Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 2, 2022 - Jim Fetzer

01:51:17

The Raw Deal (1 August 2022) with Michael Ogden and Joe Olson

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Jim Petzer on The Raw Deal.
	We're off to a rocky start.
	I'm not quite sure how all this is going to play out, but we'll see if it'll work.
	Mitchell just brought me in.
	We are live, so I'm pleased to say I have two guests with me today.
	I promised to bring back Michael Ogden to talk about, you know, his book and especially three Or two controversial issues.
	We're going to talk about nukes and his denial of the existence of nukes.
	And also, I was going to bring in Jessica Kowalski to talk about Flat Earth.
	Jesse has declined the honor, but he sent me a lot of links.
	He has found it futile to debate these issues because the Flat Earthers are unrelenting.
	And I must say, from a logical point of view, It's permissible, it's perfectly logically possible to stake out a position, have one belief, and then if you're willing to alter all of your other beliefs, to maintain that belief regardless of the evidence.
	Now, I believe that's Jesse's conclusion, and I've got to admit, from a logical point of view of logic, that actually is the case.
	Of course, everyone knows here that with my background in the history of the philosophy of science, I'm not a proponent of a flat earth.
	I believe it would revert over 2000 years of the history of science, especially physics and astronomy.
	But in the interest of freedom of speech, I'm glad to entertain a wide variety of points of view.
	And since Michael Ogden has a book that includes chapters about Flat Earth, we're going to address that.
	And in lieu of talking about Well, I mean, we're not going to debate Flatter, but we are going to take up his issue and denial of nukes where I have Joel Olson here.
	Joel's a simply sensational guy with a background across virtually every field of engineering.
	He has published extensively, including about the use of nuclear devices on 9-11, which is well known is my position as well.
	And the third most controversial aspect of Michael's book is on evolution.
	Well, since I published on evolution myself, I'll pick up the cudgels in that regard.
	Before we begin our discussion, however, I want to recognize a guy who made a big difference in my life and that of many Americans, namely Bill Russell, who transformed pro basketball, who has died at the age of 88 now.
	I have a personal pantheon of all-time greatest Americans, and four of those greatest Americans are Jack Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy, Muhammad Ali, and Bill Russell.
	I've always admired Bill Russell.
	And here I want to share a few thoughts.
	These are actually from the recovery to the New York Times, which in this case I think Doing a responsible job, though I am sorry to say that our nation's newspaper of record has turned into a trash dump for the most part on any controversial political issue, including, for example, COVID pandemic or the theft of the 2020 election or January 6th.
	The New York Times is complete rubbish.
	It's not fit to line your trash can.
	And it's remarkable to me we should have reached that point because in My lifetime, I have friends who lived or died by the New York Times.
	I mean, it was the first thing they wanted to do in the morning.
	They believed every word.
	They read it page by page, every single article.
	And I'm telling you, it used to be a formidable newspaper.
	It once deserved the accolade, the honor of being our nation's newspaper record.
	Today, That's a travesty.
	Today, it's a pack of lies, a living play upon the dead.
	Today, the New York Times has just become a propaganda rag, and I find it repulsive that this should have happened.
	But bear in mind, it's not only the New York Times, but the mainstream media that has betrayed its great legacy of the past, even though it may have been Will Rogers who observed that, you know,
	It's better to hold no belief at all than to believe that which is false, and others who have observed, it may have been Mark Twain, that if all you know is what you read in the newspapers and you have no idea what's actually going on are words to that effect, which I'm sorry to say I'm subscribed today.
	And as you all know, I have a collage of 100 executives from CNN, every one of whom is a dual U.S.-Israeli citizen.
	I have a collage of 100 executives from NBC, every one of whom is a dual U.S.-Israeli citizen.
	I have another collage.
	From the New York Times, every one of whom is a dual U.S.-Israeli citizen, the Associated Press and Reuters, our two principal sources of news, are both owned by the Rothschild.
	So don't let yourself be deceived and think that Americans actually have any idea what's going on in the world.
	In this case, with regard to Bill Russell, however, let me share what is written here.
	They got a photograph with Red Auerbach in December of 1964 after scoring his 10,000th career point in a game at Boston Gardens.
	In a 1980 poll of basketball writers, he was voted the greatest player in NBA history, with which I agree.
	This article by Richard Goldstein continues as follows.
	Even before the opening tip-off at Boston Celtics game, Bill Russell evoked domination.
	Other players ran on to the court for their introduction, but he walked on slightly stooped.
	I'd look at everybody disdainfully like a sleepy dragon who can't be bothered to scare off another would-be hero, he recalled.
	I wanted my look to say, hey, the King's here tonight.
	Russell's awesome rebounding triggered a Celtic pass break that overwhelmed the rest of the NBA.
	His quickness and his uncanny ability to block shots transformed the center position, once a spot for slow and hulking types, and changed the face of pro basketball.
	Russell, who propelled the Celtics to 11 NBA championships, the final two when he became the first blackhead coach in a major American sports league, died on Sunday.
	He was 88.
	His death was announced by his family who did not say where he died, nor did they mention the cause of death.
	When Russell was elected to the Basketball Hall of Fame in 1975, Red Auerbach, who orchestrated his arrival as a Celtic and coached him on nine championship teams, called him, quote, the single most devastating force in the history of the game.
	He was not alone in that view.
	In a 1980 poll of basketball writers, long before Michael Jordan and LeBron James entered the scene, Russell was voted nothing less than the greatest player in NBA history.
	Former Senator Bill Bradley, for whom I have certain affection, He was an undergraduate at Princeton.
	When I was a senior, he was a freshman or a sophomore.
	We used to walk past him and remark to ourselves, there goes a future president of the United States, who faced Russell with the Knicks in the 1960s, viewed him as the smartest player ever to play the game and the epitome of a team leader.
	At his core, Russell knew that he was different from other players, that he was an innovator, and that his very identity depended on dominating the game, Radley wrote in reviewing Russell's remembrances of Auerbach in Red and Me.
	My coach, my lifelong friend, 2009 for the New York Times.
	In the decades that followed Russell's retirement in 1969, when flashy moves delighted fans and team play was often an afterthought.
	His stature was burnished even more, remembered for his ability to enhance the talents of his teammates even as he dominated the action, and to do it without bravado.
	He disdained dunking or gesturing to celebrate his feats.
	In those later years, his signature goatee now turned white.
	Russell reappeared on the court at swing time, presenting the most valuable player of the NBA championship with a trophy named for him in 2009.
	Now, Russell transformed basketball, but he was also a great, humane human being.
	The Wisconsin State Journal had a good report about Russell, too, and I want to add a few words from the Ips report, which is different.
	Greatest champion in all of team sports.
	Boston.
	Bill Russell, the NBA great who anchored a Boston Celtic dynasty that won 11 championships in 13 years, the last to be the first black head coach of any major U.S.
	sport, and marched for civil rights with Martin Luther King Jr., died Sunday.
	He was 88.
	His family posted the news on social media saying Russell died with his wife Janine by his side.
	The statement did not give the cause of death.
	But Russell was not well enough to present the NBA Finals MVP trophy in June due to a long illness.
	Bill's wife, Janine, and his many friends and family, thank you for keeping Bill in your prayers.
	Perhaps you'll relive one or two of the golden moments he gave us in Recall's Trademark Lab as he delighted in explaining the real story behind all those moments unfolded, the family statement said.
	Yeah, we hope each of us can find a new way to act or speak up with Bill's accomplishing, accomplishing, dignified and always constructive commitment to principle.
	That would be one last and lasting win for our beloved number six.
	NBA commissioner Adam Silver said in a statement, Russell was the greatest champion in all of team sports.
	But he was really a great human being.
	I admired him beyond words, just as I do Muhammad Ali, just as I do JFK, just as I do RFK.
	So I wanted to share those thoughts.
	When I was growing up, some of the greatest basketball games in all of basketball history were played between the Celtics and the Knicks, including at Madison Square Garden.
	And every sports fan in the world would be absolutely Fixated on how they would play out for Bill Russell was without any question, the leader of the team, but also I think in many ways, he set an example for all of sports throughout America.
	And if you appreciate the role that sports have played in our history, he set an exemplary standard for every single American black, white, Turk, purple.
	I don't care who you were.
	Bill Russell made a difference, and if you did not live in his age, you missed a spectacular life that was well lived.
	So I wanted to add those observations about Bill Russell today.
	I do have my two guests here, Joel Olson and Michael Ogden, and I want to begin addressing this issue of nukes, where Michael argues against their reality, and Joe, of course, is gonna argue the opposite by offering Michael an opportunity to sketch his argument for the benefit of our audience.
	Remember, Michael, the vast majority of the audience will now have had the opportunity to read your book, A World of Lies, Collusion and Conspiracy.
	So I want you to lay out what you have here in terms of your key arguments, and then we'll turn it to Joe, and we'll have a bit of a back and forth discussion before we To other aspects of your book now, because we began late, we're going to have you're going to have about 10 minutes for an opening statement.
