Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 30, 2022 - Jim Fetzer

01:56:05

The Raw Deal (29 July 2022) with Michael Ogden

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	You know I need someone When I was younger, so much younger than today I never needed anybody's help in any way But now these days are gone, I'm not so self-assure Now I'm a gentline, I'm open up the doors
	Help me if you can, I'm feeling down I'm feeling
	down Jim, I don't hear your audio.
	Oh, I got it. I got it.
	I got it.
	I got it, Mitchell.
	Thank you so much.
	Sorry.
	Sorry about that.
	That's okay.
	We got it.
	Let's let's yeah, I shot it.
	I just shot my mic last night.
	Forgot to turn it back on.
	Here we go.
	Okay.
	I want to begin with some observations about the Alex Jones trial where there's both more and less going on than meets the eye.
	Yesterday, they had a woman I take was a producer for Alex Jones on the stand, and she seemed to me to be pretty uninformed.
	I mean, if this is a key player in the Alex Jones operation, then I think it's not surprising it gets so often mucked up.
	He's, of course, gone on to talk about this as a murder of due process, speaking out against a show trial.
	Well, several things were going on there.
	The attorney, who seemed to me to be a doofus, he had three by five cards, and he was asking her questions about persons and what he was referring to as a truth or movement, presumably, of course, the Sandy Hook truth movement.
	And he began by asking about me, James Tracy, Wolfgang Sophia Smallstorm, Wolfgang Helbig, all of whom are, of course, major players in seeking to expose the truth about Sandy Hook.
	But what was peculiar is, if you make the assumption that Alex Jones is trying to establish that was reasonable, For him to believe there were sufficient issues about Sandy Hook as to describe it as a hoax, then you want to talk about the most powerful sources of evidence.
	Without any doubt, that would be my book, Nobody Died at Sandy Hook.
	like it was a FEMA drill to promote gun control, 2015, second edition, 2016.
	And when the attorney asked her about James Fetzer, Yes.
	Is he in the Truth or Movement?
	Yes.
	And who is James Fetzer?
	Well, he's a professor at the University of Minnesota.
	Did he have a book?
	Yes.
	I believe she said he wrote a book.
	Nobody died at Sandy Hook.
	And he added, and were there any other contributors?
	And she said, yes.
	And he said, well, could you name them?
	And she sort of paused and said, James Tracy.
	And then he turned to talk about James Tracy.
	Now, here's why this is so striking.
	And to me, it impugns the integrity of the process here.
	Well, if she knows better, and maybe she doesn't because she seemed to me to be highly uninformed, then she should have said, yes, yes.
	He edited a collection with 13 contributors, including six PhDs.
	I mean, think of the impact that would have on the jury.
	I mean, there are six PhDs and seven others who contributed a book entitled Nobody Died at Sandy Hook.
	It was a FEMA-drilled remote gun.
	That would have made a powerful impression.
	And she could have gone on to say, and they contended or found that the school had been abandoned by 2008, that there were no students there, and that it had been a FEMA drill presented as mass murder to promote gun control, where they even found the FEMA manual, which was published in the book.
	I mean, Just imagine the wallop that would have had, the wallop that would have had on the jury.
	Wow!
	Listen to that.
	And of course, the book proves it all.
	She could have gone on to say that, of course, that Amazon banned the book less than a month after it had gone on sale.
	I mean, things you've heard me say many, many times.
	And therefore, It was a perfect situation.
	This was a softball question to knock it out of the park.
	But you've already heard me review what was virtually the totality of all of the discussion that was given to Nobody Died at Sandy Hook and to Dr. James Fetzer, this professor from the University of Minnesota.
	When you have a gap of that magnitude, when you suppress, omit information that powerful in a context like this, where ostensibly Alex Jones is seeking to demonstrate why he shouldn't suffer damages because he was not negligent, because he'd done due process,
	But just to tell you how bad it is, during a video deposition he gave in Connecticut, and this was quite a long time ago, over a year ago, he claimed he'd, when asked about the book, he claimed he'd never read it.
	He said, I've never read it.
	Nobody died in San Diego.
	Now, how can as prominent a public figure as Alex Jones with his massive platform, a whole communication now, we're going to be taking a strong stand on one of the most complex and controversial events of our side, which has been used for massive political promotion of the gun control agenda by the Obama-Biden-Holder administration.
	And believe me, this was an Obama-Biden-Holder operation.
	Some of you may have heard my relating how just weeks before, the mayor of Boston was on a program called Greater Boston, which was hosted by Andy Rooney's daughter, And he was boasting about his close relationship with then Vice President Joe Biden.
	And he told Andy Rooney's daughter, That the vice president had assured him that gun control would be a done deal by February.
	I think he may have even said January, January of 2013, 2013.
	I mean, this is like two months from the time of this interview on Greater Boston Radio Show, and she's just floored.
	What could possibly happen to make Pass legislation that fast.
	Now, the mayor was, of course, reluctant to say, but obviously he was talking about Sandy Hook two months before the event.
	And we know Eric Holder traveled to Connecticut and met with the governor on the 27th of November, which again now is about 17 days or so before the event on the 14th of December.
	And during the press conference he held in the aftermath of the purported shooting, accompanied by the Lieutenant Governor, he explained, this is now the Governor Malloy, that he and the Lieutenant Governor had been spoken to that something like this might happen.
	And of course, that had me pondering, spoken to by whom?
	Something like this, what could it mean?
	And there are really only two alternatives to something like this, to wit, that he had either been told that there was a prospect of a low nut going crazy and coming into a school in Connecticut and shooting up a bunch of kids, in which case he obviously had the obligation, having been so informed,
	To advise the school districts in Connecticut to take extra safety measures to ensure it did not happen, but the governor did not do that.
	The alternative being he was informed they were going to take an abandoned school.
	They were going to conduct a drill and presented as mass murder to promote gun control, which is exactly what happened.
	It appears to be exactly what he was informed about.
	By none other than the Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder.
	Now, my research on Sandy Hook continues unabated.
	Sophia Smallstorm was the first to describe this as a capstone event where the entire community is involved.
	They're sponsored by the Department of Homeland Security, that they pay off the community.
	Big box to participate in the conduct of a drill like this, and then they have gag orders in effect that they're not going to dispute how it's broadcast to the public.
	Now this, I even understand the media, for example, Anderson Cooper were there in Newtown before it took place.
	Because first impressions are so important.
	First impressions are so important, like this first impression of me in the Alex Jones case.
	And there were a number of related measures that they anticipated leading up to this occurrence.
	They knew when the trial took place, it would generate a huge amount of interest about Sandy Hook.
	They knew the foremost Scholar, academician, who does serious research on Sandy Hook, who is this guy, James Fetzer, who put together this book that is so sensational.
	It sold nearly 500 copies in less than a month before Amazon banned it.
	And then, of course, I released it for free as a PDF, which had been downloaded millions of times.
	So they had to fashion a plan.
	And the plan was to constrain, you know, plug the leak, bring a lawsuit against Fetzer, model him up, get some kind of injunction, so, you know, against him for defamation.
	And they scoured the book, they scoured the book to find some way they could contrive a lawsuit against me.
	And then they could use a court order that any sharing of the book, because it contained three sentences and then one in an additional blog where I collaborated with Robert David Steele on a memorandum about Sandy Hook for then President of the United States, Donald Trump.
	But they could use that to shut down those who were releasing the PDF of the book for free on the ground that there was a court order that it was defamatory and scare the shit out of them.
	And this is what they've done.
	So I wound up being saddled with this massive 1.1 million judgment against me.
	And as they were approaching, as the Alex Jones trial is approaching, They want to do more.
	They want to try to take the book itself and try to take my blog on the ground that it's a form of satisfaction of the judgment, this financial judgment for 1.1 mil.
	I thought this idea of taking the book or taking the blog was ridiculous.
	I mean, the book cannot be published.
	And if it cannot be published because of the court order, then it has no value.
	My blog is not remunerative.
	I don't even own the domain name, jamesfetzer.org.
	But they brought this case in court.
	I had to hire another attorney to deal with it.
	She did a workman-like job.
	She explained that I didn't own the properties, that the properties had no value, blah, blah, blah, blah, but the judge nevertheless ruled, issued a taking order.
	So, since I saw this coming and felt the taking order had no warrant whatsoever, no justification, but there was,
	I submitted a motion for reconsideration, in which I explained that Leonard Posner could not take the book or the blog, for the reason that, through his honor network, he has gone about, for the last eight years, systematically removing material about Sandy Hook from the Internet, where he boasts of taking down
	1,500 videos from YouTube that dealt with Sandy, 1,500 videos from YouTube.
	And of course, he'd been very aggressive in going after me, not only about the book, I mean, witness the lawsuit itself, but about my blog.
	I mean, he, he had, You know, file alleged copyright infringement for my use of photographs that he claimed to have a copyright.
	I mean, he'd been running massive interference.
	Leonard Posner, I explained in my motion for reconsideration, has spent eight years removing information about Sandy Hook.
	He could not possibly derive any financial benefit from taking Nobody died at Sandy Hook because he's obviously not going to market it.
	And as I observed during the oral hearing where the judge reprimanded me for speaking because I had an attorney there, but the key point that the book had no value, it could not be marketed, and it cannot be marketed, ought to have been decisive.
	But the judge went ahead and issued, so I explained in my motion for reconsideration that there's a doctrine known as estoppel.
	He's stopped from doing that because his past behavior is inconsistent with what he's claiming now.
	In other words, he wants to take the book and the blog to derive a monetary value for a monetary judgment, but obviously he's not going to market the book or the blog.
	I mean, how could Lenny Posner mark it?
	Nobody died at Sandy Hook when he disputed three sentences of a 440-page book, which essentially blows the whole case out of the water.
	Blows the whole case out of the water.
	If you want to read a wonderful review, Brian Ride on his Coffee Coaster website has a review of Nobody Died at Sandy Hook.
