All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 17, 2024 - Jim Fetzer
33:38
JAMES FETZER, PhD - The Moon Landings: Were they Real or a Mass Illusion? How we Know We Didn't Go
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome back everyone to the False Flags and Conspiracy Conference 2024. Jim Fetzer is filling in for Katherine Horton and hopefully she'll show up at some point in the next day or so.
And in the meantime, Jim's got a great presentation for you on the moon landing.
So strap yourself into your little rocket there and get ready to blast off to the moon.
Take it away, Jim.
Or not.
In fact, How we know we didn't go.
Were they real or a mass illusion in the moon landings?
The fourth stage is scientific reasoning.
Puzzlement.
Something doesn't fit in with your background knowledge, for example.
How's a flag waving on the moon when there's no atmosphere?
Speculation.
Consider the complete range of alternative explanations.
Could the whole thing have been fake?
Could they have had big fans on a sound set?
Adaptation of hypotheses to evidence.
Which hypothesis, if it were true, would confer the higher probability upon the available relevant evidence, with special concern for sorting out authentic from fabricated?
Well, if we actually went to the moon, then the flag should not be waving.
So the idea that we went to the moon when the flag is waving is approximately zero.
The idea that it could have been faked is the alternative hypothesis when the flag is waving is high.
Explanation, acceptance, and attentive infallible fashion of science.
That means when we get additional evidence or new Hypothesis.
We may have to revise our conclusions, accept hypotheses we previously rejected, reject hypotheses we previously accepted, and leave others in suspense.
That would certainly be the case here for those who believe we went to the moon.
And even though we have a best confirmed hypothesis, it might eventually turn out to be false as we discover new evidence.
So here are the alternatives.
The Apollo missions were real.
We actually went to the moon not just once, but several times, implying we had the compulsion power, the computer capacity, and the engineering skill to pull it off, including, of course, to survive the Van Allen radiation belts, or what should be H2. The Apollo missions were fake.
We never went, but instead fabricated the missions using Hollywood-style techniques.
Which include filming on a soundstage using astronauts as actors in spacesuit faking photos and other activities in an elaborate pretense.
Let's take a look.
Among the features you need to know about the moon are this, a surface condition, the temperature range from about 280 Fahrenheit below at night to 260 Fahrenheit above in the daytime.
I mean, that's a staggering range.
And look at the relative size of the Earth and the Moon.
This is going to turn out to be significant by and by.
And because the gravity is only about one-sixth of what it is on Earth, a ten-foot dunk would turn out to be nearly a sixty-foot dunk on the Moon.
Fascinating!
Meanwhile, conspiracy theory, did we land on the moon?
There is, in fact, a bit of footage right here worth watching.
This is what first grabbed my attention in London.
My wife and I were staying at the Morgan Hotel on Bloomsbury Street, and we turned on the TV, and I saw this.
The following program deals with a controversial subject.
The theories expressed are not the only possible interpretation.
Viewers are invited to make a judgment based on all available information.
Tonight...
Liftoff!
We have a liftoff!
We investigate the most extraordinary event of the 20th century.
That's one small step for man.
Man landing on the moon.
One giant leap for mankind.
But believe it or not, some people say it never happened.
This whole thing was a fake.
Decide for yourself as we explore the evidence.
Analyze official government photos.
Examine the films.
The flag flaps on the moon where there's no atmosphere.
And hear the testimony of one former astronaut who's not afraid to speak his mind.
NASA could have covered it up.
Could the government have orchestrated the deception of the century?
NASA could have pulled off the greatest hoax of all time.
You be the judge.
On Conspiracy Theory, did we land on the moon?
It's a great film.
Another to watch is Capricorn One, which is talking about faking a flight to Mars, where the key was using a single grainy film footage that was then used by the networks, and they were able to control exactly what was broadcast.
Great cast.
James Rowland, Sam Watterson, O.J. Simpson as the astronauts.
I really like it.
Check it out.