	And then after the break, we'll bring in Joe for a rebuttal.
	Go ahead, Michael.
	The floor is yours.
	OK, great.
	Thanks, Jim.
	OK, first of all, I wanted to say that the elite literally put an enormous amount of disinformation out into the mainstream media.
	They also put this information out into the alt media as well.
	Because they play both sides to a large extent, and they have unlimited financial resources.
	So I think that's something I also clearly defined in my book in an earlier chapter.
	So I want to make the point also ahead of time that the book is laid out in a kind of linear progression so that you get the beginning of the book where you tell we talk about or I talk about, you know, who is behind this, why they do this, what the benefits are, and of course, really, You know, the idea that they have this massive amount of of resources available to them, and they've had it for hundreds of years.
	So it's not a new thing.
	It's not like I've had arguments with people before where they start saying, well, oh, it's something that just happened recently.
	No, no, no.
	This has been going on all your life.
	You have been immersed in this bullshit like a crude oil for your entire life.
	You have Almost no information provided to you that is not managed behind the scenes by these people, because all the major outlets, especially the mainstream media, are owned by about six corporations.
	Okay, so the amount of disinformation, I think, is in the order of a hundred to one against the truth.
	So finding the truth is rather akin to an eel in a haystack, let's say.
	And I have a great analogy I also use in the book about Plato's cave.
	Plato's cave analogy, if you're not familiar with it, is that people inside a cave watching the shadows on the wall mistake these shadows, akin to the watching the mainstream media, for reality.
	Someone who goes out of the cave, discovers how the shadows are being made and who is making them, tries to return and inform his fellow people What is going on?
	And they will not listen to him.
	They completely ignore him and will, you know, ridicule him for anything he says.
	It's almost impossible to convince people against what they have believed to be truth all their lives.
	Now, lastly, I want to say that I use three things I mentioned in the introduction of the book.
	I use seductive reasoning, Occam's razor, and subtle intuition to determine It's difficult for me to actually speak this because a lot of what I have in the book is visual.
	I have a lot of pictures to show you, you know, my argument and to make the argument.
	So beyond that, in terms of the chapter specifically on nukes, it's difficult for me to actually speak this because a lot of what I have in the book is visual.
	I have a lot of pictures to show you, you know, my argument and to make the argument.
	One of the biggest arguments I can sort of say, at least easily, is that over the last 70 plus years, plus years, we've had something like thousands of these nuclear warheads supposedly in existence all over the world in various countries that have nukes, right?
	And yet not one crazy dictator or crazy terrorist organization or anyone has ever managed to use one in reality.
	In other words, there's never been a city that's simply been nuked.
	As a result of that, and that's a statistical anomaly when you consider the fact that we have supposedly so many crazy people in the world and so many of these nukes.
	Plus you have the dissolution of the Soviet Union in that time frame, which would have, you think, would have actually created a black market for them.
	So, you know, this is something that I think is generally accepted because of movies that we get about people that go out and stop the nuke, you know, in its tracks in midtown Manhattan, right?
	Or something like that.
	And that's considered to be sort of the reality of it.
	Oh, well, they stopped it, so it's okay.
	That's why there aren't any crazy nukes out there, because they stopped them before they happened.
	Or it's all handled behind closed doors somewhere.
	So anyway, that's just one, again, one of a number of arguments that I do make in the book.
	But I'm curious to know what Joe thinks because, you know, one of the things that I've noticed about a lot of this stuff, not just nukes, is that a lot of things are emotional, emotionally charged rhetoric.
	And by that, I mean that a lot of these, and Sandy Hook is a great example of that.
	You're familiar with that, I know.
	People believe the emotions beyond any factual or hard evidence.
	The emotions are so much more powerful because people believe that they can't talk about something because of the families or because of some other reason that they're given in the media as to why they can't say it.
	Oh, you shouldn't say it.
	And of course you can't talk about it because if you say something and you're a conspiracy theorist, right?
	So this is the sort of thing they use against you.
	It's again, like I mentioned last time about calling someone, you know, something saying somebody has cooties in a playground, you know, you, You basically call them a denier, a hater, an anti-science or something, and that's the way to basically dismiss whatever they say.
	So I'll leave it there for now and see where Joe wants to take this.
	Michael, I'm going to interject and make some comments about your methodology and the argument you've made so far myself.
	And we'll be hitting the break, and then we'll bring in Joe.
	You said you rely upon deductive reasoning, Occam's Razor, and the third element was?
	Well, it's just subtle intuition, knowing that there's things that— Subtle intuition, all right.
	Again, you don't want to go too far with that.
	That can be something that you can—but you have to have a little bit of that to see past— Michael is a professional.
	Foster assigned to offer courses and logic critical thinking and scientific reason for 35 years your methodology is inherently inadequate deductive reasoning only makes explicit content of already presumed premises it cannot.
	Lead you to conclude any new knowledge, something you didn't already know or take for granted.
	Occam's razor is used when you have alternative theories to select or prefer the one that is more elegant, that appeals to fewer explanatory properties.
	The methodology you want to be using is known as abductive reasoning, where you consider the alternatives, lay out the available evidence, and then ascertain which of the alternatives, if it were true, such as that nukes are real or nukes are not, would confer the highest probability on the available evidence.
	And for you to make the sweeping observation that you can't see where nukes have been used, I would call your attention to two cases.
	The Bali bombing, without any doubt, when I read actually in the New York Times a description of what happened, it was obvious, obvious that a mini nuke had been used in the Bali bombing.
	In Iraq, Christopher Busby, whom I interviewed about the matter, who's an expert on cancer and radiation, went to Fallujah to study, expecting that the outbreak of genetic anomalies would be due to the use of depleted uranium.
	Instead, it was enriched uranium from a whole new class of tactical nuclear weapons the United States was deploying in Iraq.
	So I'm sorry to say, already off the bat, I find your position on this very inadequate and hopelessly defective, but I'm going to bring Joe in right after this break.
	We're right there.
	We're right there.
	Listen to Revolution Radio at freedomslips.com.
	We'll be right back after this message.
	We'll be right back.
	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-supporter radio station on the planet.
	Revolution.
	Rainbow, rainbow, 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 bullhordes 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.
	Oh, oh. oh.
	Join Revolution Radio every Wednesday, 8 p.m.
	Eastern.
	Eastern Time on Studio B for Momentary Zen with host Zen Garcia at FreedomStitch.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.
	Well, this is Jim Fetzer, your host, and I'm here with Michael Ogden, the author of A World of Lies, Collusion, and Conspiracy and How to See Past It, where no doubt the three most controversial chapters of his book, which I regard as very good overall, concern his which I regard as very good overall, concern his denial of the existence of nuclear weapons, his dispute of the theory of evolution, and his advocacy.
	Affirmation that Earth is flat.
	I disagree with Michael on all three, but I respect freedom of speech and I wanted him back so he could argue about it.
	I sought to bring in Jesse Kowalski, who's very, very good on flat Earth, but Jesse has been frustrated by the inability to change anyone's mind based on reasoning that I regard as objective, scientific, and impeccable.
	He has, however, Given me a stock of links to arguments and articles debunking Flat Earth Theory, which I say is refuted by the entire history of physics and astronomy over more than 2,000 years, I don't even believe a flat Earth is physically possible, given the laws of gravity with every mass attracting every other mass.
	I don't believe you could have a flat Earth physically.
	That's just a point I'm making in passing, because we don't want to focus on that.
	For the moment, I want Michael to take the opportunity to rebut my point about methodology, where he asserted that his principle techniques, what he's deploying here, are deductive reasoning Occam's Razor and intuition.
	Now, intuition, of course, is subjective.
	It's going to vary from person to person and time to time.
	The same person could have an intuition, earth is flat at one time, intuition, earth is round at another.
	It's a subjective phenomenon that carries minimal evidential weight.
	It can be persuasive to a person themselves because that's their view.
	As far as Occam's razor is concerned, as I explained, that's applied to alternative theories as when they both can account for the data.
	When you have two theories that are otherwise equal in their explanatory power and scope of explanation with regard to the available evidence, you should prefer the one that appeals to fewer explanatory Properties i illustrated this recently about a hit me in new york who was beating on the drums moaning and when a bystander asked what he was doing he said he was keeping the wild tigers away in the.
	My pastor said, but there are no wild tigers here.
	And he said, yeah, see what a great job I'm doing?
	Or the explanation appealed to why John Jones did not become pregnant because he took his wife's birth control pills all year and no man who takes his wife's birth control pills will get pregnant.
	Those are irrelevant factors.
	Their Occam would apply because you don't need to appeal to birth control or contraception for a man does not become pregnant.
	Though this day, and it's bizarre beyond words, Democrat fanatic progressives are even arguing men can become become pregnant, which is just one of the great absurdities of our time.
	Remember, Voltaire observed that those who can induce us to believe absurdities can also manipulate us to commit atrocities.