	It's sensational.
	I don't know how many of you would even be aware of it or have ever read it.
	But he states there in like the third paragraph discussing the book, to an epistemological certainty, nobody died at Sandy Hook.
	In other words, he's endorsing the findings of the book.
	And of course, they're so well substantiated.
	That's why they had to You know, comb it with a fine-toothed comb.
	Go through it with a fine-toothed comb to try to find some semblance of a basis for bringing this lawsuit, which falls into the category of a strategic lawsuit against public participation, to punish those who are whistleblowers who are exposing the inconvenient truths the government doesn't want the public to know, which are illegal in 38 states, but not in Wisconsin.
	And indeed, Wisconsin was perhaps uniquely appropriate for this lawsuit because The evidence I had was so massive, the reason I was so willing to enter is that I understood, based upon my understanding of summary judgment, that for a summary judgment, you have to take for granted every statement or assertion made by the defense, and then determine whether or not the plaintiff agrees with those.
	And if the plaintiff does not agree with those, then it goes to a jury for dispute of the evidence, the disputed facts.
	And I had such a massive evidence.
	Well, imagine my astonishment when at the conference trial talking about scheduling the event, the judge ruled that he would not allow me to introduce all that evidence that I think that it hadn't happened as it was reported, because according to the judge,
	It had nothing to do with the accuracy or the truthfulness of the death certificate whose authenticity was in dispute.
	When the death certificate states, and this is true of every version, and five would eventually be introduced into evidence.
	I mean, how absurd is that?
	Think about it.
	Five different versions of a death certificate for a single decedent.
	All five state that the decedent died at Sandy Hook on 14 December 2012 of multiple gunshot wounds.
	One of the attorneys who was representing my publisher concluded then that the whole thing had, shall we say, a predetermined outcome.
	I mean, how could I be excluded?
	Then by and by, when we simply focused on the death certificate, I was able, you know, the complaint had a different death certificate than the one published in the book, which had no file number, no town, no state certification.
	Attach one that had a file number, a town certification, a state certification, and claimed in the complaint they were not materially different.
	Well, that was also a legal absurdity.
	Because obviously having a file number stay in town certification make a difference.
	In fact, it turns out in Connecticut that not even parents are allowed to have uncertified death certificates.
	So here was an uncertified death certificate.
	So I obtained the reports of two forensic document examiners.
	Both of them concluded that the four death certificates that have been introduced thus far were fake, you know, as they supported my position.
	And by the way, I'm under a permanent injunction.
	I cannot reaffirm the sentences over which I was sued.
	So please abbreviate.
	I'm only describing what the case was about.
	And the judge just set them aside as someone else's opinion.
	Well, it turns out when I appealed to the Court of Appeals that they agreed and the Wisconsin Supreme Court declined my petition for review.
	And it was only after the fact that I realized it was because Wisconsin has a peculiar summary judgment procedure that allows a judge to decide Whether or not evidence is reasonable, and if they judge what evidence is unreasonable, they can set it aside as though it did not exist.
	So the massive evidence I had, and I actually managed to get the book into evidence at the very last exhibit, number 10, at the conclusion of the oral hearing, observing to the judge it was the most important evidence in the case, which of course was true.
	It was as though all my evidence didn't exist, which led me to appeal, submit a petition to the United States Supreme Court, because Wisconsin has an effective summary judgment procedure.
	And now I have the petition before the Supreme Court that's gone through 10 of the 12 stages to actually have the court consider it, put it on the docket for an actual oral hearing and rule on it.
	I am into the conference level.
	Now, you're not gonna learn about any of that.
	In fact, they actually succeeded in taking my blog yesterday.
	They took the blog, they had it redirected, and they had it redirected to posnervfetzer.com.
	Now, what you find at posnervfetzer.com is the briefings on this taking motion.
	And you see the judge's order authorizing, and you'll see that Ten days before, I'd submitted a motion to stay because I was going to suffer irredeemable harm.
	I mean, there are four criteria here that are required for a stay, and my brief satisfies all four.
	My case satisfies all four.
	Nevertheless, even though I'd submitted, and there ought to have been a hearing promptly held, it was delayed and sent over until 17 August.
	That, in effect, gave Posner from the date of that submission until 17 August to do something about it.
	And it was the day after I submitted, actually, the motion for reconsideration that they began to get very aggressive about taking the blog.
	Because once my name is mentioned in court, people are going to start checking me out.
	And when they start checking me out, they're going to find, man, this blog is a massive repository about evidence at Sandy Hook.
	And it all shows Sandy Hook was a sham.
	Yeah.
	So they've taken my blog and I discovered last night, I visited my bio sketch on amazon.com.
	I mean, I have a lot of books, right?
	I have two dozen plus in traditional academic areas.
	I have another plus in conspiracy areas.
	Amazon has actually blocked, banned six of my books.
	I went there, and amazingly enough, what did I discover?
	They had put on a Court of Appeals decision where the court actually agreed and said it's reasonable to believe, and they gave the official narrative of Sandy Hook, and that it's unreasonable to believe that it was a FEMA drill Presented as mass murder to promote gun control.
	They actually put that right on my amazon.blog.
	I don't know how they did it.
	This morning when I, and I made a screenshot which you can see right here if you see the video version.
	But Alex Jones, you know, has been speaking out and protesting and I'd actually just, I published two emergencies when I saw they were moving to take the blog.
	I published two emergency blogs about Sandy Hook to get as much information out.
	He's claiming he's been denied his right, that due process has been violated.
	They basically did to him what they did to me.
	They claimed he had failed to satisfy disclosure.
	And therefore, he was found guilty by default.
	In other words, they never got to any evidential question about whether anybody died at Sandy Hook.
	So I published a blog, Alex Jones Calls Out Murder of Due Process at Sandy Hook Show Trial.
	He seemed to be getting the same treatment I received in the lawsuit brought against me by the man who calls himself Leonard Posner, whom I am convinced is a legal fiction played by Ruben Vabner, who came to Madison and testified under oath.
	Everything about my trial was wrong, as I explain in detail below.
	Now they're taking my blog.
	Thursday at 5 p.m.
	it was supposed to be, but they circumvented that, went right to Namecheap and got it shut down about 11 a.m.
	instead to make sure I'm unable to contribute to explain what's going on here and how the law has been weaponized to censor and abuse those who speak about false flags or stage events.
	We've had a spate of them of late with Buffalo, Ubalde, and the island.
	We've had a spate of them of late with Buffalo, Ubalde, and the island.
	Revolution Radio at freedomslips.com.
	We'll be right back after this message.
	Management would like to take a moment to thank the listeners and hosts for all their support.
	has made Revolution Radio one of the biggest platforms for free speech in an ever-growing dark world of censorship.
	Unfortunately, this platform for free speech has never been free.
	We need the support of the people.
	It is the people like you, yes, you, that keeps the station in the front lines of the battle against tyranny and oppression.
	Please help support Revolution Radio so free speech will not be silenced in a world that seems to be going deaf to the real truth.
	With your support, we will be able to become an even bigger pillar of light in a dark world.
	Revolution Radio.
	FreedomSubs.com.
	The number one listener supported radio station on the planet.
	Revolution.
	Rainbow.
	Rainbow.
	Hey, everyone.
	It's Barbara Jean Lindsay, The Cosmic Oracle.
	If you have questions about your past lives or future plans, need answers from the cosmos about your love life or career, or just want to keep your finger on the pulse of the planet, check out my show, The Cosmic Oracle, here on Revolution Radio at freedomslips.com.
	Amazon banned my book so you wouldn't learn what really happened at Sandy Hook.
	It was a FEMA drill presented as mass murder to promote gun control.
	Then they sued to shut me up.
	And the Wisconsin courts played along.
	I have the proof and the law on my side.
	What I don't have is the money.
	They want to do to us what they've already done to Canada.
	Take guns, impose tyranny.
	It's on the way with Remington's help.
	First insurance, then registration, then confiscation.
	I'm asking SCOTUS to stop it.
	GiveSendGo.com funding Fetzer.
	Check it out.
	This is for all the marbles.
	Was it a conspiracy?
	Did you know that the police in Boston were broadcasting, this is a drill, this is a drill, on bullhorns during the marathon?
	That the Boston Globe was tweeting that a demonstration bomb would be set off during the marathon for the benefit of bomb squad activities.
	And that one would be set off in one minute in front of a library, which happened as the Globe had announced.
	Peering through the smoke, you could see bodies with missing arms and legs.
	But there was no blood.
	The blood only showed up later and came out of a tube.
	They used amputee actors and a studio-quality smoke machine.
	Don't let yourself be played.
	Check out And Nobody Died in Boston, either.
	Available at moonrockbooks.com.
	That's boomrockbooks.com.
	Oh, oh. oh.
	Join Revolution Radio every Wednesday, 8 p.m.
	Eastern.
	Eastern Time on Studio B for Momentary Zen with host Zeng Garcia at Freedomslitch.com.
	The People Station.
	The opinions expressed on this radio station, its programs, and its website by the hosts, guests, and call-in listeners or chatters are solely the opinions of the original source who expressed them.
	They do not necessarily represent the opinions of Revolution Radio and freedomslips.com, its staff, or affiliates.
	You're listening to Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, 100% listener-supported radio, and now we return you to your host.
	Just to continue, so I added, download the law enforcement false flag stage event checklist I published with Brian Davidson, PI, and you'll see the massive effort that is being exerted to deceive and mislead the American people, especially to give up their guns.
	Don't do it.
	I published a second Sandy Hook parents to testify against Alex Jones and a culture of lies with analysis.
	This is about Elizabeth Williamson having published a piece on the Alex Jones case.
	I began with an editor's note Elizabeth Williamson has mastered the art of special pleading by selecting the evidence that agrees with a predetermined conclusion and eliminating the rest.
