The End The End Was that fun? Yeah, it was Mommy's birthday today, folks. Happy birthday, Annie. We love you. Happy birthday, Mommy. I love you. Thank you, Pooh. You're welcome. Thank you, Pooh. Thank you, Pooh. Thank you, Pooh. Well, folks, I've got a few things to impart to you. And I hope you didn't mind that little excursion there. But Annie just happens to be an extremely important person around here. I have a letter here. And I can't help but read this letter. I have to read this letter. In fact, I'm going to frame this letter and put it up right over the console here so I can never, ever forget that these kind of people really exist. It says, at the top, it says, A good Christian, and good is underlined, and then it says, Cooper, you say you are a Christian, but you always defend faggots and Jews. What kind of Christian are you? Don't you know what the scriptures say about the faggots? If you do, then you know what we should do to them for their own good. They are beasts, abominations cursed in the eyes of the Lord Jesus. We must save ourselves from their perversions. Never let them around us. Never give them the light of day so they can corrupt us and our children. Sweet Jesus knows the way, but you don't. I don't know why you don't just admit that those perverts are subhuman and announce it on your show. Throw them out of your clubs, and then I'll join. I can't stand being near them. They get me sick when I think about it. Listen to the words of Jesus our Lord and tell us the truth about these pigs. I don't know why you're always defending the Jews also. Don't you know what Jesus said about the Jews? Do you know what they say about Jesus? You should speak to some Jews who are converts and see what they say. Really, can't you see that the Jews are the... The Jews are living out Scripture just as Jesus said. Why don't you go to church and kneel down in front of sweet Jesus on the cross suffering there for you and ask Him to forgive you for your sins. You need it. You and the homos and the Jews signed a good Christian better than you. Had to read that to you folks, and it requires no comment from me. I would advise this good Christian to go back in the Bible and pick out the words of Jesus and read them again. And then ask himself if he really is a good Christian and if he's better than anybody. And what Jesus thought about being better than anybody. And what he thought about Jews as he was a Jew. Ah, this is incredible. I'm going to frame it and hang it up just to make sure that I never forget that these people are out there and never let my guard down because they're dangerous. Extremely dangerous. Those are the people, ladies and gentlemen, who make other people sit around and plot why they have to take freedom and liberty away from those kinds of people. Unfortunately, to do it, they have to do it to all of us. Isn't that a shame? If it wasn't for that, I might help them. Along with guys like Major Clerken and all the other... All the other... Better not say it. Oh, and now, here we get to another... Another subject here. The other night, I was trying to be nice, and I didn't mention the real state that the meeting in Sturbridge took place in because I didn't want to hurt anybody's feelings or direct undue attention on these people. But now I've just got to, folks, because this is ridiculous. Now this same guy who was telling everybody in Sturbridge, Michigan, and it's not Michigan. It's really Sturbridge, Massachusetts. I never could say that. Massachusetts. Sturbridge, Massachusetts. He was telling everybody that he knows me personally. It's a lie. He doesn't know me personally. He never met me in his life. He called me, and we had two very short telephone conversations. His name is Carlton Leonard. Carlton Leonard. Now he's faxing things to John Trachman and some other guy named Leroy Crenshaw saying that I said that Jesus was not God and all kinds of crap. At the meeting in Sturbridge, Michigan, he was telling me that... telling people there, which was telling me, because my people are everywhere. You people don't have any conception of the intelligence network that I built. My people are everywhere. He was telling people there that I'm a drunk, and he knows me personally, and he knows it from firsthand information by knowing me personally. He's never seen me. Never been around me. Never met me. Never met my family. It's incredible. And he apparently has help from people who just listen to this crap and pass it along. Folks, if I really did all these things, I wouldn't have time to do this show. I wouldn't have time to administer CAGI or the intelligence service or produce the paper. You see, in one day, I probably do and produce more than everybody listening to this program does in probably a two-week period of time. And I'm not belittling anybody. It's just that most of you lead an average life. You go to work. You come home. You watch TV. You have a beer. You go