	This is on that order.
	And obviously, similarly for the Wild Tigers case now.
	I want to invite Michael to make a rebuttal here about these methodological issues, where I also pointed out that I thought his appeal To the non-occurrence by dictators or others of nuclear weapons, which are devastating and virtually certain to bring about a retaliation.
	In other words, it might be the use of a nuke would be committing suicide if you're not a superpower.
	We're both a Bali bombing and in Fallujah.
	The US was using a new class of tactical nukes, as Christopher Busby discerned, even reading the description in The New York Times, which at that time Okay, well, you make all your statements very clear.
	was obvious, even to me, that it had been a mini nuke in Bali.
	So I think those examples undermine or contradict your position, Michael, but I want you to have the opportunity to reply.
	Go for it.
	I see.
	Okay, well, you make all your statements very clear.
	No, I think, I guess what I'm trying to say here is that I don't want to have to read my whole book to you to give you everything that I'm claiming here.
	It's just not enough time here to do that.
	And I And again, I have pictures to back up my position, which I think also help to clarify the point that I'm trying to make here.
	I think we want to focus on that as opposed to everything else, right?
	Yeah, of course we're talking about nukes.
	We're talking about nukes and we're talking about evolution.
	The point is you made a methodological point that caused me to intervene because the methodology described is hopelessly inadequate to establish the conclusions you want to derive.
	So I'm just... Well, you can argue that about anything.
	No, no, no.
	You can argue that about 9-11.
	You can argue the same thing about every stupid false flag attack we've had in 30 or more years.
	Michael, I'm making a point of logic for crying out loud.
	You cannot approach any of those issues you're addressing using deductive reasoning, Occam's razor, and intuition.
	They're inadequate.
	You have to use abductive reasoning.
	You have to compare the alternative theories and determine the probability of the available evidence if the theory were true.
	The probability of you having a Bali bombing in Fallujah with these anomalies that Christopher Busby concluded were from exposure to radiation and they're not being nukes is zero.
	The probability of that evidence that there are nukes is approximately one.
	How is that zero?
	It doesn't make any sense.
	You're acting as if everything on television that you're seeing is now true when you want it to be true.
	The problem here is we know from experience, or you know from experience, that Sandy Hook was a hoax top to bottom.
	But you wouldn't have known that watching television.
	You can't know that because obviously they're hiding a lot of facts from you, making it very difficult for you to see what is actually the truth.
	You can't make assumptions that because you see something in Fallujah on TV, it's true, and something in Newtown, Connecticut is not true.
	You have to look at the whole thing is a big sack of lies.
	Michael.
	You have to realize that that is what is going on in the world here.
	And you see one of these things you see, for example, you see 9-11, you take that apart and you realize what's going on there.
	And, you know, it's not a watershed event.
	You know that it can't be because obviously they had to have had practice to do something that massive in some other ways and other things that came before it.
	And obviously they've been doing it since then.
	So the point here is you have to look at the whole the big picture.
	And I think that, you know, the big picture is that we're being lied to by a cabal of very, very wealthy people behind the scenes.
	And obviously we're talking about the Rothschilds, Rockefellers and other in the world, Europe and other people with massive amounts of wealth and influence and power.
	You know, they control the central banks, for God's sake, so around the world.
	I mean, this is they literally can print money.
	So these are people that have so much power, they can, they can, they can convince you of just about anything.
	And that's the problem we're running against here.
	We're dealing with something so pervasive, it's very, very difficult to get past A lot of the bias that we end up putting in our own ways because we're not being objective about it.
	And I think that's important.
	And I agree that there are some cases where you can't get all of the information that you need and you need to sort of rely on something a little outside.
	But I'm not saying it's crazy or it's like the extreme of literally, you know, guesswork or something.
	It's based on the series of pieces of evidence that I collect, that I see, and I look at both sides.
	I look at both sides of any issue.
	I see what people say on both sides, for example, of the flat Earth.
	I was doing that throughout that chapter, showing you how I arrived at what I think is not necessarily 100 percent.
	I think I pinned it at about 95 percent.
	So I'm not somebody that just assumes something and then tries to back up my assumption with a bunch of crap.
	I literally go through and give you how I arrived at my assertions in terms of what I think is going on.
	Now, whether it's 100% right, I can't be 100% certain.
	I agree.
	But the point is, we're talking about science, which is ultimately about Keeping an open mind, simply agreeing with what the experts tell you to think.
	You do understand I'm a philosopher of science, right?
	That I publish massively on science, on the nature... Michael, Michael, I'm gonna give you all the time you want.
	That I publish extensively on... You consider yourself an expert.
	I'm sorry?
	You consider yourself an expert in that area.
	100%!
	Are you kidding me?
	Absolutely!
	I'm asking.
	Of course!
	Jesus, man!
	What do you want?
	Do you have publications?
	Have you been on editorial boards?
	Have you made major contributions?
	I have hundreds of articles.
	My God!
	Of course I'm an expert!
	I have...
	made major contributions to developing abductive reasoning, and I'm in the ideal position to explain why, on purely methodological grounds, you cannot establish the conclusions you want to establish using the methods that you have identified of deductive reasoning, you cannot establish the conclusions you want to establish using the methods that you It's not possible to establish those conclusions on the basis of those methods.
	And you went off the rail here, and not responding to my point about methodology, was talking about massive propaganda, brainwashing, and all that, To me, where I spend all my time debunking everything that's so massively covered by the media, as you surely are aware of at this point in time?
	That's what I do, Michael.
	I take apart all those stories.
	Now, you seem to suggest I think that pollution, because it's something I saw on television.
	No, I said Christopher Busby, who may be the world's leading expert on cancer and radiation, When I interviewed Christopher Busby, he explained to me during our interview that he went to Fallujah expecting that the outbreak of genetic abnormalities would be due to the use of depleted uranium in these anti-tank shells.
	Depleted uranium is the densest material known to man.
	It penetrates tank armor like a hot knife through butter.
	And was astonished to discover that genetic anomalies were not as a result of depleted uranium but enriched uranium from a new class of tactical nuclear weapons the United States was deploying in Iraq.
	The other case I gave was the Bali bombing.
	You cannot read the description of Valley Bombing, for example, even as it was published in the New York Times, and I'll be overwhelmed that this was a mini-nuke device, absolutely without any question whatsoever.
	I expected you to come on and explain to us why, either in terms of theory, that it's impossible to have nuclear bombs, or in terms of all the – I mean, I've seen thousands upon thousands of videos of nuclear explosions, and I believe that the overwhelming majority of them are authentic.
	You can always contrive a fake nuke, but man, I grew up watching these newsreels.
	I recommend Dr. Strangelove as the one movie everyone in the world should watch at least once a year, because it displays the horrific consequences of the use of nukes that we want to avoid at all costs.
	I want you to respond just to my methodological point, and not with these alternative issues, which I know matter to you, but I agree with those.
	I'm making a methodological point.
	So your response to me was, if we were in a court of law, irrelevant.
	You weren't responding to the point I was making.
	So just address that methodological issue.
	No one's going to dispute my confidence, for God's sake.
	I was 10 years associate editor of Synthes, an international journal of great repute for epistemology, methodology, the philosophy of science.
	I pioneered reasoning and abductive reasoning.
	The Obductive Method of Reasoning, pioneered by the great American philosopher Charles S. Peirce, I have published on the theoretical foundations of scientific knowledge.
	My first book was in TypeScript, 500 pages long.
	They didn't change a comma.
	It's very formal.
	It's very formidable about the nature of scientific reasoning, the nature of scientific explanations, and the nature of scientific It research with regard to confirmation versus corroboration so This isn't a question of whether I'm in a position to address the issues.
	The question is, and it wouldn't matter if I weren't, because the points I'm making are impeccable.
	I want your response to my observation that deductive reasoning, Occam's razor, and intuition can't possibly justify the conclusions you're claiming, because they cannot.
	I'm making a methodological point.
	You could have good reasons for your opinions, but they could not be derived from those three resources alone.
	Okay, I probably do use abductive reasoning as well, but the point I'm making is that it's not about the idea that we're focusing ourselves on these methods in terms of making that the only thing of importance here.
	I was trying to make sure that we understand that we are being lied to by this massive There's a massive amount of disinformation out there and I think the problem is when you try to uncover these things, it is very difficult.
	Experts are simply people that are paid by various institutions or various government agencies.
	To tell you what to think and ultimately that is itself a dangerous position for somebody, you know, or for people to be in because when you say somebody is an expert and not talking about you per se, but I'm saying in general, uh, it is very difficult to refute them.
	It is very difficult to say anything against them because the minute you do, you are labeled again, a denier, a hater, conspiracy nut, or what have you, or you have cooties.
	The bottom line is these are ways to basically take the wind out of your argument, so to speak.
	It's an easy way to deflate somebody in terms of the public opinion, ultimately.
	And that's the problem with a lot of this stuff.
	We have a world of lies, and the people in it who are lying are colluding with one another at the highest levels of government and science and And movies and everything.
