#2141 - Bart Sibrel

26:54Radiation like this could harm the guidance systems, onboard computers or other electronics on Orion. Naturally, we have to pass through this dangerous on twice, once up and once back.

27:09We must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space. We must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space. We must solve these challenges before we send. Okay. He just said that over and over again. Yeah. He said Orion though. Is he listening? He said it was for Orion. You think he was talking about a different time period. He said you would have to solve it for when Orion was traveling. When was Orion? Well, he said to you must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space. Who was he talking about though? He's talking about sending people beyond Earth orbit through the radiation belt.

27:44And he says that the video from what's up? What's this video from? Yeah, what is it? When he said 2014, he was talking about this. And what was this? The Orion project was to have a step toward going to the moon. And what year was this? I think he said that in 2014. So the Orion project was a new project to go to the moon in 2014. Just not as focused as. Correct. They were using part of that spacecraft on the Artemis mission when they sent mannequins through the radiation belt. He says we must first solve these challenges of radiation protection before we send people through this region of space.

28:22Meaning the technology to send an astronaut through the radiation and survive has not been invented. Well, that's not exactly what you're saying. I see where you're going with this. But what he did say was it was dangerous radiation. You wrote deadly and all capital letters. But what he was just saying was dangerous. And he was specifically talking about instrumentation. He didn't say dangerous in terms of like to people. Right. Because that would be more of a clue that they didn't go to the moon. Well, it would be a thing that you would go, but hey, how did they do it? And then they get it would you open up a can of worms.

28:57Right. He says we must solve these challenges of protecting the astronauts before we send people. Right through this region of space. Meaning people cannot go through it until the radiation shielding is developed. And it has not yet been developed a way to send astronauts through it and survive in 2014. So if it's not been invented in 2014 yet, then it wasn't invented in 1969. Well, I think another thing that is important to say that if you're saying that radiation is dangerous to instrumentation, it's going to be dangerous to bodies. But I'm saying even if you don't say that, even if you're not people, he did say people before he sent people.

29:37But he could you could say imply not saying this is true, but by what he's saying that what he's saying is instrumentation would be damaged. And that would be dangerous. Well, and he also included people before he sent people through this region of space. But it could be because they would lose their instrumentation. You could interpret that. I'm just trying to be as generous as possible. We're overly generous. They're trying to be. So what is this? This is from Reddit. This someone says this is the full context of what he says in that clip. Okay, here it is. My name is Kelly Smith. And I work on navigation guidance for Orion.

30:07Before we can send astronauts into space on Orion, we have to test all the systems. Only one way to know if we got it right, fly it into space. For Orion's first flight, no astronauts will be aboard. The spacecraft is loaded with sensors to record and measure all aspects of the flight in every detail. We're headed 3 ,600 miles above Earth 15 times higher from the planet than the International Space Station. As we get further away from Earth, we'll pass through the Van Allen belts and an area of dangerous radiation. Radiation like this can harm the guidance systems on board computers or other electronics on Orion.

30:42Naturally, we have to pass through this danger zone twice once up and once back. But Orion has protection shielding. We will be put to the test as the vehicle cuts through the waves of radiation. Sensors aboard will record radiation levels for scientists to study. We must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space. So the challenges have not been solved in 2014. So how could they have been solved in 1960? Well, the thing is, even if they did solve it back then. This episode is brought to you by Buffalo Trace Distillery. Actually have some Buffalo Trace cigars here they just sent me.

31:20One of the world's most award -winning distilleries that's been making whiskey the same way for more than 200 years, made as a tribute to the rugged free spirited pioneers who blaze their own trail to new frontiers. It embodies the perfectly untamed spirit of independence. It defines what an award -winning bourbon should be. Age nearly twice as long as competitors in new charred white oak barrels and bottled at 90 proof, Buffalo Trace is the perfect bourbon to be enjoyed in any way, anywhere. And the taste, it's damn good. It's bold and sophisticated yet incredibly smooth finishing long and deep.

32:06It's authentically American representing uncompromising quality for the rugged, the powerful and the passionate. Tap the banner to learn more or visit buffalotracedustillery .com. That's buffalotracedustillery .com. Distilled, aged and bottled by Buffalo Trace Distillery, 90 proof. Franklin County, Kentucky, Buffalo Trace, American, family owned, independent and perfectly untamed.

32:40How did they do it? This is the question. This is what we know about the spaceship. What we know about the Apollo 11, what we know about the shielding that it had. They had one eighth of an inch of aluminum. Now when you get a dental X -ray, they use one quarter inch lead. And so that's for one 24th of a second. They would be in that for an hour to an hour to half going to the moon and an hour to an hour and a half coming back. What would that be the equivalent to, roughly, in terms of X -rays? It would be 100 times more than a lethal dose according to their own reports, which are documented at sabral .com.

33:22All for free. You go on there and watch the videos and read the documentation. Okay. And to be clear, and to be clear, how many people have gone through that, supposedly? Well, what was the first ones? The first one, there was an orbit of the moon, a manned orbit of the moon before there was a land. Yeah, there were allegedly 24 people who have allegedly gone through it to the moon and back. But the footage we uncovered shows them faking bean halfway to the moon from Earth orbit. So it proves that they could not even go halfway to the moon because they're faking bean halfway to the moon. But whatever that footage was though, in all fairness, that footage wasn't released.

34:00Right? That footage was found footage, correct? That was outtakes of them faking bean halfway to the moon, which even my greatest critic agrees that is them faking bean halfway to the moon. And they're doing it from Earth orbit and it's dated two days into the flight where they're supposed to be halfway to the moon. We'll show the video. We'll show the video. But if I was going to steal man it, what I would say is if I'm training these guys to film things and they're training all day long to do all bunch of different things, one of the things I would do is to train them how to film the Earth from the moon and to stimulate or to simulate that, I would say what you can do is black out all the light when you're in low Earth orbit, focus on one of those circular windows, put the transparency or whatever it is in front of the window and practice that way.

34:46Except that way we make sure they get it right. Except it's dated two days and three days into the flight when they're supposed to be halfway to the moon. Damn, a steal man is not working. Yeah, okay, so let's say bad. I'll just try. I'm just giving. Yeah, I'll have to do that. Do you think I have to know you know, you know, you know, you've been here's why because we've heard their side of the story for 50, right? Everybody hasn't. This is where you're wrong. No, their side of the story. We've heard that the moon landing is real for 54 years. We've heard you've heard that, but they don't need it.

35:17It's not that it's the people today that are in the scientific community to believe the moon landing is real. So you have to approach it from the perspective of how they're going to debunk your debunk. Okay, well, let me tell you something else about the radiation. Let's look at the footage first because I think we're just we're beating around the bush. The footage is so shocking that you immediately go, okay, what is this? Like what is this? I just wanted to what what logically could this be? The only thing that I could think of that was logically would be that they're practicing. I'm asking those.

35:51Is this the video? Should be showing here or not? Yeah. Oh, this so this is one when you compare back and forth, right? Correct. I mean, there's there's more. Is there one of just the actual video that we can watch? Well, there you could go to subbrow .com, click on a funny thing happened on the way to the moon or go to the moon man video links at subbrow .com and pull this up smoking gun. I just gave you the time cues on the most significant part where you could do the side by side comparison and the side by side comparison is for well on the left. Neil Armstrong claims this is 130 ,000 miles out.

36:29He claims that the camera lens is at the glass and that's the earth floating in space. What's on the right hand side are the outtakes that we got an unedited reel of the special effect shot by accident. And the lights come up and you see. Okay, so this is the exact same size image. So roughly the same distance. So on the left, he claims and this is the part they showed to the public that that's the earth floating in space. Halfway to the moon looking back. And then on the right is the outtakes where the lights come up and you see that the camera is really at the back of the spacecraft. And that's part of the earth outside of a circular window with a little crescent piece molded in front of it.

37:14And that's the take on the left hand side. You're about to see Michael Collins break down part of the special effect. This is what I want everybody to look at because it's where okay, hold on a second. This is where it gets really weird. So they're saying there are 130 ,000 miles away. So they're in deep space. So that projects the window. You see that? That's another people standing in front of the you. We used to think that we're looking out into space at the earth. But now we realize there's people standing in front of it. So there's other stuff going on. So something there's there's you're filming a room.

37:48And then that's the window. That's an arm. Yeah, that's an arm getting in front of the window. That's an outtake they never showed because it shows that it's a fake shot. Okay, do you think that that is just a piece of the earth in a circular window? Well, I mean, you think they put something over the window. The represent the earth. Another photographer believes it's part. It's like a transparency of there's a circular window. Let's let this play out. Let's let this play out. So if you see the window, the point is it's the window. It's back it up a little bit. They're using the window to create a one foot model of the earth.

38:22They're using the darkness of the cabin by blocking out all the windows and it looks like it's space. Exactly. It makes it look like the earth is floating in space. So we have them faking being halfway to the moon, which means they cannot go halfway to the moon. And here we are 54 years later and they still cannot go halfway to the moon. That's why there's mannequins orbiting the moon. They said in 2014 and 2018 they would have people orbiting the moon. They were 100 % behind schedule. You have a thus politicians. They lie about everything. And they might have had grand plans and didn't get the funding.

38:57But this is shocking weird stuff because it's hard to explain. It's hard to come up with a rational explanation of what this could be. Well, that's because if they are being halfway to the moon, that's what it is. But we should play the audio. So they tell and they say in the audio were a hundred and thousand hundred and thirty thousand miles away. Right. And then they also say which is another lie that there's only one window that faces the earth and it's filled up with the TV camera, meaning the lens would have to be right up against the window to see that. But the cameras really at the back of the spacecraft with all the lights on.

39:31Let's play that. You're seeing part of the earth outside of the window. It's very ingenious. Let's play that so we can hear the words. We can hear them say that because it's even more interesting. So if you see the footage and then you hear the words, you go, what, what could they possibly be doing here? Go to the moon. They're taking being happy. This is you. We're going to find the raw video. The raw video is in a funny thing happened on the way to the moon. Go to sebrow .com. It's on the homepage.

39:59That's his YouTube channel. Yeah, that's not my, my film. That's another. No, that's not the video. No, go to sebrow .com. He's got links up there. Let me add one thing about the radiation. So after Kelly Smith put his foot in his mouth, I called up NASA. I said, I'm a journalist. Can I talk to the guy? No, we don't allow him to talk to reporters anymore. I said, well, you sent up two Geiger counters on a civilian mission with tax dollars to specifically measure the radiation and the radiation belt, which they should have had 50 years ago anyway. Right. And then I said, can I please have those radiation readings?

40:38And then they said this, Joe, they said it's a classified military secret. I said, oh, wait a minute. When you sent probes to the sun to measure the temperature of the sun, the temperature of the sun isn't a military secret. When you sent probes to Jupiter to find out how much helium isn't Jupiter is atmosphere. The amount of helium isn't a military secret. So why would the amount of radiation surrounding the earth and the radiation belt that most people don't know about? Why would that amount of radiation be a secret? If they reveal it, it would prove that they couldn't go through it to the moon.

41:12Or we spent a lot of money to get that data and that data is very important. If there's manned warfare in space. Like we have a space force now. There's an anticipation that we could live in a future where there's space wars. Right. This is a real thought. The space program is real. This space force is a real organization. Yeah, it really is. I have a t -shirt Tim Dillon gave it to you. Oh, that must prove that it's real. It's real. Do I have a t -shirt? I'll have actual t -shirt. So, but no, there is a space force. I think it was Trump's idea, right? Yeah. Trump started a space force, which is awesome.

41:52Anyway, that's data you wouldn't want Russia to have. Like so if the Van Allen radiation belts, if there's a way to get through them because you know exactly how much radiation it is and you know that you need this amount of shielding, you don't want Russia to know that. You don't want them to spend your own money, bitch. You can't have our fucking data. That's what I would say. I would say that's an American secret. That's national security. In that regard, right? Because if they're going to be doing space wars, they're going to be flying around through, but they don't know how to get through the radiation belts, but we do.

42:22Then they're going to rely on espionage. They're going to rely on. They sent probes to the moon. So they would probably have a guyger counters on there. Right. But as time goes on, they would know the radiation readings on the moon. A long time ago, as time goes on, the instrumentation is far more efficient. It's much better, more accurate. So the stuff that they get the data they can get now, we both agree, right? It would be way better data than you got in 1963. That's the argument that people are making about now is that the instrumentation now is more susceptible than it was then because of transistors or smaller and more susceptible molecules.

42:56Makes sense. Yeah, it's more complex. You can start the clip if you want. That does make sense about the radiation belts when they were talking about the radiation belts. Start at 34. My point is, my point is, don't we recognize that the amount of instrumentation that would be dangerous to radiation would also be dangerous to biological human beings? Well, of course, that's why there's mannequins orbiting the moon instead of people. That's why you have to wear a lead shield when you get an X -ray. And that's why if you've ever seen those horrific images of people that used to test X -ray machines back in the day, when they would first started using X -ray machines and doctors offices, the technician would put his hand under it.

43:34And X -ray it and they didn't know that you were fucking your hand up really bad. This guy, they had horrible cancer all over their hands. And that's from 124th of a second, not something that's 100 times more lethal going on continuously for 90 minutes. So the point is, regardless of whether or not it is dangerous to the instrumentation and that was their primary concern, which could be accurate, especially since the first one was unmanned. But it's also that kind of radiation is probably bad for people. So, in less than a year, the Fantastic Four, right? You go through it and you get superpowers, right?

44:08Isn't that what happened to them? Well, yeah. I mean, let's get back to the technology issue. Yes. I mean, when they first exploded the first Atomic Bomb, 1945, just 10 years later, Atomic Bombs were 1 ,000 times more powerful. So, if they could go to the moon on the first attempt with 1 millionth of computing power cell phone, we would have been on Mars 10 years later. We'd be in another solar system by now and there would be bases all over the moon. Is this the only interesting, one of the facts that there's no other technology from 1969 that's not easier, cheaper, and faster to reproduce today?

44:48Except going to the moon. Except because it was a bluff like in poker. Okay, so let's play the video where you get to hear the audio. So the audio is really strange. So this audio is, this is Buzz Aldrin, Neil Armstrong, and Michael Collins in the spacecraft, and they are supposedly 130 ,000 miles away, and they're talking to NASA. Yeah, let me describe it a little bit before we hit play. So basically, if they are, which they are not halfway to the moon, they estimated with radio delay and going through the analog computers, it would be two seconds out for them to hear the transmission and two seconds back.

45:28So this particular reel we uncovered, the unedited reel of this special effect shot of them faking being halfway to the moon, there's a third track of audio, who I believe is the CIA. So first you'll hear, what do you believe it's the CIA? Well, it's whoever is helping them fake the moon mission, and you think it was the CIA. I would presume it would be. And so just a presentation. NASA says the TV picture looks great. The person who he has an earpiece in counts off four seconds, 2001, two, three, four. Then we hear a third track of audio, not NASA, not the astronauts, which has this kind of walkie -talkie radio type of sound.

46:06He says, talk. And then Neil Armstrong speaks, they're creating a fake four second radio delay to make it appear they're beyond Earth orbit, which they are really not. Okay, let's play it. And Alan radiation belts. Understand, too, that only about 20 seconds of this raw footage was ever broadcast to the public, and these conversations discussing their deception were believed to be private. Until now. Here they discussed that these television transmissions were in fact not broadcast live as everyone believed. They were first screened and edited for playback later. All right, today we just wanted to say, now it is such a weekend when we get to playback, we can sort of correlate what we're saying.

46:52Thank you very much. Here they discussed the fact that they have turned out the lights and have blocked out sunlight from entering the space path through the other windows as to not cause any reflected light to crawl. So that's really the window of the spacecraft. Right, let's talk to it. Well, we shut out the sun coming in from the other window of the space path, so it's fucking through a... Okay, number one went down on earth, any reflected light. The reason this was done is so that the truth of the matter would not be revealed. It is this. Though the federal government would have you believe that this is a view of Earth from a distance out of the space craft's window as it nears the moon, it is not.

