm not denying
the first moon landing...
i'm denying...
what am i denying?!
can't remember...
flat earth? sure...
esp. when and only when
you are reading a map and navigating...
car... across the European continent...
esp. across the Rhine...
what could Narcissus
say, comparing a mirror to
a photograph?!
oh sure... we landed on the moon...
but why didn't we land on it
the second time round?
you know why there is a conspiracy
theory surrounding
the moon landing?
the Pythagorean principle
of a vector...
(0, 0) - (1, 1) -
the only source of proof,
is to prove it a second time...
the fact that there was no second
moon landing...
oh i believe the first moon landing
was a Las Vegas fluke...
but the fact that no second
moon landing ever happened?
denies the prospect of
the first moon landing ever happening...
with an X...
there's no Y... to market a Z
away from conspiracy...
i can't deny the moon landing...
but with the advanced technology...
prior to the moon... Mars...
such crude instruments
back in the 1960s...
oh... the moon landing happened,
even if it didn't happen...
but why didn't it happen
a second time around?
considering the fact...
the science requires at least two
examples of the same proof,
before it can be considered
unshakeable dogma...
it's not a conspiracy theory...
if we are to be puritanically scientific
about, "things"...
there needs to be a second
moon landing for the first
moon landing to be agreed upon...
after all...
isn't science the rite of passage of
trial & error?
no?
first and sole attempt and all
is true?
last time i heard...
that's not how science works...
then again:
i must be wrong...
guess science is becoming
very much akin to religion...
how can you keep an article of faith,
akin to the moon landing...
with only... one... moon landing?!
- and subsequently
call it... a science?!
i thought science required
a comparison litany?!
no?!
might as well aim at:
the moon landing never happened...
the basic workings of science
is coordinates,
within the confines of a vector...
1 = it happened
0 - it didn't happen...
prove it!
two words... prove it!
replicate a second moon landing!
i'll believe there ever was a moon
landing... if there is a second one!