Ep. 375 Crossover: An Analysis of Popular Conspiracy Theories
Adam Haman suggests that he and Bob discuss popular conspiracy theories, including 9/11, the JFK assassination, and the moon landing.
Mentioned in the Episode and Other Links of Interest:
- The YouTube version of this episode.
- Murray Rothbard on flouride in the water.
- Martyr Made podcast series on Jeffrey Epstein.
- NASA’s official report on what happened to the original moon landing telemetry.
- Wikipedia entries on Thomas Baron and on Allen Dulles.
- BMS ep 308 with Owen Benjamin (discussing flat earth, moon landing, and other conspiracies).
- BMS ep 92 on the IG report on FISA applications to spy on Trump team.
- A Murphy article on geo-engineering. Murphy article on evaluating the climate models.
- The Haman Nature page.
- Help support the Bob Murphy Show.
About the author, Robert
Christian and economist, Chief Economist at infineo, and Senior Fellow with the Mises Institute.
Some things about the moon landing:
1. The communist infestation of academia had not taken over in 1969 and so we still had competent scientists working for the government.
2. NASA didn’t have to perform environmental studies or deal with approved contractors that charge thousands of percent in markups.
3. They installed a mirror on the moon that you can point a laser at and it will come back to you. They use this to regularly measure an extremely precise distance to the moon. How’d that mirror get there if we never went?
4. There were six separate Apollo missions where men landed on the moon. Were they all faked? Whatever conspiracy you think they needed to pull off to fake the first one, multiply it by six.
Fluoride in the water has nothing to do with frogs … it might have some long term effects on humans drinking that water but the frogs are all safely back at the reservoir and unconcerned about additives injected during water treatment.
What Alex Jones was trying to explain (presumably expressed rather poorly, because so few people were able to get it) is that agricultural chemicals can run off from farms and get into the water supply … particularly Atrazine which is something frogs are uniquely sensitive to, but it also effects humans to a lesser extent. Since agg chemicals get into rivers, ground water, lakes and pretty much everywhere … these things should at least be somewhat of a concern.
Like most pollutants, it isn’t an easy question … the EU banned Atrazine 20 years ago, but then again the EU ban anything and everything … and the hypocritical little snots are more than happy to collect the profits from Syngenta selling their banned substance around the world. Obviously farmers need to generate some pollution because there’s no such thing as a farm with zero run off.
Anyway, it’s not just that one chemical … there’s a whole bunch, and exposure is basically unavoidable but there might be ways to reduce it a bit. These are called “Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs)”
https://www.endocrine.org/patient-engagement/endocrine-library/edcs
Thanks Tel, yes several people told me I got this one wrong. In my defense I actually don’t watch AJ.
Also “turning them gay” refers to frogs’ ability to change their sex, which normally happens in response to population imbalances but is triggered by these chemicals.
Maybe there’s no such thing as a farm with 0 runoff, but, as a layperson, it seems like a solvable problem to significantly reduce the pollution. Could farmers not, for example, dig a trench with French drain around their property into a treatment tank / leaching field? I realize that this probably wouldn’t address the deep groundwater, but maybe it would do enough. I have no expertise to say what a solution would look like, but if farmers were accountable for polluting their neighbors’ land, it’s hard for me to believe that someone wouldn’t come up with a practical and affordable solution.
You misspelled fluoride. Fluoride is an endocrine disruptor and neurotoxin. Fluoride is not a nutrient.
Donate to Fluoride Action Network: https://fluoridealert.org/take-action/donate