Monday, February 9, 2015

Did We Land On The Moon?

The program begins with "Conspiracy Theory: Did we land on the moon?" (2001), which may be the most important contribution that FOX NEWS has ever made to understanding the history of our nation. To get a better grip on how we were deceived, check out the references cited below, where the second hour is a discussion with Jay Weidner about how it was filmed by Stanley Kurbick using "front screen projection". This one is not for the faint of heart who want to believe in their government. Enjoy the show! References: Winston Wu, "Conspiracy Trilogy Report: Apollo Moon Hoax, JFK Assassination and 9/11 Truth", http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Conspiracies.htm Jay Weidner, "Faking Moon Landings: The Parallax Experiments",http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/01/21/faking-the-moon-landings-the-parallax-experiments/ Jack White, "Jack White's Apollo Studies", http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_index1.html

54 comments:

  1. Is this the guy who has a site about how to get foreign girls to date you (or something).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OK, "stevie". To answer my own question, yes, he is that guy with the site about hooking up with foreign babes: http://www.happierabroad.com/WhyForeignWomen.htm

      Delete
    2. Jay Weidner's website.. What hell are you talking about and why do we care?

      Delete
  2. Excellent comment by the guest! I have myself pointed out that the "glass structures" on the Apollo photos are actually reflection artifacts from Scotchlite front projection screens. And the guest said that he had discovered the same artifacts in the 2001: A Space Odyssey film. Great research there.

    As a wink, wink, nudge, nudge the Chinese put similar artifacts in their Chang'e moon mission pictures. Those are of course done with modern digital image editing, so they must have added the artifacts digitally. Lol.

    ReplyDelete
  3. So, the moon landings were faked- that is, the faked landings were broadcast as live on national TV; and Mr Fetzer supports this idea, as he stated in his last interview with me some time ago.

    However, when I pointed out to him at that time the obvious contradiction of believing that [faked moon landings], and, at the same time believing that there is no good reason to ever suspect that the alleged live TV broadcasts on 9/11 were also entirely faked,[ as Simon Shack and others have repeatedly, endlessly demonstrated], he was [and remains to this day] completely unfazed by such contradictions, and vehemently defends his 9/11 "position" with name-calling etc and half-baked attacks on Shack, myself and anyone else who dares to disagree.

    And so it goes.Highly entertaining, I must say :-)

    Regards, onebornfree.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fair point.

      But in the case of NY, no witnesses have come forward to claim that the footage does not match what they saw.

      And why do suppose they might have created destruction footage so at odds with the claimed process of collapse? -- And why are so many on cluesforum wedded to the idea of orthodox controlled demolition when 1) there's no evidence for it and 2) there's evidence for other causes: barium, strontium, the medical complaints suffered by people at the scene, etc.? It seems to me you guys are also begging the question.

      Delete
    2. Right. There are coherent alternate direct lines of evidence on 9/11, several items in the footage which suggest the opposite of all-fake as well -- whereas all-fake photos and a leak of them in near-earth orbit faking the next shot (with a half-earth picture on acetate on the window) were *necessary*.

      But Shack and the rest have exposed the extent of media lying such as it was -- if only they pulled back to a corrected extent.

      Delete
    3. But, Nick, Onebornfree and Shack have been saying the footage errors were all planted and the other sources all planted. It could have been, until one knows the details and keeps common sense about outsourcing errors and wanting to show off parts of the event and knowing that if something went weird it would have to be somewhat live.

      Delete
  4. Great work Jim.
    as you profoundly stated, the only example of modern technological regression seems to be maned space travel. I join you in saying - How stupid do they think we are.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. See also the racedoesnotexist myth, even endorsed by Craig Venter after the successful sequencing of the human genome. Billions spent and they can't see what any fool with two eyes can see!