Meanwhile, there are photographic anomalies.
Moondust either retains imprints or it does not, like wet sand versus dry.
But we have rovers with no tracks and boots with prints and more given that there's no moisture on the moon.
Think about it.
If there's no moisture and there's no atmosphere, I would think moondust would be no more capable of retaining imprints than the sands of the Sahara.
There was only one extremely distant source of light on the moon, the sun.
But we have photographs with converging shadows cast by what must have been multiple sources of the light, which means they were not taken on the moon.
Moreover, The cameras were externally mounted and could not be focused, yet every photo seemed to be perfectly framed, for the number of photos was astonishing given the time, in fact.
Jack White calculated if the numbers arrived, they were taking a photograph every 50 seconds.
Astonishing.
So you got moon rovers.
Now look, either the moon dust retains or it doesn't.
Well, here's a moon rover and there's no tracks in front, behind, or in between, suggesting it was set down by a crane.
Here's another, and this is wonderful.
The astronauts were wearing boots, right?
Moon boots.
But this is a sneaker imprint that appears to have been made by a stagehand inadvertently captured in one of their photographs.
Here's another.
We got the flags where we got shadows.
Here's no shadow where there should be a shadow.
Other shadows.
Here you see divergent shadows.
You notice the lines converge when it should be impossible because the moon is so far distant.
Meanwhile, Jack White studied up the amount of time that was available on the moon and the number of photographs that were taken.
It was astonishing.
The simplicity of his argument is great force because it doesn't presuppose any special knowledge of photographic anomalies or defects.
The agency wants the world to believe that 5,771 photographs were taken in 4,834 minutes.
If nothing but photography had been done, such a feat is clearly impossible.
Made even more by all the documented activities, the astronauts, they weren't just taking photographs.
Imagine, 1.19 photos every minute men were on the moon, that's a picture every 50 seconds.
The secret NASA tried to hide had been discovered.
The quantity of photos reporting to record the Apollo learning EVAs could not have been taken on the moon in such an impossible time frame.
So why do these photos exist?
How did they get made?
Did any men go to the moon, or was it truly the greatest hoax ever?
It's not merely the staggering number of photos that undermine the evidence, but the existence of any photos at all.
Cosmic rays, I suspect, would have contaminated photographic plates and made moon photography impossible.
That's Jim Fetzer's argument.
Lighting anomalies.
How could Buzz be illuminated from the front and the back at the same time if the distant sun is the only source of light?
In some photos, Buzz is wearing completely different spacesuits.
Did he change his equipment on the moon?
How could you do that?
How can we explain away various signs of Hollywood lighting and technical film techniques such as front-screen projection?
Here's a famous photo of Buzz standing in the spotlight, a giveaway, because he's lit up from alleged sunlight while the ground around him is shrouded in darkness.
How can the sun put a spotlight around a particular person like a stagehand pointing to a spotlight on an actor or singer on stage?
This was obviously a major screw-up.
NASA was reckless for thinking no one would notice or they could get away with it.
In fact, It was such a blunder that NASA tried to cover it by brightening the rest of the surface in subsequent versions.
Why would they do that if they had nothing to hide?
So here's the original published by newspapers in 1969 top, and then here's the edited version brightened up to hide the discrepancy.
Apollo defenders can explain this.
They resort to deception by claiming the edited version is the original.
But Uriah White proved unequivocally the spotlight version is the original, showing newspaper clippings from 1969 showing his YouTube video moonfaker posing for portrait.
So again, why would NASA alter the photos if they had nothing to hide?
Get this!
Jack White.
Above, Buzz has a big helmet, short legs, long arms, and a chest area with a set of controls on the right.
But here, Buzz has short arms, longer legs, smaller helmet, and different chest controls on the left.
Judging from the red spot, he's standing in the same approximate location.
I mean, look at that!
Meanwhile, There's a photograph that's been removed from the Project Apollo image gallery after computer analysis realized this supposed to be the sun was really a giant light bulb.
