The Joe Rogan Experience - #2141 - Bart Sibrel
Episode Date: April 25, 2024Bart Sibrel is a filmmaker, writer, and investigative journalist. He's the director of the films "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" and "Astronauts Gone Wild: An Investigation Into the ...Authenticity of the Moon Landings," and author of the book "Moon Man: The True Story of a Filmmaker on the CIA Hit List." www.sibrel.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Transcript
Discussion (0)
The Joe Rogan Experience
Trained by day, Joe Rogan podcast by night, all day!
Alright folks, drop in.
Good to see you, man.
Thank you.
We first met, what was it like, at least 20 years ago, right?
22 years ago.
Was it 22?
Wow.
So, I had seen your movie, and I don't even remember how I got in touch with you because this is before my podcast
I don't even you emailed me okay, so that I email you off your website
Is that what it was I think so and then you said if you're ever in LA
Let's meet that I happen to be in LA when you sent me the email ah
Synchronicity yes, yeah, so
when you sent me the email. Ah synchronicity. Yes. Yeah. So let's take everybody on this journey with you. So you were a young man, you were fascinated
by NASA, you were a NASA fan, you had NASA photos on the wall of your room. What
happened? What happened to you that you you're essentially you're known
worldwide as the leading proponent of the moon hoax theory. You're the guy
who's researched it the most. You're the guy who can auto recall the most
information and you're the guy that the people that believe the moon landing was
real hate the most.
So how did this all happen?
Well, let me start by saying a comment about what you said theory.
You know, it's not a theory.
They did fake the moon landing.
That's a fact, whether people realize it or not.
Okay, but we weren't there.
So let's just go on what we know in terms of facts and
I'm gonna call it a theory
Okay, you're so just like I'm just trying that well, I'm gonna have to steel man some of the arguments against you
You know, obviously I mean this is a fascinating but yet very challenging subject. I
think
today
more people are aware of the insanely widespread
deception that the government was involved in during the same time as the
moon landing. I think this is important and I know a lot of people who get very
angry when you question the moon landing. They use terms like patriotism, national pride, like we did this incredible thing, the scientists
that we have.
I understand what they're saying.
I understand where they're coming from entirely.
But we have to look at things realistically if we're ever going to get an accurate picture
of how the world works and I
think if we look at the time that we're talking about the Nixon administration
we talked about the Gulf of Tonkin incident where they got us into Vietnam
where there was a bullshit false flag that wound up killing how many people
was like a million people dead because of that three million people including
58,00020 Americans.
Okay, there's that. There's Operation Northwoods during the same time period. Operation Northwoods
was a plan that was signed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff where they were going to initiate false
flags to try to get us into a war with Cuba. They were going to blow up a drone jetliner and blame it on Cuba. They were going to arm Cuban friendlies and attack Guantanamo Bay.
So there's the Bay of Pigs.
There's all these things.
There's the Kennedy assassination itself, which they still won't release the files.
There's the moon landing and the moon landing.
And then there's Nixon getting Nixon removed from the White House, which I didn't know
was a giant government operation too.
I took a cross and laid that all out and I was like, what?
And then I read a bunch about it.
What he's saying is totally true.
This one's the one that people hold on to the most because it's a source of national
pride and it is also like the accomplishments of NASA, the accomplishments of the scientific
community, accomplishments of these people that are able to make things like the stealth
Bomber and all the wild shit that we know that is absolutely real a space shuttle SpaceX all of the amazing engineers and scientists
It seems to a lot of people that by calling the moon landing fake you're discounting that work
You're discounting that amazing accomplishment from humans.
What I want people to do is to say, what did they tell the truth about?
If this is the one thing that you're willing to hang your hat on, they say, I know they
lied about everything.
They lied about everything.
They lied about MKUltra.
They were dosing up Johns and brothels with acid and monitoring them. They dosed
up Charles Manson. They probably trained him how to be a cult leader in prison. The whole
MKUltra thing is 100% legit, verified. There's plenty of documents on it. They experimented
on people with acid. They did mind control experiments on people. What did they tell
the truth about?
What did they, they said, you know what?
I know we're liars and we get people killed
and we're funneling money here and there, but what?