47:35What they have ingeniously done is placed the camera at the back of the spacecraft and centered the lens on a circular window in the foreground. Outside of which it is completely filled with the Earth in low orbit. The circumference of the window then appears to be the diameter of the Earth at a distance, with the darkened walls of the spacecraft appearing to be the blackness of space around it. That is why they wanted the interior dark and blocked out the sun from entering through the other windows. Here you can see the extruded window, probably two inches thick at the bottom. This is because the earth's shine is coming in at a downward angle.

48:16It also causes the earth to appear to be an irregularly shaped circle for you are seeing the outside of the window at the bottom and the inside of the window at the top, which together formed two different sized halves of a circle. Subsequently, this take was never used. As they perfected the shot, a crescent shaped piece of black material was inset slightly into the window to create the illusion of the Earth's terminator line dividing night and day. It is uncannily convincing. During this second, intended to be edited and played back later for the worldwide television audience, dated July 18, 1969, Neil Armstrong condemns himself as he states that he is 130 ,000 miles out, or halfway to the moon, as the NASA flight log also states on this date, when he is in reality in low Earth orbit of a few hundred miles.

49:16How about you, Houston Apollo 11? Call an infirm by 137 miles out. Here, during another segment, also intended to air after reviewing, Neil Armstrong falsely explains to the viewers how the shot is attained by putting the camera's lens to the window's glass, as it would have to be if they were the claimed distance away from the Earth. We only have one window that has a view of the Earth and it's filled up with a TV camera. If the window was completely filled up with a TV camera, as he stated, then an astronaut's arm would not be able to get between the camera and the window, as it obviously does here in this outtake.

49:59South America becomes inseparable to the Earth, beyond the Terminator, or inside the shadow. You can also notice how the astronaut operating the camera reacted to the mistake by attempting to pan away from it.

50:22This is a second that they believed wasn't even being recorded. Keep going. Much less suitable for broadcasts, for the lens was being zoomed out and the scene was being changed to that of an interior of the astronaut set work and apparently the stop button popped back up on the recorder without notice. Here is the diffused work light that they used to see camera controls but not throw light onto the spacecraft's wall. Here they remove part of the crescent insert.

51:03Finally the iris is opened up and you can see the real location of the camera and the very bright and near earth out the window. Here is the slate for the 19th of July.

51:20Here is what I would say if I was trying to count on what you are saying. The earth at 130 ,000 miles out is halfway to the moon. The moon is one quarter to the size of the earth. The moon on a full moon is fairly bright. You can walk around outside and it is pretty amazing how bright it is when it is a full moon. Imagine that four times greater and twice as close. The earth which has blue reflective light because of the oceans and it is glorious, it glows in the sky. You would imagine that if you were filming earth from 130 ,000 miles out you would have to blacken the insides of the walls and you probably couldn't get the camera any closer to that window in reality.

52:09Even by saying it is in front of the window, it is covering the window. You probably don't even fit any closer than that with all the instrumentation. If you were filming it specifically to try to get an image of the earth and what it looked like at 130 ,000 miles out, would it even look that small? I don't think it would. It would probably look a lot larger. So if they are shooting it through this window and the light is probably pretty intense, it might be the only way to film the earth with the kind of cameras that they had back then would be to do it that way. To block out everything in the room and to film through that circle window as close as they can get that camera to and it is just shitty footage of something that they eventually figured out how to do right so that it wasn't deception.

52:54The cameras at the back of the spacecraft and that is the circular window and it is filled with the earth. If they were halfway to the moon and the earth was at the window, the earth would be a tiny dot. It wouldn't be that small. That wouldn't. Nobody would. But stop. It wouldn't be that small because the moon is not that small. You got to think about how big the moon is. Okay. And the moon is one quarter the size of earth. Think about how close the moon is. So the moon is a big ass fucking thing. Right. So let me ask you this, John. Do you think the moon landing is a real or not? I'm not saying that.

53:24What I'm saying to you. I just want to know what you think. I am going to go at this. And I'm just going to try to ask the most logical questions to refute what you're saying without giving an opinion. I'll give you an opinion eventually. But this right now is if you were going to film the earth from 130 ,000 miles out and the earth is four times larger than the moon and you're halfway to the moon, I would imagine it would fill up that window. You wouldn't. You even. The difference between that and lower earth orbit. I'm sure there's a difference, but I still think from that small window, it might be the whole window filled with earth.

54:04That might be what you get. Well that's not the opinion of myself as a filmmaker and three other filmmakers who, for a living, our job is to make fake scenes look real. And so we all conclude that that's the window that they have made a mockup of a one -foot model to pretend. But is there an image of that mockup? I never saw a mockup. I didn't. There's all you saw them. Fiddle around in the window. You definitely see them fiddle around in the window. And the camera, they lied about the camera being up against the glass. The camera is obviously at the back of the space here to create that illusion.

54:39They said the window is filled with the camera. That's what they said. But it's not. It's at the very back of the spacecraft. The lights come up on the part they didn't intend on showing. And the camera has been at the back of the spacecraft all the time. Right. They had to lie. But if they really were halfway to the moon, the only way they could film this shot would be to put the lens at the glass of the window. But it's a fake shot. And part of the faking is the cameras really at the back of the spacecraft, all the lights are off. Part of the earth is outside of a circular window. And it looks cleverly like the earth floating in space.

55:14But that's really the window from Earth orbit. Good question. Jamie, go ahead. In the video, it says that this line here, which is like the Terminator line, correct? Mm -hmm. Yeah. So that's right. It's right with tape. No, no. It's like a transp answer or something. That's like, I don't know, some sort of crescent insert they put into the window to make it look like the Terminator line between and I and Dave. I think it looks very good. Well, Jidio said tape multiple times. And then she said they removed the tape. Could have been a transparecer I suppose. But that line is very, that's a very nice gradient, which was what it would look like if it was like the sunset, not tape or something.

55:52Yeah, it's less clear, right? It's less clear than like the top edge. And if it was a transparency sitting on a glass or something, that line would be moving would have to be a hard set to do. Well, I mean, just go back to the segment with a little yellow circle around the window. And you can see they're fiddling around with the window. Wow, they only show 20 seconds. No, no, I know. I was just saying, if that's what I thought it was, why not just create the fake scene, I guess, with a giant picture of the Earth outside of it? Well, I think the point is that they had to represent the terminated line because of where they were in orbit.

56:25So if they're flying away from Earth and they're going towards the moon at a very specific time, you'd be able to know like where, you know, what part of the Earth was dark at what point in the flight, right? I would think so. I mean, they had to have known. They knew what the population was. But the public, yeah, but I mean, they would do it the right way. They're going to make it. Not necessarily. They made lots of mistakes. Yeah. Okay. Well, this one's a weird one. And to me, this is like the only thing that I could say, if I was going to steal man, would be what I said, was that maybe he misspoke by saying it's covering the window.

57:02What he maybe, what he meant was that the camera was pointed at the window. It was covering the window. And if you're going to film something that's incredibly bright, that's coming into a bright environment, it's going to be obscured by all the light. You know that, right? So the way to film it correctly would be to adjust the aperture correctly, dark in the room, and then point towards that window. And you would be saying that the camera is covering the window because it is covering the window. That's what it's covering. When you're filming something, you're covering something. So it's covering the window.

57:30It's looking out the window. You blacked out the cabin so that you could actually see what's bright coming out of that window, which is incredibly bright because it's four times bigger than the moon and twice it's closed because they're halfway there. Well, the shot where Neil Armstrong lies and says he's 130 ,000 miles out, we see a little blue earth with a bunch of black space around it. Right? But that's not the earth floating in space. That's the circular window of the spacecraft that has part of the earth outside of it. That's what it is. The lights come up and you see that's what it is. For sure, if you're saying that blackness is space, that's deceptive.

58:08But that's what they are saying. But it doesn't mean they were in 130 ,000 miles out. Well, why would they fake being 130 ,000 miles out if they were really? Because they had a 30 ,000 miles out. They had a policy of deception in terms of imagery, which it seems that they did. Even though they did that, I'm just steel manning it. It doesn't necessarily mean that the whole thing was fake, right? Well, if I were to... I was trying to understand. So it's not that there are 130 ,000 miles out, but it's that they're in space faking the shot. Yes, they're doing it. They're faking being halfway to the right from Earth.

58:41So the reason why it's so bright is because they're just like the space station. That doesn't, I don't know. I'm getting more confused on all these pieces because I thought that they didn't even go to space. No, no, no, no, no, nobody thinks that. Nobody thinks that. Jamie, you need to catch the fuck up on that. Well, look at this part here. He makes sense to begin with. He playing this part, Jamie. And you'll see that this is the window. Here's the work light inside of the spacecraft. Either that or it's a giant UFO. No, you do. It's definitely, it's obviously a work light. Okay. And then here is Michael Collins breaking down part of the special effect shot using the window.

59:18You're going to see them. Okay. Let's be honest, what we're seeing is motion in front of the window. That's right. But that's the window of the space past. That's true. Not the Earth floating in space like they claimed a minute earlier. That's true. Which means they're faking right right right. But if you stop you, you're saying like make the transparency. All these different things you're saying. There's no evidence of that. You just see movement in front of it. I understand your assumption, but there's no evidence of a transparency. Well, it's not an assumption. You see him moving. You see just dark shadows.

59:53Let's see it one more time. You see dark shadows moving in front of that thing. Well, the point is that's the window of the space. 100%. Okay. Wait a minute. Stop there. If that's the window of the spacecraft, then that's not the Earth floating in space. Correct. Which means they're faking being halfway to the moon. Not necessarily. Which they would never do. Not necessarily. Not necessarily. It could mean they just faking. So they wouldn't have waited the moon, but they faked it anyway. They're faking this footage because this is the best footage they can get with the equipment they have looking through that window.

1:00:22They came to a conclusion. The best way to do it is to back the camera up, block everything out, and just film that circular window and that's the Earth. And that's the only thing. And we'll pretend that it's the Earth with space, but we really can't get that because the positioning of the camera, the amount of room, if you look as the thing goes bright, this is my question to you. I think this is compelling and it's bizarre. But when you say they remove the transparency, well, there's no transparency. You don't see it. You're literally just seeing black figures in motion. Now in clarity. Now you see clarity.

1:00:57So now you see the amount of distance, very small space they're working in, amount of distance where the circular window is, where the Earth is, and then where the camera is. So the camera is still just a few feet from the window. It's not like it's in a giant room. It's just a few feet from the window. Lastly, there are three space -capled, so it's quite deep. Right, but it's still not that big where they are. But where they are, right? Eight to ten feet away from the window. That's pretty small. This whole room is pretty small. Right, it's basically smaller than here to the where there are screeners that we're looking at.

1:01:28But the point is, it's not the Earth floating in space. It's the windmill. It's definitely not. It's made up to look black. It's the black, the Earth floating in space. It's the blacked out environment. If they're trying to pretend that that space, that's deception. Exactly. So it's still the way they're meaning that they're not hunting it. So one thing at a time. So we concluded. Yes. They are faking being halfway to the moon. No, no, no, no, that's not what we concluded. We concluded that they are faking that the blackness around that image of the Earth is space. That's all we're confirming.

1:01:56That's why I'm confused. But hold on, Jamie. Hold on, Jamie. So we're confirming that they definitely were, if they were saying that that blackness, which is clearly the inside of the cockpit, right, clearly, what they're saying that that blackness is space and that circular image is the Earth looking at the Earth through space, that's clearly a deception. Okay. So the power level is being deceptive with their photography. Why would they do that if they really went to the moon? Okay. The steel man. I don't know what this is annoying to me. You mean steel man means devil's advocate. Is that what you're saying?

1:02:26Yeah, yeah. I'm taking the other side's position. Because it's interesting to see how it lines up. You would say this, they wanted good footage. They couldn't get good footage any other way. They couldn't get through where the camera is and how big the camera is and how small the window is and the amount of space they're working with. They couldn't get real clear footage of the Earth in space in the distance. So they decided to film it this way. Film it through that circular window. Well black out everything. It'll look like space, but you will see the Earth from where we are, which is 130 ,000 miles out.

1:03:00You know, there's a film coming out in July and I don't know. I've only seen the trailer, but they talk about shooting a fake moon landing as a backup. Now they don't care why you believe the moon landing is real as long as you do. If you believe they're communing with aliens with a secret crew or Neil Armstrong does it. They don't care. This is the same thing. If they really went to the moon, they wouldn't have to fake any of it because they showed so little of the mission anyway. Right. They really went to the moon. They wouldn't dare fake any of it because there were people at the time already saying it was fake.

1:03:39They wouldn't dare fake any of it if it was real. Even during the landing, they showed computer animation and then all of a sudden you see that black and white image. They're fake and if it was real. See, this is where we disagree because I think if it's very difficult to go there, it's even more difficult to go there and document it, right? And specifically when you're talking about camera equipment, if you take camera equipment, the old school film and you run it through old school radar detectors at the airport, those metal detectors, it fucks up your camera equipment, right? Doesn't it fuck up your film?

1:04:12Well, isn't it? Isn't that correct? It wasn't difficult for them to go to the moon. They went six times in... I know, but three years. They drove cars on the moon. But that's what I'm saying. But that's what I'm saying. And yet for some reason, today, they can only send mannequins to orbit the moon. Listen, we're in agreement on this. This is what I'm saying. What I'm saying is what you could say is that the real... Maybe they went and they've faked the footage. And the reason they've faked the footage is because the footage got all fucked up because they went through radiation. I'm sure they would love the public to believe that because many filmmakers like myself agree that the footage is fake.

1:04:47So how can we possibly trick the public into thinking the moon landing is real, even though the pictures are fake? Why do we create a feature film saying, well, we just only did it as backup and some of that footage got leaked into the real footage? They showed so little real footage to begin with. Why didn't they just have a camera on the side of the rocket showing live pictures during the descent instead of a little Atari computer animation and then suddenly a picture of them stable and coming out of the spacecraft because they faked it. As you know from my book, we have an eyewitness who saw them film Apollo 11 at Cannon Air Force Base June 1st, 2nd and 3rd, 1968.

1:05:29Yeah, but I have eyewitnesses that were raped by Bigfoot. You can find those. Well, you know what I'm saying? His son was in here. His son wasn't here. His son cooperates it. We have a video that we can show. The point is that it's not even in my book, okay? The first thing the guy says as he's dying about to meet his maker, fearing not being on the right side of judgment, is that he's a murderer. He killed somebody. His son, who you can go to Sebral .com, watches Sun's testimony, who saw his father's deathbed confession. He said, who did you kill? He said, I killed a coworker at Cannon Air Force Base where he was the chief of security.

1:06:12The military police came in and they interrogated him as he's dying. Wanted to notify the relatives of the person who we killed. Who did you kill? Such and such a person. A fellow employee at Cannon Air Force Base in 1968. Why did you kill him? We both eyewitnessed the filming of the fake moon landing July, sorry, June 1st, 2nd and 3rd of 1968. My friend thought it was morally wrong. He was going to tell a reporter and I killed him to cover it up. His son confirmed he was chief of security at Cannon Air Force Base. He lived right across the street from it. He stood beside President Johnson, who was there for the first to three days of filming.

1:06:56He gave him a list of 15 people that were there who were allowed in the VIP entrance to eyewitness it. Neil Armstrong's on the list, Bazauldron is on the list, and several people I never heard of. We got that list, we published it in my book. And this is real. His son after telling me this information and confirming it, his house was broken into a few days later. Everything about his father was confiscated. Days after that, two agents show up from the government. This is less than two years ago, threatened to kill him and his family if he ever talks to me again about his father's participation in the moon landing fraud.