Wow!
Meanwhile, Winston Wu, 35 proofs we didn't go.
Americans don't need to lie to themselves.
That's what the government is for, said Michael Riviero.
Love it.
Introduction.
This is an article by Winston in my book, and I suppose we didn't go to the moon either, which was suggested by my co-editor, Mike Palachek, as a response one might have to the title of our first book, Nobody Died at Sandy Hook.
And I suppose we didn't go to the moon either.
Well, the answer is, yeah, we didn't go.
Greetings.
Welcome to my report, Winston Wu, on the evidence and arguments from one of the most audacious conspiracies in U.S. or even world history.
Conspiracies are a hot but growing controversial topic nowadays.
Oh, because they challenge our cherished beliefs that our government is our just protector and because there's growing distrust of authority in Western society and increasing numbers of dissidents.
This is great.
They can't say the moon rocks are so similar to the earth that the moon must have come out of the earth.
Well, at the same time, claim the moon rocks must have genuinely come from the moon because their chemical composition is distinctly different from that of the earth.
They can't have it both ways by waffling.
See Moon Faker by Gerald White's YouTube video.
Moon faker, moon rocks.
Further, when the European Space Agency's smart one probe crashed into the Lake of Excellence, a lunar marine region, it was reported that the minerals it kicked up were different from those of the Apollo moon rocks.
Since NASA doesn't allow any scientists who wants To examine their moon rocks, to just come and take a look, how could there be much independent verification?
In fact, the moon rock that Armstrong and Aldrin gave to the Dutch prime minister turned out to be a piece of petrified wood, which made international news.
The piece of rock supposedly brought back from the moon, seen in the Riekads Museum in Amsterdam on 27 August 2009. This incident has never been explained.
Why would the Apollo astronauts give a fake moon rock to Holland?
Or was it somehow switched in Holland?
And if moon rocks are fake, what does that say about the whole mission?
Well, get this.
Guess what?
Wernher von Braun, who joined our spy agency after World War II, along with a whole lot of other Nazi scientists, Made a trip down to the Antarctic in order to pick up moon rocks that had been dislodged by the impact of asteroids with the surface of the moon.
Here it was.
He's at the South Pole.
January 7th, 1969. Remember, the first moon mission was in Two years later.
So I picked up the moon rocks so I could claim they'd come from the moon, which they had come from the moon, just not by the mode of transportation alleged.
Conclusion.
The moon hoax is overwhelmingly probable.
He has a whole lot of other arguments, mind you, but concludes, well, I hope I've convinced you I'm not crazy after all, hopefully.
You can see the totality of logical arguments, reasons, and facts above.
Cumulative constitute a powerful case to question the authenticity of the Apollo moon landings.
Taken separately, each one may raise an eyebrow, but taken altogether, they constitute a strong case that either The moon landings were a hoax and we never went.
Or we went to the moon, but there's a dark secret surrounding that caused us not to go back or that led to the faking of at least some of the videos and photos.
All of the evidence, fake photos, logic, and common sense, point to H1, the hoax explanation.
On the other hand, the argument that we did go to the moon is scanty, shady, nonsensical, mostly based on religious faith and pride, rather than anything provable.
Thus, the weight of the evidence and data lead more heavily on the hoax side.
On a balance of scale, the evidence for the moon hoax would win by a landslide.
More proof we didn't go.
Inconsistent reports about the visibility of stars in the sky.
Flimsy moon lander with no blown-out dust cavity.
No moon dust on the lander's landing pads.
Falsifying fact after fact after fact.
Neil Armstrong.
The sky is black, you know.
It's a very dark sky.
Mike Collins on Gemini 10. My God!
The stars are everywhere!
Above me on all sides, even below me somewhat, down there next to that obscure horizon.
The stars are bright and they are steady.
This was written fourteen years later.
Remember, the Gemini 10 spacewalk photo has now been proven fake.
