Tuesday, June 9, 2015

And I suppose we didn't go to the moon, either?

by Jim Fetzer

If you thought that Sandy Hook and the Boston bombing were "big lies" from the US government, you haven't seen anything yet! This new book--second in the series, "Save the World / Resist the Empire"-- tackles the Apollo Moon Landing, the Beatles' Greatest Mystery, replacing Saddam and Osama, and (most controversial of all) the Holocaust. If you think you know the score about these events, then test your beliefs against the evidence it presents. You may have a lot to learn from this sensational new book! 




For an interview featuring Ole Dammegard and Jim Fetzer discussing the book with Red Ice Radio, have a listen:  interview with Ole and Jim. The book is available from Create Space and amazon.com. Here is another with Jeff Rense and Jim Fetzer on And I suppose we didn't go to the moon, either?

17 comments:

  1. I've just listened to Jim and Jeff Rense talk about "And I Suppose..." You can find the interview at "YouTubeTheBeatles, The Holocaust&OtherMassDelusions." It's Fascinating. Jim Fetzer's an iconoclast who argues reasonably and persuasively. He's been convincing about every Doubting Thomas question I've had about The JFK assassination, 911, Sandy Hook, etc. I'm still a doubter about Fetzer's Moon landing theory but, if history is any indication, Jim will likely convince me again. I ordered "And I Suppose..." today. The more I read that he's written, the more I'm impresed with the way Jim researches, thinks, and argues. - Ed Perkins

    ReplyDelete
  2. Not that old Beatles conspiracy again.....I would take quite a bit of convincing

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, check it out. And if you can refute our findings, send me the draft of an article and I will review it for publication--because you will have done something that I expect no one can do! Start anywhere--the Prologue, Sterling's chapter, Nick's chapter, the forensic evidence chapter and James Larson's on the who, the how and the why--and get back to me.

      Delete
    2. The chapter on the forensic evidence should be of great interest to you. Photos of "Paul" before and after 9/11/1966 show two different persons, which can be established by differences in their teeth, their palates, their ears, their heights--and the shape and size of their skulls. I even put a pair of comparison photos of their faces on the front cover and of their heights on the back. I would not have pursued this had I not been convinced we are talking about two different people. Check it out.

      Delete
  3. Mr. Fetzer

    I have ordered your book and am looking forward to reading it in a few days. I would like to receive your input regarding this web site as the author lays out a number of reasons why, in his opinion, the Apollo Moon landings did, in fact occur.

    Thank you for your time.

    http://lightsinthedark.com/2014/05/22/no-the-moon-landings-werent-faked-and-heres-how-you-can-tell/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What you have there is an attempt to debunk some of the arguments that have been advanced as proof we did not go. But this is like attempting to deflect shotgun pellets: there are a lot of them. Even if you defeated some of them, that does not make your position accurate or true. Check out what we have and I think you will see the inadequacies of that site.

      Delete
    2. What you have there is an attempt to debunk some of the arguments that have been advanced as proof we did not go. But this is like attempting to deflect shotgun pellets: there are a lot of them. Even if you defeated some of them, that does not make your position accurate or true. Check out what we have and I think you will see the inadequacies of that site.

      Delete
    3. With all due respect Jim, that's an exceptionally poor and inadequate response from someone of your supposed expertise, especially in light of your book.

      Almost every major conspiracy theory, including those you don't personally believe in, has those who would tell you *exactly* the same regarding attempts to debunk them, where they too can say it's "like attempting to deflect shotgun pellets: there are a lot of them".

      You say "even if you defeated some of them, that does not make your position accurate or true", likewise, the presence of a lot of them doesn't make your position accurate or true. A millions lies doesn't make a truth.

      For the moon landings, you only need to prove beyond doubt and hence without question that ONE of the claims presented for a hoax is valid, where that alone will be enough to raise a question mark over the validity of the missions. Just one, and yet to date, none of the hoax claims presented (including the poor arguments/claims from Wu) holds up to close scrutiny.

      If you believe you have such evidence, then present it here please, state what you consider to be the strongest single piece of evidence that shows the moon landings were a hoax, evidence that you believe to be indisputable and therefore can not be debunked.

      Can you do that? Personally, I do not believe you can.