We can't lie about the moon landing, guys.
And everybody agreed.
And everybody agreed.
This one, this one we're gonna be,
this is just what it is, is what it is,
and we're gonna give the scientific community access
to all the data so everybody knows it's verified. We're going to have third party people test everything
to make sure it's verified. Well, you brought up a bunch of good points. My opinion is really
the opinion of the experts. For example, Robert Kennedy Jr. is 100% certain. He has more access to the JFK files than Oliver Stone does. He's
100% certain that his uncle, President Kennedy, was killed by the CIA. Then, as you mentioned,
the Gulf of Tonkin. Robert McNamara, before he died, got it off his chest, said that the
Gulf of Tonkin incident, the Pearl Harbor incident that got America behind the Vietnam War. Never happened. He and the CIA
completely fabricated it. Congress passed a law, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, that led to the
death of 3 million people and 58,220 American soldiers without cause. So, if the corrupt
federal government is willing to kill their own duly elected president,
if they're willing to needlessly kill 58,220 of their own soldiers, I don't think they
have a problem faking an image of the moon on television.
The problem is it's a positive lie.
You see, whoever killed JFK, you're just changing who did it and why.
He's still dead.
It's still a tragedy.
Or 9-11.
You can change who did it and why, but all those people are still dead.
This is a positive lie.
And people don't want to give up that candy.
And I come along and say, wake up and smell the manure.
Some people are like, well, I know America has gotten bad, but at least we went to the moon.
And people need to realize the sheer arrogance of the federal government to pull off the
moon landing fraud when there's virtually no eyewitnesses except three government employees
and a picture we have to trust is on the moon from the federal government. So it was actually very easy to fake. And
in answer to your first question, I was more than a supporter. I was gaga idolizing the
moon landings with my father in the Air Force and giving me a packet of pictures of Apollo
11. And as I moved every two years from house to house, they were a prominent place of glory
on every bedroom wall from city to city. they were a prominent place of glory on every bedroom
wall from city to city.
Trevor Burrus So what changed?
What changed?
David Morgan Well, what changed is having an open mind.
Trevor Burrus But was there a moment?
David Morgan Yeah.
Well, the first moment was – so from the age of – I was asleep in bed when it happened.
But at age four, I got those pictures, saw them, I mean, even if I saw them once a day, that's
3,650 times over the next 10 years, probably saw them three times a day.
So I see these pictures over 10,000 times, believing they're on the moon and thinking
it's the greatest thing.
And then I'm 14 years old and I see Bill Kasing, a former Rocketdyne employee who worked for NASA for six years
on the Apollo program with high security clearance only second to Von Braun, who says, look,
I edited a memo from Von Braun to the Pentagon warning them they are not going to make the
goal.
There's only a one in 10,000 chance they can go to the moon on the first attempt.
And what year was this?
That was back in 1966, I think. And so three years later, they went to the moon on the first attempt and what year was this that was back in
1966 I think and so three years later they went to the moon
Is it possible that they were able to overcome whatever challenges that get it got him to ten thousand to one?
Well, no because I mean they're so we're gonna go over many proofs
Yeah, this is important, but I mean I need to every step of the way. Here's how you can prove that's not the case. Okay. Okay, just do so the number one proof that we have is simply deductive reasoning because today
with 54 year better rocket designs and computer designs, the farthest that NASA
can send a rocket with an astronaut into space is one thousandth
the distance to the moon.
That's why they're sending mannequins to orbit the moon that can't even land because they
would die from the radiation.
So what they're really claiming is back in 1969, ahead of schedule on the first attempt
when all of NASA's computers had one
millionth the computing power cell phone, they sent astronauts a thousand times
farther into space than they can send us today with 54-year better technology. So
what they're really claiming is they had a thousand times better technology in
1969 than they do today. Not necessarily. Well, but that
is because you can't have better technology in the past and in the future.
That's impossible. But they haven't done a moon landing program today. So if they
started a moon landing program today, the technology is vastly superior, right?