      Delete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The moon has not escaped Earth's gravity. If it had it wouldn't be there! So anything in between us and the moon will still have the external force you are looking for. NASA has lied about the moon landings but you believe other stuff is up there, that is absurd.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. The reason for the supposed weightlessness that you would feel if you were in orbit is not because you have escaped Earth's gravitational field, but because you a free falling.

      What did I miss?

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. I think you know this and are just trying to keep me going around in circles (repeating primary school physics), but I'll just say this one more time. It seems you think that, like in the Disney cartoons, that once you cross a line away from earth you suddenly become weightless.

      I have a problem with ;

      why you would think no external force is acting on the rocket ship.

      There is no magical line you cross and then get to be weightless. The reason for weightlessness is because of the constant free falling. If the rocket ship is not in orbit and traveling away from Earth it would then need fuel to counter the gravitational pull of the Earth.

      By the way I'm discussing this on a level that I don't even believe in anyway. I don't think humans have ever put anything in space, it is impossible

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    7. Orbiting is forever falling.

      Speed keeps the supposed I$$ in orbit, not the lack of gravity.

      Gravity is everywhere!

      Delete
    8. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    9. 'The moon is orbiting the earth but it's not eventually going to get close to the earth.'

      The moon allegedly moving away from earth.

      'The further you get away from the larger mass the less gravitational effect there is. That's why they are floating on the space station. '

      There is a formula you can use to figure out their weight, they each lose about 10 pounds or so, almost negligible. Again, I don't believe the NASA formula can be tested but I think you will.

      'It's not the same effect as when you take a plane and nose dive and the effects of weightlessness are reproduced.'

      Yes it is.

      'That's not the same as zero gravity in space.'

      There is no such thing as 'zero gravity', this is a Hollywood/cartoon phrase again.

      ---------------------------------------------------------------------
      Please just Google why satellites stay in orbit. I don't want to explain it.

      Delete
    10. John K,

      The penny has dropped.

      Since your comments have mysteriously vanished, I have kindly salvaged your last rely to me. No need to thank me.
      --------------------------------------------------------------
      John K. said ---- ''The moon is orbiting the earth but it's not eventually going to get close to the earth. The further you get away from the larger mass the less gravitational effect there is. That's why they are floating on the space station. It's not the same effect as when you take a plane and nose dive and the effects of weightlessness are reproduced. That's not the same as zero gravity in space.''

      Delete
    11. Yeap I admit I was wrong. I didn't fully understand the Earth's gravitational effect and that gravity is still at work even if you get far from earth. Wernher von Braun may have been right when he said it would take the amount of rocket fuel that would fill the Empire State building to get to the moon.

      Delete
  6. Jim Fetzer, this is your best presentation so far. I actually learned the reasons why a moon landing was impossible. I have read very little on the subject, but I have always thought the photographs were strange, particularly the totally black sky. Where were the stars? I reasoned they didn't put stars in because they are a map of the sky which changes every minute. The constellations are recognizable and a skilled eye could read the position of the earth and moon by these patterns.

    Jay's insight into Kubrik's symbolism in "The Shining" was so interesting. (BTW, I felt the same way he did about the movie. It was well done, but too depressing to enjoy.)

    Anyway, very good, excellent, Jim. Congratulations. I just wish you had not brought up the 9/11 video tapes. This is the only area in which you are being inconsistent in your analyses of false flag events. I would love to hear what Jay, your filmmaker guest on this show, would say if he examined the 9/11 archived footage which shows planes out of scale to the buildings causing fireballs, fires, gashes and voluminous smoke, very strange since we now know no planes were hijacked and flown into buildings on 9/11.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. Kubrick's semi-insider status allowed him to know of many things, as Weidner has so brilliantly shown.