to bed. That's for most people. Some of you probably work just as hard as I do, but I guarantee you it's a minority, and you don't have time to go sit in bars and drink, and you don't have time to do all of these things that people think we're doing. I don't know where they get it. But this meeting was kind of important for other things also. But I want you to know, all of you living in Massachusetts, since this guy is continuing on his rampage here, that I don't know him. Never met him in my life. He is probably working for some subversive group in order to damage or try to damage. He's not successful to try to damage what I'm doing here. And, of course, it won't work. But that meeting, folks, was produced by For the People. I called it a militia meeting because John Trochman was speaking there, and he turns everything into a militia meeting. And just like, you know, I stated it was a militia meeting, that's what it became. And there were other people there. Ed Brown was there, the leader of the New Hampshire Constitution Defense Militia, who tells people that he's the commander of the militias in as many as seven states. He's a liar. He's not. He might have three people that really follow him, and that's the truth of the matter. He goes around with another guy, and these guys are notable for what they preach. Brown preaches that everything, well, let me put it this way. He believes that the Kazarian Jews are descended from invaders from the constellation of Orion, and they can be recognized by the fact that they don't comb their hair. Now, is this incredible or what? He believes that they are trying to kill all the real Jews. And he's really angry about this, or professes to be anyway. And he has an associate, and associates, well, he associates with a lot of people from the Posse Comitatus, and I'm not going to commentate on them, because I don't know them. But they're from Pennsylvania. And another person of pretty ill repute, in my estimation, named Bob Runcie. Runcie's been traveling all over New England, advocating a preemptive strike upon the United States government. The same thing that a lunatic on the Internet, named Ray Lampley, is advocating. And you'll remember that Ray Lampley, was the one who created the phony letter from the White House, and forged the president's signature on that letter. I don't know how he's still running around. The Secret Service should have found him a long time ago. But this Runcie claims to have an extensive military background, and apparently he spent some time in the military. He promotes anti-Semitic speech and literature. He speaks pretty well. He's charismatic. And extremely macho, and that's probably why Ed Brown likes him, because Ed's a wannabe. And Bob plays on Ed's insecurities, while making him feel important, so Ed sticks to Runcie like glue. Runcie operates MCAT, or MCAT Training and Self-Defense Services, and he's been doing that for about two years. He associates with a guy named William Crarr, who last resided in Manchester, New Hampshire. And he seems like a nice guy, but he never stays in one place very long. And he's also a racist, and seems to be instigating people to insurrection, all of these people. He was affiliated with a military supply outfit called IDC America, that right now is in financial problems. Now, Trachman was invited to speak there at Sturbridge, at this For the People meeting, and guess who showed up? Chip Burlett, ladies and gentlemen. Now, it's apparent that this guy Brown and Runcie, and this other fellow, and his name has slipped my mind, right at the, oh, William Crarr. Runcie, Ed Brown, that's Bob Runcie, Ed Brown, and William Crarr, are obviously agent provocateurs. In the first place, they are publicly advocating a preemptive strike against the United States government. They're trying to get people enthused about doing this. And I've got to tell you, folks, if you're real stupid, you might get in with them. If you're real smart, you'll stay so far away from them that you won't even smell them coming. And, uh, and, uh, these guys showed up at this Sturbridge, Massachusetts meeting, where they knew Chip Burlett was, and they brought with them as friends, ladies and gentlemen. Oh, this is incredible. They brought with them as friends, some skinhead racists, from the, uh, posse comitatus, who were blatant in their appearance, and in their racism, and just, you know, looking around the room, they did not belong there. The man who put this for the people who went on was very upset, because he's a black patriot. And, uh, he wanted to bar them from the meeting, but after, uh, some negotiation, they let them in. Well, they were invited in and introduced to the meeting, the crowd, of about 100 people, including Chip Burlett, as, quote, our friends, end quote. Probably one of the stupidest things these people could have ever done, they even let Runcie speak, and, uh, Runcie told everybody that these