      Delete
    4. It's a common fallacy to suppose that, by defeating some arguments against having gone to the moon, you have defeated all of them. We must present at least 50 in the book, including Van Allen radiation, divergent shadows, no tracks in front of or behind a moon rover, illumination on the side of the moon lander away from (what should be) the only source of light, 5,771 photo allegedly taken in 4,834 minutes (or at a rate of one every 50 secs).

      There are plenty more. The moon footage was shot using front screen projection, evidently by Stanley Kubrick, who received funding for his "2001: A Space Odyssey". All of these (and many more) are laid out in detail in the book. New ones show up all the time. In commenting on the story in Huffington Post, for example, a man who had worked in TV in the late 1960s and early 1970s observed that broadcasting in that era required equipment that would fill a bread truck to get the signal to an antenna, but there is nothing like that on the moon. This was among the greatest of all hoaxes perpetrated on the world. .

      Delete
    5. I hate to say this in case it's taken the wrong way, but I fully agree with what Anonymous said on June 25, where I hadn't thought of looking at conspiracies that way before. It applies to them all and so that's an approach I will apply myself in future.

      I scrolled down to read your reply with interest James and was disappointed to see you distort what was said by him (assuming Anonymous is a guy, sorry if I'm wrong), but I expect it wasn't intentional.

      James you are claiming the argument he made was that by defeating some arguments against having gone to the moon then all such arguments are defeated.

      That's not what he said. His argument was simple and yet powerful, which is that if a hoax is true, then it doesn't matter if we have one hoax claim or a thousand hoax claims, only one of those claims needs to be proven true to reveal the hoax. One million debatable/questionable claims does not equal one definite/unquestionable claim.

      Medicine is more my area, where I've had arguments with others claiming medical wonders and conspiracies for years, from out of body experiences and paranormal powers, to the MMR vaccine conspiracy and the original of HIV/AIDS.

      All follow a similar pattern, where supporters present some claims and if one disproves any of those claims, they simply list several more, where they assume that their case is validated by the quantity of evidence rather than the quality of that evidence.

      Your reply reminded me of that same assumption. The moon landings conspiracy is not my area so I can't say much there, but the Van Allen radiation catches my eye on medical grounds. For me, I would only trust the opinion of an authority on the effects of radiation on the human body in space, such as a Doctor of Space Medicine, but no matter where I've search, I just cannot find any such doctor who reinforces that radiation claim. That for me is a warning sign, one which I've seen many times in the medical based conspiracies I've debated.

      Shame there's no medical conspiracies in your book because I may have considered it out of curiosity, but I would like to see an effort made to address Anonymous' request for a hoax claim about the moon landing that, to use his words, holds up to close scrutiny, or the way I see it, provides 'The One' to that conspiracy 'Matrix'.

      Delete
  4. Mr. Fetzer,

    Will your book be coming out in digital form? I live in Brazil and shipping costs more than the price of the book, and packages are often stolen before they get here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, it is available as a Kindle e-book on amazon.com.

      Delete
  5. Below is photographic evidence that NASA was working with filmmaker Stanley Kubrick in the mid-1960s (found on Rense.com). Do data and image searches on the people shown with Kubrick and you will see that this photo is legit. Frederick Ordway was Stanley Kubrick's scientific adviser for his film "2001: A Space Odyssey." Deke Slayton was NASA's "top astronaut" in charge of Apollo astronaut selection, including who would be first to step onto the moon. Arthur C. Clarke was a famous scientist, author of the novel "2001: A Space Odyssey," and CBS analyst for the Apollo moon missions. Stanley Kubrick was of course the famous director of the 1968 film "2001: A Space Odyssey." George Mueller was the Associate Administrator of the NASA Office of Manned Space Flight from September 1963 until December 1969 (Apollo 11 was from July 16 - 24, 1969). The cover story for this meeting was probably that it was just about Kubrick's film "2001: A Space Odyssey," for which Frederick Ordway had solicited NASA's help, but it shows that NASA's top brass were very friendly with Stanley Kubrick, to the extent of traveling to London to meet with him:

    http://www.private-files.com/documents/declassified/usia/stanley_kubrick.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  6. The link to the Huffington Post article based on "the brilliant tweet" (which said anyone who doesn't believe we went to the moon needs a brain transplant) is http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/brian-cox-moon-conspiracy_55ada24ce4b0d2ded39fe56d where I advance another half-dozen or more proofs that we did not go.

    ReplyDelete
  7. How does somebody buy this book now? It seems out of print everywhere.. Books A Million, Amazon, Barnes & Nobles, all out.

    ReplyDelete