      About "The Shining", an aside:

      -----------------

      Post on Paul McCartney's death (PID - Paul is dead) mentions the following (among other inaccurate things on the following thread) http://invanddis.proboards.com/post/63786/thread :

      *** From Johnnys53 blog:
      jonnys53.blogspot.com/2007/06/what-you-may-or-may-not-have-seen.html
      "The brightest and most obvious yellow items are Jack’s 2 special possessions that each play a significant role in the movie. The yellow Volkswagen (changed from red in the novel) brings him to the Overlook...
      ...If you know where to look, in what may be the most brilliant example of something being hidden in plain sight in a movie, Jack’s yellow Volkswagen also changes color for one shot before his interview at the beginning of the film.
      The WHITE VW, lower right, is the only VW in the parking lot. Look closely at the hoods and windshields of the other two yellow cars on the left and you’ll see they aren’t VW’s."
      1 yellow, 1 red, and 1 white Beetle.
      Number of Beetles?
      3.

      -------------

      And from post here, It turns out that there is a crushed beetle (red) :
      http://invanddis.proboards.com/post/63662/thread:

      Nearer the end of the film....there is also an image of a VW beetle crushed under a lorry during the snow storms...fwiw.
      here's that picture of the crushed beetle....sorry is not very clear. [Picture now not displaying]

      ------------

      A later comment on the thread mentions that a yellow beetle drives at the beginning, a white is in the parking lot at the end and a red crushed beetle is in the middle of the film
      http://invanddis.proboards.com/post/63798/thread :

      In King's book, Jack's Beetle was RED.
      So...it went from red to yellow to white.
      In addition, Halloran (Scatman Crothers) drives past a crushed red Beetle later in the film, on his way to (get an axe in his heart) "save" Danny. ;D
      Imagine Dragons' music video uses The Shining and 2001 A Space Odyssey and other Kubrick films, to show Illuminist symbolism and Apollo fakery, plus references Paul McCartney's death.

      -------------

      Many VW Beetles are shown (one crashed), it gives a scene playing on the Abbey Road cover (which in turn is one of several memorials of the car impact as a concept), and shows a photo of Paul -- himself -- plus emphasizes the use of twins ("doubling").

      Why the death theme from Paul's murder and replacement was inserted into the particular movie The Shining or into the music video or The Shining itself, I don't know, but maybe because it fit well with the fakeness of the Apollo landing. Anyway, the video from Imagine Dragons, a music group, took on the themes: http://illuminatiwatcher.com/the-shining-symbolism-in-imagine-dragons-on-top-of-the-world-music-video

      --------

      Maybe the reason Paul makes an appearance in the Shining in the Beetle references is related to
      http://invanddis.proboards.com/post/64699/thread :

      a) the twins as a Gemini who was killed and replaced -- a twin was doubled.

      b) that Stephen King based the title on John Lennon's Instant Karma "We all shine on" line.

      ------------
      Que sera sera.
      Anyway, love Weidner's work on Kubrick. Thanks, Jay!!!

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. This amazing post on The Shining's use of 24 / 42, lots of mirror shots (through the looking-glass, shall we say) and use of 21 repeatedly,

      http://jonnys53.blogspot.ca/2007/06/what-you-may-or-may-not-have-seen.html

      Can be interpreted now. Paul was born in 42; there were supposed to be 4 Beatles but there were 2 in one of them; 2 from 1 is 21 and 2+1=3 remaining is 21.

      The 66:6 (666) and 666 individual shots mentioned is of course evil and magick together, but also Paul died in 66, a kindof 666 when 9 is flipped to 6: 1966.

      The use of the 11 seconds in (and other 11s) is numerology magick but also 1 and 1 make doubles, twins.

      There were not twins in the book.
      Twins, doubles, mirrors, seeing/not seeing two ...
      Here are some examples of doubling and reverse doubling, given here http://jonnys53.blogspot.ca/2007/12/differences-between-novel-and-movie.html :
      --------------

      There are also no twins in the novel. In the movie there are several sets of twins including the Grady girls, the elevators, and the boilers.

      Twin elevators remain motionless / 1 elevator moves on it’s own.

      Unimportant twin boilers / 1 very important boiler.