skinheads were really just like them, and that they should keep an open mind, which, there's nothing wrong with that. But then he began to preach insurrection. He began to preach first strike against the United States government. This, and he used parables, and he's not absolutely stupid. In fact, he's not stupid at all. But he's apparently an agent provocateur. He would preach this bullshit, and then he would ask of the crowd, does everyone agree? After a statement including metaphorical, but clear encouragement to engage in a preemptive strike against the United States government. Well, most people, being embarrassed to raise their hand and not wanting to be singled out in a room full of patriots as being chicken heart or something, they didn't raise their hands, which they should have. They should have all raised their hands and said, no, we don't agree. And then, Trochland got up and showed all his slides of tanks and trucks and garages and said that these were underground installations and all kinds of baloney. Bruncey's a very smart operator. Brown is a easily led, easily manipulated wannabe who has some very strange ideas about Kazarian Jews coming from the constellation Orion and they're here to kill the real Jews. Oh, God, can't you people just leave the Jews alone? I've known a lot of Jews all my life. None of them ever knew anything about this. None of them ever participated in anything that would destroy this government or any other government or any body. They were good people just like all of us trying to make a living and take care of their family. And that's the truth. It's just like this nonsense you all have about the Jews own the media. The stockholders, ladies and gentlemen, own the corporations that own the media. And I've got something else here. Remember all I've been telling you about Walt Disney? By the way, many years ago when they were preparing for the so-called moon landing, there was a soundstage big, huge place on the Disney studio lot which was placed off-limits. There were armed guards there all the time. And our reports say that they, inside this big, huge movie production studio, they had a giant full-scale model down to the last detail of the moon. And during that time, Disney made, never made, never made any, any movie about the moon or with the moon in it or landing on the moon or anything like that. What does it mean? Well, in light of what you heard last night, I think there's some distinct possibilities as to what it could mean. But listen to this. This is from, where is it from? This is from the Daily Kent Stater Worldview. This is the newspaper for Kent State University in Washington. Lawmakers condemn Walt Disney Company for offering benefits to gay partners. Now listen to this. This is by Adam Yeomans of the Associated Press, Tallahassee, Florida. Fifteen Florida lawmakers are condemning Walt Disney Company for extending health insurance to partners of gay employees. Complaining the move endorses an unhealthy, unnatural lifestyle. We wonder what Walt Disney himself would think of your decision if he were alive today, the state legislators said in a letter sent last week. The lawmakers said the move was a big mistake, both morally and financially, that would alienate families. In a step welcomed by gay rights activists, Disney told its 70,000 employees earlier this month that it will offer health benefits to live-in partners of homosexual employees as well as their dependent children. And before you go off half-cocked, folks, thinking you know where I'm going with this, don't, because you have no idea where I'm going with it. The policy which takes effect January 1st will not cover live-in heterosexual partners of employees. Disney has no intention of changing its decision, said John Dreyer, a spokesman in Burbank, California. He said, it is consistent with the company's policy against discrimination based on race or sexual orientation. Way to light into this when I'm finished. The letter of protest was drafted by the Florida Family Council of Tampa at the request of GOP Representative Bob Brooks and other lawmakers, all but one of them Republicans. It said, Disney's decision belittles the sanctity of marriage and endorses a lifestyle that is unhealthy, unnatural, and unworthy of special treatment. I see the tragedy of young people dying from AIDS on a regular basis, said Brooks, a doctor who is an infectious disease specialist. I feel this policy is headed in the wrong direction. In the long run, it will result in an increased number of AIDS cases, and that was the end of the article. Now let me tell you what I've got against this article, folks. You see, I know if you outlaw homosexuality, they all go in the closet, and they still practice their homosexuality, you just won't know who they are. And I think that is the height of hypocrisy, just the same as prohibition was, outlawing alcohol and everybody drank. You cannot legislate