JIM FETZER TAKE:2 "How we Know we Didn't Go to the Moon"

Video Transcript:

Because today is the 50th observant of the moon landing hoax. I'm here to explain how we know we didn't go. The place to begin is with the brilliant documentary conspiracy theory did we land on the moon, released in 2001. My wife and I were visiting London at the time, staying at the Morgan Hotel on Bloomsbury Street, which backs onto the British Museum, which I had selected because my wife's maiden name was Morgan. When I turned on one of the BBC channels, I was absolutely captivated to discover this documentary, presenting one scientific proof after another that we did not go to the moon, one of which is featured here where there's no blast crater from the moon lander having descended onto the surface of the moon, which is covered with moon dust, which would have been widely distributed. It also shows a flag waving on the moon, which would have been impossible because the moon has no atmosphere. And the lander makes its departure from the surface. Not only, again, is no moon dust disturbed, but it appears to be elevated by means of a cable for that and many other reasons. This is the right place to begin. Then if you want to understand how it was done, this success in creating the deception, go back to the earlier film of 1977 Capricorn I starring James Rowland, Sam Waters and Anode J Simpson as astronauts, where the NASA director played by Hal Hobra intercepts them just before the spacecraft is to launch, explaining they found a problem in the program in that on their return to Earth, they would have died during the descent. They were taken to a remote facility in the Mojave Desert that is set up to be the soundstage for an elaborate production, faking a trip to Mars in this instance, where the success of the venture was affected by means of a single grainy television feed, making it very difficult to discern any details or features to perpetrate the deception. Now the moon missions were actually impossible, but where it's important to differentiate between three different kinds of impossibilities. Logical impossibilities are things that could not be the case because their very descriptions are inconsistent or self-contradictory, such as around square. Nothing can have both the properties of being round and being square at the same time, or some would suggest honest politicians. Physical impossibilities entail violations of the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, laws of nature that cannot be violated and cannot be changed. Then in addition, and here most importantly, technical impossibilities, things we could not have done at the time because the technology had yet to be developed, such as airborne flight before the Wright brothers, electric flight before Edison, autos before Ford. Most important of all is a Van Allen radiation belt, which is a Taurus or donut shape of energetic, charged particle circling Earth held in place by Earth's magnetic field. The belts extend from about 1,000 to 60,000 kilometers above the surface, radiation levels vary, but they would have been inimical to the passage of human beings or other living things. In order to navigate the Van Allen radiation belt, the spacecraft would have had to be equipped with six feet of lead shielding, which obviously would have been a preposterous to have ejected into space in the first place. In fact, even NASA has unwittingly revealed that the Van Allen radiation belts prohibit human spaceflight. In explaining why a man mission to Mars has been impossible, the spokesman said, NASA still seeking to develop technology to safeguard humans for spaceflight and to radiation-laden space within and beyond the Van Allen radiation belt. All that technology is available or exploits into space will continue to be well below the beginning of radiation belt, so intense Van Allen called them a sea of deadly radiation. What this means, of course, is that from the point of view of this physical phenomenon, the whole idea of having made manned missions to the moon is no more than a fantasy. It's also significant that a Soviet physicist conducted a study of the thrust capabilities of the Saturn V rockets that were alleged to have propelled these missions into outer space and discovered that they were insufficient to escape low-Earth orbit. Indeed, it appears no manned mission has ever transcended low-Earth orbit and that the astronauts at best were in low-Earth orbit during their purported missions to the moon. Here is a fascinating argument that is being made, and notice how the image illustrates a single grainy feed. Lunar rocks disprove the fake moon landing conspiracy experts have maintained. Well, it's very significant to understand that in 1967, Warner von Braun conducted an expedition to the Antarctic to collect moon rocks that had been dislodged from the surface of the moon by the impact of small asteroids caught an Earth gravitational field and brought down in that region so they could be presented as evidence that we had actually gone to the moon. They were a modified moon rocks, but they had not arrived on Earth by the mode of transportation that was alleged. Interestingly, the photographs from the moon also demonstrate that we are being played. Here are some showing the imprint of astronauts' boots in the space dust, but whereas you will see a circle, there was also the imprint of a sneaker. The astronauts were wearing sneakers on the moon, but members of the stage were wearing sneakers on that occasion, and one of them inadvertently left his imprint in the moon dust. In addition, we have moon rovers that leave no tracks. So here we have an example where there's no tracks before, no tracks after, no tracks in between the wheels of a moon rover. Now frankly, I do not believe that moon dust would have been capable of retaining an imprint because there is not only no atmosphere but no moisture on the moon. In making an imprint in moon dust, I believe would have been like making an imprint on the sands of this harrow. It could not happen. But if it could happen, then of course, the bootimbrimps falsify, I mean, as the bootimbrimps went report, we have the moon rovers that falsify the claim they make an imprint because this would only be possible, and it had been lowered by a crane. And if indeed it is the case that the moon dust will not retain an imprint, then while that will exonerate the moon rover photographs, it will not those photographs of the boots on the moon. Now we have a dilemma here, either moon dust will retain an imprint or it will not, if it will not, then the photographs of the space boot refute that we were actually on the moon, including of course, the sneaker imprint. And if they will retain an imprint, then the moon rover photographs that show no moon tracks refute that we were on the moon. But either if the moon dust does retain an imprint or it does not, either way, we were not on the moon. Meanwhile, other space photographs purportedly taken on the moon are equally revealing. Here we have a flag casting no shadow. Well, that's rather stunning and suggest some form of photoshopping was taking place here. Perhaps even more striking, we have divergent shadows cast at different angles because