So it would take less time to return to the moon if they but it's taking more time
They're not right, but they're not doing it right like during the Apollo. They can't do it. Okay. That's what you're saying
Yeah, and I'm with you
But but the Apollo program doesn't exist today
The Apollo program was a massive program to try to beat Russia to get the first person on the moon
And it was a concerted effort by how many scientists how many people were involved how many employees how many like overall?
I mean very compartmentalized right but how many people overall were involved in the Apollo moon landing?
Well a couple hundred thousand. Okay. That's a lot of people to organize and to mode to focus on one very specific goal
That's not happening today. So to say that we can't do it today,
it's like people would say, if I was steelmanning
their position, I would say, no, we're not
trying to do it today.
If we wanted to do it today, we could do it today.
Well, actually, they are trying.
400,000, it says.
At the peak, Apollo program employed 400,000 people
and required the support of over 20,000 industrial firms
and universities.
So here's the argument against that it would be fake.
Everyone would know and everyone would tell
and it would get out.
Well, that's, let me show you how that's not true.
First of all, Eugene Krantz, flight director,
he said out of his own mouth
that a person in the command center in Houston
during a launch to the moon can
tell no difference whatsoever between a computer simulated flight and a real
flight. They can't tell the difference. It's just a bunch of numbers going by on
a screen. So if a person in the command center cannot tell a difference, then how
could we as a 10 year old watching it on our living room at home? And then do you really think the CIA is so stupid to tell the person making the glove or the boot or the door handle?
Hey, we're really not going to the moonbeach or not to tell anybody and then
That's wouldn't be the question. The question would be that too many people would have to know but that's and it would get out
No, it wouldn't if someone in the command center doesn't know then the command center people can be fooled
Once the rocket is up. There's only three eyewitnesses to it
It's actually much easier to fake then we realize a bank teller and how many bank tellers are at Wells Fargo
Hundreds of thousands 400,000 bank tellers probably but do they know what the CEO knows about corruption in the bank?
I don't think so. You see, there's a big difference. And then we have no independent press coverage.
World War II had a billion or more eyewitnesses in Europe, but there's no independent press
coverage, only three people. It's much easier to fake than people realize. And then people
wanted to believe it I also want to put people in the mindset of humans that lived in 1969 with an incredibly limited access to information
I think we become incredibly spoiled by the internet and by the ability to search things and just read
debunkings
Scientific papers all these different things that are available that you could read today that just were not available back then.
And you knew either what you learned at school or what the government or your employees told
you, your employers told you.
And that was it.
That's all you had access to.
So these people that were working for NASA to think that they had the kind of understanding
of the way things are manipulated that we have
today. There's no way they did. There's no way they didn't know about the Gulf of Tonkin
then. They didn't know about Operation Northwood. They didn't know about so many things that
we know that the government has done. The Kennedy assassination hadn't happened yet,
or it would happen, but they still didn't know who had done it. They had wrapped it
up and said Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone without this a pruder film
without the subsequent investigations of it where people said wait a minute this
is this guy like keep going back and forth to Russia Jack Ruby was in the mob
like what the fuck really happened here to back in 1969 when the Moonland these
are happening like this is an innocent country there's a different way people had much different way of looking at things well the people
were innocent but the government weren't they just killed their own president
they just faked the beginning of the Vietnam War and they were emboldened to
fake the moon landing because they had complete control over the media and a
public who wanted to believe it and even people at NASA and command center
couldn't tell the difference between the simulation and a real flight also had a history of faking things
Yeah, they had a history of deception. It was it was a part of the fabric of the organization
They were deceiving people all the time. They were deceiving United States citizens all well
And they still are that that's the thing about the moon landing and why it's so significant
I mean, let's take a look at the two possibilities And they still are. That's the thing about the moon landing and why it's so significant.
I mean, let's take a look at the two possibilities.
Either they went to the moon on the first attempt, had a schedule with one million computing
power cell phone, but today they can only send astronauts one thousandth the distance,
okay?
Let's say they did that, came back whoop-de-doo.
Or they lied to the world.
They lied to their own people. They embezzled the modern equivalent of two hundred
billion dollars. They gave them
medals of honor for being such good liars. They printed it on stamps and coins.
It's taught in university.
If that's true, which it is, that's so much more profound an event
than had they actually gone. So one of the greatest events in human history is actually the faking of the moon landing.