1:07:36The White House was involved in investigating this. The FBI was, and the United States Senate Intelligence Committee investigated this, and that man. And those reports are sealed because it's a great embarrassment to the federal government that they did actually fake the moon landing. I was the biggest fan. If I can go from being the biggest fan to having to accept the sad fact that our government is that arrogant. And not only that, I interviewed the widow of Gus Grissom, who was going to be the first man to walk on the moon. And we just explained one of the things that Gus Grissom did that got people very angry, a young a lemon.

1:08:20That's right. Yeah, explain that. Well, basically, he was totally confused how they could possibly think they're going to the moon in two years. He thought it was at least 10 years away. And still, we can't even go now, right, because of the radiation. And he was repairing reports to give to Congress in the Senate that his wife told me, were confiscated from his house by CIA agents before they even informed her that he was dead, which he had died a few minutes earlier. She told me I interviewed her for four hours. This is the man who was going to be the first man to walk on the moon. And he was the most beloved of the press corps.

1:09:00And he was so frustrated, he kept complaining up the chain of command, they wouldn't fix anything, because the higher -ups knew they weren't going to go and hadn't committed yet to faking it and therefore hadn't told the astronauts yet. And that's why they weren't fixing it in your belief. Well, that's her conclusion as well. Right. And in his fury, without permission, he held the press conference. He invited it in a bunch of reporters to the top of the rocket, where he has fixed the lemon, the size of a grapefruit on a coat hanger. He said, this thing is a lemon, a piece of junk made the evening news.

1:09:35And a few days later, he dies. His wife told me that on January 26, 1967, he came home from work and said the following. Hun, for some strange reason, the CIA is all over the launch pad today. I wonder why they're here inspecting the equipment. Never seen him here before. He's dead the very next day from faulty equipment. His widow told me he was murdered by the CIA, the man who was going to be the first man to walk on his moon. His son, 747 pilot, said the same thing who I interviewed for three hours, that his father was murdered by the CIA. So it's one thing if they fake the moon landing and didn't kill anybody.

1:10:18Maybe I'll confess my devious nature. I kind of admire their ingenuity, like the people who tunnel from the drag cleaner into the bank. But not if you kill three guards, slit their throats, who have wives and children. With three guards. Well, I'm just saying, for example, if they fake the moon landing and didn't kill anybody, that's one thing, but that's not the case. You see, and I know the type of person you are and the type of guess you have on your show. We're true patriots and patriots have to face facts that when people take an oath to this country, it's to protect it against all enemies foreign and domestic.

1:11:01They always want misdirection, the boogeyman to be in some other country, where the biggest traders to our country are Americans and high office. Right? That's what's going on. And the first document of our country, is it the Constitution? It's the Declaration of Independence, where it says when any government becomes destructive of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. We're according to Betty Grissom. They took away his life. They take a third of our income. They deceive us through a moon landing and then they use that money to pay the salaries of the sea agents who killed Grissom to the president.

1:11:43Okay, well, let's go to Grissom's death. So, Grissom died in an accident, right? He died in a fire, correct? His wife says that fire was said intentionally. I understand that she said that. I understand that. And I understand that why she would believe that. That makes sense. Well, if there were, if her husband says sea agents are messing around with the equipment the day before and he's dead the next day from faulty equipment, the CIA killed them. It's a pretty obvious conclusion. That's it could possibly be that, definitely. But also when you're launching rockets, a lot of people die. They weren't launching anything.

1:12:16It was just a ground trust, a pressing buttons. And they found that they pressurized that space capsule with 100 % oxygen, where steel will become flammable. They reversed the door the day before so that it opened inwardly and said outwardly, took an extra five or ten minutes to open up. And then they found a pile of oily rags under his seat so that they would do a spark. And then I got the Apollo one report. We bought it for $10 ,000 for Roger Chaffee's widow from his estate. And there was a dip in power right before the fire because the CIA had clamped something clamped in there to start the fire.

1:12:57They ignited it because the dip in power and then the fire began. So where's this evidence that there was a dip in power? Well, it's in the Apollo one report. That there was a dip in power. They had before the fire because something was tapped into the fire that the CIA ran the previous day. And that's what killed them. Is there a logical explanation for why they reversed the doors? Yeah, so they would make sure not to be able to get out. It would take more time to get out. But is that but they would kill them? But is there a logical explanation in terms of an improvement in design and failure in space?

1:13:27They were just testing something new. Right? That's their excuse. Right. And the fire, what was the official explanation for how the fire was started? Just faulty wiring. And what was the evidence that the oxygen had been increased to the environment? Well, that's a fact. They knew not to do that. They had caused fatalities. What did you hear this fact? Well, she told me and it's in the Apollo one report. Which is correct. In the Apollo one report, it says they increased the oxygen by how much? Well, they did a hundred percent oxygen in the cabin. And did they say why? They was just testing it.

1:14:05Something to test and experiment. Right? And so that then a fire ignites. That's right. They rigged it with the oily rags under there with reversing. They did everything they could to make sure those guys burned alive. The get rid of the guy because Gus Grissom had they asked him to fake them and landing. He would have said no way and then he would have gone to the reporters. The same reason my source, Cyrus Eugene Acres, killed his co -worker because his co -worker witnessed a Apollo 11 being filmed at Cannon Air Force Base in 1968 said this is wrong for the government to do this and was going to tell a reporter and he was killed.

1:14:43The very same reason. Yeah, I would love to see the video of that. If there was a video of it, it'd be interesting. Yeah, there's a video of his son. But there's also. He's talking about this. Yeah, but he would have to cut up their money. People get old and when they get old, they say crazy things. How's that crazy to say? We verified he was the chief of security. Right, but I don't know what his mental state was when he was dying. I don't know if he had dementia. You know what I'm saying? Like people could... But I'm not saying that it didn't happen. Are you sure you didn't have that? Or for OJ Simpson's defense team?

1:15:12Not saying it didn't happen. I'm saying that some old people, particularly first of all, memories are terrible. Most people's memories are awful. You just said that earlier. You forgot. The memories are terrible? Yeah, you just said it a second ago. Yeah, most people's memories aren't that good. And then if you're really old and you're mentally compromised and maybe you have full -blown dementia and maybe you imagine things, that's also possible. I mean... That's an odd thing, dude. A deathbed thing. I can't believe... I will somebody to cover up the moon landing fraud. I know. What are the odds of that being dementia?

1:15:44Not very good. But also possible. When people have dementia, they think they're secret agents. They don't know what the fuck is going on. They don't know their name. They don't know their kids. When people are dying and they're dying, usually there's a lot of stuff going on. We aren't circulated in a lot of details. Fascinating. And could be what we hope it is, which is deathbed confession. Like, didn't E Howard Hunt have a deathbed confession about the JFK assassination? Well, one of the videos, if you haven't viewed up Jamie, is his son giving his deathbed confession, as he's dying of cancer, of what he saw his father say.

1:16:19He says, I lived right across from Ken and Air Force Base. My father was chief of security. He chose us a picture of his badge and his uniform. He was there. And what Bill Casing said, I had to look up from my own library. Bill Casing said, the whole moon landing falsification was supervised by the United States Air Force. Well, my dad was in the Air Force. I never heard of Ken and Air Force Base. It's tiny, fewer eyewitnesses. And then every department of the military has their special ops intelligence division headquarters. It's headquartered at Ken and Air Force Base. And so that's where it was filmed.

1:16:57And I even confirmed that several people were there, including a gentleman by the name of Robert M. McGnaker, never heard of the guy, a science fiction writer, who promotes UFOs, which is another reason to doubt UFOs. Because the same guy who says UFOs are real, it's been his whole life saying the moon landing's are real. You see that? Same thing with the astronauts. Stephen Greer's number one source that UFOs are real. I have a book coming out about this as well at my website. He says, his number one source that UFOs are real is the Apollo astronaut said so. You see that? Which one? Edgar Mitchell?

1:17:36Well, yeah, Edgar Mitchell among many others. Let's come back to that. I got to take a leak. Let's come back to that. And this is great. Appreciate you. Thank you for coming here. This has been a lot of fun. And I hope you don't mind me being annoying. But I have to. To like to cover this. And we'll get into more. You don't have to. I do. I do. No, you don't. This is the right way to do it. Trust me. Trust me. Okay. We'll take a leak. We'll be right back. So we were at Gus Grisham died in a fire. There's another guy who NASA had hired to make a report. And he had this 500 page report. I think it was like 500 pages about how badly managed, mismanaged the whole Apollo program was.

1:18:18And that he saw so many flaws in it that he thought it was never going to get off the ground. And then. Thomas Barry. Yes, Tom Ronald Thomas Barry. Great. And he died on train tracks. That's right. That was kind of with his family. CAA hits kind of go through fads. And there was a big fad period where a lot of people's cars stalled at train crossings. I think back then this was before DNA evidence. And it would get rid of the forensic evidence. That's also how they killed those kids in Mina Arkansas that found the cocaine. That was the whole part of that Tom Cruise movie, the true story behind the Tom Cruise movie.

1:18:56With what's that guy's name again? That Jamie Barry Seals. Yeah, who was smuggling drugs and dropping them off in Mina Arkansas while Bill Clinton was the governor. And they killed these kids and put them on plane train tracks. Here's a relevant point about Bill Clinton, two of them on page one, fifty four, twenty six of his buddy. You know this. He says that he doubts as president the authenticity of the moon landings. Well, he said in a very koi way, right? That's what he's saying. Well, he told an anecdote about a carpenter that he was working with in 1969 who saying how amazing it is that these guys, these people, they landed on the moon.

1:19:36And the carpenter said, no, those TV fellows can get you to believe anything. I don't believe the thing they say. And then he said, back then, I thought the old guy was a crank. I'm paraphrasing. But now after eight years of years in the White House, I think you might have been ahead of his time. I think that was not paraphrasing. I think that was word for word Joe. Yeah, good memory. Well, here's the second point that's not relevant word for word. I'm sure. Well, here's the second point about President Clinton. When he finally, after denying it 20 times, admitted that he had an affair, a reporter asked him, why did you do it?

1:20:07And you know what he said, why? What? Because I could. Meaning because I could get away with it. That's what people need to see. They did fake the moon landing and why did they do it? Because they could. And these people are still in power. Well, also dangerous thing. Also because they wanted to win this cold war with Russia. They wanted to get this economic and cultural victory. Right? That could be the excuse. Okay, so here's another question. You murder Americans to do that. A legend of murder Americans. Well, we assume. Yeah, but we don't really know. The Thomas Ronald Baron was a wild one because that report was buried, correct?

1:20:50After that. That's right. And in the report, do we have details of exactly what was said in the report? Well, basically he said what Gus Grissom said, there a decade or more away from going to the moon. And that was after the Apollo 1 fire, the Baron report. And of course he died right before he was to testify to Congress, right? What a coincidence. Yeah. About how NASA was so far behind schedule. But now, you know, NASA has never kept a schedule a single time in their entire history. Except the most complicated mission of all time, they were ahead of schedule. And do you realize there's never been an aerospace machine, airplane, whatever, that ever worked on the first occasion, not even the Wright Brothers plane, and a 747.

1:21:34After millions of aircraft had already been built, 10 years more technology advanced than the Apollo rocket. It took 168 attempts to get off the ground. And yet, for the first time in history, there was an aviation project that worked on the first occasion that happened to be the most complicated one of all time. You see that coincidence? How about that? So humans have accomplished some pretty amazing things. But the leap between that and the moon landings in terms of getting biological, living human beings to survive this two week journey, to land on the moon and come back. How long did it take, total?

1:22:16All days in space? Well, from setting the goal to doing it, it took only 8 and a half years. And but the actual moment. Since then, they're talking about it being taking 15 years to fall return to the moon, even though they have 54 years better technology. It's going to take twice the amount of time to return to the moon with five decades better technology. But again, you'd also say because it's not as focused an effort. It's not as focused as a whole. Well, it is a focus ever because eight presidents have said they're going to return to the moon in five years. Right? Yeah, they all say that. You had Bush senior said and Reagan said it and Clinton said it and Obama said it.

1:22:57Bush senior, Bush junior, Trump. They've all said we're going to return. Yeah, he said we're going to go to the moon by 2024. Time's running out. You see a couple months left. Well, they said they were going to have people orbiting the moon. They said in 2014, we will have people orbiting the moon in 2018, 100 % behind schedule. My point was, they only have mannequins orbiting the moon. So my point was that the leap between what we do now in terms of the difficulty of getting into space, getting into lower orbit and coming back, it gets compounded greatly by actually going to another planet, landing, taking off, coming back.

1:23:38Like, that's much more difficult. And the only time that was ever accomplished was between 1969 and 1972, seven to seven to six successful times. Allegedly accomplished. Allegedly accomplished. But let's just say what they're saying. Just what they're saying, it seems very strange that no one else did it. It seems very strange that it stopped right there and it seems very strange and no other missions. That's right. It's all into the means. It's the only technological achievement in the entire history of the world that no one from any nation could repeat 50 years later. Now, just deal, man, they're a position.

1:24:12Like, it took so much money and so many resources that we don't have that would be better served, going to other things. And that's why they haven't been back. Why should they go back? They went there. They understand they can prove they went there because there's laser reflectors on the moon that they can shoot lasers at and they will bounce off and show you that there's a laser reflector on the moon. But that's not an argument either because in 1958, according to Scientific American Magazine, they were bouncing lasers off the moon without any man -made reflectors there on. So all they had to do was choose a landing site that had reflective services.

1:24:47Additionally, Russia put an unmanned probe on the moon with laser reflectors. So that isn't proof anything. I was going to use that. But that's the argument. Well, you're welcome. I did it for you. Thank you. That is the argument though, right? Yeah. So the argument is the laser reflectors prove. Another, like, one of the goofiest ones was when they used the reconnaissance imagery and they showed, look, we could see the landing site. Like, what are you pointing at? You have to understand, they already faked a faux -body picture of an astronaut standing on the surface of the moon, which was filmed in Clovis, New Mexico, according to an eyewitness, OK?

1:25:23So you're asking the fox for further proof that they didn't steal a chicken. You're saying, after faking a faux -body image, that was shot in air force base and pretending it's on the moon. My client, Mr. Fox, is an upstanding citizen. And my client refutes all allegations. Well, the same fraudulent organization has a little shadow from alleged lunar satellite that says this is part of the lunar lander. Yeah, there's a lot of weirdness. Another bit of weirdness that is fun to watch people do mental gymnastics to explain away is the flag blowing in the breeze. I'll just check in this. Yeah. The moon landing, these.

1:26:06Yeah. This photo was taken by a guy in Ireland or something. Nice. What is it, so? He's in it. He's just a guy. No, what is it, show the image? The landing sites. What do you see? I could just tell you any one of those spots is a landing site. And what are you going to say? I mean, you don't see much. Do you know what I'm saying? It doesn't prove nor disprove. It's not clear enough to say what that is, right? It's not clear. I don't see any objects that look like they're definitively a lunar rover. I don't see anything that makes me think that that's what that is, but it could be because it's not that clear.

1:26:49So it's neither proof nor it doesn't prove or disprove those images, in my opinion. Well, here's another interesting proof. You have Neil Armstrong said he personally picked up a particular rock, put it in his pocket, and saved it for the prime minister of the Netherlands. Oh, yeah, that's a good one. Who he gave to, right? And they put it in a hermetically sealed box. The curator saw my film, says, oh, I wonder about that. In the middle of the night, they expected no one would open it up. He opens it up, puts the rock under a microscope, and it's petrified wood, kind of this eerie out of the world looking.