morality. It cannot be done. It's never been done in the history of the world. It will never be done in the future. It cannot be done now. It is always unsuccessful. It creates a hidden underworld that cannot be seen, regulated, and you have no warning of who or where or what it's coming from or how it's going to operate. Also, I have no bone to pick with anybody in this world. I believe in liberty as long as they do not injure me or my property or my family or try to teach my children to be homosexual. I don't care what they do in the privacy of their own bedrooms or what clothes they wear or anything else. it's none of my business. It doesn't become my business until what they do infringes upon me. And go back and really read the words of Jesus and stop listening to the so-called Christian leaders who preach exactly the opposite of what Jesus Christ tried to tell us. I'm a real Christian and you wouldn't catch me in one of these churches that have completely destroyed the teachings of Jesus in a million years. In fact, I would prefer it if you called me a follower of Jesus Christ and forget about that word Christian. I don't even want to be associated with it. Because of what you people do to each other and other people in the name of Jesus Christ, I cannot participate in or condone. Judge not, lest ye shall be judged. Remember? The bone that I have to pick with this article, ladies and gentlemen, is that they are granting extended health insurance to live-in partners of gay employees. Saying, ladies and gentlemen, here's what they're saying. Disney's, let me see, where is it at here? I want to make sure I quote it correctly. Here's why they say they're doing this. I'm going to search through here and find it. I didn't highlight anything, which I should have done. Here it is. He said, it is consistent with the company's policy against discrimination based on race or sexual orientation and yet, in making this policy, they have given rights to gays that nobody else has and they have discriminated clearly against heterosexual single people who live together in a sexual relationship. They're saying it's okay for gays to live together in a sexual relationship. They even cover their children. But if you're heterosexual, heterosexual, living with a member of the opposite sex, you do not have these benefits. So, the Walt Disney Company, in my estimation, has clearly engaged in discrimination, has clearly discriminated based upon sex and sexual orientation. And ladies and gentlemen, that's wrong. Do you understand what I mean? That's wrong. Very wrong. As a matter of fact, don't go away because when I come back, we're going to get back into NASA Moon America. Didn't you ever wonder if we really went to the moon, how come the Starship Enterprise goes where no man has ever gone before? or human or small or other and in a time. I'm going to see you next. Moon Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Such a Thank you. This is the America. And boy, did they ever. I'm looking at a full-color photograph here in this book. It says, Here on Earth, our fluorescent atmosphere shields us from the direct rays of the sun and scatters photons in every direction. The word fluorescent is not used lightly. There's proof. And when you get this book, you can write to the author, and he'll send you the proof. This gives light to shadowed surfaces, ladies and gentlemen. If you walk around in the daylight in this atmosphere on the Earth, you'll see that even in shadow, even in deep shadow, you can see. Because of the photons scattered in the atmosphere, reflecting off of the particles of the atmosphere. And the atmosphere is slightly fluorescent. Now, on the moon, these effects do not exist. They claim there is no atmosphere. So how can there be photons scattered by bouncing off particles of air in the atmosphere? There isn't one, according to NASA. According to the photographs, however, there definitely is. Also, if there's no atmosphere, there can be no fluorescence. But in the photographs, every one of them, ladies and gentlemen, even in the deepest shadows, even in places where there could not possibly even be any reflectance from anything, not even the moon's surface, you can clearly see detail. And that is absolutely 100% impossible. You see in space, on the side of any object, that the sun is shining, you have brilliant light. It hurts your eyes, in fact. On the other side, where there is no sunlight hitting the object, you cannot see anything. It is absolutely total darkness. You see, in order for light, which travels in a straight line, to hit the opposite side, away from the sun of any object in space, there must be something for that light to hit and bounce off of and be reflected back into the darkness. I am looking at a photograph of the lunar lander sitting upon the surface of the moon. I am looking at the top of the lunar lander, the side that the sun is not hitting, and in a position