And we have to understand these people are still at large.
You don't say, oh, well, there's a, you know, a child kidnapper in the neighborhood and
one child disappears every month for the last 30, 40 years.
Oh, well, what can you do?
These people are in charge right now. They did fake the moon landing. Don't believe me? Go to
sabrel.com, watch 17 clips for free that prove it. Have you had any debates with
people that think we definitely went to the moon and what you're doing is
dangerous or ridiculous? Well, the most interesting comment I got as I showed
all this proof to a college professor of a major university all this proof I mean like I said shadows intersecting at 90
degrees which you can't duplicate in sunlight which means it's electrical
light which means they didn't go to the moon all this proof the footage we
can't be there that doesn't mean they didn't go to the moon that means that
photograph is fit okay okay well why would the pictures be fake if they
really went well you know you could make the argument that the radiation damaged the cameras and they weren't able to get real photographs
And so they made a conscious decision to use fake photographs
Well, I think if you were really going to the moon, you wouldn't dare fake any of it. I accused of that
I think they had a lot more hubris back then they faked a lot of photographs back then was pretty common I mean you know the the famous one of the Gemini 15 where you see
Michael Collins in a simulation where these he's doing a drill and he's
attached to wires and then they just use the same image and blacked it out and
reversed it yeah so you're saying NASA has a track record of faking space or
lights or before then yeah you're right or publicity firms that work for NASA had a limited amount of photos to work
with and they decided to manipulate some so that they can have photos that they
didn't have of an actual event which really took place well spacewalk but
what we have is them faking being halfway to the moon right but they do do
things like spacewalk they do do things like the Space Center so that's where where it gets confusing. Well, they can't they can't leave Earth orbit. That's
where it gets confusing. So the real problem, the question is the Van Allen radiation belts.
Now, um, Operation Starfish Prime, that was the operation where they detonated a nuke
in the radiation belts, right?
And didn't they do something like that something kooky? They're trying to blow a hole through the radiation. I've heard that I don't know
It's not confirmed. I don't know. Yeah, it's well, it's secret squirrel stuff. But what is operations Google that was operations starfish prime
I remember reading that going they did what they shot a nuke into space
They did what they shot a new kid to space
Starfish five was a high altitude nuclear test conducted by the United States a joint effort the Atomic Energy Commission and the Defense Atomic
Support Agency was launched from
Johnson et al on July 9th 1962 is the largest nuclear test conducted in outer space and one of the five
Conducted by the US in space a Thor rocket carrying a W 49 thermonuclear warhead
designed designed at Los Alamos scientific laboratory and
A mk2 reentry vehicle was launched from Johnston atoll in the Pacific Ocean about 900 miles west southwest of Hawaii The explosion took place in an altitude of 250 miles. So is that essentially like where the space station is and all that stuff is? That's right. Okay. Above a point 19 miles southwest of Johnson
atoll at a yield of 1.4 megatons, the explosion was about 10 degrees above the horizon as
seen from Hawaii at 11pm Hawaiian time. So what was the goal behind this or at least what was the publicly stated goal behind blowing up a fucking?
thermonuke in
Space well, I guess they were trying to see if they could open up the radiation that was the order to go to the moon
They knew that the radiation was this connected though was this program connected to NASA
Officially, I think they were trying to see if they could open away
Look at it says they're it to go through it.
Look at it says there, starfish prime, and this always happens, caused an electromagnetic pulse
that was far larger than expected, so much larger that it drove much of the instrumentation off
scale, causing great difficulty in getting accurate measurements. The starfish prime
electromagnetic pulse also made those effects known to public by causing electrical damage in Hawaii about 900
miles away from the detonation point knocking out about 300 street lights
holy shit setting off numerous burglar alarms and damaging a telephone company
microwave link. These boys were wild. They just experimented with
a fucking nuclear bomb in space and it blew out 300 streetlights in Hawaii. Shout out.
Imagine your burglar alarm goes off because the fucking government launched a nuke into
space. Holy shit. The EMP damage to the microwave link shut down telephone calls from Kauai
to the other Hawaiian islands. A calls from Kauai to the other
Hawaiian islands.