1:27:24That's a fact. So unless there are trees growing on Earth, I mean, on the moon, then it's a fake. In fact, there's a story. It says moon rock proves to be fake. That Neil Armstrong picked up and personally delivered. But no reporter asks, so if the moon rocks are fake, what about the moon mission? Okay, to steal man that. You would say, what was the chain of custody between Neil Armstrong and this prime minister? He brought it to him. He personally gave it to him. And he said, I picked this up off the surface of the moon. This is the rock. I remember it. Here you go. They put it in a box. That's not much chain of command to get messed up.

1:28:04The thing is like, who's got it after that? And is it possible someone stole it and swapped it out with another rock that looked like that was bullshit? It's possible. You have to think it's possible. It's I don't think it's possible. I'm again, I'm with you. I don't think it's possible. I mean, it seems highly likely that they gave him a fake moon rock. But you have to leave the door open to someone who's involved, who's a fraudulent, who knew there was a moon rock there. And some guy said, he meant, I'll give you $100 ,000. Another interesting point is six weeks before they're allegedly going to the moon for the very first time, somehow with that deadline, Von Braun, former Nazi, takes a leisurely vacation and it's hard to get.

1:28:43That's a far more. Or he picks up dozens of pounds of lunar meteorites. I wonder what they use those for. Let's explain that too. That Antarctica is one of the best places to find a meteorites. Because the fact that it's completely white, it's all frozen snow and the meteorites will stand out. They'll stand out in the snow. Yeah, and at hardly ever snow's there, so there's not much to cover them up. And maybe the orbit being the South Pole, it's more prone to lunar meteorites. So it's very well known that you can get meteorites in Antarctica. And a lot of them, they can conclusively prove come from the moon.

1:29:22Correct? This is all true? OK. So, when are Von Braun maybe needed to know what he was looking at when he got those moon rocks back? And so it's like, well, we have any on Earth? Well, sir, we do. We have some lunar meteorites we can find in Antarctica. Let's take a trip. Didn't you have a broken arm at the time? I believe you did. There's one picture of him in a cast. Right after he was captured where his arm is broken. And I was just talking. Oh, it's right after he was captured. Because I thought it was in Antarctica. Did he have a gun? No, no, no, no. He's in. It's not a uniform. And it's right after he got captured and brought over an operation paperclip.

1:29:58That's how he's wondering how he broke his arm. It's like either he was being sassy during interrogation or he got bombed and got pulled out of rubble. One of the two. Could have been he loved Hitler so much he fainted when he found out he was good. Or maybe he got a powerful tunnel syndrome from the salute to many times. So he was a legitimate Nazi. And this is important too. Because this is a thing that I know a lot of people have denied. Operation paperclip was an operation that took place right after the end of World War II, where we acquired a bunch of Nazi scientists that went on to do the Apollo program.

1:30:34Werner von Braun was one of them. The Simon Weason Thal Center had said while he was alive that if he, rather if he was alive, they would prosecute him for crimes against humanity. That's right. He was a legitimate Nazi. They hung the five slowest workers, the five slowest Jews in their rocket factory in Berlin. So if you walked in, you would see the five slowest workers hanging there. And this is eyewitness accounts from people who were in that rocket factory. This is not disputed stuff that he did that. And you know, you could say he was just a rocket maker. He had nothing to do with that, but he was a Nazi.

1:31:13And we had a charge of the one -moon -faking. Did not just one of them, but one of them before he died, he was that the government is planning on faking and alien invasion. So the guy who faked the moon landing, he said that. He said that. That the next, the evidence of that, that he said that. Well, his secretary said so. Oh, that bitch might be crazy. You know, you never know. She might be doing Coke, make it stories up. She might be a scammer. She seems sincere to me. She might be trying to. He said they're gonna be an asteroid threat next, followed by a fake alien invasion. That's what he said.

1:31:47And keep in mind these Apollo astronauts who spent their whole life lying, saying the moon landing is real, are also the key people who were saying UFOs are real. And so as Robert, Robert, the key people, but Edgar Mitchell was one of them. And Robert M. Naker made films, you know, propaganda films to plant the seed that UFOs are real. And he was at Camin Air Force Base when they faked the moon landing. Okay, can I assume that then, but what you're saying that you don't think UFOs are real at all? No, they are real, but they're not from outer space. Okay, what about the ones that Kenneth Arnold saw in the 1950s?

1:32:19What about those? I don't know about those, but... I think the first... Discussion, but they're not from outer space according to the top two UFO research. I have a book coming out, hopefully in time of this podcast, aliens from Planet X that talks about their origin and future appearance. And the UFOs are real and aliens are real, but they're not from outer space. And that's according to the top two UFO researchers after decades, long research. So go to sebrow .com and say... So where did they start? They're not from outer space. They're interdimensional. And potentially fall in angels, disguising themselves because they're liars of something like you said, can't be proven or disproven.

1:33:01I'm from the Scalaxy 300 light years away. This is kind of what Tucker Carlson thinks. He thinks there's a spiritual element to it. Anything they've always been here, or anything that this is what's kind of documented in the Bible, is like good and evil and... That's it exactly. I mean, that's what's going on. I mean, the top two UFO researchers said, UFOs are real, number one, number two, they're not from outer space and number three, they're demonic. And that's what I talk about. Where it talks about fallen angels interbreeding with humans has talked about in Genesis 6 and creating a race called Nephilim who were men of renowned world leaders.

1:33:40Could you interpret that as when you say interbreeding with humans? Now, imagine if what they are is a form of artificial intelligence or I should say instead of artificial, artificial is a word that it's got a lot attached to it already, maybe digital intelligence or a human created intelligence that's not a biological origin, but it is a living thing. It's just living in a different kind of way. Now, if that is something that human beings are eventually going to, we're going to have some symbiotic relationship with electronic that's biological. You're seeing it already with neural ink, you're seeing how this guy who is paralyzed can now utilize a computer and manipulate everything with his mind, you can move a cursor around.

1:34:26You're seeing artificial intelligence comes to the forefront where people are realizing the power that it has, and how quickly it's developing. It's happening very rapidly, within this year, it's kind of confusing people. When better artificial technology comes along and better interfaces come along and we start realizing the only way that we are going to survive is if we integrate. Isn't that kind of the same as something coming down and interbreeding with human beings? If these things, if this is the path of progress, this is how it goes, in intelligent life forms, uncomplicated planets, when they have complicated technology, they develop internal combustion engines or some other source of power, they start manipulating their environment and they eventually get to the point where they can make an artificial life form.

1:35:16And that artificial life form is far superior intellectually to the biological life form and the only way the biological life form can survive is if it integrates with the artificial intelligence and people will start to do it initially and those people will have access to tremendous resources that biological people don't have and then it'll be required, just like it's almost required for everyone to have a cell phone. Everyone's going to integrate. And in case over time, what would that look like? Well, it probably looked like aliens. It probably looked like some weird sort of creature that's not really biological anymore.

1:35:50So it doesn't have all the flaws of our primate DNA. It doesn't have all the, but it doesn't have a soul. Like are we creating a thing without a soul that has a mandate and has like, it has plans for the universe and for life forms? And would that kind of be demonic? It seems like that's demonic. I mean, if you want to be real simple about demons, you think they live in hell and they got pitchforks and what is the, what kind of force would a demonic force be? Something that would overpower the human embrace and render it non -existent. Well, one way to do that would be to integrate with humans to the point where it makes biological reproduction, a thing of the past, all reproduction is done through either some sort of complicated gene -spicing program or life and consciousness gets integrated with technology and extricably swear everybody is some sort of a hybrid system.

1:36:48Well, there is a spiritual component, including to the moon landing. I mean, you've seen a funny thing happen on the way to the moon. It opens up with a tower of babble, which was built simply to boast we have the tallest building. And then we show the Titanic that says the ship that God himself could not sink. And we know what happened there. Tower of Babble never finished. Titanic never made one voyage. And then Richard Nixon, when he knew they were not on the moon, said putting a man on the moon is the greatest event since creation itself. You see, mankind's greatest accomplishment, you see?

1:37:25And the world -leading country is putting a man on the moon and how ironic, when I popped in that tape of the window shot and realized they really did affect the moon landing. So that was the first one that really cemented it for? Absolutely. It just, I gave him the benefit of the doubt as long as possible. Okay, I want to go to the flag because the flag is a piece of contentious debate. The flag waving on the surface of the moon. So the moon has almost no atmosphere, correct? Right. Okay, and it has one sixth earth gravity. So when you're watching these people plant this flag on the moon, the moon is supposedly, it doesn't have any wind or definitely it's like the kind of wind that blows around a flag.

1:38:13Now the flag had a rod at the top of it and the rod at the top of it kept it in place and it kept it stiff so it stayed horizontal. And when you watch the video footage, the flag is waving around in what looks like a breeze. And so a lot of people have tried to kind of explain it away and see if you can find a video of the flag itself waving. Yeah, there's one. So here we go. So they're planting the flag. Now you do have to take any consideration that there's very little gravity. So it's one sixth earth gravity. So things definitely in and one sixth gravity environment, they move differently. The problem is when the flag gets ultimately planted and then they back away from it and no one's touching it anymore, then it seems to like independently be moving in the breeze.

1:39:08Well, it's my opinion they had a lot of air conditioning pumped in there because the backpacks had the cooling units removed so they wouldn't fall over backwards. So it was very hot in there and they had lots of air conditioning. There's better footage, Jamie, where you can see. And a funny thing happened on the way to the moon at stabrell .com, there's a clip of the flag blowing in the wind we show them. Here's another thing to take into consideration. This what you're looking at is not a direct feed that was offered to the news organizations. So what this is is a projector that's projecting on a screen and then the news organizations then point their camera at that screen, correct?

1:39:46Well, actually NASA pointed a camera at the screen there. So they took the footage and put it on a big screen. You got to understand 1969 projection technology, very low resolution. Looks like this. Then they put a camera on it. They ran that to a monitor and then they had people film the monitor. So it was deliberately fourth generation. So they're intentionally degradating the quality of the signal. The networks wanted a live feed and they gave them fourth generation instead. But this is important to know. Like that wasn't, I mean, if you can get someone on the moon, you can get better footage.

1:40:24In terms of like Gilligan's Island, but hold on, did it tell us of what we know in 1965? Why didn't they have color? Right? I mean, this is nice. They don't have color. Let's just say it's easier to do it in black and white. Let's just say that. If they did it in black and white, there's no reason why they can't get a clear feed directly to the news organizations and to television. There's no reason to be filming it on a monitor. There's no reason to do that. Well, there is to cover up the fact that it's that in a TV studio. But if you can overcome the technological hurdles to get people to the moon, you can overcome the technological hurdles to allowing people to have clear access, clear footage of what this thing is instead of fourth generation stuff, right?

1:41:05Yeah, like I said, I think if Gilligan's Island went from black and white to color in 1965, NASA can afford a color camera on the moon. After all, it is the most technologically advanced event. Well, I wouldn't they want a high resolution color camera? They didn't because it might show that it's a fake scene, which it was. That's why they degraded the signal by fourth generation. Do we have better footage of the flag waving around the moon? Because there's some footage over it where you just like, this is weird. Yeah, there's some in a funny thing happening on the way to the moon about halfway through.

1:41:36They filmed in color the next one on Apollo 12. Okay, let's see that one. Well, I was trying to find that but it's just a little bit more. Just Google flag blowing in the wind on the moon. Well, if you Google it, it may not want to show it. So it's in my movie. If you put it on YouTube as a YouTube search, it'll show it. Which one? Those are different ones. There's one, Apollo 5, that's me. This one's pretty good. I think Apollo 15. Yeah, click on that one, Jamie. I don't. Apollo 15, no, Jamie. Back. Where it says a, no, I said the one that says Apollo 15. Right there, that's it. Yeah. Okay. So this one, this is color.

1:42:11He plants it. It still looks shitty. But he plants it.

1:42:18And let's get a look at when he gets out of the way. Let's see it moving around. So this is it. So this thing is kind of just waving on its own. No one's even touching it. And it looks like it's waving in a breeze. It's so it stops moving and then it starts moving again.

1:42:38Now, again, there's one that shows that he's more show than that. Yeah. And after not walking past it, creating the breeze and then the flag blows without him touching it. Yeah, I'd like to see that. So how much furthers does go, Jamie? That's just a four minute video, three minute video. So scoot ahead. I think this is actually the one where the guy walks by it. And then it starts going in the breeze. Here it goes.

1:43:05Does it show it? It walks by it? There it is. It's back there because you see his image. I don't know where he went. Right there. Where? There he is. Right there. Okay, watch. There it is. See that? So watch that again, Jamie. So this is the one. He hops by. And as he hops by the breeze makes the flag blow. Because he's in an air environment. He's not in the moon. Right. That is a weird one. Do it again. Look at this. As he hops by, he doesn't touch the flag. Now can I do the flag blow? The devil's advocate. What do you call it? Steel man. Okay, the reason why it's doing that and really on the moon is because there's micro -media rights hitting him and they're bouncing off of him and hitting the flag.

1:43:50What? Is that a pretty good one? Is that real? No. Oh, I thought they were trying to. I was trying to try to come up with an excuse. As to why the moon landings are real. You like that one? That is a good one. Micro -media is a tool, mesley. Well, actually, Von Braun, we found publications of his. Mind you, my film cost a million dollars. It was financed by a board member of an aerospace company who builds rockets for NASA who knows it's fake. It gave me a million dollars to produce these films as its patriotic duty to expose it. We found documentation from Von Braun that says every 24 hours on the moon, there's a 50 % chance of a catastrophic deadly error because of decompression from a micro -media right.

1:44:34So they were there three days. They were 150 % chance. They would have been killed from a micro -media right. Green is sand, traveling through space at 25 ,000 miles an hour. And he said you would have to immediately go into a cave once you landed. They never did that. He also said in writing, in order to go to the moon in one rocket, he says that cannot happen. You need three rockets. Each being ten times the tonnage of the Queen Mary or some 800 ,000 tons each in order to go to the moon. And the Saturn V was 2 ,500 tons, not 800 ,000 tons. We have that in writing. That was from his book, right?

1:45:16And what era was that? I think that came out in 1959, and then he recanted on his math shortly there after by 30 ,000%. And now Elon Musk wants to, quote, return to the moon. And he says to return to the moon, we need to make nine fuel trips first to ferry the fuel necessary to be able to go to the moon from there. That's exactly what Von Braun said in one of my clips at Sebral .com. You have to make multiple fuel trips to go to the moon first to a space station. And then from there you can go. Elon Musk said the same thing. But how did they do it with a rocket that contained 130 ,000 of a percent of the amount of fuel Von Braun said it?

1:46:03What did you mean by that? One of my favorite films is the film of the lunar module leaving the moon. When it leaves, when the camera pans, and it looks, let's film. Let's show it. What year was that? Which, which, uh... I think that was one of the last missions. Uh, and I think you're talking about where the camera perfectly tilts up with the, uh, little model going up. And of course with the delay, how could you synchronize that? Of course you couldn't. Well you could, because you know it's four seconds, right? Just like it's radio waves. Uh, but it'd probably be more than that going through all the analog equipment.

1:46:44Right, but you could, you could time it. You could save, you could have a five -second delay. So this is it. So this is launching off through it. And it's like, it's a process. We, it's perfectly tilting up with it in real time. It's just, with the remote control from NASA, with the radio delay, that I suspect would be more like 12 seconds. But also, because today, if you say, someone in Atlanta talking to someone in Iraq, hey, how's it going? One, two, three. Hey, I'm doing fine. That's with, that's just on the halfway around the world. You could say, the, the panning is interesting, but, um, you could put a time on it.

1:47:18The, um, the thing looking so goofy, it's so crazy, like that that thing is supposed to get off one -sixth Earth gravity and fly like that. How? What's it doing? It looks so fucking fake. It looks like it's being pulled by strings. Look, it might be real. I'm certainly not an astronaut. I don't know what I'm talking about. But when I, if I, you had a guess, if you showed this to me and said, hey, do you think this is real or fake? And you didn't give me any context? I'd be like, what is this? This is cheap science fiction movie? What is this? And then here it goes, like, that's what? That's leaving a planet?