      2 Grady’s / 1Grady.

      “Redrum” is seen only twice in the movie / several times in the novel.

      Jack frozen 2 times (in the Hedge Maze and on the wall) / Jack burns to death 1 time.

      2 Overlooks (one has a Hedge Maze and one doesn’t) / 1 Overlook.

      Jack sees 2 women / Danny sees 1.

      Wendy reads 1 paperback / Wendy reads 2 paperbacks.

      In The Overlook, a single bed is in their apartment / in the novel twin beds are in their apartment.

      Jack uses 2 twin Adler Eagle typewriters / Jack uses 1 Underwood typewriter.

      “White man's burden, Lloyd my man. White man's burden” is doubled and repeated twice / “White man's burden, Lloyd my man” is mentioned once.

      “For ever, and ever and ever” is also doubled.

      There’s only one reference to cannibalism (the Donner party) / in the novel there are 2 references to cannibalism (the Donner party and the rugby players).

      Dick Hallorann tells Danny to stay away from 1 place at The Overlook (room 237) / in the novel Dick Hallorann tells Danny to stay away from 2 places at The Overlook (room 217 and the Hedge Animals).

      The Overlook’s Ballroom has small intimate tables for four / The Overlook’s Ballroom has small, intimate tables for two.

      Danny is 5 years old in the novel and 7 years old in the movie. 2 years older exactly like the Grady girls who are 6 & 8 in the novel than become 8 & 10 in the movie.

      Delete
  7. My dad designed devices used by NASA and Boeing. We goggled up the lie. After reading Wisnewski's book, I find it unlikely that we stepped on the moon in 1969.
    It's very possible the 3 heroes never even orbited the earth, but were shuttled away for last minute mind programming. The couldn't take a chance that anything would happen to these national treasures. Here's a summary of Wisnewski's book. http://barryb911.blogspot.ca/2011/08/one-small-step.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. barryb: it does seem they were programmed later, or two of them, anyway (one can't remember seeing the stars and wrote that he felt extremely ill when asked), but they are shown in near-earth orbit putting up an acetate to show the earth as if 1/2 way to the moon, just before the broadcast went live, which would leave them no time to be 1/2 way. It is one of the pieces de resistance in the case for Apollo fakery, leaked to Bart Sibrel.

      Delete
  8. Nick Dean said : "But in the case of NY, no witnesses have come forward to claim that the footage does not match what they saw. "

    Nick, I'm sorry, but it is pure logical fallacy to presume that because some persons claim to have witnessed in person the various 9/11 events as depicted on TV, or, that no one has come forward to say what they saw was any different [which is not true, in any case- many have said they saw/heard no planes, for example], that the TV broadcasts etc were/are genuine.

    For regardless of what alleged eyewitnesses might or might not claim, in order to firmly establish whether or not the footage is genuine or not, that footage must be closely analyzed for signs of fakery as a "stand alone" investigation; as a completely separate and unrelated undertaking , regardless of what alleged eyewitnesses claim, no differently than it had to be done [and still is being done], with regards to the alleged live moon footage and corresponding photos.

    Even if _all_ 9/11 alleged eye-witnesses claimed that what they saw in person is no different from what was on TV, that would/ could in no way prove that the footage was genuine.

    That the 9/11 "truth movement" has persons claiming to be "professors of logic" [you know who :-) ], repeatedly, loudly and publicly making the exact same logical error and loudly deriding/attacking/smearing any one who tries to point out that logical error no longer surprises me, so what you have erroneously concluded here is no a surprise either.

    Thinking straight ain't easy :-).

    Regards, onebornfree

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm fine with that, OBF, but you guys come up with reasons to think news footage is fake precisely because the normative presumption is that the footage was not faked ... you do not just sit back in logical relaxation saying 'prove it's real'.