A total of 27 small rockets were launched from Johnson-Atoll to obtain experimental
data from the Starfish Prime detonation.
In addition, a larger number of rocket-borne instruments were launched from Barking Sands,
Kauai, in the Hawaiian islands.
A large number of United States military ships and aircrafts were operating in support of
Starfish Prime in the Johnson-Ataul area
and across the nearby North Pacific region. A few military ships and
aircrafts were also positioned in the region of the South Pacific Ocean near
Samoan Islands. The location was at the southern end of the magnetic field line
of the Earth's magnetic field from the position of the nuclear detonation.
An area known as the Southern Conjecture Region for
the test.
So does it say why they were doing it though?
Yeah.
I'm interested to see like why did you guys do that?
Give me some sort of a logical explanation why you just took a fucking chance and launched
a nuke 250 miles into the sky.
Okay what did they say they were doing?
Okay they began a response to the Soviets announcement on August 30th of 1961 that they
would end a three-year moratorium on testing.
Began in response, right, but why did they do it in space?
I understand that they might have did nuclear tests back then because the moratorium
was over.
Q. Aliens.
A. Aliens? Killed aliens with nukes? That's probably why the aliens started showing up
more. Well, that's all the folklore, the folklore about Fat Man and Little Boy. Then when they
drop those bombs, that's when the aliens start showing up like, hey, hey, hey, what are you
doing? Which I would do if I was an alien. That's around the time I would
start landing. Like as soon as they start dropping bombs on cities, like Jesus Christ.
So we know they did that. That's a real thing. Why they do it. The speculation is that they
were trying to open up a portal to make passage through the Van Allen radiation belts possible.
Now the people that say that it's easy to go through the Van Allen radiation belts possible. Now the people that say that
it's easy to go through the Van Allen radiation belts will tell you that it's a doughnut.
It's not a full, it's not like covering the entire sphere of Earth evenly. That there's
openings at the top and the bottom. Is this correct?
Well, yeah, but then they would have to launch at the North Pole or South Pole where it's
not possible to launch because of the temperatures.
That's the only way you could do it to get through those holes?
That's right. According to NASA's own flight plan they went directly through
the center. That's why they launched in southern Florida to be close to the
equator. Okay so what they would say is that it's not that dangerous and it's
just like being exposed to a few x-rays and that the people were shielded. Well
go to sabrel.com and watch a
long just clear right out it but you're right there so I want to just so I'm
gonna give you the opportunity saying what they would say to you the clip
there is of Kelly Smith he's an employee at NASA explaining something that most
people don't know which is above the earth starting at about a thousand miles
and extending about 30,000 miles is a huge band of radiation that
astronauts would have to go through to the moon and through again back.
First he says it's dangerous meaning deadly and then he says that the technology for an
astronaut to go through it to the moon and back and survive has yet to be invented.
Let's listen to him say that.
And when did he say this?
I think he said that in 2014.
Okay.
All right.
Jamie, we'll find that.
We'll pull that up.
But that would be the argument against the Moon landing be a hoax.
Let's go.
Navigation and guidance for Orion.
We are 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,
an area of dangerous radiation.
Radiation like this could harm the guidance systems,
onboard computers or other electronics on Orion.
Naturally, we have to pass through this danger zone twice,
once up and once back.
We 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 people through this region of space we
must solve these challenges before we send okay did you just say that over and
over again yeah what he says all right no excuse me 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 says he
must solve these challenges before we send people right
through this region. What was he talking about though? He's talking about
sending people beyond Earth orbit through the radiation belt and he says
that... 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 send
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 meaning the technology
to send an astronaut through the radiation and survive has not been
invested not exactly what you're saying I see where you're going with this but
what he did say that was it was dangerous radiation you wrote deadly in all capital letters but what
he was just saying it was dangerous and he 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 well it would be a thing
that you would go but hey how did they do it?
And then you'd open up a can of worms.
Right, he says we must solve these challenges of protecting the astronauts before we send
people 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 saying... But he said people.
He did say people before he could send people, but he could, you could say, imply, I'm 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.
Right, but it could be because they would lose their instrumentation. You could interpret that.
I'm just trying to be as generous as possible. You're overly generous. They're trying to be so what is this?