where the light hitting the lunar surface cannot possibly reflect into. And I can clearly see complete detail, and even read the letters on the lander. It is impossible. It cannot happen. Yet, here it is, and NASA wants us to believe that somehow, on the moon, light rays do not behave as the laws of physics say that they should. Now I am looking at another picture, and this is three men who just returned from being the first men to walk on the moon. This is the Apollo 11 crew. They just returned to Earth, and they are talking to President Nixon from quarantine, and looking out through this window. And folks, I got to tell you, the look on their faces is a terrible look. It's as if they are ashamed. It's like they are guilty of something. It's like they feel bad because they are being congratulated about something that they didn't do. And then on the opposite page, ladies and gentlemen, there is an unbelievable picture. Allegedly, as NASA would have us believe, taken from the Apollo 11 command capsule. It's the Apollo 11 mission, the command capsule. This picture is taken from the capsule. It's the apex of chicanery. It's a con job, and I mean a big one. This just takes the cake, folks. It's about this picture. You can find it in a whole bunch of books, not just this book. You can find it in Collins' Carrying the Fire, where he claims that the picture is of the Sea of Tranquility. Also, he claims it shows the landing zone. There's a shadow in this picture in the lower left-hand corner. NASA says it's of the engine nozzle, whose diameter is 8 1⁄2 feet. Now, this capsule, bear in mind, is orbiting 69 nautical miles, which is 79 statute miles, above the moon's surface. Okay. 79 regular-type statute miles above the moon's surface. The nozzle of the command module is 8 1⁄2 feet in diameter. The shadow that this nozzle casts upon the surface of the moon literally covers hundreds of miles. Now, I've seen the shadows of jet aircraft at all different altitudes going across the Earth. Number one, the shadows are never distinct. Never. This is distinct as if someone drew it upon the surface of the moon. And number two, a 747 is much bigger than an 8 1⁄2 foot diameter nozzle, and it cannot ever and never has and never will be. And you can ask any jet pilot if you want to, you can look down and see the shadow of the aircraft moving across the Earth cover hundreds of miles. Yet, this 8 1⁄2 foot diameter nozzle on the command capsule of the Apollo 11 mission casts a shadow upon the moon which literally covers hundreds of miles. impossible. It can't happen, ladies and gentlemen. You see, the sun has a diameter and the rays emitted from either side of it tend to cancel out a sharp or definite shadow, and this increases the farther away from the object that is casting the shadow is from the object where the shadow is cast. And this occurs considerably less than 79 miles. Every day, folks, airliners that are 10 times larger fly a few thousand feet over our heads yet no one ever sees a definitive shadow and they never cover hundreds of miles. But, last night, I described to you an astronaut who casts no shadow at all, and here's an engine nozzle that casts a shadow over 79 miles away covering hundreds of miles of the lunar surface and the shadow is perfectly distinct as if someone etched it into the surface. Now, there's one word that's never mentioned during the very first moon landing and that was the word simulation. Given the temper of the times, folks, it might have produced full-blown revolution. The simulation story is relatively recent and probably a direct response by NASA apologists to Bill Keasing's original detective work. Why would NASA need to have used any simulated film if they really landed on the moon? You see, at that time, they told us that what we were watching was really being sent to us from the moon and now that we've exposed them for what they are, they're telling us that the film was simulated film. And by the way, I'm a photographer. Can anybody explain to me what simulated film is? I know you can film a simulated event, but I never heard of simulated film. But that's what they're doing. They're backtracking. They're trying to cover their tracks and they can't. Too much has been exposed. And I've got to tell you, folks, I was one of the very first ones and I'm pretty proud of that. They laughed at me back then and they scoffed and pretty much made life miserable for us for a long time. But all the turkeys are coming home to roost. And by the way, I've got to tell you something. In a conversation on the phone with our Oklahoma station chief, she said Pat Briley was going to be on Tom Valentine tonight. So I listened to that segment of Tom Valentine and I must send my warmest congratulations to Pat Briley who is right on target. It's what I've been telling you since the bombing occurred. He is just now discovering it, but he is discovering it and he's being honest about it. And