	It is a concerted effort to fool the masses.
	So I think the problem you run into with a lot of this stuff is to specify something so important on some very relatively minor issue is completely irrelevant to the argument we're trying to make, which is whether or not you've are real or not in this particular case, okay?
	So, I would like to see what Joseph has to say.
	Well, me too.
	I'm also curious whether you've read my chapter on this, because I sent that specifically to Jim for you to read, so I don't know if you didn't have a chance.
	I'm certain Joe has.
	Please take the floor, Joe, my friend.
	Go for it.
	Yes, okay.
	Well, what can we establish in the way of unquestionable science with you?
	Can we Agree that the periodic table of elements is pretty much correct, and that there is such a force as fission, fusion, that isotopes do exist, that it is possible to have chain reactions.
	I mean, what level of acceptable technology are we allowed to discuss and agree upon?
	That's a good point.
	I don't really go into any of that in that level of detail because I focus specifically in that chapter on whether or not nukes exist and I specifically focus on the various reasons why I think it's not likely that they do.
	A lot of times you look at the money involved in something like this.
	We have billions of dollars involved in creating nukes and disposing of nuclear material and government, you know, various treaties and government, all this hype about them.
	You're talking it is.
	And of course, the whole purpose of it, according to what I wrote, is that it is about a fee.
	It's a fear mongering tactic.
	You have to trust your government to take care of this for you.
	And that gives the government this sort of carte blanche.
	of being able to protect you as a citizen from these devastating weapons.
	Now, I think the trouble with – I mean, I haven't gone into that much detail in terms of other things that you're talking about, but I do think that – yes, I do think that fundamental science is correct.
	I do think that.
	Okay.
	Well, first of all, you're going to be hard-pressed to find a more informed conspiracy theorist than me, and, personally, 90 percent of the, quote, conspiracies.
	I have absolute empirical evidence and provable scientific facts to support.
	So, we can begin at that point.
	That's great.
	Yeah, you don't have to try to tar me with the brush about just because I don't believe in flat earth or that nuclear bombs don't exist, that I'm some type of luddite.
	Okay, so bottom line is, well, let's just start with the fact that maybe The periodic table is correct, and maybe some of the heavy elements, when they actually decay, produce a whole bunch of dar reactions, which is, you know, pretty much the accepted position of science, and that maybe smaller elements can be pushed together in the form of fusion, like we pretty much agree that the Sun is doing.
	And produce an enormous amount of energy.
	And then in the process of vision, you produce a million times more energy than what you can get out of a chemical or thermal reaction.
	Are we arguing about nukes or are we arguing about flooders?
	We're arguing about the basic concepts of what could possibly make nukes work.
	And you have to agree, at some point you have to agree that there is a potential That uranium can be used in light water reactors to generate electricity, that it can be used in light water reactors and submarines and aircraft carriers to propel ships.
	If we don't have that basic agreement that there is an energy that is released under vision, then we don't have a whole lot of common ground to go forward.
	And if we can agree that that is a certainty, then we can also agree that you could speed up those chain reactions, which is all you're doing with a nuclear bomb, and you could have a nuclear bomb.
	So, you know, it's pretty hard to argue that nuclear bombs are theoretically capable of existing, but it's also hard to argue the enormous amount of experience that we've had with nuclear bombs.
	We had the Trinity event, in 1945 in White Sands, New Mexico, where they glazed the sands of the desert, and you can still go out and pick up chunks of that glass that was made by that amount of heat energy.
	We had the Hiroshima bomb, which was 10 feet long, weighed 9,700 pounds, and was 15 kilotons.
	There again, that's kilotons of TNT, so that's the amount of nuclear reactant compared with the amount of Damage that you would do with that amount of TNT.
	And so that's what the equation is there.
	That bomb by was supposedly 15 kilotons.
	It actually the yield based on the damage reports was probably closer to about 12 kilotons.
	But by 19 late 1940s, we had miniaturized that to the point where our four Iowa-class battleships had W-23 nuclear artillery shells that were 16 inches in diameter, had 15 kilotons of available load, and weighed 1,700 pounds.
	So it is possible to miniaturize.
	And you mentioned, well, nobody's ever blown up anything.
	Well, I beg to disagree with you there.
	According to Veterans Today, which I've read, Hundreds of articles at their site on nuclear weapons, including the nuclear vaporization of the cobalt towers in Saudi Arabia, and then also the vaporization of the, quote, fertilizer storage building at the Beirut port.
	But also, I was invited by Robert David Steele to do a report on nuclear vaporization of the World Trade Center building.
	And I don't know if my video is not turned on, Jim.
	Oh, Joe, I'm sorry, but because I had a botch with a Zoom today, you're just going to have to wing it.
	No, OK.
	Well, too bad, because visual aids are very important.
	I wrote an article for Robert David Steele called Memorandum to the President.
	9-11 towers destroyed using clean nukes, and so Then, about a year later, I wrote another article because I was getting ready to be a guest on Coast to Coast AM.
	I wrote another article called Unequivocal 9-1-1 Nukes.
	And this goes into a great bit of detail because I am a trained structural engineer on how the buildings were actually built and how they were vaporized.
	And it's pretty apparent that they used one kiloton Nuclear bombs placed in the basement of those buildings.
	But after my article was posted at Veterans Today, one of my readers contacted me and said, you need to read the Palmer Report.
	P-O-M-M-E-R.
	And so I went and read the Palmer Report.
	It has 50 powerful- Hold that thought, Joe.
	We're going to hit a break.
	We'll be right back with Michael Ogden and Joe Olson talking about whether nukes are real or not.
	Join us after the break.
	Listen to Revolution Radio at freedomslips.com.
	Was it a conspiracy?
	Did you know that the police in Boston were broadcasting, this is a drill, this is a drill, on bullhordes 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 moonrockbooks.com.
	If you think for one second that the Capitol will ever treat us fairly, you are lying to yourself.
	Oh!
	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!
	Good evening.
	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.
	But time is over.
	Your governments around the world have no other goal than to decimate your entire existence at 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. Revolution Radio. Revolution Radio. Revolution Radio. Revolution Radio. Revolution Radio.
	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.
	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.
	On Friday, I featured Michael Ogden to discuss his new book, A World of Lies, Collusion, and Conspiracy, and How Does He A World of Lies, Collusion, and Conspiracy, and How Does He Pass He deals with about a dozen subjects, and I agree with most of what he writes on most of those subjects, but there are three where I take exception.
	What he has to say in an attempt to debunk evolution, what he says in an attempt to debunk the use of nukes, and what he says in advancing what he believes to be a well-founded view of Earth being flat.
	I invited Jesse Kowalski, who's done a lot of debates, including with me, about Flat Earth, but Jesse's despondent because he can't find Flat Earthers being at all receptive to scientific arguments where Jesse has presented a slew of them.
	He gave me a group of links, so I'm going to add them in the description of this show for those who want to go further about Flat Earth.
	Joe Olson is here to dispute what Michael claims about the non-existence of nukes, and I'm going to pick up and defend evolutionary theory from the attacks he has here, time permitting.
	But I will also mention I have a book, Evolution, Mentality, and Morality.
	Can Religion be Reconciled with Science?
	That's available online.
	I just verified you can download it online.
	There are two different links.
	Evolution, mentality, and morality.
	Can religion be reconciled with science?
	Which I'm going to recommend to everyone with a serious interest in these issues, because among the arguments that Michael makes here is that consciousness is somehow a separate and, as it were, transcendent phenomenon, inexplicable on the basis of biological evolution.
	He argues against the completeness of the fossil record.
	Everyone agrees it's incomplete.
	He argues there are not intermediate species where I would beg to differ.
	For example, there's been the discovery of a feathered dinosaur, which sounds remarkable.
	But for the most part, you're not going to find intermediate species, because the way evolution works, he also wants to make additional arguments about complexity, which he thinks are definitive, but which I think are nothing of the sort.
	Design theory, you know, the idea that there has to be a plan for evolution to work, which is getting the cart before the horse.
	Evolution works because only those organisms that are adapted to the environment are able to survive and reproduce, where there's a striking absence of any discussion of adaptation here, or of what I would consider contemporary versions of evolutionary theory, where I present
	In the book, eight different causal mechanisms, four causal mechanisms of genetic variation, four different causal mechanisms of selection to determine which genes are perpetuated into subsequent gene pools, and also how consciousness can be understood as a causal function of brains.
	It's all there in that book.
	For the moment, however, I want to give Joe the floor, he's had the least time of late, and I want to give him the opportunity because he's a truly expert.
	And it's interesting, you see, there are fallacious and non-fallacious appeals to experts.
	If you appeal to Rolf the Barber about childbirth, and Rolf the Barber says childbirth is easy and women who complain about it are just sissies, that's an absurd appeal because Rolf the Barber is not an expert on childbirth.
	If you appeal to Einstein on physics, however, Einstein's an expert on physics, and even though some may dispute Einstein or even think he got things wrong, that's in the ballpark, because Einstein's a bona fide.