Okay, here it is
My name is Kelly Smith and I work on navigation
Guidance for Orion before 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
3600 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, an area of dangerous radiation.
Radiation like this can harm the guidance systems, onboard computers, or other electronics
on Orion.
Naturally, we have to pass through this danger zone twice, once up and once back.
But Orion has protection.
Shielding 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 1969? Well, the thing is, even if they did
solve it back then, how 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 1 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 and a half going to the moon in an hour
to an hour and a half coming back so what would that be the equivalent to
roughly in terms of like x-rays it would be 100 times more than a lethal dose
according to their own reports which are documented
at Sabral.com.
All for free you go on there and watch the videos and read the documentation.
Okay, and to be clear, how many people have gone through that supposedly?
Well, what was the first one?
The first one, there was an orbit of the moon, a manned orbit of the moon before there was
a landing.
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 being halfway to the moon from
Earth orbit so it proves that they could not even go halfway to the moon because
they're faking being halfway to the moon well whatever that footage was though in
all fairness that footage wasn't released right that footage was found footage correct? That was outtakes
of them faking being halfway to the moon which even my greatest critic
agrees that is them faking being 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, but if I was going to steel 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 a 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 focus on one of those circular windows put the
transparency or whatever it is in front of the window and practice that way
except that way we make sure you 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
my steel man's not working yeah okay so let's you're really bad. I'm just giving
No, you don't know you don't and here's why because we've heard their side of the story for fifty four years Everybody hasn't this is where you're wrong. No their side of the story
Yeah, I've heard that the moon landings are real for 54 years. We've heard you've heard that but you have no need extra
It'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 deep, 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?, what is this?
Like, what is this?
I just want to know 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 though, is this the video
I'm sure should be showing here or not?
Yeah.
Oh, so this is one when you compare back and forth, right?
Correct.
I mean there's more.
Isn't there one of just the actual video that we can watch?
Well you could go to sabrel.com, click on A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon,
or go to the Moon Man video links at sabrel.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. He 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 I'm really 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 and that's the take on the left-hand side. You're about to see
Michael Collins break down part of the so this is where effect this is what I want everybody look at
because this is where okay hold on a second this is where it gets really
weird so they're saying they're a hundred and thirty thousand miles away
so they're in deep so that proves it's the window you see that right so now
there's 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 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 that there's you're filming a room and then that's what every 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 to represent the earth
Another photographer believes it's part. It's like a transparency of the there's a circular window play out
Let's let this play out. So if so, that's the window. The point is it's the window
It back it up a little they're using the window to create a one-foot model of the earth
They'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 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.
Yeah, but that's politicians. They lie about everything and they might have had grand plans
and didn't get the funding. But 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 saying way to the moon, that's what it is in there
But we should play the audio so they tell and they say in the audio
We're 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 right
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 off. Let's play that part of the earth outside of the window. It's very ingenious
Let's play that so we can hear the words. Okay, we can hear them say that because it's even more interesting
So if you see the footage and then can hear the words. Okay. 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 could they possibly
be doing here?
Go to the moon.
If they're faking being happy.
This is you.
Yeah.
Where can we find the raw video?
The raw video is in A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon.
Go to sabral.com.
It's on the homepage.
That's his YouTube channel. Yeah, that's not my film. That's another. No, go to Sabrell.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.
And then I said, can I please have those radiation readings?
And then they said this, Joe.
They said it's a classified military secret.
I said, oh, wait a minute.
When you set probes to the sun to measure the temperature of the sun, the temperature
of the sun isn't a military secret.
When you set probes to Jupiter to find out how much helium is in Jupiter's 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? Because if they reveal it, it would prove that they couldn't go
through it to the moon. Or 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.
Is it?
Yeah, it really is.
I have a t-shirt Tim Dillon gave to me. Oh, that must prove that it's real. It's is. I have a t-shirt Tim Dillon gave to me.
Oh, that must prove that it's real.
It's real.
Do I have a t-shirt?
An actual t-shirt.
But no, there is the Space Force.
I think it was Trump's idea, right?
Yeah, Trump started a Space Force, which is awesome.