Meanwhile, Mike Collins on Gemini 11. I can't see the earth, only the black, starless sky behind the Agena rocket.
As I'll slowly cartwheel away from the Agena, I see nothing but the black sky for several seconds.
What I see is disappointing.
Only the brightest stars are visible through the telescope, and it's difficult to recognize them when they're not accompanied by the dimmer stars.
Gene Cernan on Apollo 17. When the sunlight comes through the blackness of space, it's black.
I didn't say it's dark.
I said black.
So black you can't conceive how black it is in your mind.
The sunlight doesn't strike on anything, so you see it's black.
Meanwhile, Yuri Gagarin, the first Russian cosmonaut, Astonishingly bright, cold stars could be seen through the windows.
Well, of course there's no atmosphere on the moon, so you wouldn't have any distortion.
They wouldn't be twinkling, but they'd be ablaze by the billions.
Meanwhile, this moon lander is so flimsy.
High school students have gone and watched it on display in the Space Museum and thought it was a joke.
It's made up of colored tin foil.
It's just ridiculous.
And here you can see on the lander, there's no dust.
And here, notice there's no blowout for the, you know, the rocket descending to blow out the dust and beneath it.
Fact.
The lunar rover had inflatable tires which would have exploded if pre-inflated, and there was no air on the moon to inflate them.
Pro Apollo nutters claimed the rover had solid wire mesh tires.
Yes, the rover in the museum had these fitted in the mid-seventies, when they realized pneumatic tires could not have functioned on the moon.
NASA had had over 47 years to clean up the plainly obvious mistakes within the Apollo program.
Each time someone brings up a query, NASA corrects it and says nothing.
They cannot say why the anomaly was there in the first place.
Anyway, I picture the rover supposedly on the moon and it has the same tires and tire valves.
They use the KSC. In other words, it's the same one.
Meaning, they were inflated tires, which would have exploded.
Early close-up pictures of the rover have changed since a blunder was exposed on this website.
More!
Fact!
Despite numerous videos being taken on the moon's surface, not one contains any frames showing planet Earth in the void of space.
I would think that's very poor planning on the part of the astronauts.
Though we already know why this is so, they weren't there.
Fact!
Neil Armstrong suffered with mental illness in his later years, a direct result of putting his name forward as a foundation stone for the biggest lie in history.
Or...
Could it be he became paranoid by the overwhelming number of websites exposing him as a liar?
And why was he buried at sea after his death?
Fact.
Rumor has that Apollo Trove astronaut Pete Conrad was going public about the fake moon landings on the 30th anniversary back in July of 1999. He was killed in a motorcycle accident one week before.
Fact!
It takes a space shuttle 66 hours to reach the International Space Station, which is a mere 200 miles above Earth.
NASA claims Apollo 13 was 55 hours into its duration from liftoff when it encountered a problem at a distance of 200,000 miles from Earth.
Think about it.
200,000 miles, that's 1,000 more miles, should have taken 66,000 hours, not 66. Meanwhile, fact.
NASA had not perfected the lunar landing craft in time for Apollo 11. In 2016, they're still trying to get a rocket to land and take off again, over 47 years after Apollo was supposed to have done just that.
Fact.
Film body taken inside the capsule of all Apollo missions shows a light blue haze and curvature of Earth through capsule window when they were supposedly halfway to the moon and in the blackness of space.
That proves the capsule was only in Earth orbit.
Fact.
Moon pictures on NASA's website are fake, with backdrop scenes pasted.
The picture revealed a black line penciled in where background meets daylight, which was blacked out completely.
Fact.
The LM used on later missions was the same spec as the first mission, that is, with no modification.
It would therefore have been impossible to carry the rover to the moon in the same confined LM, even if it collapsed into a more compact form.
Most imposing impediments for Saturn V rockets could not have escaped low Earth orbit.
Second, Temperature increases could have melted the spacecraft.
Third, Van Allen radiation would have taken the astronauts alive.
Fourth, had we landed on the moon, we could not have returned.