	Joe is a bona fide expert, not a pseudo expert in relation to nukes.
	I'm a bona fide expert in relation to evolution and a host of other issues, including the nature of scientific reasoning.
	That doesn't mean we cannot be wrong.
	That does not mean we cannot be mistaken.
	That does not mean that you have to take what we say for granted as being true.
	It's that there's good reason to think, in these areas where we actually are bona fide experts, that we're unlikely to be wrong, but it comes with no built-in guarantees, and neither Joe nor I ask anyone to just take our word for it.
	That's completely contrary to the spirit of science.
	You want to try out ideas, you want to test them to see if they hold up and withstand severe criticism.
	That's a process we're engaging in with Michael Ogden here today.
	We're taking his views in the denial of nukes.
	We're taking his views about denial of evolution.
	And alas, we're not really going to be addressing the Flat Earth argument for circumstances, but I'm going to give you a lot of material to work with so that we're attempting to subject these views to severe tests to see if they can withstand critical scrutiny.
	in accordance with the method of falsificationism advocated by Sir Carl Popper, the great British philosopher of science, who made enormous contributions to our understanding of the nature of scientific theories and how they can be tested.
	Joe, the floor is yours.
	Okay, well first of all, we live on a planet that has 259 billion cubic miles of mostly molten rock, and that rock is not molten from 4 billion year old original energy and it's not and that rock is not molten from 4 billion year old original energy and It
	It is warmed by the decay of 700,000 cubic miles of uranium and 1.2 million cubic miles of thorium.
	And in the process of decaying, just like I mentioned earlier about nuclear power plants and nuclear bombs, you get a million times more So we'll just begin there.
	In addition, when you break a large molecule like a 235 neutron proton combination uranium atom, the portion that contains the neutrons and protons Those are indestructible, so you're not going to be destroying those.
	What they do is that they break down into what's called daughter reactions, and some of those daughter reactions are radioactive in and of themselves, one of them being potassium-40, another one being radon.
	Radon has a half-life of 2.3 days, and so at the end of a 28-day period, a pound of radon Would be a 16th of an ounce.
	The only way, and radon is on the far right-hand side of the periodic table.
	It's what used to be called inert gases, but for some oddball reason, they decided to call them noble gases in the middle 70s, which was a completely stupid thing to do.
	But the reason they were called inert is because those Elements on the far right hand side of the periodic table do not form chemical bonds.
	So they do not form molecules.
	So you do not get those out of anything other than the decay of a higher order fission atom.
	And that includes argon that's up in the atmosphere, krypton, radon, and so helium.
	Those can only come.
	And so if you're getting helium out of the ground, It's a direct proof that you have fission reactions going on that are warming the planet, and that explains volcanism.
	And in addition to that, you also produce a whole lot of other lower-order elements, and the Earth is like a giant fractional disinflation refinery.
	It is able to isolate things based on their temperature and pressures and Thermal qualities.
	And so that's why the earth is able to concentrate, particularly metallic ores, which would be extruded up through the veins and cracks in the rocks.
	And that's why you find silver that's perfectly refined in nodules.
	You find gold, you find copper, you find some places where they're embedded together, but you also find pure streams of those.
	Well, you also can get the Earth to refine uranium in a highly concentrated fissionable chain reaction condition.
	And a perfect example of that, and this is an article that's at the International Atomic Energy Agency, NEECTOLO, K-O-K-L-O, OKLO, the Earth's 2 billion year old natural nuclear reactor.
	And this was discovered in 1972 in Gabon, and it's absolute proof that the Earth was able to operate a natural nuclear reactor because it had a highly concentrated amount of uranium in a cavern where water was dripping on it, and water moderated the natural decay and made it into a nuclear reactor that produced
	different uranium isotopes.
	Now, getting back to the World Trade Center buildings, like I said, I wrote an article at Veterans Today called Unequivocal 9-1-1 Nukes.
	I was directed to an article called The Palmer Report, which was written by four European physicists, and it has three 90-minute videos 50 PowerPoint slides showing the exact sequence of the demolition of those buildings.
	And when it was posted at Veterans Today, it was posted under the title, Breathtaking, Solving Nuclear 9-1-1.
	And Veterans Today included 80 article bibliography.
	And in that bibliography, one of the things they discussed was the Bridgman effect.
	Percy Bridgman was a Harvard physicist that He did extremely dangerous experiments to find out what the specific heat was for a whole bunch of different elements and compounds, and he actually won the Nobel Prize for his work, and it was awarded after World War II, but his work was done prior to that.
	And according to him, under 50,000 atmospheres of pressure, every element in the The periodic table that is in the metallic series, which is about 20 or 30 elements that are in the center of that series, is capable of having fission under high heat and pressure.
	So, bottom line is, in addition to the known amount of thorium and uranium that we've got that's heating the earth, you also have the Bridgman effect, which is producing more.
	Now, as far as What evidence there is of the World Trade Center building?
	Well, first of all, you had a 2.2 Richter scale explosion that was measured adjacent to the buildings at one of the universities in New York, and that preceded the visual collapse of the building by 12 seconds, which is the amount of time that it would take for that nuclear shock wave to go from the
	Granite bedrock in elevator number 50 in the basement level up through the building and the detonation velocity was high enough to fragment all of the concrete and fragment the steel.
	And I write about that in my article Unequivocal 9-1-1 Nukes.
	I also give the boiling and vaporization temperatures of those elements that make up the building.
	And then you have the Hot gases that come up through and the ionized gases that actually change the steel to vapor.
	And then when you have vaporized steel and vaporized aluminum, they will naturally form thermite in the atmosphere, which is AlFeO2.
	So that's why you end up having thermite available in the dust because it's not a catalyst, it's a reactant.
	And so, if there's any in the dust, it was not part of what brought the buildings down.
	And I've been to four different events with Richard Gage and Architects for Engineers and 9-1-1 Truth, and their material is definitely controlled opposition, just like you say, that you can't believe all this stuff just because they agree the buildings were demolished.
	They don't agree on the proper way that they were demolished.
	Well, the great thing about the article that Heinz Palmer wrote was that he had one little thing where he mentioned That carbon could decay into helium and barium, which were found in the dust of the debris.
	But I thought, well, gee, that's interesting that he mentioned that.
	What are the other elements that make up a steel and concrete building?
	So you have iron, you have calcium, you have silicon, and you have carbon.
	Well, iron has like four stable isotopes.
	And I thought, well, okay, you mentioned that it has four stable isotopes.
	How many radioactive isotopes does it have?
	Oh, 20.
	Oh, well, how much do the stable and radioactive isotopes of all four of the elements that it takes to make a steel and concrete building?
	Oh, that's 102 elements.
	And what's the average half-life of those?
	Oh, that's about three months.
	Well, how long was the basement of the building You don't do that with anything other than the reactants from a nuclear event.
	And so, I pretty much rest my case on that.
	water on it every day for three months, and that basement was still 2,500 degrees.
	You don't do that with anything other than the reactants from a nuclear event.
	And so, you know, I pretty much rest my case on that.
	You can see my article that I wrote to a follow-up to the Palmer Report, which is called Exposing 9-1-1, the NIST-NIST JINGO Game, and that's National Institute of Standards and Technology.
	Absolute 100% government cover.
	Let me just throw in a comment, and then I'll turn it back to you, Michael.
	So they, The U.S.
	Geological Survey studied dust samples from 35 locations in lower Manhattan in the wake of 9-11 and discovered elements that would not have been present Barium, strontium, lithium, lanthanum, tritium, some of which only exist in radioactive form had this not been a nuclear event.
	So there's a whole nother case where we have an actual use of a nuke other than in a test situation.
	You can say what you may about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but there are plenty of cases.
	So I add that to Fallujah, to the Bali bombing.
	We had 9-11 was a nuclear event with regard to the destruction of the Twin Towers.
	Now, Joe has talked about a whole host of issues that, of course, you do not address in the book, and part of that is explicable, is understandable.
	You're writing a book at a certain level of discourse, but it seems to me Joe has posed a severe test of your denial that nukes exist.
	I welcome your response.
	Go for it.
	Yeah, no, I certainly appreciate Joe's perspective, but I asked him as a message.
	I don't know if he got my message.
	How do you know that it's nuclear versus some other secret technology?
	I mean, we don't know.
	I mean, you can argue, yes, I understand your argument.
	But at the same time, it doesn't necessarily, I mean, unless you absolutely have somebody, I mean, some sort of irrefutable proof beyond all reason.
	It doesn't seem to me that you can actually prove that case because you weren't there and you didn't see what they did.
	And again, I try to make the point that I'm not saying that it wasn't brought down by some sort of a character.
	catalyst of some kind.
	I certainly agree with that.
	Michael, let me just interject again.
	I just gave you an example of how we know.
	You didn't have to be there.
	That's the weakest argument you've made in the whole discussion we've had here today.