Anyway, that's data you wouldn't want Russia to have.
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 you 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 if we're gonna be doing space wars
They're gonna be flying around through but they don't know how to get through the radiation belts
But we do then they're gonna rely on espionage there well, they said probes riding people
They set probes to the moon so they would probably have Geiger counters on there
Right, but as time goes on they would know the radiation readings
But they sent probes to 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 get now, we would both
agree, right, would be way better data than you got in 1963. That's the argument
people are making about now is that the instrumentation now is more susceptible
than it was then because of transistors are smaller and more susceptible molecules.
Makes 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 instrumentation.
Start at 3423.
But 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 in doctors offices the technician would put his
hand under it and 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 1 24th of a second, not something that's a hundred times more lethal going on
continuously for 90 minutes.
The point is, regardless of whether or not it is dangerous to the instrumentation, that
was their primary concern, which could be accurate, especially since the first one was
unmanned.
It's also, that kind of radiation is probably bad for people. Unless you're the Fantastic Four, right?
You go through it and you get superpowers, right? Isn't that what happened to them?
Well yeah, I mean let's get back to the technology issue. 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 one 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.
This is 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.
Except 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 a
hundred and thirty thousand 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. So 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…
Trevor Burrus Why do you believe it's the CIA?
David Kopel Well, it's whoever is helping them fake
the moon mission.
Trevor Burrus And you think it was the CIA?
David Kopel I would presume it would be. And so NASA says the TV picture looks great.
The person who he has an earpiece in counts off four seconds, thousand and one, two, three,
four. Then we hear a third track of audio not NASA not the astronauts which has this kind of walkie
talkie you know radio type of sound he says talk and then Neil Armstrong speaks
they're creating a fake let's play four second radio delay to make it appear
they're beyond Earth orbit which they are really not. Okay let's play it. Van Allen 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
Here they discussed the fact that they have turned out the lights and have blocked out sunlight from entering the spacecraft
Through the other windows as to not cause any reflected light to
fall out of the spacecraft. So that's really the window of the spacecraft. Right. Let it talk to it.
Well, we shut out the sun coming in from the other windows of the spacecraft, so it's looking through a number one window and there isn't 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 spacecraft's window as it nears the Moon, it is not.
What 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.
It 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 form 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 segment, 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.
Here, during another segment, also intended to air after review, 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.
You can also notice how the astronaut operating the camera reacted to the mistake by attempting
to pan away from it. Yeah. Pretty white bands of major cloud formations across the Earth.
And you can see.
This is a segment that they believed wasn't even being recorded.
Keep going.
Much less suitable for broadcast, for the lens was being zoomed out
and the scene was being changed to that of an interior of the astronauts at 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.
Finally, 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.
Okay. Yeah, so here's what I would say if I was trying to count on what you're saying
Alright the earth at a hundred and thirty thousand miles out is halfway to the moon
The moon is one quarter the size of earth the moon on a full moon is fairly bright
I mean you could walk around outside in the dark. I mean, it's pretty amazing how bright it is when it's a full moon. Imagine that four times
greater and twice as close. So the earth which has blue reflective light because
of the oceans and it's 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 would, you probably couldn't get the camera
any closer to that window in reality, even by saying it's in front of the window, it's
covering the window. You're talking, I mean, it probably doesn'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're 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 they had back then, would be to do it that way. To block out
everything in the room and to film through that circular window as close as they can
get that camera to, and it's just shitty footage of something that they
eventually figured out how to do right, so that it wasn't deception.
Well, the camera's at the back of the spacecraft, and that's the circular window,
and it's filled with the Earth. Right.
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.
No, but it wouldn't, but stop.
It wouldn't be that small, because the Moon's not that small.
You gotta 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 Joe
Do you think the moon landings are real or not? I'm not saying that what I'm saying
No, I think I'm gonna go at this
And I'm just gonna 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 low 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.
That 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 mock-up of a one-foot model to pretend
But is there an image of that mock-up? I never saw a mock-up. I didn't there's all you saw them
Fiddle around in the window you definitely see them fiddle around in the window
But I can the camera they lied about the camera being up against the glass the camera is obviously at the back of the space
Here I have to create that well. They said they can't they 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 they had to lie 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 camera's 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, but that's really the window from Earth orbit. Jamie, go ahead.