	You'll not find her addressing the staged photos in the parking lot, for example, which prove that they rearranged the kids to get a better shot.
	The FBI consolidated crime report for 2012, which shows no murders or non-negligent manslaughter in Newtown, of which Sandy Hook is a part.
	Or the FEMA manual for a mass casualty exercise involving children, which you can download as a PDF here.
	Nor does she acknowledge my petition before the United States Supreme Court, which displays the lengths to which they will result to conceal the truth about Sandy Hook.
	Under fake news and encyclopedias, you'll find a photo of Elizabeth Williams' son.
	Just to highlight a couple of points.
	They talk about how Jesse Lewis, who's supposed to, Neil Heslin, who's supposed to be the father of Jesse Lewis, had been cited, you know, claimed to have held his son in his dying arms.
	So I point out, editors, no.
	While you won't hear it from Elizabeth Williamson, Neil Heslin claims that he held his dying son in his arms, while Dr. Wayne Carver, medical examiner for the state of Connecticut, stated during his press conference that the parents were not allowed to see their children, much less hold them in their arms while they died.
	There's a passage in my petition about Heslin which Alex Jones challenged.
	The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed all the rulings of the lower court and concluded in their 58-page opinion.
	This is the opinion, by the way, which was linked to my Amazon.com bio sketch yesterday, so that people who are seeking to find out who I was, given I was mentioned during the trial, would go there and they'd have access to this opinion.
	On March 18, 2021, that there were no reasonable disputed facts in this case.
	Here's what it said.
	This is right from the opinion, and it's also cited in my petition to the Supreme Court.
	There is no reasonable dispute regarding the following facts.
	On December 14, 2012, a mass shooting occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.
	Tragically, 26 people were killed, including 6 staff members and 20 children who were aged 6 and 7.
	See, for example, Jones v. Hessler.
	Stating, Neil Heslund's son was killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in December 2012, and rejecting the Substantial Truth Doctrine as a basis to dismiss Heslund's defamation claim, related to statements disputing Heslund's assertion that he held his deceased son in his arms, Soto v. Bushmaster Firearms.
	Which themes 20-year-old Adam Lonsdale forced his way into Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, and during the course of 264 seconds, fatally shot 21st grade children and six staff members and wounded two other staff members.
	Posner's six-year-old son, Ian, was one of the children killed during the Sandy Hook shootings.
	So which was it?
	Either Wayne Carver was lying about the parents not being able to see their kids, or Neil Heslin has been lying about holding Jesse in his arms.
	They cannot both be true, but bear in mind that they could both be false, which appears to be the case.
	Alex Jones cannot be guilty of defamation by denying that Neil Heslin held his dying son in his arms as long as that is true, and even Wayne Carver supports the conclusion that Alex had it right.
	Now, Elizabeth Williamson continues, conspiracy theorists have accosted the families in public to face and stolen memorials of their loved ones and threatened their lives.
	They have tormented the parents on social media, demanding they exhume their children's bodies and prove they were murdered.
	Mr. Posner and Ms.
	Villarosa have moved a dozen times after conspiracy theorists posted their home addresses and other personal information.
	But frankly, that's just preposterous.
	The research I and my collaborators have done, nobody can find where Leonard Posner lived.
	The addresses from which he's supposed to have lived do not show Leonard Posner ever lived there.
	Get this, editors know.
	As I've explained from the beginning, Leonard Posner appears to be a fiction, where I believe the person who came to Madison and testified under his name is actually Reuben Vabner.
	And that Noah Posner is also a fiction, created out of photographs of his real son Michael Vabner when he was a child.
	Kelly Watt was the first to notice a resemblance, which I've reported many times in many places.
	Some may therefore find it acutely intriguing that Lenny posted a photograph of Noah celebrating his eighth birthday.
	Count the candles on the cake.
	Elizabeth Williamson has told us that Noah, at age six, was the youngest of the victims at Sandy Hook.
	But here we have a photo of Noah celebrating his eighth birthday, which is quite a remarkable achievement for a boy who died at the age of six.
	So does Olympus have it wrong or is Lenny putting one over us?
	Noah clearly looks older than the photo shown of him as a victim in 2012.
	So perhaps I'm not guilty of defamation either.
	After all, perhaps.
	As I said, you go to my bio sketch on Amazon.com, but now it's been taken down and you have the Court of Appeals decision and the order granting a permanent injunction.
	Very interesting.
	So I'm doing my best to get all this out.
	When it turned out that they had, when they took my blog, the images that were in the emails I'd sent out disappeared because they were linked to the blog.
	So I reconstituted the blog with the actual images.
	I've also put out another about the 65 shows you can find available on Jim the Conspiracy Guy.
	But again, as I say, if you go to jamesfetzer.org, you'll be able to access my motion for reconsideration filed on the 13th, my motion for a stay filed on the 18th, and the taking actually took place on the 28th, 10 days later.
	If you read the motion for a stay, it may cross your mind that this would have been something appropriate to have acted upon immediately.
	But that, of course, did not happen.
	Now, I have a special guest today, and yet, because of all these legal developments, I'm inviting him in to join me now.
	He has a new book that a lot of you are going to find intriguing because it concludes issues that some of you care very much about that I don't.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	So, yeah, let me just close the door here.
	Sure, sure, sure, sure.
	Michael, go for it.
	Okay, so yeah, I guess I'd like to start out with, I have a little slide presentation.
	I'll do that a little bit later, but I'll start out with the basic stuff here.
	Why I wrote the book, of course, is a lot of people will ask that question because it's probably the first thing that comes to mind.
	You write a book, you know, why would you do that, right?
	I was hoping to get people on the same page.
	I think you sort of alluded to that a little bit.
	Earlier, my hope is that people will understand that there's a there's a new world order agenda.
	And that has been going on for, you know, many, many years.
	It's not just a new thing.
	It's obviously been going on for literally hundreds of years.
	And we can trace it back and there's lots of books that go back in in that time frame that can show us evidence of these this type of thing happening and in different time periods, as well as our own and of course, one of the things the media and You know, specifically tells us is that there's no such thing as conspiracies.
	Right.
	And they repeat that message over and over again.
	However, what they forget is that conspiracies have been with us for all of human history.
	And so to say that they don't exist today would be as if we all all of a sudden cold turkey stopped any any type of conspiracy, which is sort of ridiculous when you consider that they're literally littered throughout our history.
	So I guess I'm not sure exactly how much you've talked about of various things that I'm going to touch on.
	So if that's the case, if I start to talk about something that you've already discussed, let me know and I can stop and we can sort of skip past it.
	I don't want to... Michael, it does not matter because you're book lazy.
	You just give us a good expose about your book and worry not what you may not have discussed in the past.
	Okay, so who is it aimed at?
	I brought a couple of questions for myself here.
	It's aimed at people who have some knowledge of all of this, and I'm sure your audience is among those people, but obviously people that have no knowledge or have no understanding and no desire to see past what the media tells them are not going to get it, okay?
	And I can tell you from experience, having tried to convince people like that, That it's really a waste of time.
	They just will never admit that their precious worldview is a lie.
	And of course, when I'm saying a lie, I think we all understand that it's just about everything we think we know about the world around us is pretty much, you know, not true.
	And of course, the way, the methods they use to To fool us are pretty standard.
	They basically repeat messages over and over again to tell you things like, you know, kids died at Sandy Hook, kids died at, you know, they repeat these messages and repeat these messages, you know, guns are bad, guns are bad.
	But they don't really, you know, and these and these types of strategies they use are are common.
	They do them all the time.
	They also like to divide and conquer us so they'll create dynamics that put us into different camps opposing one another.
	And I think a good example of that is the whole sort of Black Lives movement type of thing.
	Black Lives Matter rather, because the idea is to create a so most like a racial divide, and then people on one side of the issue might might hate the cop for whatever he did and people on the other side of the issue might hate the guy because he was a drug user or something.
	I mean it goes back and forth but but again these events that we see.
	They're all fake.
	They're all put up jobs.
	And you can see them, see through them in the same way you can see through Sandy Hook.
	If you look closely at the physical evidence, and one of the things you have to avoid, which is the biggest pitfall, is the emotional rhetoric.
	Because the emotional rhetoric on these things is what actually keeps people tied to the story, to the narrative.
	You know, if you say to people, for example, that kids die in whatever shooting, the most recent one, for example, in Texas, you could say that.
	And of course, by saying that, it elicits this sort of outrage.
	And if anybody tries to challenge that view, that narrative that's been presented to them on television, right, which is everybody's trusted medium, they get angry because they say things like, well, what about the families, right?
	Well, this message as well is programmed into us because they tell you to be outraged, of course, but they also tell you not to listen to people that are basically challenging this narrative.
	So, you know, and of course, it's interesting because it goes along with the idea that we're all basically children.
	On a playground where, for example, somebody yells, he has cooties, right?
	You know, I think, Jim, I think you must have cooties, right?
	So the thing is, cooties is like that was the old thing kids used to do to each other to tease each other or to or to basically play a game to make somebody into sort of, you know, a You know, ridicule them for whatever reason.
	And of course, the people that were the popular kids, or the kids that had a certain degree of power over others, would use that to make this happen.
	And of course, all you're doing with the media today is ridiculing people that discuss the truth.
	And the ridicule, instead of being about cooties, they use the terms, these vilifying terms like denier, Anti-science, hater, you know, nut job, you know, conspiracy theorist.
	These are all vilifying terms and they're designed to make you not look at what somebody is trying to tell you.
	So it's, the whole thing is just, it's so fascinating to me because it works Right under our nose, and yet people, and I'm sure your audience knows this, but it's just fascinating, isn't it?
	Because it works under our noses, and yet people don't look, don't see it.
	They don't, and they don't want to see it, because they've been told that they don't want to see it.
	And I have tried, I mentioned earlier about the people that don't get it, but I've tried for years to get a relative of mine to see the truth, and I've gone through A lot of different methods to try to sort of shake them out of it, and it just never seems to work.