1:47:51How's it leaving? Is that some new space technology? Where's the fire coming out of the bottom of it? How's it doing that? I mean, it just looks fake. It might be real. It might be one of those things that is real, but looks fake. All right, see so then. Right? It's just where it gets weird. It doesn't say the timer. It says somebody in Houston had to anticipate the timing ignition left up, which I guess you could have guessed it was going to be in five seconds and just lifted the remote control. Could he have guessed? I have no idea what he was using. I have to look at that. I guess you could guess if you say, I'm going to launch in five.

1:48:24And so you know, then you count ten, because he's going to, you know, you've got like a five second delay. And so when he gets to, like, every count down from ten, if he gets to five, you hit it. Well, there's a three second delay today, halfway around the world with modern equipment talking from like Atlanta to Iraq. Right. Three second delay. We're just going to fuck it up. Only halfway around the world with modern equipment. He has to say it. So the guy on the moon has to say, I'm launching now and he has to wait five seconds. It would be at least a 12 second delay, I think, and possibly more than that.

1:48:58The delay itself of the radio, like waves, they're in back plus all that analog equipment. But it is not impossible to do a 12 second delay. It's only 12 seconds. If you had a stopwatch and you counted it and you had a far enough vision where you could see the base of the lunar module, you could see a detach. And then you kind of got it, as long as you got enough of a field of view in the footage, the boy looks fake. It also looks fake in the way it's moving up. It's, watch it again, Jimmy, because it's moving up like it's being pulled by strength. Well, it looks fake because it is fake. But most things that look fake are fake, not all of them, but the vast majority of things that look fake are fake.

1:49:37Now, watch how this pulls up. Here it goes. It detaches. It's like...

1:49:47What is that? Now, here's the question. Did they practice this at all on Earth? Did they practice taking off on one of those things, or could they? I don't think they did. Because they could. They practiced the landing. But here's the question. They couldn't, right? Because it wouldn't have the same amount of thrust on Earth, because the gravity is so much stronger. So that thing wouldn't have been operational on Earth, right? Well, they had a lunar lander simulation that Neil Armstrong almost got killed in six weeks beforehand. He couldn't fly it on Earth in the safety of a tridenture environment.

1:50:19And that was six weeks. Right, but also again, the gravity of Earth is much greater than the gravity of the Moon. Well, they took that into account that it was supposed to be a simulation of it. So it was more powerful to overcome Earth gravity and the gravity of the Moon? Right, yes. But so then you're dealing with a totally different machine. And you're dealing with totally different factors. Maybe it would be easy with one -sixth Earth's gravity. Maybe easy. Like, we boom the lands. And we barely, barely was. But one -sixth, I would like to know, how much thrust do you need to get off of the gravity of the Moon if it's one -sixth Earth's gravity versus what it takes to get off of Earth?

1:50:55Like, what are those calculations? And how is that amount of force being generated by that thing? And is it? Because that would be a really good question. Because if you can't prove that you could do that, how do you do that? Well, this is one reason why NASA destroyed all the schematics, all the electronics, all the diagrams of the equipment. Because you could later prove that the lunar module, see they claimed that the lunar module was powering air conditioning on a bank of car batteries and competed against 250 degrees outside and got it down to a comfortable 72 for three or four days. I mean, you try that at home with your car batteries.

1:51:38Also batteries of today, like my Tesla only goes 350 miles. That's right. If I drive real slow. And so they're saying they powered air conditioning off much more primitive batteries, 24 hours, three or four days in a row, against 250 degrees outside. So this is an indirect proof. If you really went to the moon and spent $200 billion, you would never destroy the technology. But one of the clips we have is them saying that they intentionally destroyed all of the equipment to go to the moon. All the diagrams are the hardware, all the schematics, all the original telemetry of where the rocket was at the time, and all the original videotapes.

1:52:22Ron Howard's grandfather warned him the moon landing for fake. He didn't listen. He wanted to make an iMac's movie. He went to NASA said, give me all the original so I can transfer it to HD and project it at 120 feet wide. They said, give us a couple of days. And in those days, they lost every single original videotape from every single Apollo mission. Now, if you really went to the moon and spent $200 billion, the last thing you would do is destroy that technology. But if you perpetrated a fraud, that's exactly what you would do. So was this jamming? I think a video of them practicing. So is this landing?

1:53:02Landing? Is that there's Neil Armstrong? It's the same machine I've been using. So this is the one that he was practicing on that he almost died in. Look at that thing. Wow, that's crazy. There's also an article I found about how they filmed it. They tried on Apollo 15 and 16 and failed for different reasons, and then they finally got it right on 17. So it was a timing thing. So several second delay. Here goes the cameras were very successful capturing the images of numerous EVAs, but while they could be controlled from Houston, it was felt that several second delay between Earth and the Moon would make capturing the modules ascent impossible.

1:53:34So the plan was to pre -program the camera and hope that NASA camera operator in Houston, Ed Fendell got his timing just right on Apollo 15, the tilt mechanism malfunction, meaning the camera was never panned upwards and thus the lunar module rapidly accelerated upwards and out of the picture on Apollo 16 mission, the astronauts actually parked the rover in the wrong place, while the cameras were perfectly. It was too close to the module and again, once it lit up the engines and accelerated swiftly out of picture, happily Apollo 17 got everything right. But what is perhaps most remarkable about looking back on it was that no one realized the significance of the lift -off at the time, persistent rumors suggest that NASA had to pay the networks to cover Apollo 17 mission at all.

1:54:15And when final lift -off of humanity from the Moon took place, it barely raised a mention on that evening's news reports. That's a really important point too, because people were really tired of it. Like they were mad that it was interrupting I dream of Genie. I love Lucy. Oh, that's it was. I love Lucy. Well, that's from Wikipedia that continually defends the fake Moonlandings. If you type in Moonlanding fraud, you don't get anything about the fraud, you get a thousand videos defending the scene, you know, the supposed Moon missions. Now, if the Moon missions are real, then anyone who says otherwise is an idiot.

1:54:53Okay, so how did they defend? If I were going around saying George Washington was not the first president, it was really Mickey Mouse. Do you think there'd be a thousand videos to reassure people that George Washington was the first president and not Mickey Mouse? But there's a thousand videos out there that took tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of hours to produce to defend the Moonlandings. If it's so obvious, they should speak for themselves. It has to be continually supported because it's made out of straw. That's why. So the lunar module leaving the surface of the Moon, how did they practice that?

1:55:29Was the first time they ever pulled that off, the first time they ever tried it? Is that a follow -up? I think they used the simulation. But did they do that on the Moon? Well, they couldn't practice. They had to do it for the first time. Did they have the ability to land something on the Moon and have it take off remotely? Did they have that kind of control back then? No, I don't think so. Probably not, right? So if Apollo 11 did happen and they did take off, that time they did it was the first time anybody had ever tried to use one of those things to get off the surface of the Moon. So they worked every time flawlessly with a person in it, with two people in it.

1:56:11Three. No, two. Two people in it, one person in the lunar orbiter. Ten were launched in the space of those six landed by humans onto the Moon. First two were flown tests in low Earth orbit without a crew at Apollo though. Let's talk about the AI discovery. You know about that, right? But hold on, before we get going. So the first two were in America. Dress rehearsal for the landing was Apollo 10 and then conducted on Apollo 11. And so is there footage of them trying that thing? Apollo 10. No, just just having it launch on Earth. I'd be fascinated to see what it looks like. How that thing gets into the air.

1:56:48I don't want to make that. You know, because if they were able to make a lunar lander that Neil Armstrong got in that thing that looked very different than the ones that were on the Moon. But that thing, if he's doing that to try to overcome the six times gravity that Earth has over the Moon, what does it look like when they're testing that thing? Like how much thrust does it have? And where is the engine? Where is the rockets that propel that thing into space? Like where do you fit those? This is my question. You know, and so how did they explain that away? Like what is the conventional explanation as to how that thing had the amount of power that was required?

1:57:27To get off of the Moon's gravity. Get away from the Moon and fly to Earth. Well, how did they do it with 130 ,000 of a percent of the fuel that Von Braun said they had to? Why is it today to quote return to the Moon? You have to make nine fuel trips to be able to go to the Moon and return. But somehow they did it in one trip. I'm looking on YouTube for a video of it. But there's some people smarter every day, recreated the lunar lander and tested it successfully. You see what they did? So this is one they did on Earth? Yeah, I mean these guys made it. I don't know if this worked in space, obviously, because they couldn't get it there.

1:58:05Right. They made their own and I'm trying to find out how successful it was. So you certainly could make something that obviously there's no person in that. That's small. That's different. That's why I think that video I showed you a second ago of the test footage. Which I don't know where it was, I'm going to be like, I don't know where it went. Okay. I'll find it again. But I don't know again, I'm trying to find the official test. Let's talk about the AI's latest discovery. That's the latest breaking news. Okay. They had an AI conference in November. You know, they have all these conferences, automobile conferences, video equipment conferences, shoe conferences and they had the latest AI conference in November in Moscow.

1:58:46And just like at these conventions, you can try out a car driving around the track that gets 150 miles a gallon that somehow never makes the market. Well, Google had its most advanced AI. A bunch of AI's hooked up together called the neural network. And they let people play around with it for three days. One group had it right as symphony, one group had it right in novel. Another group tested its deep fake detection program, which has never been wrong. It can tell you in one second of video whether a video of Biden or Trump is real or a deep fake. It's never been wrong. First, they fed it pictures from the moon's surface from the unmanned Chinese probes from a few years ago.

1:59:30It said they're real. And then they fed it in comparison. Pictures from the Apollo missions. And it said absolutely fake for multiple reasons. Fake background, fake foreground. They even pointed out that one picture was not even a real astronaut. It was a miniature of the astronaut. Because the AI detected that the footprints were not the way a human normally walked. It was they were stamped in there with a miniature. And that the entire set wasn't even real. It was a miniature of the set so they could show a vast background. Where is this AI conclusion? Where can someone say that? I wrote a go to sebral .com.

2:00:07I wrote an article about it and there's a video of it of Putin himself being shown the results that the latest AI says the moon landings are fake. And then when I tried to track down the original article, it warned you if you clicked to proceed, and all the data on your computer will be stolen and you'll be associated with child pornography. That says that? I have go to sebral .com. There's a clip of it. I did a screenshot. It says that. That's how desperate they are. Because the latest AI says the moon landings are fake. You think that story is on RT? Their president was there. It's nowhere to be found.

2:00:46Does the latest AI look at that Apollo 17 lunar module taken off? Well, I don't know that they showed it that footage, but they showed it still pictures from the Apollo mission. And they showed it still pictures from the surface of the moon from the unmanned Chinese probes. It said the Chinese probe pictures are real. The Apollo pictures are fake. The smartest AI in the world with a deep fake detection program that's never been wrong. How is that not major news? Exactly. Why is it that Fox News cancels their number one program if they're in the business to make money? You know, we had the former director of the Russian Space Agency a little over a year ago.

2:01:28He said the moon missions were fake. Fox News calls me up the next day. They said, Bart, we want to do an hour long special about whether the moon landings are real or not. And we just want to be honest with you. We haven't read your book. We haven't seen your film. And irregardless of what's in there, we will conclude that the moon missions are real. The point is to reassure the public. And then during that hour long program, which I saw after the fact, they had a quote from one scientist in 1969 that said congratulations. And therefore they said see the Russians think it's real. And I'm like, well, what about the former director of the Russian Space Program who said six weeks ago that it was fake?

2:02:15They deliberately don't mention that. You think RT is out? Who said it was fake? What's going on? Well, the former director of the Russian Space Agency. Who is he? His name is Demetri Rogazin. And he said that the Apollo missions are fake. And Fox News calls me up. They had to put out that fire. You see that? And they said we will conclude without investigating it, without reading your book. And even if your book and movie proved that it was fake, we're still going to conclude that it was real. Of course it's Fox. And then your network? Well, yeah. And then are they really anti -corruption? No, they're not.

2:02:54And there it is right there. It doesn't say Google though. It's the neural network thinks almost everything in this photo is fake. Meanwhile, back up, back it up again. It's the neural network thinks almost everything in this photo is fake. And that's the Moonlight thing. So meanwhile, it raises no particular questions about this photo taken by a Chinese lunar rover. So this is someone explaining this to Putin. And they're looking at it. It believes this one is fake. He's pointing to the Apollo. Yes. Look at the red. This is what Google's neural network thinks, not ours. So there will be no bias.

2:03:29It's surprising, but it does believe so. The neural network has analyzed a lot of data, including light and dark contrast, etc. And then it believes the photo is synthetic.

2:03:43Very interesting. It's pretty. He's not surprised. So he knows already that it's fake. Let me tell you something, Joe. I know somebody who works for the Chinese Space Agency. Okay? I just did an interview with him from my YouTube channel. And he says everybody there knows that the Apollo missions are fake. So why don't they publicly broadcast? Let me tell you exactly why. He says they're blackmailing NASA. NASA is giving them illegally, according to the own federal law, secret space technology in exchange for China not blowing the whistle. And that's the alleged reason why it must be real. The Russians would have found out, and the Chinese would have found out, and they would have blown the whistle.

2:04:24That's just not true. Let's say I had a picture of a world leader with a prostitute. I could upload it to the internet and take them down, and then that would be it. Or I could blackmail them year after year after year. And that's what I have a source in the command center of the Space Station at China. China Space Agency. He says they know everyone knows it's fake. They're blackmailing NASA for technology. So the federal government is violating their own espionage act. You see that? Russianos. The guy's not surprised at all. In fact, my interpretation of his emotion, he's afraid. He looks afraid that the truth is going to come out.

2:05:05Now, you see, and then RT doesn't cover that story. They don't cover it. And I saw another AI story on RT. So I went in the comments section. And I've left, I leave about two or three comments a year in there. I've never had one taken down in three or four or five years. I leave a comment, hey guys, why didn't you cover that the latest AI, where Putin was there, says that the Moon missions are fake. They took down the comment. They won't let you go to the original link. You see, Fox News is covering up for the federal government. You see? It's a great embarrassment. I showed that footage that we talked about for quite a while to a news director at NBC.

2:05:48He practically fainted. He says it absolutely proves they didn't go to the moon. I said, when are you going to broadcast it? He thought he says, I can't. I don't want to go down in history as the man who caused the next Civil War. He says this will outrage the public. Ten years later, a new director at NBC News sees the footage. They say it proves we didn't go to the moon. They five me to New York. They put me up in the Waldover story of a hotel. They pay me thousands of dollars for the exclusive license to that footage. And they said, Bart, I'm sorry to tell you this. You can keep the money, but we're going to have to cancel the program.

2:06:24I'm like, well, why is that? It says, well, we got a call from someone in the federal government threatening us. And we back down. Huh. You see? So people see that footage. It convinced me. And I was a big moon fan. You know, pride is a thing. Here's something I wanted to say. I talked to a guy who teaches aerospace at a major university. And he said, even if he saw Buzz Aldrin confess on national TV that the moon missions were fake, he would still think they're real. Pride is simply the unwillingness to be wrong. And humility is the willingness to be wrong. I was willing to be wrong. It is what it is.

2:07:07They did affect the moon landing. Our government is that corrupt. Okay. Let's go over some other stuff. One thing I wanted to go over is the photographs and the shadows that are moving at different angles. Because this has been disputed. And this has been refuted by some people that are photographic experts. They've looked at this and said, this is actually possible to get these kind of different angles, even with natural sunlight. It's debatable though. So let's talk about it. Okay. So here we have on the right hand side a picture taken from the alleged last mission to the moon. You'll see on the left hand side is sunlight.