the purpose of it, everything, is exactly what we uncovered from day one and have been telling you all along. Pat Briley, you have my warmest congratulations and I'm very proud of you and I'm very happy that you're doing the work that you're doing and that you're not towing the party line and that you are telling the truth and that you are discovering right on the money what really happened there. I was going to say that at the beginning of this broadcast, folks, but I forgot about it because it's Annie's birthday, so I had to get that in there. Sorry for the interruption, but I wanted to do that. I know how hard it is to do this kind of work, so when you do it well and you deserve it, you get a congratulations and recognition from me, anybody, I don't care who they are. Why would NASA need to have used any simulated film if they really landed on the moon? Looking back at it now, folks, we can see that every single photo was of a simulated event, but back then we believed that it was the distance that screwed up the coverage. There had to be some reason because we knew NASA had the finest equipment, yet here we're looking at the most screwed up television pictures in the world, and they shouldn't have been. It's a straight shot from here to the moon. The pictures were too dark one second and too bright the next. Even a single picture might show one astronaut blazing with light. Excuse me, I had to turn the pot off so I could sneeze. Blazing with light while his buddy, 10 feet away, and also in the unfiltered sunlight would be troll black. That's impossible. If they were both in the sunlight, they both should have been equally lit. These kinds of lighting scenarios only occur in studios where you have selective lighting. Apparently they didn't hire very good studio photographers, and they didn't explain to them what it's really supposed to look like in space. Most of the pictures resembled those of night scenes in a grade Z science fiction flick where the chesty girl whose bodice has been ripped by the aliens keeps disappearing into the gloom just before you can get a good look. The blurry white ghosts and the black trolls were busy doing boring things while speaking NASA-ese at each other. Quote, Did you put up the poop ding on Rammus? No, the Klaverick has exceeded port 19. End quote. Back then we thought all that was legitimate space talk. But was it? The astronauts were alternately hiding under the shadow of that ungainly and exceedingly ugly limb and then popping out into the sunlight to gamble around. They were blinding white one second and dark the next but not one picture was ever crisp. It was as if a blurry eraser had been applied. It was as if you took a wet finger to a charcoal drawing. The lousy pictures folks were intentional. Indeed, it was imperative so that no one could critically examine those first pictures when our critical facilities were at their peak. You see, if we were going to critically examine anything, that was the time we were going to do it. Because once a premise is accepted by our emotional belief system, we never re-examine it. That was years before the author of this book suspected NASA fraud and thought to re-examine the pictures. It was many, many years before I did. By that time, they were hard to find as TV stations preferred to clear colored shots allegedly taken on later missions. But if you're persistent, you can find them. The pictures were just more obfuscation used by NASA to keep its gravy train rolling through this land that once was covered with milk and honey. You see, folks, the pyramids were never tombs. They were gigantic edifices, depository of knowledge, if you will, of the knowledge that was known at the time that they were built. But I strongly suspect that the real reason for building the pyramids was to take an overpopulated country from the brink of revolution and give the people a tremendously costly welfare program. They put the whole nation to work. And so, Egypt lasted a lot longer than it probably would have. And I don't know, where did the clerkin last night, I was reading his letter, I was going to comment on it. Remember he said that the country of India had been a white nation and was destroyed by miscegenation? Not true. The country of India has always had a caste system. And it all has always, been illegal and socially unacceptable to marry across these caste barriers. And the caste system is based, ladies and gentlemen, upon color. The highest or the lightest being the Brahmins. But they are still not white. Never were. And I don't know about Egypt. They didn't live back then. And I don't think that Mr. Clerkin does either. But basically that's what NASA was. A place in which to dump tremendous amounts of money to take the attention of the nation away from other things and focus the unity of the people upon the space program. in secret they had another space program. Infinitely more successful, I can assure