The text discusses a presentation at the False Flags and Conspiracy Conference 2024, where Jim Fetzer questions the authenticity of the moon landing. He points out inconsistencies such as the waving flag in the absence of atmosphere, photographic anomalies, and the staggering number of photos taken in a short time. He suggests that the moon landing could have been a Hollywood-style fabrication, with the use of sound stages, actors, and fake photos. The text also mentions various theories and evidence, inviting the audience to form their own conclusions.
This article presents Winston Wu’s argument that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax. He points out inconsistencies in NASA’s reports, such as the differences in moon rock samples and the absence of dust on the lunar lander. Wu also questions the authenticity of photos and videos from the mission, and highlights the lack of evidence showing Earth from the moon. He concludes that the evidence leans heavily towards the moon landings being a fabrication.
The article suggests that the Apollo moon landing was a hoax, citing technical and physical impossibilities such as the inability to survive Van Allen radiation, endure the moon’s environment, and manage waste in space. It also questions the authenticity of NASA’s footage and photos, pointing out inconsistencies in shadows and sizes. The article also mentions NASA’s recent destruction of Apollo era tapes and their ongoing struggle with waste management in space. Lastly, it discusses the discrepancy between the size of the rocket that supposedly took us to the moon and the one that allegedly brought us back.
I’m sorry, but there seems to be a mistake. The text you provided, “You got it. [tr:tra]”, doesn’t seem to be an article or a paragraph that I can summarize. Could you please provide the correct text?

Foreign 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? The moon landings the four stages of scientific reasoning PA someone 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 in attentive infallible fashion of science.

That means when we get additional evidence or new hypotheses, we may have to revise our conclusions. Accept hypotheses we previously rejected hypothesis we previously accepted to 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. Well, let’s take a look. Among the features you need to know about the moon are this a service condition. The temperature range from about 280Fahrenheit below at night at 260Fahrenheit 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 gravity is only about 16 of what it is on Earth, a 10 foot dunk would turn out to be nearly a 60 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. It’s one small step for man. Man landing on the moon. One giant leap for man. Believe it or not, some people say it never happened. This whole thing was a fake. Decide for yourself as we explore the evidence. The Eagle has landed. Analyze official government photos. What a ride. What a ride. 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 Capricorn1, 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 Waters and O.J. simpson as the astronauts. I really like it. Check it out. Meanwhile, there are photographic anomalies. Moon dust either retains imprints or 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 moon dust 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. Where the number of photos was astonishing given the time. In fact, Jack White calculated, if the numbers are right, they were taking a photograph every 50 seconds. Astonishing. So you got Moon rovers. Now, look, either it retains the moon dust retains in bris, 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 marrying Blutes, right? Moon Blutes. 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. 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 5771 photographs were taken in 4834 minutes. If nothing but photography had been done. Such a feat is clearly impossible, made even more by all the documented activities. The astronaut. 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 at such an impossible time frame. So why do these photos exist? How did they get made? Did anyman 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 can 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 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 and 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 slave 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 Moon Faker 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 Rivero. Love it. Introduction and 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 Palacek 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 for one of the most audacious conspiracies in US or even world history. Conspiracies are a hot but growing controversial topic nowadays. All because they challenge our terrorist 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 Smart1 probe crashed into the Lake of Excellence, a lunar maria 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 want to examine their moon rocks to just come and take a look, how can 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.

A piece of rock supposedly brought back from the moon. Seen in the Richardsmuseum 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 nation? 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 7, 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 transportational 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 considered 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 causes not to go back, or that we’re into 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 leaned 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 14 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 slowly cartwheel away from the Agena, I see nothing but the black sky for several seconds. But I see it disappointing, for only the brightest stars are visible through the telescope. 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 that blow out the dust and beneath. The lunar rover had inflatable tires which would have exploded if we inflated. And there was no air on the moon to inflate. On Pro Apollo nutters claimed the rover had solid wire mesh tires. Yes, the rover in the museum had these fitted in the mid-70s when they realized pneumatic tires could not have function 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 at the first place. Anyway, I pictures the rover supposedly on the moon. 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 became paranoid by the overwhelming number of websites exposing him as a liar? And why was he buried at sea after his death? Factory Rumor has it Apollo 12 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. 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 had encountered a problem at a distance of 200,000 miles from Earth. Think about it. 200,000 miles. That’s a thousand more miles should take 66,000 hours, not 66. Meanwhile, fat 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 is supposed to have done just that.

Fact Filmplay 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 pictures 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 live. Fourth, had we landed on the moon, we could not have returned. Get this. This is a Soviet tactical report showing that the standard five 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 is 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 coming from temperature 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 21st September 2017 we learned that the melting points of 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 3632 for example, which exceeds the melting points of the materials from which the spacecraft is made. Aluminum alloy melts at 671 stainless steel 2750 titanium 3037 nickel steel alloy 2647 heat resistant grass 1400 now of course if it had been going super fast, it might attract pass through those very hot.

It’s 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 Helen Radiation belts prohibit human flight since Neil Arndt this is published August 30, 2012 said Neil Armstrong, the first man on the moon passed away a few days ago. I thought it was the following NASA article released about 10 hours ago the following comment with the username UN4G1V3N1NASA 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 and Alan 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 range 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 6 to 7ft of land, 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 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 Bruce, 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 55 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 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 bucks. NASA and notice the date here, 29th 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 price for grabs. Fruit comes up with a solution as judges to be the most promising for implementation and use on missions in the next three or four years. So he got suits that are good for round today. 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 show that some of the footage was filmed in a landfill. 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 has 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 look like this. Thus did we go to the moon. We did not have the propulsion power, the computing capacity, 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 tale a massive pile of space poop. Back in December 1969 they had a cover of a moon landing. And look at that. A famous photo of Buzz Aldrin walking across the surface of the moon on the COVID of National Geographic five months after astronauts historic voyage. Like John Glenn before him, Armstrong carry a small National Geographic flag to the moon and back which he presented as society president Melvin Payne when the Apollo 11 crew is 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 spacesuit 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@moonrockbooks.com I gotta tell you Lorian, it was fun to do that. I had that prepared for another. Oh Kathryn, how wonderful to have you here. I was filling in with a critique of our moon landing, but I just delighted you are here, delighted.

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 time zone Central time, the power cut that wiped out our entire town, right, for almost, actually over an hour, started exactly when my talk would have started. I don’t think that’s a coincidence, Catherine, I gotta 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.

But, yeah, 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 always had 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, but I tried to call you myself, of course, and I sent you an email. But we’re glad to have you here, Katherine. Well, here, 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. Back with Catherine and then Joaquin Hagopian. You got it.
[tr:tra].

See more of Jim Fetzer on their Public Channel and the MPN Jim Fetzer channel.