	Nothing seems to jar them out of their comfort zone.
	They want to be, you know, completely insulated by this world that they accept, right?
	Okay, so the other thing I wanted to talk about was that Hang on one second.
	I have to take care of something.
	Can you give me a moment here?
	Sure, of course.
	I just want to turn off my video for a second.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	Let me add, the whole further discussion with this woman by this dim-witted attorney was totally perfunctory, asking one or two sentences about Sophia, a couple of sentences about Wolfgang.
	She said he'd been a police officer.
	Well, he's a former Florida State trooper.
	She didn't mention he'd been a U.S.
	Customs agent.
	She didn't mention he'd been in school.
	A principal.
	She didn't mention he'd been a nationally recognized school safety expert who simply wanted to find out what happened at Sandy Hook so he could share it with other school systems to make sure it didn't happen to them.
	Michael, you're back on.
	Go.
	I'm back on.
	Sorry, I had to take care of something quickly.
	Yeah, okay, so I agree with you 100% on the Sandy Hook.
	And I have a chapter on that, by the way, so I think I've shown you that before, so you've seen it.
	Of course.
	Okay, so where was I?
	I guess I was going to start talking about the savior thing because I've noticed a lot of people will gravitate towards this concept of a savior.
	Now, of course, the idea that Donald Trump was that savior, I think, is everybody's You know, was for a while with QAnon and all that was this concept that he was somebody that was going to save us from the elite and from the new world order, right?
	Well, that didn't really happen.
	So I think that we can pretty much count him out as a savior by now.
	But of course, he created, as I said before, he created this wonderful amount of divide and conquer.
	During his presidency, and even today, he's still doing it because they love to vilify him even now, because he makes such a great target.
	And of course it, it separates the people who are the neocon types on the right, with the sort of very liberals on the left and they all butt heads and nobody wants to understand.
	What the other one is thinking.
	Nobody wants to make the effort to look and understand, you know, what it's like to be that other person because they don't care.
	They only care about being, you know, in their group and being able to sort of rant and rave about why their group is right and everybody else is wrong.
	But this is this is classic divide and conquer technique, because the idea is to keep you emotionally connected to your group, whether whatever group that is.
	Right.
	It can be gays versus straights.
	It can be a racial thing, a religious thing.
	It doesn't matter what the group is.
	The whole point is to keep everybody at odds with each other.
	So there's constantly these events.
	And of course, the events they're putting on now are aimed at we know they're aimed at gun control.
	I think that's pretty obvious.
	Right, Jim?
	Yes, they're trying to trying to take the guns away from basically, they're trying to take guns away from 200 million people who are law abiding people, because 100 were killed by guns.
	I mean, if you look at the numbers there, it is absolutely absurd.
	Because, you know, it's not an epidemic.
	And it's not anything that one should be, on a rational level, be concerned about when you compare it to other things.
	I mean, auto accidents are far greater.
	And we don't ban cars.
	I mean, and people have actually killed people with cars.
	And that has happened.
	You know, again, we don't ban cars because of a few people doing horrible things.
	And of course, the tools involved.
	I mean, I understand guns are, you know, people have a thing about guns, people who don't Oh, no, we don't understand perhaps the need for them.
	But I think that the reality here is there are places we do need guns and there are places where there's wild animals, there's other things going on.
	I mean, there's obviously, and of course, the biggest, I guess, issue with people point out is if you ban guns from the citizens, Then the criminals that will get them anyway will then know that they have a complete open field they know you can't have one.
	So, so they're going to be a lot braver when it comes to robbing you or whatever.
	But, but that's aside the point the I think the issue here is that we're being manipulated.
	On a massive scale, and I think you have to understand that to really get past all of this stuff that's been sort of shoved down our throats in the media and continues to be shoved down our throats in the media.
	So I wanted to go on with The COVID thing, because of course, I do make a mention of that also in the book.
	And I don't think that COVID was a real thing.
	I think there may have been some real, you know, there may have been a flu virus that was, you know, perhaps created or perhaps It just came about naturally.
	I'm not sure how that transpired, but ultimately I have met a few people that said they had COVID, but ultimately it sounded to me like it was just a bad case of the flu.
	And of course it doesn't, it didn't kill any of the people that I met because they already had had it and they already got over it.
	So, but hang on a second.
	Did you make a mention?
	Yeah, I suggest you might want to just run through your table of contents so people get a sense of the scope of the book.
	Yeah, I guess I understand.
	Let me do this.
	Let me go through the little slide presentation I have because I think that might be a way to go in into that direction, I guess.
	Let's see if this opens now.
	There we go.
	Okay, hang on one second.
	It's not quite-- OK, there we go.
	Okay, so, um, the book has on the cover has this image, of course, and this is the third eye or pineal gland as was known by the ancient Egyptians, and it's actually quite, you know, interesting that the ancient Egyptians knew all about this, you know, thousands of years ago, and we seem to have forgotten it, or at least it's not considered mainstream in terms of the thinking, but
	I guess the gist of this is to keep your mind open and aware to things beyond and above what you can see and hear, especially on the television.
	OK, so going on with ancient Egypt.
	And this, of course, is part and parcel to the beginning of my book, how I talk about how this compares to what we're going through today.
	So it does relate directly.
	Citizens back then believed the pharaoh was a god king.
	Society was controlled by these high priests that were around him.
	And anyone that disagreed with that philosophy was punished.
	They were usually punished, probably they were punished severely back then.
	But nobody questioned the way of life because they assumed that this pharaoh was their god king and they did everything he told them to do.
	Well today we have experts that basically have replaced the pharaoh and some of these experts are put on pedestals and of course some of these experts like the CDC and the WHO have no one above them to refute whatever they say.
	So if you go, people have made comments to me about the CDC.
	Is there some Problem with the sound?
	Jim?
	Hello?
	Hello?
	Jim?
	Michael, we're still live.
	I know, but what's that music I hear?
	It's the break at the top of the hour.
	Was it a conspiracy?
	- Did you know that the police-- - So am I supposed to wait until the break's over? - This is a drill, this is a drill on bull horns during the marathon.
	That the Boston Globe was tweeting that a demonstration bomb would be set off during the marathon for the benefit of bomb squad activities.
	And that one would be set off in one minute in front of the library, which happened as the Globe had announced.
	Peering through the smoke, you could see bodies with missing arms and legs.
	But there was no blood.
	The blood only showed up later and came out of a tube.
	They used amputee actors and a studio-quality smoke machine.
	Don't let yourself be played.
	Check out And Nobody Died in Boston, either.
	Available at moonrockbooks.com.
	That's moonrockbooks.com.
	If you think for one second that the Capitol will ever treat us fairly, you are lying to yourself.
	Thank you.
	Because we know who they are and what they do.
	This is what they do, and we must fight back.
	You can torture us and bomb us.
	Fire is catching.
	And if we burn, You burn with us!
	Are you awake yet?
	I hope.
	We've tried and we've tried for years and years to use passive resistance and loud voices to make a change.
	The time is over.
	Your governments around the world have no other goal but to decimate your entire existence.
	The hands of the bankers and the elites.
	The war is coming.
	And it's your choice to decide if you want to be a warrior or a victim.
	Denial is not a choice anymore.
	Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, the number one listener-supported radio station on the planet.
	Not giving up.
	revolution radio amazon banned my book so you wouldn't learn what really happened at sandy hook yeah It was a FEMA drill presented as mass murder to promote gun control.
	Then they sued to shut me up, and the Wisconsin courts played along.
	I have the proof and the law on my side.
	What I don't have is the money.
	They want to do to us what they've already done to Canada.
	Take guns, impose tyranny.
	It's on the way with Remington's help.
	First insurance, then registration, then confiscation.
	I'm asking SCOTUS to stop it.
	GiveSendGo.com funding Fetzer.
	Check it out.
	This is for all the marbles.
	The opinions expressed on this radio station, its programs, and its website by the hosts, guests, and call-in listeners, or chatters, are solely the opinions of the original source who expressed them.
	They do not necessarily represent the opinions of Revolution Radio and freedomslips.com, its staff, or affiliates.
	You're listening to Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, 100% listener-supported radio, and now we return you to your host.
	Well, my featured guest today, Michael Ogden, is reviewing his new book, which addresses conspiracies, It's like an easy intro to discussing a wide range, and we'll see the full extent of it as we proceed.
	Michael, please continue.
	Okay, I'm not sure where we left off, because I... Discussing ancient Egypt.
	Yeah, no, I know.
	Okay, so basically I'm comparing ancient Egypt to today, in the sense that the people back then, if you took a person back then, an average person back then, they would believe everything that was going on around them, and everybody else around them would believe, too, that this pharaoh was a god-king, and that they have to obey everything he tells them to do.
	Well, it's very similar in a way today because we believe whatever the media and the experts we are shown on the media tell us what to do.
	And a wonderful example of this is the CDC, which everybody seems to point to whenever they talk about wearing masks or anything else to do with medicine for that matter.
	And the thing about it is that you have nobody above the CDC to refute them politically.
	So that they literally are in the catbird seat.
	And because nobody can refute them, and of course they dare to refute them, they just simply do the same trick of calling them names.
	You're anti-science, you're anti-health, you're anti-whatever, you're a denier, you're a whatever, you're a nut.
	It's the same level of browbeating that comes to play.
	So you're not allowed to criticize, just as you're not allowed to criticize the pharaoh in ancient Egypt, you can't criticize the WHO or the CDC or Anthony Fauci or any of these people that are above any rebuke.
	And it's ridiculous.
	Of course, people have done that, but they've been sidelined or ignored Ignoring people is the easiest thing, because if they're not on television, nobody can see them, right?
	But what's fascinating is, of course, the same thing applies to science.
	We have what's called scientism, which is more or less a religion rather than science.
	Science is a way of thinking.