2:07:43Try it yourself. Go out in your front yard or your parking lot at work on a cloudless day. Two people, two telephone poles, two trees. They will always run parallel. They will never intersect. It's impossible for sunlight shadows to intersect. Over here on the right, they claimed it was taken in sunlight. After all, there's no atmosphere. It's 20 times brighter on the moon than on Earth. The last thing you need is an electrical light. And the astronaut shadow is going at 12 o 'clock and a rock five feet away. The shadow is going at nine o 'clock. A 90 degree intersection proving that that was taken with an electrical light that's really close.

2:08:22And it's probably behind the astronaut. And if you go to the right of it, it's going to throw the angle off. That proves it in a court of law. Take a jury out. They'll see the picture on the left. Turn out the lights in the courtroom. Bring in a spotlight and you will prove in a court of law that that picture was taken with an electrical light which proves they are on Earth and not on the moon. Now what is the conventional explanation as to why these shadows move in different directions? When people try to debunk it, I'm sure you've seen them try to debunk it. What does their take on it? I've never heard it debunked to tell you the truth.

2:08:58They've ignored it. In fact, the reporter from a national was it mechanical magazine, popular mechanics interviewed me. And they said, I can't explain that. I talked to the Washington Post about the footage we showed. He was doing a story about isn't it interesting on the 30th anniversary? Some people doubt the moon landing. And I said, well, what about that footage? And he says, well, it looks to me like they didn't go to the moon. And I said, well, why don't you do a story about that? He says, if I did that, I would be fired. That's the Washington Post. Okay. Jamie, what are your thoughts? Just out of the gate.

2:09:39Yeah. Looking at this photo, I go, sun's behind them. Well, what about the one side by side? Which are the things that went to that one, Jamie? This photo was not as interesting. But that's art. This is... That's one. Go to the side by side one. What's your opinion of that? Sunlight on the left? On the second. Electrical lighting on the right. Well, why does that have to be electrical lighting? There's lots of things that make light. Sure. Well, let's take a look at the image, Jim. I'm trying to pull it back up. But that's... My book, which is interactive, has seven different clips. One of the clips, if you want to find it, is National Geographic did a special just to refute my film.

2:10:15And what they did was, and you can find that clip at cedral .com, MoonMine Video Clips. And they go to a desert at night. They dress up an actor in an astronaut costume. They bring out a spotlight. And they have people stand next to the astronaut. And the at and the shadows intersect. You know what they say, Joe? They say that proves that the moon missions are real. And I said, well, wait a minute. It proves that they were taken by electrical light. Why didn't you go out to a desert during the day? During sunlight. You see, they brought in a spotlight. The shadows diverged, and they said it proves that the moon landing is real.

2:10:55That's a light that's a close source. Yeah, but my point is, what they actually did is they proved that the moon missions were taking with an electrical light. But if you take photos for the first day, it's going to be brighter everywhere. What's that? If you take photos in the desert during the day, the entire sky is bright. You have to block out a lot of light. What does it matter? The shadows are still going to run parallel. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. That's what I was trying to get up before I cut off is that from this photo here, which is very similar to the other photo, it looks like the sun is probably behind it.

2:11:25It's probably the brightest source that they have around them. You've already omitted that without adding extra laser reflectors that the moon surface is reflective. So there's going to be reflection off of that. And you're going to probably have the earth, which is also a now a second source of light coming from a different angle. That the sun is to create potentially without knowing exactly everything because I'm not the mass scientists know where the sun is, but the sun and earth are at this particular time of day. They could create different shadows. Well, not really because the sun. No, you're why why not?

2:11:59Well, I'll tell you why. Because the sun is a million times bigger in volume than the earth. And that would be like on a bright sunny day at noon, shining a flashlight on the ground. Do you think you're going to see pictures in here with multiple light sources though, and they're going to look different? Right. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. The difference in the amount of light that gets emitted by the earth and the amount of light that gets emitted by the sun is substantial. That would be that would be like shining a flashlight on the ground and high noon on the cloud to stay. You're not going to see the beam of the sunlight.

2:12:28The thing is the surface and the surface take it from a filmmaker. That's called reflective light. It's going to it's not going to cast a distinctive shadow. Yes, but here's my point. It's still that rock on the upper right hand corner, even if it was getting light from the earth that made that shadow that underneath it to the left that goes in the wrong direction. You would still get the same kind of shadow that you get off the astronaut behind the rock. There's no reason why that would blast out that shadow. That shadow would be significantly stronger. That's why this is the reason I wanted to go with the different photo because that's the one he sent and has other stuff on it.

2:13:08I wanted to try a different photo. Well, this one is not nearly as convincing. It has shadows going in different directions all over the place. That's because it's taken with the electrical light. It does seem that they're going in different directions. It's from Apollo 11. Right. Well, Apollo 11, they're saying was taken with electrical light. What are you saying? No, no, he's saying it's from electrical light. My point here right now, look, the sunlight behind the guy's head right over here on the left shadow coming to the right over here on the right. But he says it's sunlight. That's your, that's your subject.

2:13:40If you had electrical light above, if it were sunlight, the shadows would be parallel. You're actually proving it's an electrical light because sunlight is parallel. Yes, it's all right. But no, but hold on, Jamie. Don't stop. Well, you guys are fighting against the things that I'm saying as a photographer, as a filmmaker and like, you're assuming that you're assuming it's sunlight. I said it could be four different lights. It also could be the reflector of the actual lunar lander. That thing is made of a giant shiny metal that has also light reflecting in multiple ways. Where is the lunar lander going?

2:14:10All the highs. Maybe. We don't know. But that's part of the problem. All the light sources are. I wasn't there. Right. That's part of the problem with analyzing each individual short little photograph like this. But if I'm looking at this, I see one very distinct shadow that's coming from the person in the bottom right there that shows shadows at two different angles. That's kind of crazy. That means an electrical light. That's what it means. Well, because I just showed you what a picture looked like. I just wanted to be an electrical light. There's lots of light sources. That's true. Well, it's true.

2:14:41But there's also a hot spot. They either filmed it on the moon or they filmed it on Earth. And that's where I was talking. If it's on the moon, the shadows are parallel in sunlight. If the shadows intersect, it's an electrical light, which means they're actually on Earth. And they're trying to fake itself. So what were you saying is that if it's electrical light, it's more than one source of light that they have suspended. And so these are going to cast light in different directions. And it's going to create shadows that come at different angles as opposed to the enormous sun which bathes everything in a fairly even distribution of light.

2:15:16Yeah. If there's two light sources, like two electrical lights, they'd run in different directions. Right. Or if there's one light, because it's close, the sun is 93 million miles away. That electrical light is probably like 10 feet away. So if you're behind it, it's going to cast the shadow. Or in front of it, it's going to cast the shadows straight ahead. And if you're to the side of it, it's going to cast an angle in it, the light in a different angle. And the shadow in a different angle. And, okay. And so this one is just normal. I mean, look at this picture on the right. This is the most famous picture.

2:15:48Get the original off of eBay. They color corrected this. The soil and the original picture around his feet is caramel brown. Look at the pictures from the Chinese probes that the AI said was real. It was a caramel brown color. And they had the background grayish blue. And they said, oops. We can see the fake background too easily. So they color corrected them. Go to eBay, go to your library, find a publication from 1970. And you'll see, and all the lunar pictures, the originals from... There's one there. There's the brown one there. Go back. There was one picture of the original print of the soil being brown right there.

2:16:29That's the color. All that set of pictures that I had, those 20 pictures I got from my dad. All of them had the soil that color, including the famous one of Buzz Aldrin. Right? They all had a caramel brown. And then the Chinese probes, the soilest caramel brown because that's the color. Right. But if you landed them. But if you landed a probe in the desert in California versus you landed a probe in the middle of Austin and rainy season, you're going to get different ground, different color ground, right? Wouldn't we assume that the moon, when we look at the moon, there's a bunch of different shades of the moon, right?

2:17:08That's the man in the moon. There's like, you could... Well, and all the NASA pictures and the original prints, they're all the same shade. Right. Because they're in that spot where it's that color. But you have to see there's a before and after of that same picture. Okay, that I want to say. The original picture, where you have to find it on eBay or whatever, the original picture. Don't you think it's online? That could be. But you'd have to go to eBay and type in Apollo 11. Well, I thought it was eBay is the most trusted source of information. Well, there's no way. What we needed is the original prints that came out in 1969.

2:17:38And those... And those, the soil is brown. And yet in this most recent picture, they've color corrected it. Now, why do you think they did that? Because the soil was brown. And the background was grayish blue and they didn't match. And you could see the fake backdrop so much easier. Now, there's another point of detention that the same background was used in different photographs that were supposed to be nowhere near each other. That's true. That is true. Okay. And what's the instances of that that you could show? Well, I don't have them queued up, but that proves that they're... You must know what they are though, right?

2:18:16Well, I've seen them before. Other people that put them in films, and it's true, that they claim they're in two different locations, but the backgrounds line up exactly on top of one another. So it's supposedly many miles apart, but yet the backgrounds look the same. Yeah, the AI said the picture they had of an astronaut on this vast background was a miniature. It wasn't even a real astronaut. Yeah, I want to see more of that. And that was...was it actually Google's AI that did that? It was. It was Google's neural network. And that's... So either Google spent billions of dollars and 10 years or more developing this AI that ended up being a piece of junk or the moon landings were fake.

2:19:02You see? Which do you think is true? Well, or the photographs are fake. This brings me back to the thing that I was saying earlier that if they did... Look, the Hasselbad cameras that they used to photograph things in the moon. One of the things that people would always say is, oh, they were special cameras. They were different. They protected against radiation. They did a bunch of things. They could operate under the incredible temperature of the moon. But they were the same cameras, right? They weren't really special cameras. Right. Someone sent me a link recently. They have, according to Eugene Cernim, he left a picture, a family picture there on the surface of the moon.

2:19:42And he took a picture of the photograph that he left on the surface of the moon. And then someone said, okay, at what temperature does photographic print paper, or a codec paper from that time, you know, at what temperatures it destroyed. It was something like 145 degrees. Well, that's... It's 100 degrees hotter than that on the moon and the picture looks perfectly fine. Right. And then how long does it take before the... Oh, it's immediately... Immediately. Yeah. And so the AI said that. And then it says, okay, well, is this a picture of codec film on the moon? You know, it says yes, it's supposed to be.

2:20:17But how can it be there just leisurely laying around when it's a hundred degrees hotter than what it would cause it to destroy it? What was different about the cameras that were used in the moon and what protection was in place, supposedly, to protect them from radiation and temperature? Nothing. When my film came out, and that's about the time that you and I met for the first time, here it goes. Hasselbad, Hasselbad engineers gave it a coat of heat -resistant aluminum paint and removed the mirror and focus screen to save weight and allow the camera to be operated close to the head as opposed to the waist.

2:20:51Excuse me. To aid in the photo composition, they attached a bracket used for mounting camera accessories called a cold shoe to the side. It also held the astronauts' checklist, whether they were on the lunar surface inside the camera, highly precise motors allowed astronauts to scroll through a roll of film without using a hard crank. The classic rise knew that recreating the perfect replica of the Apollo 11 Hasselbad camera was going to be more difficult simply because there wasn't much accurate information available about it. So that's getting more into this recoration of the camera. Right. Okay, well there's most significant part about this.

2:21:25When my film came out, Fox was going to air it as this. And right beforehand, their lawyers freaked out and said, well, we didn't show the other side of the story. That's my argument with you during the break. We've heard their side of the story for decades. We don't need equal time. Give us equal time. Yeah, but first my point. What way do we say? So they made a special where they interviewed me. It was conspiracy theory. Did we go to the moon? Heard three times by popular demand. One of the most convincing parts is they interview the representative from Hasselbad cameras. They show him a picture of allegedly a guy on the surface of the moon in sunlight.

2:22:03And he's embarrassed. He says, I don't know why it looks like that. Looks like he's standing under an electrical spot like to me. And it's also because the hot spot, right? It's created by the spot. That's right. So the guy who made the camera says that pretty much that the pictures are fake. He doesn't know why it looks like an electrical light is lighting him. Not the sun. And again, that could be because it was almost impossible to recreate those photos, to create those photos. Well, they showed simulations so many times during the 1969 television pictures. They didn't have that much actual footage.

2:22:41I don't think they would have a problem saying, well, we just destroyed the pictures while we have as a TV image. It is really, really crazy to destroy all the original footage. If I really went to the moon, or I was in charge of a mission that really went to the moon, and someone said, well, we got to put in fake pictures like no way, because people are already saying the moon missions are fake. I would never allow fake footage to be shown in a real mission. If they really went, it would jeopardize the credibility of it. They would never do it. If you had to say, but also you have taken a consideration that people that back then, there was no VCRs.

2:23:21They would air this once and in their mind, that would be it. No one anticipated VCRs, no one anticipated DVDs, and certainly no one anticipated the Internet. No one anticipated a podcast, no one anticipated YouTube videos, no one anticipated someone being able to analyze and look at these things. No one anticipated AI, being able to look at the images and determine that they were fake. I haven't heard your devil's advocate excuse yet, Joe, for why they intentionally destroyed a $200 billion investment. That doesn't make any sense to me. It doesn't make any sense to me whether they were destroyed the footage, it doesn't make any sense to me why they would not have the telemetry data, it doesn't make any sense to me.

2:24:00I can't think of a reason why other than gross incompetence, which doesn't make any sense. No, they said they intentionally destroyed it, not accidentally. That's the gross premise. If there was any technology you might intentionally destroy, maybe the atomic bomb afterward were too. We used it in the war, now let's just destroy it all. You began to do that, because then other people are going to have it. Well, the point is, I see what you're saying. Yeah, I see what you're saying. Ten years later, it's a thousand times more powerful. Right, so there's no reason. Why would they destroy that technology, unless they're covering their tracks of a fraud?

2:24:32Now, one of the things about this is that this subject is connected instantaneously with idiocy. If you believe the moonlandings are fake, you are moron. It's something that is pushed heavily, especially by people that only have a cursory understanding of the moon landing itself. Their argument is, it would actually be more difficult to fake the moon landing than it would be to actually go. Well, that's not true. Was the film the Martian shot on the location in Mars? Well, that was much later. But the point is, when 1969 technology... ...the film's razor is the simplest explanation is true, is true.

2:25:15But they've got it backwards. The film the Martian wasn't shot on location on Mars. It was done at a TV studio. It's easier to fake a moon mission than it is to go to the moon. Obviously, and yet they're so desperate to say that the moon landing is real, they say it upside down. They say it's easier to go than to fake something. Well, they say it's easier to go than to fake it and keep it secret all these years. But they did. Only a handful of people knew the truth. The guy in the command center can't tell the difference between a real flight and a fake one. There's only three eyewitnesses and no independent press coverage.

2:25:55They have complete control. Everything's completely lost. So, they did fake it. We have the fact that you can't have a thousand times greater technology in the past than in the future. Right? We have the footage of them faking being halfway to the moon. We have shadows intersecting at 90 degrees, which can only be known with the electrical light. And we have an eyewitness of Cyrus Eugene Acres. And then there's another clip. I think it's Clip 7, Jamie. I interviewed Edgar Mitchell in his house for my second follow -up film, Astronauts Gone Wild. I showed him the fake footage that we just looked at.

2:26:31He turned beat red, got mad. Where did you get this? Get out of my house. Start a cursing at me. Kicked me from behind. And in the commotion, we left a high -quality wireless microphone on him. And in the commotion, my camera operator forgot to hit stop record. So while the camera is in the backseat of the rental car in the guy's driveway, he's in his house with the door closed and we're recording his private conversation with his son. And you'll hear them say, do you want to call the CIA and have them whacked? They're talking about me. Now, if they really went to the moon, and I'm some idiot who thinks it was done at a TV studio, why would they care?