	Geological Survey, that's a government agency, produced evidence that contradicts that.
	Michael, Michael, Michael, Michael, I'm doing my best not to talk over you.
	Don't make it impossible.
	The U.S.
	Geological Survey produced evidence that shows that from the elements found in the dust samples they studied, they would not have been present had this not been a nuclear event.
	Now, that's a government agency contradicting the government's own account.
	We have a similar thing in other cases where I find it utterly fascinating.
	We find official government stories that contradict the official government account.
	I want you to not appeal to not having been there, for God's sake.
	That is so trivial and insignificant.
	You don't have to have been there.
	We haven't been in a whole lot of places.
	That means we cannot know what actually happened without observing them in first person, personal.
	Please be responsive to Joe's arguments and mine.
	Okay, I'll try to do my best here.
	I guess what I'm saying is that you can argue all these points.
	The trouble I have is, again, I think my problem here is you haven't read my book to see what I'm presenting as my argument, and it's not that I'm saying that they can't have some sort of a As I said, catalyst in this case, with respect to 9-11, bringing down those buildings was definitely not done by a couple of planes or some jet fuel.
	And obviously, Building 7, which, you know, fell by itself without any supposed outside help, couldn't have fallen in its own footprint, you know, freefall, without being wired for demolition.
	I think that there's absolute truth to those statements.
	But the problem I have is, If you look back at some of those early videos and pictures of nukes, one of the first pictures of a nuke looks like a scrubbing bubble.
	It doesn't look anything like what we expect to see in the movies today.
	Right.
	No, I haven't read all of this.
	I'm definitely going to read that, by the way, Joe.
	I'm going to read all of the stuff you mentioned.
	I've been writing it all down.
	So I'm actually, I'm definitely always learning and I'm always trying to improve.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	I'm not at all denying necessarily what you're saying.
	I'm just going to go through everything.
	I'm not up on everything you're saying.
	I can't argue with it.
	Take a break.
	Take a break.
	Detonation velocity of concrete is 3,200 meters per second.
	Detonation velocity of steel is 6,100 meters per second.
	That is what causes those things to fragment, and they fragmented the whole entire core of the building, which was 50 concrete-lined elevator shafts and three concrete-lined stair shafts.
	That kept the nuclear energy focused in the center of the building, number one.
	Number two, it collapsed the core of the building so that it could pull down the floors from the center out, pulling the walls down on top of themselves.
	Now, in addition to that, steel melted at 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit.
	and vaporizes it at 5180 Fahrenheit.
	You can see vaporized steel pouring out of the top of the building.
	Concrete melts at 1800 degrees.
	Silicon dioxide, which is just one of the portions that's in concrete, vaporizes at 3900 degrees.
	You can see vast clouds of vaporized concrete and steel pouring out of the top of the building.
	I've read the nuclear weapon deployment doctrine, the Field Manual 101-31, which is declassified March 1977 on use of nuclear weapons by the U.S. and military.
	Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons by Andre Gossberg, which was released in February 2008.
	The FEMA Manual 403, Chapter 2, Ground Zero Nuclear Demolition of the World Trade Center by William Cahill in 2012.
	I mean, 2006, I attended the Office of Truth Festival with Christopher Bolin, where he explained all of the connections between the Mossad gang and the demolition of those buildings.
	We had nuclear bazookas in 1954, which were called the W54 bazookas.
	We had 155 millimeter artillery nuclear shells.
	We took those out of the fleet because you weren't able to use those without having enough gamma rays setting off the other ones nearby.
	And so that's what, you know, I've done an enormous amount of research and things that until you read the 5,000-word article, Breathtaking Solving a Nuclear One-One, you watch the three 90-minute videos, you study the 50 PowerPoint you watch the three 90-minute videos, you study the 50 PowerPoint photos, you read my two articles, and you read everything else that I've mentioned here, then it's not capable to have an argument about whether nuclear weapons exist, number one, and whether they were used on World Trade Center, number two, because
	and whether they were used on World Trade Center, number two, because you can sit there and argue from your position, but you don't have the ability to, like I say, And there's just too many facts that you do not have access to.
	And just because the government lies about some things, or lies about a lot of things, doesn't mean that everything is a lie.
	Yeah, let me just add, Michael.
	We're not here to beat up on Michael Ogden.
	I think he's a good guy.
	I think he's very smart.
	I like his book.
	I like his book, but the point is, on some crucial issues, - I knew, I knew that's what you were talking about. - On some crucial issues, we're talking especially as I knew that's what you were talking about. - On some crucial issues, we're talking especially as denial We're taking exception, and for good reason, Let me just mention, by the way, Michael was asking about my credential.
	They're on my curriculum vitae.
	You can find it at www.d.umn.edu slash tilde.
	That's like the elongated S on the side.
	Jay Fetzer slash you can find my academic credentials in spades.
	What you won't find there is all my research subsequent to my retirement after 35 years in higher education in 2006, or even the Wikipedia entry, which is intended to smear me excludes.
	All the books I've done on Sandy Hook, Boston bombing, Orlando, Dallas, Charlottesville, Parkland, even the moon landing, no word about that in Wikipedia at all.
	You'd think that's outrageous.
	This is why I'm noted as a conspiracy theorist, which means I'm challenging the official government account.
	Conspiracy theorists are investigating crimes the government does not want solved, because more often than not, they lead back to the government, is why they want to silence us.
	We're going to open the lines to callers.
	540-352-4452.
	540-352-4452.
	And when we return from the break, we'll give Michael more opportunity to defend his position on these specific issues, and we'll take your calls.
	Mitchell Willfield gets you on with Michael Ogden, Joe Olson, and me.
	We look forward to hearing from you then.
	Thank you.
	on 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.
	This 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, Freedom Substance.com, the number one listener-supporter radio station on the planet.
	Revolution.
	Radio, radio, radio, radio. Radio, radio, radio.
	Thank you.
	Join Revolution Radio every Wednesday, 8 p.m.
	Eastern.
	Eastern Time on Studio B for Momentary Zen with host Zen Garcia at FreedomSets.com, the people station.
	Even the government admits that 9-11 was a conspiracy.
	But did you know that it was an inside job?
	That Osama had nothing to do with it?
	That the Twin Towers were blown apart by a sophisticated arrangement of mini or micro nukes?
	That Building 7 collapsed seven hours later because of explosives planted in the building?
	Barry Jennings was there.
	He heard them go off and felt himself stepping over dead people.
	The U.S.
	Geological Survey conducted studies of dust gathered from 35 locations in Lower Manhattan and found elements that would not have been there had this not been a nuclear event.
	Ironically, that means the government's own evidence contradicts the government's official position.
	9-11 was brought to us compliments of the CIA, the neocons in the Department of Defense, and the Mossad.
	Don't let yourself be played.
	Read America Nuked on 9-11.
	Available at moonrockbooks.com.
	That's moonrockbooks.com.
	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, let me take that back and assert the opposite way.
	We are here to beat up on Michael Ogden, but in a respectful, intellectual way, OK?
	So you're going to be delighted.
	You're going to be delighted that the first caller here, I'm sure, is going to come to your aid.
	Paul in California, join the conversation, Paul.
	All right, Jim.
	You know that I got a beef with you in the past here and there about different things.
	In many cases, it was just the manner in which The discussion was taking place, and in some cases, your ability to overwhelm a guest or myself.
	So I'm going to make you an offer right now, because I was reminded, listening to you, I was reminded of that scene in A Few Good Men, where Tom Cruise says to Demi Moore when they're out, why are you always reading me your resume?
	So I'm going to offer you right now $100, $25 a show.
	If you can go four shows, four shows without reminding the listener or the guest it's your professor of logic and critical thinking for history and the philosophy of science if you can do that i will give you 100 dollars if you can just do that for four shows because i gotta tell you it's not an argument it's not an argument yeah michael
	i'll have you know that i have sent jim the pdf to akio nakatani's book at least twice over the last couple of years and naturally he hasn't read it you know jim if you want to have a good show why don't you have on akio nakatani i'm sure he can be contacted he's not a nobody he's a math professor and he goes into great detail on not just the the math and the physics but all the other aspects that michael has tried to bring out
	and it's really not a fair show when you and joe olsen gang up on him now you Here's one thing that I will say.
	Now we got you here, Paul, to come to his defense.
	And by the way, I only mention that because, I mean, I was kind of surprised Michael questioned whether I were an expert in the philosophy of science.
	So I simply add, you know, I mean, by any criteria, I'm an expert in the philosophy of science.
	And if you want to see how I satisfy those criteria, Which would include publications, refereeing, expertise, lectures, videos, books.
	Paul, that was the sole reason for this case.
	Sure, I think you're right.
	Paul, you're right.
	It's one of my worst faults.
	One of my worst faults, I freely admit.
	Mia culpa.
	You got it.
	You got it.
	And to your credit, you've always been a very gracious man when I've said critical things, and I respect that, just like I respect your intellect.
	You have a tremendous intellect.