Get this.
This is a Soviet tactical report showing that the Saturn V rockets didn't have the velocity to carry the stated payload out of low Earth orbit.
We didn't have the physical ability to do it.
Here's another.
The result indicates the impossibility of delivering a return Apollo mission to the moon.
This is because they had to escape Earth gravity in this little tiny vessel.
Given these estimates, all arguments over what could have been achieved during the Apollo program should take into account that not more than 28 tons Including the Apollo 11 craft itself, out of 46 tons, as alleged by NASA, could have been placed into lunar orbit with the rockets they have in their lift.
Get this!
The latest proof of temperatures the spacecraft would have had to endure had we gone to the moon.
And NASA admits we never went to the moon on ForbiddenKnowledge.net of 21 September 2017. We learned that the melting points are the materials of which it was made.
Aluminum alloy, stainless steel titanium, nickel steel alloy, and heat-resistant glass.
But their melting points would have been exceeded in passing through the thermosphere en route to the moon.
A spacecraft made of these materials would have melted in flight.
Get this.
Temperatures in the thermosphere up to 400 miles above Earth's surface, which can reach from 932 degrees Fahrenheit to 3,632, for example, which exceeds the melting points of the materials from which the spacecraft is made.
Aluminum alloy melts at 671. Stainless steel, 2,750.
Titanium, 3,037.
Nickel steel alloy.
2647, heat-resistant grass, 1400. Now, of course, if it had been going super fast, it might have passed through those very hot, just like passing your hand through a flame if you don't let it hesitate.
But on the other hand, if it was there long enough to heat up, it would have melted.
Meanwhile, moon landing hoax.
NASA unwittingly reveals Van Halen radiation belts prohibit human flight.
This is published August 30, 2012. Since Neil Armstrong, the first man on the moon, passed away a few days ago, he posted the following NASA article released about 10 hours ago.
The following comment, with the username UN4G1V3N1, NASA is still seeking to develop technology to safeguard humans for spaceflight into radiation-laden space within and beyond the Van Allen radiation belts and the protection provided by our magnetosphere.
Until that technology is available, Our exploits into space will continue to be well below the beginning of radiation belts so intense that Allen called them a sea of deadly radiation.
What we know from the effects of radiation on earth teaches us that Apollo was nothing more than a fantasy.
According to YouTube Vid Below, every spaceship, whether Russian or American, with humans abroad, beginning in 1961 to the present, all have maintained altitudes of 1,000 miles well below the Van Allen radiation belts.
The only spacecraft to go through the 25,000 miles of those belts was the Apollo, or so we have been told.
In order for the Apollo or any lunar mission to be successful, the equipment and crew aboard the spacecraft would have to be adequately shielded from exposure from the intense radiation surrounding planet Earth in the form of the Van Allen radiation belts estimated to take six to seven feet of lead.
Which, of course, would have been so massive it would have been impossible to get it into Earth.
Meanwhile, moon landing.
How does it bring him back if we actually got to the moon?
Look at the relative size, okay, and what it requires in order to escape Earth orbit.
25,020 miles per hour, Earth much smaller, only 5,320.
Meanwhile, for those who harbor any lingering doubts over whether we went to the moon, they are decisively settled by the demonstration that, had we arrived on its surface, we could not have returned.
Among the best of all refutations, it was all fake.
You got this little tiny ascent stage.
How in the world is that going to get us back?
And look at this.
That's the kind of rocket it took to get to the moon and look at the relative size of what's supposed to have brought us back.
Meanwhile, surprising proofs we didn't go.
First, NASA destroyed a treasure trove of original moon landing footage.
Second, NASA appealed for help with its space poop problem.
Third, Earth has fifty-five times the density of the moon.
Fourth, yet photos don't reflect it.
Why did NASA just destroy Apollo tape recordings found in a basement?