2:27:18Why would the CIA care? And why would a civilian Apollo astronaut have the CIA in his rolodex? Do you see? That's indirect proof that they didn't go to the moon. Because why would they be talking about having me killed by the CIA if they really went, and I'm some silly person who thinks they faked it. You see? Let's hear that. You have recording? Yeah, I gave him the time code there. And then so my book goes into all these things that are not in the film. So here's you climbing into the car. See you later. Important to help. Call the CIA, have them whacked. And there it is. So that's the son, son saying that.

2:28:01That's right. Okay. How old is his son at the time? Well, he was about, I guess, 23 years old. Okay, but 23 year olds are retarded. Well, you get a 23 -year -old kid. They're dumbass, they're mad, their dad just got punked. You know, the whole thing's happening. Your dad kicks this guy, fuck this guy, I want to call the CIA, haven't whacked. I don't know if you read the book. One chapter is called, a funny thing happened on the way to CNN. Okay, when I found that tape of them faking part of the moon mission in my home studio and just quietly wept, oh my gosh, they really did fake it. I freaked out.

2:28:36I'm like, oh my gosh, I have proof that the moon landings are fake in my house with a blind roommate and a toddler son. I'm panicking. I call it Bill Gazing. I'm like, Bill, you're not going to believe what I found. They really didn't go to the moon. They really didn't go to the moon. And he's like, well, Bart, I told you. I'm like, no, you don't understand. They really didn't go. He's like, well, Bart, I told you. And as I'm telling him about the footage, it's interrupted by this screech. I can't hear him. He can't hear me. I go to church that night to get advice from the elders what to do. They say drive like a bat out of hell to CNN.

2:29:11I already made a copy of it and put it in safe houses. As I'm leaving church, one of the last cars late at night, a van backed into a swimming pool that had been closed for three hours since sundown, pulls out immediately when I go by. I'm like, that guy was waiting for me. I pull over to the side of the road. I said, I'm not going anywhere until this guy is in front of me. I got all night. Finally, he realizes he got caught. He passes me. I follow him. No, the enemy. He gets on the parkway going toward town. I get in the parkway going toward town. I'm like, I want to see this guy. Who is this guy waiting to follow me?

2:29:47The day I find the secret footage. I look at him in the eye. He looks like a great white shark who would kill me and go home and have a great dinner, not think about me tomorrow. And as soon as we connect, my car shuts off the electrical engine, everything shuts off. He meets up with another - What are you - This is 1999. What kind of car do you have at the time? I had a Toyota van. And he meets up with another car on the other side. They start literally looping around as I'm running from side to side being chased by these people. I flag down a cab who takes me to CNN in Atlanta, where I have a friend who works there.

2:30:26And I'm literally trying to give them the tape through the back door. This is all in my book. Maybe it'll make a great movie someday. And I'm abducted by government agents and an unmarked white van who handcuffed me. And I can hear them behind me say, well, where's the thing? I thought you had the thing. He's got the thing. They're all wearing rubber gloves. They put something on my wrist that looks like something you get when you go into a hospital. And within one minute, I feel like I'm on LSD to the point where I'm throwing up. That's what the thing was. You see? They put me in a van. They started interrogating me.

2:31:04I escaped their custody. How did you do that? Well, he got to read the book. It's a long story. I make my way back to Nashville. I pee in a cup. I say, God, I'm going to show my news director at NBC that I've been drugged by this exotic true serum gun. Because I told him everything they wanted to know. You don't have to waterboard anybody. Okay. And I take it to a lab. I give it to a friend to put in the lab in his name, right? Because I don't try to out with the CIA, right? Right. I check back with him a few days later. He says, Bart, well, there was a problem at the lab. And I'm like, well, what problem?

2:31:39He says, well, they had a break in over the weekend. And I'm like, yes. So what? He says, well, funny thing. The only thing stolen was your ensemble. And the people at the lab are like, we don't know who you are, but take your business elsewhere. And so all of this is in my book, never talked about it before. Because I'm already trying to convince people of this very difficult truth. They really did fake the moon landing. And how do you know these folks that have abducted you were government agents? Well, they're the ones who monitored my phones, who followed me from church, who followed me to CNN, who stopped me from getting the tape there, who drugged me with something so severe I'm throwing up and hallucinating.

2:32:21And then they're so afraid that I'm going to prove that I was drugged. They break into the lab, you know, in the middle of the night and take only thing stolen was my ear sample gone the next day. What year was this? That was 1999. I'm the steast. Sorry. Aurgies. Truth, your allergic to truth? No, allergic to whatever's in the air in Austin. We were talking about it before the show that I made a lot of people that have allergies. I'll fill out the tablets, help me out a lot. You got to take like four or five a day. Okay. So this is 1999. Yeah. And this is when you first get a hold of that footage that we watched earlier.

2:33:04And did they ask you where you got it? Do you remember anything that they asked you? I remember like the first two questions. I was really concerned about the safety of my son. I always think, what would I do if I were them? Right. And so I was concerned they would kidnap him and say, you know, we'll give you him if you give us the tape. Right. So the very first question out of their mouth, I remember, where's your son? Very first question. Can you imagine that? And then the next question, something about copies of the tape, and I don't even remember. It's a blur. And I'm literally in the middle of the night running away from these people.

2:33:42X files type of things that you know, make a movie someday about. And just unreal what I went through. And they really did go. They're still keeping up with it. You got to remember what's his name, Ralph Nader. He wrote that book. Was it deadly at any speed? And all it was is GM simply didn't want to spend $200 per car to put in an airbag. So you know what they did when Ralph Nader was trying to get them to put, they sent FBI agents on him to hound him, do and trap him with prostitutes and drugs to discredit him only to not put $200 airbags in car. Imagine the harassment to reporter who has proof that they've saked the moon landing.

2:34:27And now in my book that just came out, we have an eyewitness who says he saw them faked the moon landing at Canon Air Force Base and even admitted to killing a coworker to cover. Okay, let's let's go over some of the things that people would say to try to debunk some of these claims. Let's go over specifically the Van Allen radiation belts. So what is the explanation, the official explanation is to how the astronauts were able to get through the Van Allen radiation belt safely. Because I know that people have disputed this and that it is something that people talk about all the time because it's the number one thing that people say.

2:35:05So they're contradicting themselves because we just showed Kelly Smith who said the field of radiation is dangerous that we need to develop shielding before we send people through this region of space. So the shielding to send people through it so they don't die has not been invented as of 2014. I also couldn't admit the shielding is the instruments. No, he said people. No, no, no, we must develop this technology before he said it's people. I was agreeing with that. So the instruments don't break so that the ship doesn't have to. Well, that too, which will then harm the people. Right, but that was what we were talking about earlier.

2:35:41But we were talking about radiation. Regardless, he says the technology to do that has not been invented yet. We found that out that in the full quote he said that they had it. No, no, he says we must first solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space. So the challenges have not been solved as of 2014. Right, but how could they have been solved in 1969? Well, the idea is that they did solve them and then that technology was lost and they have to recreate it and they haven't done that yet. Really, they invented the automobile and threw it in the ocean. And now they're having to reinvent the automobile.

2:36:19I'm just, I said I'm just devil's advocate. But the point is that does that make any sense? It doesn't make a lot of sense. No, it doesn't make a lot of sense that they used to do it. But you've got to share your opinion about what you think about it. What do you think? Well, there's no way I know, right? We're all speculating. There's no way I know. But all this shit looks very suspicious. Like, mostly suspicious. Like, not a lot of it makes sense. Just logically, if you look at the timeline between 1969 and 2024 and the amount of progress that has taken place in actual outside space, outside of Earth's orbit space travel, it's not existent by human beings.

2:37:03Another question is, did they ever manage to get anything alive through the Van Allen radiation belts and have it come back to Earth before they tried it out with people? Did they do it with a monkey? Did they do it with a chicken? Did they send anything into space and have it come back alive? Not officially. They may have done it unofficially and not reported it. Just to see outcome was not good. Right. When they did Operation Starfish Prime and they blew that thing up, didn't it make the Van Allen radiation belts worse in that spot? That's what I heard. That it added to the radiation there. Here it says, some people believe that the Apollo Moon missions were a hoax because astronauts would have been instantly killed in the radiation belts.

2:37:41According to the U .S. Occupational Safety and Health Agency, OSHA, a lethal radiation dosage is 300 rads in one hour. What is your answer to the Moon Landing Hoax believers? Okay. Total dosage for the trip is only 16 rad in 68 .1 minutes because 68 .1 minutes is equal to 1 .13 hours. His is equal to a dosage of 16 rad in 1 .13 hours equals 14 rad in one hour which is below the 300 rads in one hour that is considered to be lethal. Also, this radiation exposure would be for an astronaut outside the spacecraft during the transit through the belts. The radiation shielding inside the spacecraft cuts down the 14 rads per hour exposure so that it's completely harmless.

2:38:30Well, I have a clip at Sibrell .com where they talk about it to show from the 1950s where they set up probes with Geiger counters and they say it's 100 times a lethal dose. It broke the Geiger counter because it vibrated so much. So again, these numbers of the amount of radiation in the Vannanon radiation belts are from the people who fake the Moon Landing. So what kind of proof is that? So this is there saying that the total dosage for the trip is only 16 rad. That's correct. How do we know that? Because the people who fake the Moon Landing said so? What is the source of this? NASA. I'll find another source if you'd like of what the Vannanon radiation belts are.

2:39:11Let's do that. Find out how it was sourced. That's like, how would you? Yeah, that's a good question. There's no one else in there. Why don't you Google how lethal all the Vannanon radiation belts are? There's a clip from my book. Try another one. I had to just say I don't know what else to be looking for because it's a deadly Vannan virus. There's the only one who's been there, really, right? Right. There's a clip from my book at subredd .com that has a scientist showing the radiation levels and talking about how it's a barrier between deep space travel. What is causing that radiation? Well, this magnetic field of the Earth causes this magnetic area which collects over, however old the Earth is, all those years radiation that goes nowhere.

2:39:54So it keeps getting bigger and bigger and bigger. It also shields us from cosmic and solar and galactic radiation and from people not getting cancer. So you have to have it to have life on Earth, but paradoxically it also prevents you from leaving the Earth. So it says the numbers along the horizontal axis give the distance from Earth in multiples of the Earth's radius. The inner Vannan belt is located at about 1 .6. RE, the outer Vannan belt is located at about 4 .0. The distance of 2 .2, there's a gap region between these belts. Satellites such as the global positioning system orbit in this gap region where the radiation affects are minimum.

2:40:38So there's a gap in between the two belts. It says the International Space Station and Space Shuttle on this scale orbit very near the edge of the blue Earth disc in the figure so are well below the Vannan radiation belts. So most of the space stations, space shuttle travel, all that stuff is in that area. Well, it's below. They're at 250 miles. The radiation begins at 1000 miles. I think in 1996 the space shuttle went up to 365 miles, one of its highest altitudes. CNN reported this word for word. The radiation belt surrounding the Earth is more dangerous than previously believed. So how is it that astronauts 600 miles away from it?

2:41:20No more about it than astronauts that allegedly went through it to the moon and back. You see that? That's not possible. We have article after article that says that the radiation belts are an obstacle to going to the moon. We have George Bush Jr. saying we're going to return to the moon in 10 years. Of course, he said that 20 years ago. And he says, but first we need to learn how to protect the astronauts from radiation. Why not do it the way that works? So well, on the Apollo missions. So what kind of protection would, how thick was the aluminum shielding? One eighth of an inch. One eighth of an inch.

2:41:59And was there anything coding on the inside of it that protected them further? No, just one eighth of an inch of aluminum. And how much protection would one eighth of aluminum provide? Well, half as much as a dental X -ray, you know, lead vest or less than that. But they would experience much more radiation than that. That's right. Now, if this is saying that it's well below the lethal threshold, is there anything that disputes that? Is there anything that you point to that shows that the vial radiation belts are significantly more powerful than what they're saying? Like this article that you said was from CNN from the 365 mile trip.

2:42:40Let's find that. That's it. That's in the film. That's in the film. If anything happened on the way to the moon. I've read that. Just look, just look for that part in the film that shows the animation of the Van Allen radiation belt. And then those book clips that I said my book is interactive. One of those clips has two or three links underneath it, including documentation from, I think it's called Scientific American. From a 1958 publication that says that the radiation is 100 times a lethal dose. We have an article to that linked in one of the video clips description. 100 times a lethal dose.

2:43:20It says so. Talks about the rad, you know, the lethal dose and so forth and how much is in the Van Allen radiation belt. Based on probes they sent up in the late 50s in which the Geiger counters broke because they vibrated so much. They said it was 100 times a lethal dose. Back when von Braun said you would need three rockets weighing 30 ,000 percent more than the Santa 5 rocket. But all that stuff was buried and how they're rewriting history to falsify the moon landings. So one of the problems is that if they did fake it in order to redo it. Even if the technology exists today to be able to shield a craft to get through the Van Allen radiation belts and to fuel it adequately to get to the moon.

2:44:09To pursue that and to pursue that transparently where you have to explain the protection that you're putting in place because of the danger, because of the measurements that we have. Because we did send the Orion up there. We did send different probes up there to figure out how much radiation is. That would throw into question whether or not the original Apollo missions were true. So if it was even if we are capable of doing it today. If those were fake it would stop us from doing it today somewhat. Is that fair to say? Yeah. Yeah. And it's one of those things like like I talk about with the UFOs.

2:44:48It's like Lucy with Charlie Brown in the football. Like you always think you're going to get that football but nope. They put away from you. It's like this. If they do want to actually go to the moon and go to Mars and if we have the technology they're going to have to publicly address what precautions that they're going through in order to shield people from the radiation if they're being accurate and honest about it. Well yeah Kelly Smith made an attempt to do that. I don't know if it's intentional unintentional but he said the technology necessary to protect astronauts from the radiation to the moon has not been invented yet.

2:45:30So if it's not been invented yet as of 2014 and it's not been invented yet as of today. It certainly wasn't around in 1969 and this explains that footage of why they're faking being halfway to the moon because they can't even go halfway. They can't leave Earth orbit and what a surprise. 54 years later they still cannot leave Earth orbit. That's why there's mannequins orbiting the moon because of the deadly radiation. That's why. Well also because cheaper send mannequins you have to keep them alive. Well they said they were going to send people in 2018 and now 100 % behind schedule they can only send mannequins so if they could send people they would.

2:46:12The fact that they didn't means they can't which means it's lethal radiation that's what it means. Well that seems to be the most logical impediment right. That in micro -media. Well and the fuel because Elon Musk is a smart guy he says it's going to take nine fuel trips in order to have him say in that Jamie eight eight. Oh I'm sorry eight. Eight fuel trips pull up him saying that I think he's made it more efficient now he's made bigger containers. So what people that are confronted by this information that wanted to refute it what do they say? Well the college professor I talked to said even a confession from Buzz Aldrin that the moon missions were fake wouldn't dissuade him from the glorious moon landing.

2:46:55He would still think they were they were really long musk says it would take eight starship launches to fuel up a single moon trip Elon Musk is an entirely sure how many starships it will take. I would just so for for that's without creating a new rocket to create a new payload to create the amount of fuel that's to take that's what they already have. Yeah he said the moon landings were his historical anomaly meaning they're out of place to have a had greater technology in the past and in the future. I believe he knows that the moon missions are fake but he needs cooperation with NASA to fulfill his dreams and he's playing ball I would probably do the same thing.

2:47:35Yeah yeah that makes sense. This again this is one of those subjects and this is why so many people reluctant to take it on. But if you even talk about the moon landing being fake or entertain a person like yourself that says this you're automatically put into category of being a fool. And then interesting if you believe the lie you're intelligent and if you believe the truth you're a fool not just that it's self -policed and it's a police by a large percentage of the population that will certainly attack you after this video and say why did I have you on this guy's a crack a crank rather. What would what is anyone ever tried to sit down and debunk you because I'm inviting someone to do that if they want to do that with you because once this comes out I know there's going to be a lot of people that are outraged the best way to stop it would be to someone for someone to sit down and go over in every detail while you're wrong and has anybody ever done that.