      I thought the birds clip was very suggestive but as I've said here before, I'd expect a serious study of the flight speeds and acceleration and an answer to the question whether or not that change of speed is possible in that type of bird - not just 'looks weird, must be fake'.

      I am always intrigued by the stuff you guys come up with but haven't seen anything conclusive. What are the most clearly impossible-to-be-real examples of live footage in your eyes?

      That question also goes out to Clare Kuehn who has said that some footage was definitely faked.

      ***

      And again ... why do suppose they might have created destruction footage so at odds with the claimed process of collapse? -- And why are so many on cluesforum wedded to the idea of orthodox controlled demolition when 1) there's no evidence for it and 2) there's evidence for other causes: barium, strontium, the medical complaints suffered by people at the scene, etc.? It seems to me you guys are also begging the question.

      Delete
    2. I think that if the 9/11 photography showing that planes hit the building is fake, it just further bolsters jims no plane theory. Just because you guys disagree on what elements of the videos were fake or not doesn't mean you don't disagree.

      Delete
    3. Nick, common sense about some of the materials marshaled by Shack and others shows fake elements: in the sense of controlled, with computer overlays and possibly some computer generated buildings. When backgrounds are re-used, black planes in bright sunlight, etc. are counted, there is fakeness to the footage. However, that does not mean all-fake or all the time doctoring.

      In addition, the fake victims work is excellent, barring the idea that all are straight morphs or that all deaths have to be fake.

      Delete
  9. Nick Dean, all we are asking is for you to examine the 104 minute videos that were shown "live" as the story broke on 9/11 by the five networks, ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX and CNN. They begin just after the alleged "hit" on the north tower. Later a plane is seen hitting the south tower--not the Hezarkhani shot--but a plane that is out of scale with the buildings. Unless you believe planes hit the towers, you must acknowledge the fakery starts at the very beginning of these allegedly live videos.

    Please go to the archives of 9/11 footage and see for yourself. A problem we have in researching is putting what we find into words. So let's get our terms straight. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Nick Dean said: "And again ... why do suppose they might have created destruction footage so at odds with the claimed process of collapse? "

    A good question [with easy answers , in my book], but an irrelevant "red herring" with regard to the question of whether or not the footage was faked.

    Fact: the only real way to establish that is to closely examine/compare the extant footage, frame by frame.

    Once that's been done, _then_ perhaps its time for the "whys?"., I would suggest.

    As to Simon Shacks research, first off, I'm not a member of the forum, so I cannot speak for anyone there, however I feel its OK for me to state that as far as I am aware, Mr Shack et al, is _not_ categorically stating that standard demolition methods were used at the WTC, all he's suggesting is that _because_ the collapse footage etc is fake, that logically [ that is, by his, and I admit, by my own logic],"most likely" standard demolition methodologies were used, but it is, of course, impossible to state that as an undeniable fact at this time.

    The reasons for the faked top down tower destruction sequences, in my own estimation would be :

    1] The necessity for the psychological effect of "shock and awe" on the viewer,[ mostly achieved via the apparent speed of the top down collapses], to "embed" the movie as real in the viewers mind, and to horrify/enrage etc.

    2] The necessity to have it look like the[ non-existent] plane strikes caused a top down destruction sequence.

    2] To mask a real time[off camera], slower, destruction sequence that actually started at the bottom of the two towers, [because it was necessary vis a vis standard demolition methodology].

    Regards, onebornfree.

    ReplyDelete
  11. We did not go. This is "understood"among any public officials who will usually laugh it off to newbies.

    Why many on the Alternative Research community cannot say as much without also saying we have gone up with our other Carrey craft is beyond me. Like it's an unstated rule you can't deny the moon shot. Hoagland disgraces himself, or maybe he is just a guy making a living. I worship Jsy Weidner, but he goes on Rense to spread fear porn and pay Rense's bills, hence the Fukushima Report and all related stories.