	It's simply your, your own way of thinking in terms of how you see and how you interpret the world around you.
	And yet we've been told by these experts, what science is and we're told constantly and of course these things are repeated.
	Over and over again in the media in books in the movies and in all forms so that we now are inundated with all this stuff, and there's no really there's no seeing past it, unless you make an effort to research.
	So, it's just so fascinating to me.
	I think you must agree that it's incredible how they're able to get away with this stuff, and they've been doing it for so long, and they seem to be so arrogant about it, too, that they don't seem to think they have any worries that people are going to wake up, or that enough people will wake up anytime soon to stop them, right?
	I love the parallel, Michael.
	I think this is very, very nice.
	Very effective.
	It's interesting because you really see that things haven't changed all that much in thousands of years.
	There was a wonderful quote from Plato, which is in my book, which I'll leave for now because I don't have it handy.
	He knew what was going on even 2,500 years ago and nothing has really changed all that much.
	The people basically are like children and the people who run the world, the elite, who own the central banks and basically own or control all of the major corporations.
	So they control something like 90% of the money or the assets Really, and they have unlimited funds, unlimited financial capabilities, so they can pretty much pay anybody off.
	And as you know, everybody has a price, right?
	So it's not too hard to see how this can work.
	It's sort of like a giant mafia, right?
	Let me go to the next slide here.
	So truth is hidden in plain sight.
	This is my cognitive dissonance slide.
	People believe what they're told, they don't question any experts, because experts are so well trained, right?
	And they have amazing credentials, right?
	And they're usually also, you know, like Anthony Fauci, they're somebody high up in the chain of command at, say, the CDC, so you can't refute them because of their position and their status.
	Of course, people become angry with anybody like us that goes around trying to refute these people.
	And of course, as I said before, they say you have cooties, right?
	You have cooties if you try to refute Anthony Fauci or anybody.
	And I love this, this quote about scientists have discovered this was a meme on online that I found and I think it's hysterical because if you say to somebody scientists have discovered and then you just put something people believe it without question.
	They don't even think about oh well scientists have discovered that when they go and repeat it to their friends so scientists have just discovered that you know, this is a good idea.
	Whatever.
	It's just unreal.
	I think one of the reasons I point this out is I want to make that into a red flag for people, because if you hear that stated, you can almost guarantee there's something probably not true right after it, because this is how they can tell you what to believe, right?
	So you never look past, people never look past what the mainstream media tells them, they believe what they're told, and they're believed what not to believe, right?
	They're told not to believe in conspiracy, and that's exactly what they do, right?
	It's absurd.
	Okay, moving on a little bit, I do touch into a lot of the major events over the last 20 plus years, and of course one of the ones that woke me up was of course 9-11.
	And I think it's, I mean, I think it's pretty obvious if you think it out, you know, logically, right?
	That aluminum alloy planes that are, of course, hollow inside, cannot penetrate solid steel, right?
	And yet, this is an, and this was an image I got, not from a site that was, you know, one of the 9-11 truth sites, this came from a debunking site.
	Believe it or not, a debunking site shows you this plane in the shape of the hole in the side of the building, which is absurd.
	And it reminds me of the old Roadrunner cartoon, where you had Wile E. Coyote, just in his entire body and fingers, go through a solid brick or a solid steel wall, right?
	And of course, it's completely cartoonish.
	But yet people believe it.
	And I have to say, I am always a little shocked When I show people this, and I got my response I got from this picture, by the way, which I think is also rather funny, was, oh, think of the families.
	It's like I think they're just repeating the mantra of what they're not supposed to do, which is criticize 9-11 because of the families.
	Well, you know, it's it's just you can't make this stuff up.
	It's so it's so outrageous.
	Okay, so the false flags are abundant, and we know that Sandy Hook is one of many, and we know that 9-11 is, of course, one of the bigger ones.
	We are inundated with these fake disasters, and the reason they're done is to create fear, anger, and outrage, which, of course, are emotional reactions.
	You create strong emotions, and people do not see past it.
	They cannot reason their way out of it.
	They are done to bring wanted changes for the elite.
	The elite want you, for example, they do want gun control.
	They want to have that happen because that'll make it easier for them if they can get that done.
	So this is why they're doing it.
	They're doing it for their own aims, their own agenda.
	If you notice that these events are staged, but if you really watch closely at some of these things, like I was watching one recently, an interview with one of the Parents at the Texas shooting recently.
	And it was funny to me that the guy was holding a picture of his daughter in a frame on his lap and then crying on cue every 30 seconds or so.
	Which, again, doesn't seem realistic in some ways because none of the crying had any real tears.
	Which, by the way, is another thing I have in the book on my Sandy Hook chapter.
	I think you might remember it, Jim.
	I show how none of the people that, you know, sort of lost a child or, you know, when they're at a funeral for their child or whatever, they sort of make their faces really look like they're crying, but there's never any tears coming out of their eyes or on their cheeks, nothing.
	But in a disaster that was real, if it had been real, crying and tears would be uncontrollable.
	And this is something that we, we should understand, and we should be able to see that clearly because once you do see that it's impossible to believe that these people were really upset or are really crying, and I've seen this repeatedly in various victims in various scenes in various false flags.
	It's the same thing.
	And the acting is horrible.
	These people are all scripted and they mess up their lines.
	So what happens is the guy who's the person who's actually interviewing them will actually prompt them on their next line.
	He'll say, you wanted to talk about your sister?
	Well, how the hell did he know he wants to talk about his sister?
	Well, because it's in the script, right?
	But, you know, this is the sort of thing you can see if you just You know, have a little bit of a little bit of critical thinking going on while you're watching these things, and it doesn't take that much to see past it it just, it just means you have to accept that there is a possibility here, right, that this is fake, which I again I think your audience is aware of that but but you know again, most people are completely clueless right.
	People become angry, and anyone suggests this, right?
	They're eager to believe what they're told again in the media, and they want to be accepted by the other people who believe this stuff.
	So, if they didn't believe it, you see, and even if they had questions in their own mind, they probably wouldn't want to raise them for fear of being seen as some sort of pariah, right?
	People want to belong, and that's human nature.
	You want to belong to the group.
	You want to belong and Be part of your family and stuff, and you don't want to be ostracized, so this is part of the way things stay the way they are, and people don't notice.
	I don't know if you touched on this, Jim, yet, but of course we know the Georgia Geist was recently blown up, right?
	Yes, yes, of course, yeah.
	Did you make any, did you make any comments about, I have this in my book on one of my chapters, I detail out all 10 of the You know, statements that are on that were on the stones in various languages.
	But I found it fascinating because I don't I didn't believe I don't know about yourself.
	I didn't believe that it was taken out by some random person.
	I think they actually took it out on purpose because they probably want to bury the message now.
	Maybe they figured it's too it's too out in the open or something.
	I'm not sure what the reason is, but ultimately.
	It was rather damning evidence in some ways because you literally carved in stone, and the first message the first.
	Well, if that's not population control, what the hell is it, right?
	I mean, they're basically telling you, and they carved it in granite, right, to tell you that they're going to lower the human population to below half a billion people worldwide.
	So, there's 10 of them.
	I didn't go, I didn't put them all up here, but it's just, It does seem a little strange and I don't know I get I don't think that they they were blown up by accident but I'll leave that there for now.
	I'm going to move on to the medical monopoly because I think this is actually something I have a chapter on this as well.
	I think that beyond just beyond even the COVID, you know, fiasco, you know, you have a diagnosis from a doctor, it equates to a drug or drug cocktail from Big Pharma.
	And this is almost always the case because they focus only on the symptoms.
	And of course, Big Pharma gets rich Well, you remain sicker sicker right because ultimately they're focusing on the symptoms and trying to get rid of your symptoms, but it doesn't necessarily focus on the root cause of your problem or your issue, your body tends to react to things your body is a magnificent, you know machine.
	And it tries to expel toxins and sometimes it expels them in the form of, say, a rash, for example.
	Well, if you stop it from doing that, you're actually preventing your body from trying to heal itself.
	It's the same thing where you say, if you try to stop a fever when you're sick, the fever is there to actually help to heal you.
	Your body is raising the temperature to try to ward off some Some invader or to make make it to heal to heal yourself by stopping that you're actually preventing your body from doing what it's supposed to do.
	So it doesn't make sense yet this is what we have somebody I was talking to a few people I know who are very big on this and I reference a book.
	Actually, I referenced several books in this chapter, which I think are fantastic.
	Dis-ease was never meant to be disease, one word.
	It was meant to be dis-ease, your body out of balance, right?
	A holistic approach is needed to prevent this from happening at all.
	And of course, diet, nutrition, and lifestyle choices are paramount to keeping yourself in good health.
	Herbal remedies are also good, and there was a doctor recently that I found who was big on fasting, wrote books on fasting, saying that one of the benefits of fasting, you see, is that your body, digestion is one of the biggest taxes on your body, because your body has processed this food and digested it, and it takes a lot of energy out of you.
	So if you're fighting some sort of illness, one of the things you can try to do is to fast, is to stop eating for a day, not long periods of time, of course, but just maybe a day or so.
	And the idea is to give your body a rest in that area so it can work on healing what other issues are happening.
	And that sometimes is apparently a very good way to alleviate various ailments.
	And this doctor, I haven't got his name handy, but he was known for this and it was very and he apparently had some had quite a number of of patients that agreed with him.
	Skipping now over, I mean, I know I'm kind of doing a big skip here back and forth, but I wanted to kind of get a lot in.
	As you said, I was kind of going through the table of contents.
	Michael, I've killed the break at the bottom of the hour, so you can continue, and I'm anticipating bringing you back Monday to handle questions we may have with the callers in case we do not have sufficient time today.
	Well, we can stop and go to callers if you'd like.
	No, no, no, no, no.
	I'm quite the opposite.
	I think your exposition Is excellent.
	So I want you to continue.