	You have a tremendous memory.
	You spent a lot of time studying, but that doesn't always translate in that you know the truth.
	And here's the thing.
	I'm open on the nuclear weapons question.
	There's no doubt in my mind that we're not on a spinning ball, and that's easily provable, and I'm not going to go into it now, but you should have me on one time with Ed Henry, or maybe Sophia, or maybe any of these other people that have come to this realization.
	It's a process.
	It's a realization, and then you reach a point where all of a sudden you know you understand.
	I exchanged an email before with Ed Henry probably over a year or more ago.
	About this topic, and he just, he replied what I knew to be true.
	He said, Jim is just not really open to it.
	And that's a fact.
	I'm going to drop that for a second.
	Just let it lay.
	Let me move on to the nuclear weapons thing.
	I'm on a break at work and I probably got to go quick.
	A friend of mine, a friend of mine that I correspond with regularly that I've met through your show, by the way, he contacted me because he'd heard me call in.
	His name's Gary.
	He's 74 years old.
	He's got a master's degree in physics, a bachelor's degree from Louisiana Tech, a master's degree from USC.
	He, as well as his professor, which he still keeps in contact with, both he and his professor now believe nuclear weapons are not real, they're a fraud.
	And he actually had started doing the research on his own before I turned him on to Akio Nakatani's book.
	He started looking at what's known as the neutron cross-section curve.
	And he's discussed this with many other people that he keeps in contact with.
	And just like Akio Nakatani argues in the book, there just aren't enough high-energy collisions that are going to release enough energy to produce what's known as a high-order nuclear explosion.
	That doesn't mean that nuclear power can't be real and that we can't get heat.
	But the idea that you can have a high-order nuclear explosion, it just doesn't jive with the math and the physics.
	I'll say one other thing.
	As you know, Jim, I have sent you Miles Mathis' PDF on nuclear weapons at least twice in the last few years, and you've never read it.
	Now, there's a picture in there that shows them inspecting the Trinity test site after the explosion.
	There was military brass there, and it's clear there's no crater, there's no scorch marks, but they put this picture out there as these military brass inspecting the test site after the test.
	Why would they do that?
	I mean, it's just like slapping you in the face.
	How could there be a nuclear explosion without a crater or without even scorch marks?
	Not only that, what Miles Mathis also includes in the paper is a photograph, which is available, of them stacking dynamite at the test site.
	And they admitted that they seeded the dynamite with radiation.
	He covers this in the paper and he's not alone.
	So why would they do that?
	And the official explanation is they, it was like, To see, you know, it's like a test run, right?
	And the point being is that a chemical explosion from TNT or dynamite has got nothing to do with a nuclear explosion if it's possible.
	So why would they do a test such as that?
	But the photograph is real enough.
	Like I said, they're stacking boxes of dynamite on the platform at Trinity.
	So there's just a lot of smelly stuff here.
	And I am firmly convinced nuclear weapons are a fraud.
	There's lots of information online about this.
	But I'm open to the fact that they could be real.
	However, the earth is flat.
	That's it.
	Thanks for hearing my story.
	Hey, Paul, do me a favor.
	Send me an email.
	LiesCollusionConspiracy at gmail.com.
	Repeat it.
	Repeat it, Michael.
	LiesCollusionConspiracy at gmail.com.
	Did you get that, Paul?
	Live Collusion Conspiracy at gmail.com.
	Now, Joe seems to have stepped away, but Joe would be most valuable here in responding to some of these points that Paul's raising.
	Joe, are you there?
	Please.
	Yeah, I didn't step away at all.
	I don't think.
	Okay, it was your camera just slid up to the ceiling so I couldn't see it.
	Go ahead.
	Go ahead.
	The camera stepped away.
	Yeah.
	Go ahead.
	Okay.
	I didn't think I was being filmed.
	I couldn't watch myself.
	Yeah, a little bit more on this.
	The elements that are now called noble would be helium, argon, krypton, neon, xenon, and radon, and I want to correct that.
	It's 3.8 days half-life for radon, so yeah.
	I have a person that I knew growing up that was on the deck of a Navy ship after World War II when he was ordered to stand on the deck and watch the Bikini Explosion, and if you have an airburst, a nuclear bomb, you don't create a surface crater because it just doesn't have enough energy.
	And if you read the 80 articles that are under nuclear education at Veterans Today with their original posting of the breathtaking solving 9-1-1.
	Let me see if I get the date on this.
	September 1st, 2019 is the date.
	They updated the article and they didn't include a link to the bibliography when they did, but I read all those articles concurrent.
	So bottom line is this friend of mine said that they were told to stand there in their boxer shorts with a pair of rubber flip-flops on and a pair of welder's goggles and he said you could feel the heat coming off of the explosion that was like 15 miles away and By the time he was 55 years old, he ended up having cancers that were very rare cancers that you only get from nuclear explosions.
	So, then we also had the Operation Starfish Prime, where they fired a nuclear bomb over Johnson Island at about 200 mile altitude, and it caused an EMP strike that knocked out a good portion of the electrical generation on Hawaii.
	And so, you know, bottom line is there's just too much.
	There's the massive explosion that the Russians did.
	It was an air burst, but it was like a 500 kiloton bomb, megaton bomb.
	It was just absolutely massive.
	The United States has lit off 2,500 nuclear bombs.
	A lot of them have been underground tests but then we also had under wonderful Eisenhower we had the Operation Plowshare where they were going to use nuclear bombs to create lakes and channels and cut road cuts through mountains and you know, dig canals across the isthmus of Panama.
	It's like all these wonderful things we're going to be able to do with nuclear bombs, and they actually set one off in a harbor up in Alaska, and the place is still radioactive.
	So, you know, if you cannot agree that there are such things as isotopes and that there is such a thing as fission, then maybe there isn't such a thing as a nuclear bomb.
	But once you agree that it is possible to get a lot of energy from the fission, and so you have nuclear power plants and nuclear propulsion systems, then it's a very short leap to say, well, you can do a control burn or you can do an explosion.
	And then all it takes is just structuring the things.
	The way that they make a hydrogen bomb is the Teller-Ulam process, where they add hydrogen to the bomb.
	But the first bomb that they did, they used deuterium, which is heavy hydrogen, which has a neutron with it.
	And that was really hard to isolate because it's like one in a million parts in water.
	And so it took an enormous amount to get just a small amount of deuterium.
	And then the Teller-Ulam, they said, well, what if we use lithium?
	And if you take a lithium atom, it's got atomic weight of six, you can break it apart, you'll get three hydrogen atoms out of, I mean six hydrogen atoms out of it.
	And that would give you the source for hydrogen to produce the bomb and give you a fourfold increase in the yield of the bomb.
	And that's exactly what they did with hydrogen bombs.
	So you have to agree that, well, in addition to having standard fission-based bombs, you can also have a fission fusion bomb, which is Teller-Willam, which is, you know, declassive, I mean, it was classified when I was in college taking chemistry classes, but it's been declassified for a long time and it's pretty irrefutable.
	And as far as other magic forces, yeah, I suppose there could be anti-gravity and there might be, and there might be anti-matter and you might be able to slip through wormholes and go to the other side of the universe, But given the technology that we already have, this 100% explains the World Trade Center buildings.
	And if you don't want to look at anything else, let's just look at the nuclear demolition of the World Trade Center buildings.
	And the enormous amount of evidence that is completely consistent with nuclear bombs being used in those locations.
	Yeah, the conversion of those buildings into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust is actually a signature of the use of nukes in converting material into very fine dust.
	Paul, take a rebuttal here.
	You're welcome.
	And then I want to bring in Brian.
	Go ahead, Paul.
	Paul may have had to head back to work.
	Michael, you want to add anything to this exchange?
	I think that saying that, obviously, the government... First of all, I was going to make the comparison between government versus government.
	To me, it reminds me of Mad Magazine's Spy Versus Spy, because basically the government does this on purpose to create divide and conquer.
	Divide and conquer is one of their main strategies to keep people busy talking about stuff like this.
	And so we don't actually see the truth through all crap, you know.
	The bottom line is also, if you're going to focus this on 9-11 had to be nukes, right?
	That's exactly what the government would want you to focus on to promote the reality of nukes.
	This is the kind of thing they do all the time.
	And I have other examples.
	I have to go look, but ultimately there's other examples of this type of strategy used by various government I think Paul's back.
	I think Paul's back.
	Go ahead, Paul.
	OK, so just just just quickly before I go.
	You know, you have a quick interjection, Jim, before I got to go.
	You keep repeating it over and over again until people just accept it as truth.
	This is, again, part and parcel and the bigger the lie, the more people.
	I think Paul's back.
	I think Paul's back.
	Go ahead, Paul.
	OK, so just just just quickly before I go.
	Yeah, thanks for all that, Michael.
	Here's the other thing I want to react to is on Friday.
	What I heard you say was more or less that you had seen films of hundreds of nuclear explosions.
	In fact, I think you might have even said thousands.