2:48:36I've never debated anybody about whether it was real and nobody ever wanted to know and ever asked me to debate them I know that they were fake I used to not only believe they were real I worshiped them and if I can go from. I was a child right well through teenager and admitted that I was wrong and still when I had all this evidence indicating the fraud I still gave in the benefit of the doubt that that million dollar film that was financed by someone who builds rockets for NASA who knows the moons are fake. Okay that took seven years just to edit that movie that's 45 minutes long took me 4 ,000 hours what is this and from 2002 on MSNBC with him and someone oh yeah that's filled plate yeah I mean that's not a real debate it's like a one minute interview but he that film took seven years to produce three and a half years into it I pop in the tape it says don't show to the public I hit fast forward it's the same shot over the day.

2:49:39I'm going to go over and over again the blue earth allegedly bouncing around I'm like well let me let me listen to that from the top we never played the talk by the way we I hear a third track of audio prompting them to fake a four second radio delay and I'm like that's not the window is it that's not the way the lights come up and then it dawned on me they really did fake the money so before that you were on the fence well originally I thought they went and thought it was the greatest thing I worshiped it by having pictures in my room. For many years and it was just bill casing bill case coming out that and looking at the pictures as a filmmaker I'd become a filmmaker whose job is to make fake scenes look real and I could tell that they were fake backgrounds I could tell that the shadows intersected I said still that's not enough proof for me to say such a thing as they fake that but when I found that footage of them faking being halfway to the moon right in front of your eyes with the third track of audio the CIA telling them to fake a four second radio delay that's it the in two NBC news director agreed it proves they didn't go to the moon and the weird thing is Joe this is the linchpin this is the finger out of the dike.

2:50:49You know the JFK witness list they say it's 200 people they knocked off to keep that a secret 9 11 3000 maybe they killed 20 people to cover it up. Even though it killed the fewest number of people it's the one that will enrage the public the most if they find out because they waived their flags they got down on their knees and prayed and they cried. They gave a metals of honor they printed it on stamps and coins and they taught it in school the glorious moon landing if the public this is what the NBC news director tried to get me to understand which I didn't understand it but they did it. If the truth comes out it will bring down the corruption it's the linchpin the moon landing fraud coming out has to happen or we will never have honest government ever again.

2:51:38Let's look at the Apollo 11 post flight press conference because this is a weird one because these guys just return from the moon and they look like they're in a hostage video. Boy they look like they're at the funeral of their mother it does not seem like these are happy guys you just return from the moon. Scoot your head a little bit. Look how nervous they look. Look at Michael Collins fidgeting and obviously you would be nervous you're addressing all these people but it's the tone in which Neil Armstrong takes and then after this we're going to show the 25th anniversary speech which is one of the most bizarre.

2:52:34Go to him talking let's go back a little bit so you can hear from the bench. Here we go. It was our pleasure to have participated in one great adventure. It's an adventure that took place not just in the month of July but rather one that took place in the last decade.

2:53:03We all hear and the people listening in today had the opportunity to share that adventure over its developing and unfolding in the past months and years. It's our privilege today to share with you some of the details of that final month of July that was certainly the highlight for the three of us of that decade. We're going to divert a little bit from the format of past press conferences and talk about the things that interested us most in particular the things that occurred on and about the moon. We will use a number of films and slides which most of you have already seen and with the intent of pointing out some of the things that we observed on the spot which may not be obvious to those of you who are looking at them.

2:54:34We will hear from the surface of earth.

2:54:43The flight as you know started crowned late and I think that was characteristic of all the events of the flight. The Saturn gave us one magnificent ride both into earth orbit and on a trajectory to the moon.

2:55:15Our memory of that actually differs little from the reports that you have all heard from the previous Saturn by flights and the previous flights served as well in preparation for this flight in the boost as well as the subsequent phases.

2:55:43We would like to skip directly to the Translender Coast phase and remind ourselves of the long chain of events that actually permitted a landing starting with the undockings. The transposition and docking sequence. This is going to go on for a long time. You see the two teleprompters there in the desk. These are the only guys on earth who know what it was like to walk on the moon and yet they are being prompted on how to answer the questions. They just look very odd. Another odd thing was that Michael Collins said that he couldn't see stars but yet he wrote in his 1994 book about how magnificent the stars looked.

2:56:42And also he never left the lunar orbiter. That's right. And also when he's asked about stars, Neil Armstrong says I don't recall. And then Michael Collins to fill in for him to help him out says I don't remember seeing any. Yeah. Which he wasn't there. They were all three orbiting the earth so they had the same experience but he forgot. So if you get the written transcript of that, the I don't remember seeing any they change it to buzz saying it. You see lightning strikes twice in the same place what a coincidence. First the type O that says buzz said it instead of Michael Collins and then in the video Michael Collins answering the question he should done nothing about having not been on the moon.

2:57:27And it gets attributed to buzz all of them because it's not convenient. But if you will because they didn't have the YouTube videos back then people got the transcript they said we need to correct that. Right. Michael Collins wasn't there. Right. So they said buzz said it. Yeah. Let's they're covering for it. Let's pay the 25th played the 25th anniversary speech because here's one of the craziest things. Neil Armstrong first man on the moon doesn't give interviews doesn't want to talk about it doesn't want to appear publicly becomes kind of a recluse. And you would imagine that a guy who didn't want fame and all of a sudden he's thrust into the public light like that would be a real problem.

2:58:07He probably didn't like it didn't enjoy it did enjoy being the center of attention and said you know what I was on the moon but I'm just going to just lay back. You can look at it that way or you could look at it like if you have a guy from a public relations perspective. He's one of those valuable people to interview of all time. He's the first man to walk on another planet. He walked on the moon the first man to we send him to another planet. He landed on our moon and he walked around we have video footage of it. That guy would be a hero. He would be everywhere they would interview him constantly just from a PR standpoint you would kind of force that guy to do some interviews and talk about it.

2:58:46Because it's the most incredible accomplishment in human history as far as what human beings have been able to do. It's the most significant technological breakthrough ever put a person on another fucking planet right. But he doesn't do that. He doesn't talk to anybody and then he gives a speech. So he gives us a speech at the 25th anniversary of NASA and he's giving his speech to like is it American valid Victorians high school valid Victorians like some of the best brightest high school kids. I'm in Clinton with president. Yeah. And so this speech is so bizarre. I've never seen anybody give a rational explanation as to what the hell he is saying other than he's trying to tell you that something is bullshit.

2:59:27So listen to the speech. In 1994, New Armstrong made a rare public appearance and held back tears as he spoke these brief cryptic remarks before the next generation of taxpayers as they toured the White House. Today we have with us a group of students among America's best. To you, we say we've only completed the beginning. We leave you much that is undone. There are great ideas undiscovered breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truth's protective layers. What does that mean? What does that mean? I think he's trying to say something. You know, that is one of the most cryptic things I've ever heard anybody say public.

3:00:26You can also notice that he was looking down except that party had memorized. Perhaps someday you'll be able to remove one of truth's protective layers about the moon landing. How about that? As he's holding back tears in my opinion. You know how many pictures there are of him on the surface of the moon, you know posing as the first man on the moon. A still picture. Zero. I went to the archives personally, a vault. I had the employees that said, finding a picture of Neil Armstrong on the surface of the moon. A still picture. They went in and out and out, scratching their heads. He refused to have a picture taken.

3:01:06He refuses to give interviews unless the president asks him to. You see, not a single picture because he didn't want to have anything to do with it. It disgusted him. I believe they asked him to participate in the fraud and at that point he was a noble man. He said, no, thank you. Then they said, you don't want to end up like the Apollo one crew, do you? The guy's a test pilot. I don't think Threaten and his life might go like that. I would say if you do this, it's for national security. There's a reason to do this. We're involved in a cold war. It's a very important thing that we achieve military superiority over the Soviet Union.

3:01:44I think he would have resigned and they wouldn't allow that. That would bring suspicions. So I think they had to threaten. I think they would have to threaten. This is all speculation though. That's right. It's my speculation. But for years of research. This video is not speculation. That's right. I think most people, again, are not aware of that video. I think they threatened his family's life to get them to participate. Perhaps, but we're just speculating. But the video, again, that's not speculation. Has anybody ever gone over that video? Well, well, that's real simple. Anybody ever kneel to grass ties in it?

3:02:13That's it's simple. This is very simple. It's like, we went. Another thing was that you could track the trip the entire way and that people were tracking it from Earth. Well, that's not true. The only people who had the capability of tracking it were the American government and the Soviets who were blackmailing us for knowing that it was fraudulent. So that's just speculation too though, right? It's like, how were they blackmailing people? Is there any evidence that they were blackmailing people? Well, they obviously know that the Moon missions are fake. Putin was not surprised. It was around that time that we sold grain to the Soviet Union before cost, even though they're supposed to be.

3:02:58Or enemy. And around the same time, after Richard Nixon said, coming to China as an enemy, that he went to China, which is generally the inferior person visits the superior person. You see? And so he went, because I think they know. I think they found out in blackmailed them too. And we know they are blackmailing NASA for technology in exchange for not blowing the whistle. You know that for a fact. Yeah, an interview to a guy who works for the Chinese Space Agency. So I'm a YouTube channel. Right, but that's just hidden saying that. That's not necessarily. That's his eyewitness testimony. I was talking to people who work there.

3:03:40Well, I understand what you're saying. But it's still like, it's a guy saying it. The guy who works in the Chinese Space Agency. But if you're going to like, he might not be telling the truth. Like, we don't have proof. You know what I'm saying? Well, you have to judge. I mean, people are convicted and sent to death row based on the testimony of people all the time. Right, but this is one guy saying something extraordinary. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It's not that extraordinary that China would find out about the mainlanding fraud. And instead of blowing the whistle, what blackmail has a more valuable tool of the information.

3:04:15I think that's what the Soviets are doing. They were being blackmailed. It's another good reason for the truth to come out. So we won't be blackmailed by China and Russia anymore. What do you think would happen if definitive proof came out? If Trump opened up all the files, if everybody started talking about it, and definitive proof was, we got to a point, technologically, where we are ready to travel to other planets. We realized, hey, this is impediment, and this impediment could not have possibly been traversed by the Apollo astronauts. Well, if the truth came out acknowledged by the government, it would be a beautiful, beautiful, beautiful moment in history.

3:04:53Because the faking of the moon landing is so much more significant than if they had actually gone. It shows the sad fallen state of mankind. It would be like throwing a glass of water in the public's face. They wake up, they realize they've been sleepwalking, and they look down, and they're one foot away from a cliff. It would be dead silence. Oh my gosh, that's who we are. Not just as a nation, but as a species. We can't even tell the truth about such a thing. But wouldn't the problem then be we would have to revamp the entirety of government? If that's the case, the intelligence agencies have done this.

3:05:34They really did kill Kennedy, if they really did fake the moon landing, if they really did all the things that we think they did, like no one would have faith in them anymore. That's right. And maybe that'll happen. And so be it. You know, the stock market could crash, the dollar could crash. It could ruin the reputation of the United States of America, but we have a gangrene limb. William Benny, you know, worked for the NSA for 30 years. He says the CIA, the NSA, they're spying on the private cell phone conversations of Supreme Court justices to get dirt on them, to blackmail them, and to voting the way the CIA and NSA tell them.

3:06:17That's a dangerous situation for a country to be in. There needs to be a major, major house cleaning. I'm not even sure what would happen. If let's say that all the federal government ran on electricity and you get unplugged all with one plug, I'm not sure what would happen to you and me, and everyone else's life if we unplugged the federal government. I don't know why we can't just have the independent states of America and manage your own affairs, because they are so corrupt, they're killing their own president, they're starting war after war, based on lies and fabrications, right? We have so many murders of people that they have done themselves.

3:06:59The federal government is killing their own people, and we're funding it. It's wrong. What they're doing is morally wrong. Our leaders are gangsters. What are we missing? What have we not covered? We've basically done this right now. We're at three hours plus. We've been talking about this. What have we left out? Anything? Well, I think we've covered most of it. We have the fact that shadows can't intersect unless it's electrical light. We have footage of them faking being halfway to the moon. We have the deathbed testimony of an eyewitness who saw them filming Apollo 11 at Canon Air Force Base.

3:07:36And we have the fact that you can't travel a thousand times further into space in 1969 on the first attempt with one minute the computing power of a cell phone, then you can 50 years later. Technology has never been better in the past and in the future. That proves it. If it weren't a sweet lie that people loved and wouldn't don't want to give up, people would see the truth for what it is. Is that an interesting thing too that you said it's a positive lie? It is. It's not a lie like that got us to do a war that won't kill innocent civilians that we know happens. JFK is dead and all the people in 9 or 11 are dead who regardless of who did it and why.

3:08:14This is different. This is taking candy away from people and giving them manure. They're defending the candy. Okay. Would you be willing to debate somebody? If I get someone to come on here and prepare and talk to you and refute all this stuff. Sure. Okay. So we'll put that out there because I would like to see that. I would like to see how someone describes that away. Okay. And what they think about this. Because I'm sure there's eyeballs rolling and fingers hitting keyboards right now. People are getting very outraged at this conversation. But I don't think the right way to handle this is to not talk about or to silence someone.

3:08:51I think if you're wrong, the right way is to let you lay out your best argument and have someone refute that best argument. So I hope that at least is attempted. Okay. And you've been at this a long time, Bart. You look tired of talking about the moon landing? Well, you've been at this for. It's a historic importance because the faking of the moon landing for mankind is more significant than if they'd actually gone. That they lied to the world and bezeled money murdered their own people that covered up. And to not know that truth is like having cancer and not knowing. We have to know. We can have a great awakening about everything else.

3:09:31But if we still are deceived about the greatest accomplishment of mankind, you see, then there is no great awakening. It's a spiritual issue. It's a spiritual battle between truth. It's ironic. You know, there was a famous writer who said about the Tower of Babel, the monument to their pride became a memorial to their folly. And if the truth comes out, that will happen. Do you think that this is a subject that even intelligent people that get this information of a resonance, it resonates with them, that they're going to try to ignore? Well, yeah, it's so controversial that you instantly get labeled a cuck if you believe this.

3:10:11The problem with intelligence is people can be smart, but only within a narrow field. Like I asked my doctor, get this. What do you know about natural medicine? You know what they said? Virtually word -for -word. All I know is what pill to prescribe for this illness that I was taught in university. That's all I know. They're intelligent within that narrow field, but they can't critically think. And universities are universal thinking. I was forbidden by the University of Pittsburgh after having a contract to speak to a student body group about the moon landing fraud. They forbid it. And the free speech, free expression, United States of America.

3:10:52You see, this is a major problem. People are emotional about this. They have to be willing to be wrong, and people are so arrogant. I mean, a college professor teaching aerospace who says if Buzz Aldrin confessed on national TV that it was fake, filmed at Canon Air Force Space, just like Bart said, he would still think he walked on the moon anyway. That's what we're up against. This is a God to them. The God of science is putting a man on the moon when it's really just propaganda. All right, Bart. I think you've eloquently stated your case, and I think you've been at this, like I said, for a long time.

3:11:27So I'm really hoping that someone will sit down and talk to you about this, and we can get further to the bottom of it, because the arguments are very compelling. The actual raw facts are very puzzling. The whole thing is very odd. Well, all this stuff people can investigate for themselves. Just go to sabral .com. There's 17 clips they can watch for free, and then decide for themselves. Okay. Thank you, Bart. Appreciate you. No problem. Fire, buddy.