	Just continue and worry not about the time.
	Okay.
	The Apollo missions.
	I don't have a chapter on this and I think it's fairly safe to say that these Apollo missions were faked from A to Z. NASA itself is pretty much a fake agency in the first place and of course again There's nobody above NASA to refute anything they say.
	They make billions of dollars a year, right, from our taxes, technically, you know, money is handed to them, and they produce all kinds of stuff and they make all kinds of bold claims.
	But you can't, you can't refute them at all.
	And if you dare to do that, once again, you are labeled anti-science, a science denier, a nut job, or an idiot, right?
	Because NASA has the ability, because of all the money and all the power that goes along with that, to basically say anything they like and do anything they like, and you better well damn well believe them or else.
	And of course, if you're in the scientific community, and you dare to go against them, there goes your job, right?
	You cannot be Negative to the big 600-pound gorilla in the room, if you want to continue in that profession.
	So a lot of these people just kind of go along, or assuming they even have any doubts, right?
	Because a lot of them don't.
	A lot of them just assume NASA is 100%, right?
	Like everything else.
	Oh, these people are experts.
	They know more than I do.
	They've studied this forever.
	And of course, you know, what am I to say?
	How do I compete with that?
	Here's an example, right?
	This is one of the famous pictures of the NASA moon landings back in 69.
	I'm not sure exactly which mission this was, but I do know it was one of their pictures.
	And you look at the astronaut who is lit from behind by the sun, which is basically, you can see from his helmet, the sun has to be above and behind his head.
	Well, in a picture like this, if you have any knowledge of photography, you would realize that the astronaut should therefore be in silhouette, because his shadow is on the ground in front of him.
	Well, he's not in silhouette.
	So what light source additional to the sun is aimed at him to bring him out of the shadow and make him visible as a white, you know, you know, a brightly lit
	And of course, it doesn't make sense because if you have just one light source and it's the sun, which is the most powerful light source there is, okay, there's nothing that's going to be able to compete with that.
	On any kind of picture we take in nature, you can't compete against the sun.
	But of course, the difference on Earth is that we have dissipation of light with the atmosphere.
	But on the moon, without an atmosphere, there shouldn't be any dissipation of light.
	So the lights not going to be bouncing around or anything.
	I mean it might bounce off a few rocks but again you're not dealing with that you're dealing with this guy being lit from top head to toe, which doesn't make any sense, you know, and there's pictures like there's many pictures like this this is one of.
	Dozens of pictures that don't, that don't make sense and you have shadows in different directions, which of course imply multiple light sources.
	And I think it's fairly clear from what I've seen and what I've investigated here that this was a set.
	And it was simply, you know, lit, and of course you don't see any stars and you never see any stars, but not only you never see any stars right in any of these pictures.
	But there was a wonderful interview, which I reference in the book, where Michael Collins, who was the guy who stayed on the capsule during the mission of Apollo 11.
	He never saw any stars either.
	But get this, he was on the capsule that circled the back side of the moon where there would have been no sunlight and he would have been able to see nothing except stars.
	So how is it possible that he saw no stars?
	And yet he states this in an interview directly after the moon landings.
	And I think he got a dirty look from Neil Armstrong as a result of that statement.
	Okay, so moving on, I don't want to belabor it because I think it's hysterical, but at the same time- No, I think all the points you're making, Michael, are simply excellent.
	I have- Okay, thanks.
	Done quite a lot about the moon landing and all that, and everything you're saying is spot on.
	And yes, it was a colossal blunder to suggest that the sky, which ought to have been ablaze with pinpoints of billions of stars, was black.
	Because the moon has no atmosphere, and therefore there's no refraction of the light, which causes them to twinkle in Earth's atmosphere.
	But as Uri Gagarin, a cosmonaut, Soviet cosmonaut, said from his, and this was still in low Earth orbit, that the sky was just ablaze with stars.
	And so this was a blunder that refutes the entire charade.
	It demonstrates it was a hoax, and that the government As James Files explained to me, where Files appears to have been the designated second gunman on the grassy knoll, once a government stakes out a position, it's stuck with it, it's locked in, and it will never change.
	It's just as we know, half a dozen or more of the alleged 19 Islamic hijackers turned up alive and well the following day.
	But the FBI has never revised its list.
	So once they stake out a position, this is proof positive that the government in relation to fact-finding is neither rational nor scientific because it is close-minded.
	Once it reaches a conclusion, it will never change regardless of the evidence.
	Very pious government.
	Yeah, no, it's funny because I agree with you 100%.
	I just think it's hysterical that they don't ever change their position.
	But they do occasionally come up with new people that will usually give you more emotional arguments, right?
	Because they love to throw the emotions into it, you know?
	The more emotions you can put into something, the more people will tend to go along with it.
	And I say that in a general sense, of course.
	The people that don't get suckered into that will will try to think past it of course but but that that's that's really the key to success for these people they make it into an emotional thing, you know, so that you feel the need to agree with NASA, and I think there are people like I said my relative earlier, who, who want NASA to be right.
	And they don't want me to tell them that it's that it's a fake or that it's lying or anything.
	And they defend it like tooth and nail.
	And I always find that hysterical because it's like, well, why do you care?
	Why do you care what NASA says?
	And why do you care?
	I mean, if they're wrong, they're wrong.
	What does it matter to you?
	What, you know, which way it is as long wouldn't you rather know the truth wouldn't you rather understand what is true rather than simply trying to be right about this.
	It doesn't make any sense yet again, it's because people have had this indoctrination for so many years their whole lives, but it's so difficult to see past it.
	Now, I wanted to touch on the nuke thing.
	I know you're not a big fan of this, and I won't go too deep on this because I didn't want to make a big deal.
	But basically, pictures like this, to me, because I've done a lot of research in this area as well, look completely fake.
	And the reason they look fake is because they're too perfect.
	Right.
	And of course, if you look at various pictures from various nuclear blowups over the course of the last, you know, 70 years or so, you'll notice that they all look a little different from one another.
	And so I put that in the book to show the difference.
	Michael, bear in mind, while I believe nuclear weapons are real, I wish they were not.
	Nuclear energy is real.
	No, no, listen to me.
	I can't tell you about nuclear energy.
	I'm a free speech guy.
	I believe all sides need to be presented.
	I believe you have arguments that you are entitled to present.
	I'm giving you a forum to present that, just as you also have views about the shape of Earth, with which I disagree.
	That does not mean you are not entitled and I'm not going to welcome your opportunity to present.
	I think the dogs are actually... That's okay, right?
	I'm not sure if they're in agreement or not, but they're...
	You're welcome to make your arguments here.
	Whether I might personally agree or disagree is incidentally not relevant.
	I want you to present your book in the way you want it to be understood.
	Okay, well, I don't want to go crazy with this, because I didn't want to make it into a kind of a sparring or anything.
	It's not my thing.
	But my point here is that I think when you look at the evidence, like anything else, right, you look at the evidence, you don't just simply look at what you've been told to think, right?
	If you look at the evidence, and you really dig a little bit into it, you can see the rationale behind why they would have faked something like this.
	And as an example, let me go to the next slide.
	This is actually a wonderful book.
	If you're interested in this topic, I recommend this book highly.
	And it's also, I reference it in my book as well.
	Akio Nakatani, he spells this out in no uncertain terms.
	I love this book.
	And it really does show you the detail of how and why They wanted to fake the nuclear weapons, because if you think about it, if you have a weapon, if you're a country, and you've invented some diabolical new weapon, The best tactical advantage you can have with that new weapon is to keep it a secret.
	Because if you keep it a secret, right, and some other foreign power tries to attack you, you can whip this secret weapon out and go, ah!
	And they will be stunned, and you will win, and there'll be no question, right?
	That's the end of the argument, or the end of the war, right?
	By keeping it a secret, you have a tactical advantage that they don't even know exists.
	Right?
	But they didn't do that.
	They announced to the entire world, oh, we've got this crazy new weapon that can kill everybody twice or 100 times over or whatever.
	And what does that do?
	That creates fear.
	That creates fear and terror in the population.
	Again, these are emotional rhetoric so that everybody is afraid.
	But not only are they afraid of these things, They have to put this now trust into the government to protect them from other mad people around the world that also have them.
	And of course, over the last 70 plus years, we've had other countries get them and we've had all this detente and we had all these talks and the peace talks and this and the other and the treaties and everything.
	Again, big fanfare directed at this at this colossal Well, I would call it a colossal lie, but ultimately it isn't something that ever has happened.
	We've never seen, this is my list of why I think we're dealing with a hoax.
	We've never witnessed a nuke, obviously, in any kind of first-hand way.
	In other words, there's nothing to show us except what we've seen on television or in movies.
	And of course, the movies love to show these things.
	A crazy dictator has never used one in 70 years.
	Isn't that strike you as a little bit odd?
	With all the warhead, thousands of warheads supposedly in existence.
	Only in movies do terrorists ever use nukes, right?
	Terrorists are supposed to be all over the place and yet they never think to use a nuke.
	I mean, is that, is that make any sense?
	Keeping them secret, as I said, would have been better.
	Of course, they didn't do that.
	Creates terror, as I said.
	Testing is also underground, so there's no witnesses to the testing, right?
	Because they're underground, so you can't tell, you can't go and watch one, you know, and say, oh, there is a, like, you could watch a rocket launch, but you can't go watch a nuclear test from any distance away.
	Chain reactions also are questionable, and this is something that Nakatani goes into in his book.
	He says that, you know, Chain reactions are like a brick of firecrackers, okay?
	It's one after the other.
	And if you remember as a kid, you lit a brick of firecrackers, it would go bop bop bop bop, you know, and that's a chain reaction.
	So how does a chain reaction equate to a massive explosion?
	It doesn't actually connect in any real way, but we're supposed to believe it does, you see.
	Michael, I think I will just add a couple of comments on the arguments you're making.