    Even my hero Joseph Farrell can't go there without citing the Lem take off as evidence of electrogravitics. Really a crane would do the job. And I though we proved the moon shot with computer refraction technology. Let us listen to the Nolan brothers and heed the lesson: it was a Cold War lie.

    There is a reason Scottish Rite members are all over the Apollo program-- secrecy.

    And while we are at it, if we are going to break down "Deep State" events, one cannot do do without describing synarchism and the horizontal structures of power. Otherwise, it's pin the tail on the CIA, an abstraction. Who does the CIA work for? Who does Obama work for? Where does real power reside? That is the question. LBJ may be bad, but I know done people worse!

    Who has the power? What is the nature of power and how does it operate? These are the issues we need to address and by the way, we should also organize, match for Yrutu; a Truth and Reconcilliation committee, whatever.

    Black box the various false flags, and March for truth on all of them. We can still study it, but Zi hope it giesbt be one a powerless fetish after a while with the peeps laughing as Anericans struggle and get cancer.

    Time to change the world. Who is game?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Replies
    1. That reminds me of the book "Who Built The Moon". I'd like to hear Fetzer interview someone who is researching the moon along similar lines. Lots of surprising facts in that book that are difficult to discover on your own.

      http://www.amazon.com/Who-Built-Moon-Christopher-Knight/dp/1842931636

      Delete
    2. Jim Marrs actually asks about this issue. Whether it was created by other races or added to, is his main point. However, it is not fake even then, in the way some mean it; raising this issue here is not conducive to people's understanding Apollo fakery. Yet, of course, it is an issue some wonder about in this topic, too.

      Delete
  13. http://disinfo.com/2010/09/who-parked-the-moon/

    ReplyDelete
  14. I believe the Apollo 11 moon landing video was a complete hoax. I believe the US Military has been on the moon for quite some time now conducting mining operations for H3 and whatnot.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I find it interesting Prof Fetzer questions the idea of one lone grainy TV feed as proof of a moon landing, yet believes without question Ruby shot Oswald. Lee laid on the concrete for 10 minutes before the ambulance came yet left no bloodstains, according to a Dallas news photographer there.
    I use the moon landing as the gullibility line with whomever I speak and how freely I can.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I question your ability to walk and chew gum at the same time.

      Delete
  16. Go to YT, type in Apollo 11 press conference, watch the 3 minute version, that alone proves these NAUTS are props and lying bastards!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Can someone tell me how to download this program, I am having trouble doing that.

    ReplyDelete
  18. http://www.podbean.com/site/UserDownload/index/bid/722245/url/http%253A%252F%252FMediaBroadCastingcenter.podbean.com%252Fmf%252Fweb%252F5h8xkd%252FTheRealDealep16mp3.mp3

    ReplyDelete
  19. With the leaked footage of the astronauts in near-earth orbit right before broadcasting as if from 1/2 way, the rest of the case is precluded, i.e., closed, reasonably. The only counter-argument is that they did that long before the broadcast, yet the broadcast shows the same scene.

    They put up an acetate on the window -- of the "faraway" earth.

    The photos were supposedly taken with boxes (Hasselblads) which Hasselblad confirmed were not made with radiation shields -- not asked to -- with no viewfinder and no fully automatic settings. *NO* photos in the claimed whole-film-negative set could have been done at all or near-perfectly, even if radiation shields had been made. Arguing photo error is important but precluded by this other argument, from a best-argument standpoint.

    Van Allen belts and not enough room at backpack-height in the LEM for two suited men to stand (cabinets jut out at backpack height), also preclude the whole thing.

    Not everyone would know, of course.

    These are my thoughts on 1969-forward Apollo events. Thank you for the show!

    ReplyDelete
  20. Replies
    1. http://www.webookyourshow.com/blog/2014/12/06/THE-REAL-DEAL-with-James-H-Fetzer-on-MBC-TV.aspx

      Delete
  21. Stay right back on earth waiting for rebirth.

    ReplyDelete