The nation's space agency may or may not be trying to hide something, but it just did something extremely suspicious, dated July 27, 2017. As reported by the Daily Mail, NASA officials recently discovered a trove of historic tapes from the Apollo era when the space agency was sending astronauts to the moon and then destroyed them after they turned up in a basement in Pittsburgh.
Here's another.
Help NASA solve its space loop problem and win $30,000.
NASA! And notice the date here, 29 November 2016. NASA wants your help to solve a rather complicated issue affecting the comfort and safety of its astronauts.
After all, when you gotta go, you gotta go, and sometimes you gotta go in a total vacuum.
Astronauts have previously relied on adult nappies while wearing their launch and entry suits, a temporary solution only good for around a day.
NASA is now sponsoring the Space Poop Challenge, through which it's seeking the public's help to devise an in-suit waste management system for astronauts to use for up to 144 hours at a time.
There's a $30,000 prize-up for grabs.
Provert comes up with a solution and has to judge it to be the most promising for implementation and use on missions in the next three or four years.
So they got suits that are good for around a day.
Well, these missions they claim to have taken took seven or eight days, proving the whole thing is a giant pile of space poop.
Meanwhile, Scott Anderson, in a show with me on the moon landing, showed that Some of the footage was filmed in a landfill, and there actually was a Corvette buried in the landfill.
How bad is that?
Meanwhile, here's a relative size of the Earth and the Moon.
Okay, look at that.
What you would see of Earth were you on the Moon.
And yet this is what they claim is a photo of the earth from the moon.
That's clearly a photo of the moon from the earth, which had been photoshopped to make it look like the opposite, but it should have looked like this.
Earth should have overwhelmingly filled the visual field, not looked like this.
Thus, did we go to the moon?
We did not have the propulsion power, the computing capacity, and the communication ability, which made it technically impossible.
We did not have the ability to survive Van Allen radiation or to endure the environment of the moon, technical and physical.
We didn't even have the ability to deal with space poop, which makes the whole moon landing tail a massive pile of space poop.
Back in December of 1909, they had a cover of a moon landing, and look at that, the famous photo of Buzz Aldrin walking across the surface of the moon on the cover of National Geographic, five months after Astronaut's historic voyage, like John Glenn before him.
Armstrong carried a small National Geographic flag to the moon and back, which he presented as Society President Melvin Payne when the Apollo 11 crew was awarded the Hubbard Medal.
But look at that.
Look at the shadow being cast.
The shadow is being cast forward.
That means the sun, the only source of light, would be behind him.
So how can the front of his space suit be illuminated?
Take a look.
At the later, the War on Science cover, that's how.
It was shot on a soundstage.
Meanwhile, if you want more, check out, and I suppose we didn't go to the moon either, but you can find it at moonrockbooks.com.
I gotta tell you, Lorian, it was fun to do that.
I had that prepared for another...
Oh, Catherine, how wonderful to have you here!
I was filling in with a critique of our moon landing, but I just delighted you are here.
What happened?
This is not a stupid excuse because I collected video evidence We had a power cut that started just after 8pm.
Now I'm on Eastern Time, but if the FBI misread your schedule and missed the top, which said all times are on Central Time, the power cut that wiped out our entire town, right, for almost, well actually over an hour, started exactly where my talk would have started.
I don't think that's a coincidence, Catherine, I've got to tell you.
Well, isn't that what I said, Jim?
Because I had power outages here today, but we had a big storm, so I let it go with that.
We had nothing.
I actually heard you because I called in and I joined by audio, but I was muted, so I was saying, check for Bill Biddy, because I only had a meeting like that.
And everything was digital.
Jim's phone number is stored in my Skype, so I couldn't call anybody, and I just had one email that was offline.
I tried to call you myself, of course, and I sent you an email, but we're glad to have you here, Catherine.
Well, let's do this.
Can we find Joaquin?
And oh, by the way, I should end the recording for Jim's presentation now.
So we'll do that, folks.
We'll be right back with Catherine and then Joaquin Agopian.
▲
Export Selection