	After all, I spent 35 years offering courses in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning.
	Big Man and Little Boy were used on Japan ostensibly to bring about the surrender.
	We know technically it wasn't necessary.
	The Japanese had already been defeated.
	But Truman wanted to send a message to Russia that we had this weapon.
	And not to mess with the United States.
	Now, I think the argument of keeping it secret is fatally flawed.
	I mean, if you have a weapon like that, then the best thing to do would be to use it in a demonstration case as was done with Japan.
	Not only that, but When you have a nuclear explosion underground, there are all kinds of ramifications.
	Not all the explosions have been underground.
	Now, I'm, of course, considerably older than you, but I grew up watching massive explosions of nukes, tests of nukes.
	I mean, I've probably seen a thousand nuclear explosions presented, and they're not fabricated or fake.
	I guarantee you 100%.
	So you said you were there live to see?
	There were all kinds of witnesses there.
	I mean, you know, you have all the government footage of all these tests at the ground zero, blah, blah, blah.
	I can't begin to tell you how many of these that I have seen growing up, and they were not... No, I understand.
	Michael, Michael, I'm going to be brief because I want to give you the opportunity to continue, but I just can't let this pass by without saying that I think your arguments here are seriously flawed now.
	I know you believe it, and I respect that.
	What I think we might do is on Monday, I want to bring you back, and Joe Olson and I have done work about the use of nukes on 9-11 to destroy the Twin Towers.
	Very sophisticated arrangement.
	There are five, six different generations of nukes.
	They come big, small.
	Some are as small as a baseball or a softball or a grapefruit.
	I mean, I'll bring in Joe, and let's talk about this, and perhaps another of your issues on Monday, and we'll take callers, and there'll be those who are going to agree with you, Michael, I have no doubt.
	I just have to say, while I've agreed with every other issue you've been raising here, and I think you've done it very elegantly, you've made your points, I think in this case, You're seriously mistaken, but I don't want to interfere with your exposition now.
	I just want to interject those tab gaps.
	Go ahead.
	Okay.
	Well, this isn't the full argument.
	I want to make that clear.
	This is just simply, this is the tip of the iceberg for me here.
	I'm just throwing out, you know, the initial sort of the first round, I guess, of my argument here.
	If you read the book and you read the chapter on it, you get the rest of it.
	I think the issue here is, I think it would be helpful if you did read that chapter before Monday, so we could have a kind of more of a even keel here, because, you know, I do go through a lot of different things, and it's not just, it's not just this, what I'm saying.
	I want to touch, I want to touch, this has ramifications for nuclear energy, for the, well, that's a different, that's a different thing, that's a different thing, so I, I separate the two.
	This is part of every elementary physics course taught in the United States for 50 years or longer, Michael.
	I think it's great you're challenging what you regard as an ideology rather than science.
	I simply adopt the opposite view.
	Now go ahead.
	Well, I want to make the point that I see education, and I also have this in the book, as indoctrination mostly, because you're dealing with something where you're told, again, what to think, what to believe, and you don't get a hell of a lot of real evidence.
	As an example, as an example, you, you, I'm sorry, I lost my train of thought there.
	Somebody just came in.
	Indoctrination of the education system.
	Because basically, as I mentioned earlier about medicine, doctors are basically indoctrinated with the idea that they have to create, they have to You know, prescribe these, these drug cocktails from Big Pharma, as, as they're, as they look in a book to see, well, this symptom matches up with this drug, or this symptom matches up with this group of drugs, or whatever it is.
	And it may be, there may be some, some choices in there, which is why they make, they say they make mistakes in the first time, and they have to go back and give you a different drug cocktail the next time.
	But ultimately, it's designed to keep money going into the coffers of big pharma.
	Ultimately, that's the goal, to make a lot of money like any industry, right?
	Well, I mean, if you look at it from the perspective of making money, right, the nuclear arms industry is a fantastically profitable arena, right?
	I mean, to say that you could do this and I mean, to say that you can create these weapons and, and, and I'll be at, you know, level a city or something.
	I mean, aside from all the fear and anxiety that creates, you're also dealing with massive amounts of billions and billions of dollars.
	Now I do go, just a last point I want to make on this particular topic, I do go into the Hiroshima bombing, and of course the big boy versus the Nagasaki bomb, which was plutonium.
	And I go into that in some detail, so I want to make that clear.
	And I think that will sort of answer your questions regarding that aspect of this.
	But in terms of the educational aspect, I don't think we can really, you know, really say that education is something that is a hundred percent, you know, real when we're being indoctrinated in so many different ways in school.
	So anyway, let me move on because I don't want to, as you said, we can talk about this again on Monday.
	Yeah, we will for sure.
	I'll invite Joe Olson to join us.
	That's fine.
	Great.
	Okay, so another area that you are in disagreement with, I think this is probably fair to say, you're probably more in disagreement with this one than the Nuke one, is the Flat Earth, right?
	And I just call it FE for short, because it's easier to say that and not laugh, right?
	So, I took this picture, it's a picture from Manhattan, looking across the The Bay, I guess, whatever that is.
	It's the bottom of Manhattan.
	So it's, I guess, where the Hudson and the East River meet.
	But this is the Staten Island Ferry, and the Staten Island Ferry, you know, terminal is off to my right where I'm sitting.
	And of course, I have a long lens on my camera.
	I have a P1000 Nikon, which is a Has a 3000 millimeter zoom lens and I'm zoomed out, and the bottom of the picture is the water and you can see that you can see the shore line across five miles, which I get I measured the distance on on Google Earth.
	Or Google, I think it was Google Earth, yeah.
	And the point was that five miles on a ball earth of 25,000 miles in circumference should yield a 16 plus foot drop.
	In other words, I shouldn't be able to see that shore line directly.
	It should not be visible to me because of the distance.
	And I have a number of these pictures in the book.
	And there's other evidence as well.
	It's not just this.
	There's tons of stuff.
	The Effie chapter in my book is probably the longest chapter because there's so much stuff to convey.
	And it's really a difficult thing to get your head around, I think.
	And I certainly was no different.
	I didn't buy it at all for Several years when I first, you know, when I first heard about it, and then I started to get into it and I, and I, as I got into it, it just sort of, it was just incremental, you know, it took me sort of step by step and I realized, as I got further and further, I can tell you with some certainty.
	That the earth is definitely not a ball 25,000 miles in circumference.
	I can't tell you for sure what it is, but I can tell you with almost definite certainty and part of the reason is this is pictures like this.
	Okay, now this is a flat earth map from I think the early 19th century.
	It's actually a quite well-known map from that time period.
	But you can see that the way the actual Flat Earth works is not the way the Ball Earth or the NASA or wherever people who refute it, right, claim.
	Because what they claim, they put a picture up that shows the Flat Earth in orbit around the Sun with all the other planets as spheres, right?
	And they try to make you believe that that's what it's all about.
	But that's not at all what the actual Flat Earth Movement says.
	So they're misrepresenting the other side of the argument.
	And they do it because it's easier for them to do that than to actually try to explain what it is where, you know, people in this FD Movement are saying.
	You know, what we're basically saying here is the center point is the North Pole.
	Okay, the outer perimeter, which is the South Pole, which is the southern, or what we call the Arctic Circle, literally is a circle of ice.
	It's a huge ice wall, hundreds of feet high, that keeps all the oceans inside.
	And we have a firmament or some sort of a cover or dome Above us, and it's very much like we get in pictures from antiquity and religious documents that show the earth as literally a flat, you know, motionless plane with a firmament or dome above us, which contains all the stars, which are basically just, you know, no one really knows what they are.
	They're just little Lights up in the sky.
	So that's the basic premise, okay?
	You're presenting this as flat Earth to me as a bit of a stretch.
	I mean, it's hard to get a two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional object, but it's clear to me that's what this is intended to be.
	There is no celestial object that is flat.
	It's not even physically possible to be a flat Earth.
	Earth is an oblate spheroid.
	It rotates at about 1,000 miles an hour, 24,000 miles in circumference.
	This defines the difference between day and night, just as Moon rotating around the Earth about a month, and Earth rotating around the Sun a year.
	These are all well-known physical processes studied by astronomers and physicists for thousands of years.
	That's not true.
	Look, this is a reversion to a very primitive view.
	It's not even clear how much primitive man thought Earth was flat, but it's well known that on a large spherical object, relatively small local regions display properties that are virtually indistinguishable from those of a flat surface.
	I mean, the proofs of the Earth's circumference and so forth are ancient.
	Now, what I propose to do therefore, because I have found a wonderful surveyor, a guy excellent, we've done debates about flat Earth before, I will see if I can enlist him to join us again on Monday along with Joe.
	Well, Michael, Michael, giving you the opportunity doesn't mean I'm not going to offer rebuttals to cases where I think you're wrong.
	No, I'm totally okay.
	You are so right on so much, but I mean, he's explained those surveying issues, the fallacy involved there, so I'll see if I can recruit him.
	Okay.
	I mean, again, I reiterate, I'm pleased for you to have this opportunity, and we'll discuss, you know, Well, I'll bring in Joe and Jesse to discuss these specifically controversial issues, because on everything else you address, I think you've got it spot on.
	Go ahead.
	Okay.
	Again, I think the thing here you have to bear in mind is And I was the same way, a hundred percent.
	I understand where you're coming from because I was in the same boat.
	You know, it's difficult to get your head around something like this because you can't believe, because it literally requires us to have been fooled for some 500 plus years.
	I mean, it literally requires that.
	And that's a hell of a stretch, right?
	Because you can't imagine somebody could do that or pull that off yet.
	When you look again, when you look at the evidence, you look specifically at the evidence and you don't let yourself be led along by your emotions and by your assumptions based on what you taught as a child.
	You were taught as a child of five years old or less, you're taught the first thing you're taught before the alphabet is that we live on this ball.
	And it doesn't make any sense that you're taught that so young when you have no way to refute it at that age.