you. And a lot of the money in the phony program may have gone to that secret program. I don't know. Now let's get back to the subject at hand. Much of this blurring in these video productions was specifically induced by NASA's insistence that the TV networks had to record directly from a huge TV screen in the operations room. In other words, they were not allowed to plug in to the direct feed. They had to photograph what they showed the American people off of a TV screen. technically impractical, technically foolish, technically there was no reason for it whatsoever. It would have been an easy task to plug in to the direct feed. So they had to take a picture of a poorly magnified picture. Fortunately for NASA, ladies and gentlemen, the major networks accepted this mandate without question. Also even more fortunate, in 1969, there were no TV screens that large, no matter how much you had to spend. If you wanted a bigger screen, you bought an optical system that strapped onto a standard set and used mirrors and lenses to magnify the picture. The price paid was clarity. First, there was a more than proportional loss in brilliance of the screen, and second, the picture was composed of giant grains with the inevitable result of dim, blurry pictures. Within 72 hours after the splash down of the Apollo 11, Bantam Books, in conjunction with the New York Times, had the presses running on John Noble Wilford's quote, We reach the moon, end quote. On the inside front cover is one of those blurry pictures that show Neil Armstrong's foot about to hit the moon. The only way, ladies and gentlemen, to take that shot was by either having a moon photographer lying on his belly, or by having a camera attached to the adjacent landing leg. Mr. Wilford, according to his book, was an insider. Now here's a quote found on the publisher's page. It's called About the Author. John Noble Wilford is the leading aerospace reporter for the New York Times. He has covered every phase of the space program and every Apollo shot leading up to the apical moon landing. We reach the moon, is Mr. Wilford's definitive account of the incredible space achievement from its beginnings with the faint beep beep of sputnik to its conclusion at the Apollo 11 splashdown. On the front page adjacent to this picture is a boxed blurb that reads, About the cover photographs, front cover photograph, NASA, left to right, Neil A. Armstrong, Michael Collins, and Edwin E. Aldrin, Jr. Inside cover photographs were taken directly from television screens, which provided the first visual documentation that man had landed on the moon. A. Neil Armstrong steps onto the surface of the moon. B. Buzz Aldrin stands on the moon. C. First moonscape taken by man on moon. D. Aldrin and Armstrong in front of the module on the moon. E. The American flag goes up on the moon. moon. Now, why did NASA institute this picture of a picture policy when they could have easily popped in some coaxial connectors and jacks so that the TV crews could take copies of the broadcast directly before optical magnification destroyed the originals? Oversight? Extreme stupidity? Or the cunning of the fox loose in the chicken house? universe? Remember, I commented on that picture before and my question to the listening audience at the time was who took that picture and how did they do it if Neil Armstrong was the first man to step off that ladder onto the moon? Why didn't the experienced TV news people show the NASA technicians how simple it would be to correct the pictures? Why did the networks let them get away with this? Why didn't they take their complaints to the public if NASA officials refused to listen? And why didn't they get direct copies of the clearer pictures which NASA must have taped as they arrived in Houston? Whether such pictures were actually from the moon or previously prepared simulations, I guarantee you there were tapes. Even after all these years, we've never seen the clear pictures which NASA must have stored in her archives. Why has the media seldom attacked this sacred cow called NASA? Everybody thought it was live. Thinking back on it, almost everybody had the same complaint. Lousy pictures! You couldn't hardly see anything. Why watch? That was some of the comments that I heard. According to my recent research talking about the author, however, there were no live TV broadcasts of either Apollo 11 or Apollo 12. If true, this means that the incredible space achievement we watched was a ghastly, ghostly joke perpetrated by those masters of deceit, the magi, practicing magic upon the American people. And folks, that's exactly what was going on. You can bet on it. Oh, yes. Now, Richard Lewis wrote about the Apollo 14 landing, quote, Mitchell then descended to the surface and Shepard collected a contingency sample about 25 feet from the lunar module. He then set up the television camera on a tripod about 100 feet away. He was careful to keep the lens away