the sun was at such a vast distance away from the moon. Any shadows cast from that remote source would have been parallel. The fact that we have shadows cast in different directions indicates there were multiple sources of light, which is inconsistent with having been present on the moon. In addition, Jack White has made a brilliant argument based upon calculating, just simply adding up the total number of photographs that NASA alleges were taken on the moon divided by the total number of minutes that were available for having taken them. The simplicity of the argument has great force because it does not presuppose any special knowledge of photographic anomalies or defects. The agency wants a 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. Imagine 1.19 photos every minute that men were on the moon. That's a picture every 50 seconds. Completely preposterous. This merely the staggering number of photographs undermines this evidence in my view, but the existence of any photographs at all. Cosmic rays, I suspect, would have contaminated photographic plates and made moon photography impossible. Here's a photograph of the moon lander incidentally. Students have visited this base museum and been astonished by how flimsy it is. Nothing like this could possibly have performed the feat attributed to it. It was merely a prop in an elaborate stage production, where its principal component appears to have been multicolored aluminum foil. Here you see a close-up of a landing pad. You notice the X that is partially obscured. The cameras were mounted external to the spacesuit and had two X's that were etched on the lenses, but that means that the X's would have been on top of any images that those cameras produce. Here you'll notice the X is actually obscured by the moon lander, leg, and pad, which is impossible if these were authentic. Moreover, because the cameras were mounted external to the spacesuits, and the astronauts were unable to either focus or frame them. The existence of this vast number of moon photographs, each of which is perfectly focused in frames, in and of itself demonstrates that we are witnessing an elaborate fraud. One specific photograph is proven to be particularly revealing. This was AS 1246-6765, which was removed from the project Apollo image gallery after computer analysis revealed that the sun was really a giant light bulb. How bad is that? Meanwhile, Jack White has noticed that various of the photographs show inconsistent images of Buzz Aldrin. Look at the left. Buzz has a big helmet, short legs, long arms, and chest controls with the set on the right. But above, Buzz has short arms, longer legs, smaller helmet, and different chest controls on the left. Judging from the red spot on the ground, these were taken at approximately the same location. That's because these spacesuits were merely costumes, and on some occasions they mixed them up. White adhesive destroy Apollo tape recordings turns out that a vast repository of moon landing footage was discovered in a basement in Pittsburgh. Had this been legitimate footage of a real event, it would have been the most priceless video tape ever taken by the hand of man. Instead of preserving it, however, NASA destroyed it, no doubt out of here that modern technology would have been able to demonstrate that it was fraudulent in its character. My favorite of all is that NASA has requested in 2016 help with solving its space group problem in order to win $30,000. NASA wants your help to solve a rather complicated issue affecting the comfort and safety of our astronauts. After all, when you gotta go, you gotta go, and sometimes you gotta go in a total vacuum. NASA previously relied on adult nampies, that is to say adult diapers, while wearing their launching entry suits, a temporary solution that is good for only about a day. NASA is now sponsoring the space group challenge through which it's seeking the public's help to devise an in-suit waste management system for astronauts to use up to 144 hours at a time. There is a $30,000 prize up for grabs for over comes up with a solution that NASA judges to be the most promising for implementation and use on missions in the next three or four years, but consider these space missions to the moon took seven or eight days. If you only had adult nampies that were good for a day, what this demonstrates in my opinion conclusively is that NASA's allegations for having put men on the moon are nothing but a gigantic pile of space poop. So did we go to the moon? Well consider the following. We lack the propulsion power. We also lack the computing capacity. Dennis Camino and I have discussed how the computer, the design, NASA ledges directed this mission was not even functional. There's more computing power in an iPod or a laptop today than was available in that era. Also, lack the communications capability. A communications expert has reported that at that interval of time it required a van, the size of a bed, a bread truck to broadcast. And when we're talking about approximately 250,000 miles, we've all heard lags and responses from relatively short distances on earth. The lag and communication and response would have been extraordinary given that distance and yet what we have in terms of the footage and recording show no delay at all as though these were taken in relatively close proximity right here on earth. We have the photographic anomalies, all a jack white, multiple in their dimensions. We have the brilliant documentary and conspiracy theory that we land on the moon. For those who want to go into greater detail, check out the video interviews I've done with Dennis Camino, the great moon landing hoax, the real deal, the moon landing hoax, both of which are available at 153news.net. NASA itself has admitted the problem going to Mars is the Van Allen radiation belt. NASA discovered hundreds of hours of moon landing footage and then destroyed it. NASA needs help with its spacebook problem 24 hours versus eight days. Werner von Braun led an expedition to the Antarctic to gather moon rocks. There's really no doubt about it. Those are among the most important reasons we know that we did not go to the moon. Well, geographic has been responsive to the moon issue. Back in December 1969, it featured Buzz Aldrin walking across the surface of the moon on its cover. Far more recently, however, National Geographic has featured a very different version of a moon lander on the stage of a set to fake the moon landing, which turns out to be far more appropriate. They actually got it right. Finally, today, many are going to celebrate the moon landing. Here is kusc.org classic music and FM station 91.5. We're going to the moon. July 20, 1969. Where were you 50 years ago this Saturday? If you were alive, I'm betting you were in front of your TV watching the impossible happen. Let me emphasize, watching the impossible happen. Where if it was impossible, as we have discovered, it did not happen. Did the magic and mystery of our moon diminish the moment Neil Armstrong took his one small step? Or did the moon become even more magical and mysterious? We're at a situation now where 50 years of the moon landing hoax is 50 years enough. Thanks all for watching. Enjoy moon landing hoax day.