	And yet that's when they teach you this.
	So anyway, let's back off on the details of this, because we can do the more detailed approach on Monday.
	But I wanted to just point this out, and we're going to stop on this, I think.
	The UN logo is actually a Flat Earth map.
	And you can see this.
	So, you know, it is a very curious, it's not a proof, of course, but it's a very curious thing as to why the UN would use a Flat Earth map on their logo.
	It isn't a Flat Earth map, Michael.
	It's a two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional object.
	It's not suggesting that Earth is flat.
	This is a way of representing something that is very difficult to represent spherically.
	I would have to do this.
	They didn't have to do this.
	What you have to understand, though, Jim, is that the distances in the Southern Hemisphere on this Flat Earth model are going to be much greater than the distances on the Ball Earth model.
	OK, and that's what that look.
	That's how that's the big difference between my God.
	Because of the laws of gravitation with everything with mass attracting every other thing with mass in accordance with the inverse square law.
	It's not even physically possible Earth could be flat.
	In order to believe in a flat Earth, you have to reject the history of science, of physics and astronomy.
	You have to reject contemporary science and physics.
	It's frankly, it's absurd, but I have friends I admire and respect who believe as much as you believe Earth is flat, and it appalls me and distresses me.
	I mean, for God's sake, I earned my PhD in the history and the philosophy of science.
	The history of science is dominated by the history of astronomy and physics.
	I believe the CIA actually launched this whole flat Earth thing to create, you know, another, if you talk about divide and conquer, there's a nice example.
	I agree with that.
	I do think that they launched it for that purpose.
	Let us simply come back to it on Monday, and I'll see if I can't recruit Jesse to talk about it.
	Go ahead.
	Go for it.
	Okay.
	I didn't have any more on that on purpose.
	I didn't want to go, again, too deep on this.
	And I agree with you.
	It's difficult to get your head around it.
	But I do actually go into what you just said.
	I go into exactly what you said.
	I go into the whole The whole theory of gravity.
	I present that as well.
	I show you why it's flawed.
	I show you all of it.
	It is not an easy thing to wrap your head around because, of course, the first thing everybody thinks when you say, you know, flat Earth is just laughter.
	It's the first thing that comes out of your mouth.
	You can't help it.
	And I was there, too.
	I understand that.
	And it's not easy.
	But it's one of the adages that I think is kind of funny or, you know, I'm using with regard to the sort of Flat Earth Movement is that they say, once you go flat, you don't go back.
	And I kind of agree with that, because once you get past your head being, you know, around the ball, you suddenly realize, you know, because a lot of the arguments that are presented on the side of, let me give you an example.
	I was sent a video by somebody I think you know who he is.
	I won't name him out, just not to make a big deal out of it.
	But he sent me a cartoon video, right, that shows why the earth is a ball.
	Well, I mean, that's the level of juvenility.
	I mean, you're going to argue a case, your case, by showing a cartoon to somebody?
	And that's the ultimate insult, right?
	You're saying, I think you're so stupid, I'm going to show a cartoon that proves that I'm right.
	You know, an argument shouldn't need such simplistic arguments to counter that.
	Michael, he would make the same response to your offering a two-dimensional map as though it's supposed to indicate Earth is flat when it's a two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional... I don't know what you mean.
	I don't know what you mean by that.
	Maps are always two-dimensional.
	How is that different?
	Yeah, we have globes.
	We have globes.
	But nobody uses a globe for... But nobody uses a globe to measure anything.
	They use maps.
	If you go on any ship, they have flat maps to show you where you're going, to do navigation.
	They navigate based upon the stars, and it presumes that Earth is a spherical object, and that you can guide yourself based upon the stars.
	There are some classic books we can find, you know, that deal with this, about the Copernican Revolution.
	You would take us back, you'd reject, like, a fourth how-many-thousand-years of science.
	I mean, Aristarchus of Samoas was one of the first to have a scientific proof of the sphericity of the Earth around 4 B.C.
	Well, that's what they say.
	Are you done with your slides?
	That's all my slides.
	I have other things to say if you want to hear more.
	I just think it's hysterical.
	I don't mean particularly about Flat Earth.
	I think I'm okay with that now.
	You've not even mentioned the title yet or where people could get it.
	I would like you to go through the table of contents so people could see.
	That's something I find very appealing about your book.
	Go ahead.
	I guess I could just go through and tell you the the different parts of the book.
	The first part, part one, is basically talking about, you know, the cognitive dissonance, as I mentioned earlier.
	You don't have a slide with a table of contents?
	I don't have one handy.
	No, I didn't think to do that.
	I just, I think that's kind of boring for me.
	I mean, to go through a book with that level of intricacy, it seems a bit dull.
	It's not boring for somebody who wants to know what's in your book.
	I mean, you know.
	Well, I'm telling, I'm telling people what's in the book.
	I'm just not, I'm not going to, I don't want to bore them with pictures of the actual table of contents.
	That seems ugly mundane.
	For God's sake, Michael, I published 40 books.
	What people would like to see is a table of contents.
	And they, well, what the hell is in the book?
	People who buy books are not reviewing the table of contents.
	I just suggest you create a slide of the table of contents and show it.
	You got the book right there, right?
	Hold it up.
	I don't actually have it here.
	I didn't bring it up with me.
	Sorry, I didn't know you wanted the book so badly.
	You have a copy.
	I sent you one, so why don't you hold it up if you have it?
	Oh, maybe I do.
	Let me see.
	Well, you did.
	I know you did because you held it up to me once before.
	Yeah, let me see where I have it here.
	Very good.
	Very good.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Sell the book, right?
	A World of Lies, Collusion, and Conspiracy, and How Does He Pass It?
	A World of Lies, Collusion, and Conspiracy, How Does He Pass It?
	Well, you can get the inside look on Amazon, so you can read the first, you know, pages of the book.
	And here is the table of contents.
	I'll just zip through it.
	I'll just zip through it.
	Part 1.
	Chapter 1.
	Perspective.
	2.
	Truth and Lies.
	3.
	The Federal Reserve Act.
	People are going to like that.
	4.
	History.
	Part 2.
	Chapter 5.
	9.
	11.
	Attack.
	6.
	Sandy Hook.
	7.
	Population Figures.
	8.
	Apollo Moon Landings.
	9.
	Nuclear Weapons.
	10.
	The Holocaust.
	11.
	Medical Monopoly.
	12.
	Science.
	13.
	Evolution.
	14.
	Platter.
	Do you also dispute evolution?
	That's Oh yeah.
	I have a whole book on evolution, you know, the evolution of intelligence, so we're going to have fun with that.
	By the way, there's a book by another author, a doctor, who I reference in my book on that chapter, Who is brilliant.
	It's a book that refutes Darwin directly.
	It's not Darwin.
	Darwin is simplistic.
	Darwin talked about random mutations and natural selection.
	There are eight different causal mechanisms of evolution, and depending upon the complexity of the phenomena, you have to appeal to all eight of them.
	There are four that generate diversity and four that select and determine which genes are perpetuated in future gene pools, which is the determining aspect of evolution.
	I think you have to read my chapter before we go any further.
	We have the last part three, chapter 15, New World Ordered, 16, Reality versus SIEP, 17, the future, 18, Conclusion.
	So here, again, I'm just going to put it up, the table of contents.
	Can you read it yourself?
	I can't read it at all, so I don't know.
	OK.
	That's another reason I probably didn't put it up, because I thought it was hard to read.
	A World of Lies, Collusion, and Conspiracy.
	And how does he pass it?
	Michael Ogden.
	And Michael, is it on Amazon.com now?
	Yes.
	And you can, as I said before, you can read, you can read the first, you can read, I think, all of the introduction and part of chapter one, if you do the look inside.
	Oh, my mic.
	Oh, yeah.
	Okay.
	Go to Amazon.
	Mike Logdon.
	Do we have any more time?
	Are we out of time or do we have a little more?
	Okay, I wanted to say that in terms of like-minded people, one of the things that helps, I think, is if you find people that are also awake, you can actually discuss these things and it helps, I think, overall to discuss if you already see and understand some of this stuff.
	It helps to discuss it with other people to get a better idea as to what is and is not true.
	And also, you know, it's nice to get other people that are on the same page or the same team as you, which is also quite rare in this day and age.
	And the other thing about this is if you want to do something about it, and I think this is something that we all, if we're awake, we want to be able to do something to You know, try to make a difference right in the world around us.
	So one of the things and again, this is all just suggestion on my part.
	I don't I don't contend to say what you should do.
	I don't make out that there's only one solution to anything of this magnitude.
	There's obviously many possibilities and certainly everybody should participate and do what they think will help, but ultimately refusing to go along with mandates, refusing to go along with various edicts that are imposed on us by authority figures in health or in government or wherever, is certainly a good place to start.
	If you refuse to go along, and I've noticed this myself as I do refuse to go along with these things, other people will go along and refuse with you.
	It'll embolden them to do the same thing.
	So it's sort of like if you go into a room, and I did this a while back, where everybody was wearing a mask.
	And I decided I wasn't going to wear one because I never try to wear a mask.
	I don't want to restrict my breathing for any reason.
	And after, I guess, probably an hour or so, half the people had removed their masks.
	Now, whether that was because of me or not, I don't know.
	But I think the idea is certainly that you want to try to present A certain amount of, you know, what's the word?
	Civil disobedience is the word I'm looking for.
	Yes, yes, yes.
	The idea is to continue to try to stand up against this nonsense and to be able to say... Michael, you're doing a wonderful job of an intellectual variation on civil disobedience.
	I'm delighted to have you back on Monday.
	Thank you for a wonderful job.
	Oh, we're done?
	Okay, I didn't realize.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Everyone, spend as much time as you can with your friends and loved ones because we do not know how much time we have left.
	Back with Michael Ogden on Monday.
	See you then.

▲