from the sun, which was what had blinded the Apollo 13 camera. Now, for the first time, there would be a televised record of man on the moon, end quote. Gee, imagine that, folks. A guy with the right stuff, after all that training, doing a dumb thing like pointing a TV camera directly at the sun. So, what were they showing? We must have watched simulations because, according to them, the Apollo 12 camera had been blinded. Not only did we not realize that at the time, no one else I know did either. Did you? But we were only outsiders, only American citizens, and for the most part, at that time, I was a sheeple. The bigger fools seemed to be the professionals, like Mr. Wilford, the New York Times, and the TV journalists. They fell for it hook, line, and sinker. But don't be too hard on men. So did the rest of us. To add insult to injury, the later pictures were still bad. Richard Lewis, writing about the Apollo 14 television, says, quote, in the television pictures that came to Earth from 238,000 miles away, the explorers looked like bulky white ghosts against a black sky, cavorting about a strange landscape of dunes and craters. End quote. Sounds the same as the first pictures that the astronauts didn't take during the Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 missions. In Footprints on the Moon, the authors have this to say about Armstrong as he descended the lander's ladder. Quote, suddenly, he was standing on the porch of Eagle, beginning tentative steps down the nine rungs of the ladder. On the way, he pulled a lanyard, releasing an equipment shelf and a television camera. End quote. Why do I get the feeling that NASA will always tell whatever lie is handy? This is government newspeak at its peak, George Orwell would have been proud. When is the first picture? The first picture. The only picture that NASA didn't dare fake and eliminated entirely, ladies and gentlemen, were pictures of the stars and planets. This was because NASA realized that millions of astronomy buffs around the world would see these pictures, and if there were any discrepancies, the moon cat would surely claw out from NASA's bag of tricks, and the magic act would be over. The magi would be run off the stage tarred and feathered. NASA did build a planetarium at their secret Mercury Nevada base and attempted to use it for faking the stars, but it did not work. A planetarium projector uses a bright lamp bulb inside a sphere that is pierced to allow dots of light to radio, to radiate up into the hemispherical dome roof of the circular building. The dome must be painted with a highly reflective paint so that the stars are visible. Unfortunately, planetariums only work in the dark. One small spotlight completely destroys the effect. How could you film the astronauts and their equipment and the blazing sunlight on the moon if you dared not light the set with arc lights? If NASA had pretended to send the astronauts into a lunar night, the problem would have been worse, since the limb used only batteries for power, and batteries don't run spotlights very long. Leave your headlights on for a while when your car is parked, if you think, I guess. And car headlights are birthday candles compared to serious spotlights. So, folks, after spending a fortune, hours, to build that planetarium, they found it was unusable. Then they were reduced to obfuscating the brilliant stars and planets of space by having the astronauts pronounce them as dim and fuzzy. Then they were forced to maintain that lie down through the years. Today, a computer using enhancement and digitized graphics could fool the world's greatest field astronomers, but this is now, and that was then. And, folks, a Hasselblad, even if the stars were dim and fuzzy, would have captured them clearly in every single photograph. photograph. I want you all to call Swiss America Trading and thank them for this broadcast. 1-800-289-2646. Do it. Good night. And God bless each and every single one of you. And Annie, my wonderful darling wife, again, a very, very wonderful and happy birthday to you. Ladies and gentlemen, you can purchase NASA Moon America. make your check or money order for $30 postpaid, payable to Annie, A-N-N-I-E, and send it to the intelligence service, post office box 1420, Sholo, Arizona, 85901. If you did not get that address, stay tuned. After this broadcast has completed the lead-out music, you will hear the address again. Itís here. feast raceessenopa Paopa pa Unless, of course, you're listening on satellite. We have gone off the air on shortwave. I will repeat the price and the address for our satellite listeners. The book is called NASA Moon America by Rene. The price postpaid is $30. That's $30. Make check or money order payable to Annie. A-N-N-I-E. Do not put anything else down as the payee. Send it to the Intelligence Service. Post Office Box 1420. Sholo, spelled exactly like it sounds. Arizona, 85901. The News top sẽ Bye. Thank you.