	I'd have to go back and re-listen.
	But you said you'd seen hundreds of films of nuclear explosions and that you knew they weren't fake, you knew they were real.
	And I remember laughing at that, and of course, that comment that you made was mocked by a certain number of people out there in the blogosphere, right?
	I'll have you know that I've also seen many of the same films that you've seen, for example.
	Right?
	And what's been pointed out quite clearly, and you can see and hear yourself, is these films were made almost all at Lookout Mountain.
	And I'm sure you know what Lookout Mountain is.
	And that they were scored with music, and in many cases, sound effects.
	So they put sound effects and a musical score on some of these films of nuclear weapons.
	So to me, again, All the science to the side, which I'm not disputing because I'm not on the same level and I haven't been exposed to the same material as Joe Olson, that I'd be willing to look at some of this stuff.
	But that, to me, just smells.
	So that's my contribution.
	Thanks, Paul.
	Thanks, Paul.
	Joe, how many explosions, how many tests has the U.S.
	conducted?
	The U.S.
	has conducted over 2,500.
	2500, Paul.
	2500.
	And a lot of those were before they did the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which banned atmospheric testing, and then they switched to underground.
	But Yeah, we've got an enormous amount of them.
	I don't doubt that there are.
	Yeah, there's some fake photos of some nuclear blasts that were just concocted.
	But I mean, the reality of these nuclear, I only wish there were no nukes, because that's one of the greatest threats to the continued existence of humanity.
	And we're getting closer and closer to a point where we may actually be engaged in a nuclear war.
	And I assume When half of the United States is disintegrated, you and Michael will finally acknowledge, well, maybe you were wrong.
	Meanwhile, we have Brian from Texas standing by.
	Brian, join the conversation.
	Or Missouri, Brian.
	It's Missouri.
	Well, I just want to know what had the ability to turn the granite in the basement of the World Trade Center liquid.
	Okay.
	I remember those pictures of liquid granite.
	And so, I mean, I remember watching it, you know, like the day after, whatever, they're down there and here's all this liquid granite.
	So, to me, that takes something like an atomic bomb.
	So, that's what I just wanted to say.
	Yeah, good.
	Good, Brian.
	Joe, you want to comment?
	Then Michael.
	Joe?
	Yes, yes, yes.
	On the Trinity site, the bomb was set off at a 100-foot-high tower, and it had a half-mile crater that was 8 feet deep in the center.
	Now, the Twin Towers were built on top of granite bedrock, which was thousands of feet thick.
	It had 40 feet of glacial till from when the last Ice Age was there, and when the glacier melted, it dropped 40 feet of rock and mud And that was the only separation there was between that and the Hudson River, which had a water level of 15 feet below ground level.
	So when they dug down to the granite bedrock, they didn't have the ability to go any deeper without doing blasting, and they knew that there was only about a 100-foot-wide strip of mud and rock between them and the Hudson, and they would have flooded all of New York.
	So there was nothing lower than the sixth-level floor of the basement.
	If you look at the last couple of photos that are in the breathtaking Salby 911, there's a 100-foot-deep crater underneath those buildings.
	And they put reflecting ponds over the pits where the vulcanized material was.
	It was vaporized out of that granite 100 feet deep.
	But it also, granite has additional, in addition to the silicon and carbon and calcium that it has, it also has phosphorus and potassium.
	Which are elements that exist in granite, and they are also radioactive, which increases the radioactive isotope level up to about 150.
	And I guarantee you, if you read the article Unequivocal 9-1-1 Nukes, and you read Breathtaking Solving 9-1-1, and you read Ms.
	Jenga Gang, you will understand this is exactly what happened that day.
	Michael, take a few minutes here.
	We're reaching the conclusion of our conversation, but I want you to have, you know, go ahead, take three or four minutes.
	Yours.
	Oh, okay.
	No, I was going to say that, what was the last comment you made, Joe, about the various papers?
	I wanted to write them down.
	You said unequivocal 9-1-1 nukes, and what was the other two?
	I'll send you the links.
	We'll put some links in the description to the show when it's posted on BitTube.
	Go ahead.
	Okay, that's fine.
	We swerved the homework because I guarantee you there's just so much there.
	The 80 articles that were in Nuclear Education, they introduced concepts that me as a trained structural engineer and I took geology and I've been studying earth science for 50 years at a college professor's level.
	There were concepts that I was not familiar with because they were, you know, formally classified.
	And so I spent an average of about two to three hours Reading each of those 80 articles, so right there is 240 hours of additional study.
	The three 90-minute videos, so there's, you know, four and a half hours of videos.
	The 5,000-word article that it takes for breathtaking to read through that.
	It's an extensive amount of research that's required, and that's in addition to all the stuff that I previously mentioned about the other background materials that I've read.
	So, you know, bottom line is, I'm a very serious student about this.
	I'm not shooting from the hip.
	I'm not shooting from a preconceived notion that because conspiracies exist that everything has to be a conspiracy including nuclear bombs and you know earth being round.
	So I'm not I'm not disclassifying anything that I don't have an enormous amount of empirical evidence for and And if you can show me contradictory empirical evidence, I'm certainly willing to consider it.
	And if it's compelling, I'm certainly willing to change my mind.
	But these are opinions that I've developed from an enormous amount of study.
	Okay, I'm certainly the same vote as you.
	I'd be willing to change my mind if someone produced evidence that could do that, but I don't know if you've read my book, The Chapter.
	Did Jim ever send that to you?
	I don't know if he did.
	I don't think he did.
	Oh, sure.
	I sent it to you, Joe.
	Okay, maybe you got it.
	It was just so many emails you didn't notice.
	I guess the thing is I try to make it clear my position with respect to, not as you're doing with the scientific sort of ground up approach.
	I'm doing it with basically the perspective that we all have of nukes in the public, you know, in the public arena.
	You know, we are, we are given this, this overall perspective that doesn't really make sense.
	And if you look at it that way, um, you can argue all you like about science aspects and, and make claims about that.
	But the trouble is it doesn't really, I mean, if, if the weapons were real, if you had a weapon that was tactical advantage, like a new in 1945, it would have made more sense militarily to keep it as secret.
	Because keeping it a secret means that if you have any enemy come along and try to attack you in any way, shape, or form, you whip out this secret weapon and just annihilate them.
	Now that is a hell of a lot more useful in any kind of a conflict.
	By making it public, you're basically telling the world that this is this horrible thing that can destroy everybody and all life on Earth, and it's a huge fear-mongering project.
	Some of your arguments, Michael, are just bad.
	That's one of your worst.
	Truman, Truman decided.
	Truman, Truman, Truman.
	Truman decided to use the nukes to intimidate the Soviet Union.
	That was the whole purpose.
	Japan was already surrendering.
	If you have these weapons and you don't let them know, they have no inhibiting effect from going to war.
	This was supposed to be showing an example.
	The U.S.
	had this massive technical advantage, and you don't want to mess with America.
	That was the message.
	Let me just add now a few words about your chapter on evolution.
	You adopt a simplified version of evolutionary theory involving genetic mutation and natural selection.
	There are eight different causal mechanisms of evolution, four of which produce increased genetic diversity.
	Genetic mutation is one.
	Sexual reproduction is another.
	Genetic drift is extremely important.
	This is when subpopulations of a population are subjected to different environmental and adaptive pressures.
	This is the evolutionary development of the races.
	Genetic engineering is a fourth.
	There are similarly four mechanisms of selection.
	Natural selection, yes.
	competition between species, but sexual selection, why do males are attracted to certain females and females to certain males?
	Group selection, how groups organized can make a huge difference, even in basketball.
	You move the players around, you get a different outcome.
	Think of the bulls with Michael Jordan, not playing the same role, bah, bah, bah.
	And then of course there's artificial selection such as, you know, hiring out studs, so you deliberately change.
	What's going on now is there's a massive effort by the global elite to manipulate the course of evolution.
	It's catastrophic.
	Those who want to learn more about evolution, it's James H. Fetzer.
	Evolution, Mentality and Morality, it's available to you for free.
	The book was never published in that form.
	It was published in two parts.
	One was called The Evolution of Intelligence, Are Humans the Only Animals with Minds?
	And the other was Render Unto Darwin, The Christian Rights, A War Against Science.
	Those are available even on Amazon.
	Michael, a final word, but I endorse, I think Michael's a good guy.
	I think he's doing his very best.
	We all have our own levels of expertise, and I think in these couple of areas they have exceeded his, but that's not to acknowledge he's doing a good job and trying to get the word out there as he sees it.
	A world of lies, collusion, and conspiracy.
	Joe Olson, I can't thank you enough for coming on, my friend.
	We do a lot together, and Michael, add a final sentence or two on your behalf, please.
	I've been glad to have you here Friday and again today.
	Okay, I would love to come back and talk more about evolution.
	I don't think it's really appropriate to start that now at the end, so I'm not going to touch on that yet.
	I would suggest reading my chapter on that.

▲