In the video it says that this line here, which is like the Terminator line, correct?
Mm-hmm.
Yeah.
So that...
Is created with tape?
No, like a transparency 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 night and day.
I think it looks very good.
The video said tape multiple times, then said they've removed the tape could have been a
transparency 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 not tape or well it's less clear right
is less clear than like the top and if it was a transparency sitting on the on a glass
or something that line would be moving would have to be hard set well I mean just go just go back to
the segment with the little yellow circle around the window and you can see
they're fiddling around the window they only showed 20 seconds no no I know I
was if that's what I thought it was I would why not just create create recreate
the fig scene I guess with you know a giant picture of the earth outside of
well I think the point is that they had to represent the Terminator line because of where they were in orbit
So 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 they had to know and they knew what the
population with the public yeah but I mean they would do it the right way
they're gonna necessarily they made lots of mistakes yeah okay so yeah well this
one's a weird one and to me this is like the the only thing that I could say if I
was gonna steal man it would be what I said was that maybe his he misspoke by
saying it's covering the window what he maybe what he meant was that the camera
was pointed at the window it was covering the window and if you're gonna
film something that's incredibly bright that's coming into a bright environment
it's gonna be obscured by all the light you know that right so the way to film
it correctly would be the adjust the aperture correctly darken 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 you're it's covering the window
It'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 as close because they're halfway there. Well
the shot where Neil Armstrong lies and says he's a hundred and thirty thousand
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
But what that's what they're saying, but it doesn't mean they were in a hundred thirty thousand miles out
Well, why would they fake being a hundred thousand thirty thousand miles out if they were really because they're thirty thousand 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 steelman it
doesn't necessarily mean that the whole thing was fake right well if I write you
I was trying to understand so it's not that they're hundred three thousand miles
output it's that they're in space faking the shot yes they're in there doing it
they're faking being halfway to the right right the reason why it's so bright is because they're just like the space station
That doesn't I don't know I just I'm getting more confused on all these pieces because like I thought that they didn't even go to
Space no no no no no no nobody thinks that nobody thinks they did go to Jamie you need to catch the fuck up on
He's 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, right?
No, you do is 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 you're gonna see them
Okay, this one watch it but let's be honest but we're saying what we're seeing is motion in front of the window that's what but that's the that's the
window yes the space that's true not the earth
loaded in space like they claimed a minute earlier that's true which means
they're faking right right right I have to 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 it's that they're moving you see just dark shadows let's see it one
more time you see dark shadows moving well the point is that's the window of
the space 100% I'm agreeing with you that some of the deception.
Okay, well wait a minute, stop there. If that's the window of the spacecraft, then that's not the Earth floating in space, which they claim.
Correct. Correct.
Which means they're faking being halfway to the moon.
Not necessarily.
Which they would never do if they really went halfway to the moon.
Not necessarily. It could mean that they're just faking.
So they went halfway to 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
and they came to a conclusion, the best way to do it is to back the camera up, black 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 of 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 removed 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. So now you see
the amount of distance, very small space they now you see the amount of distance very
small space they're working in amount of distance where the 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 filming the earth coupled together so it's quite deep right but it's still
not that big where they are but where they are right ten feet away from the wind that's pretty
small yeah this this whole room is pretty small right it's basically
smaller than here to the where there are screen is that we're looking at but the
point is it's not the earth floating in space it's the window it's definitely not
made up to look like the earth floating in space blacked out which are meant if
they're trying to pretend that that's space, that's deception. Exactly. But it still doesn't mean that they're not a hundred...
One thing at a time. So we've concluded they are faking being
halfway to the moon. 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. That's why I'm confused. But hold on, Jamie. I'm- 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 deception.
Okay, so Apollo 11 is being deceptive with their photography.
Why would they do that if they really went to the moon?
Okay, the steel man. I mean, I know this is annoying to me. Steel man means devil's advocate. Is that what you're saying?
Yeah, I'm taking the other side's position. Why? Because it's interesting to see how 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 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 will black out everything it'll
look like space but you will see the earth from where we are which is 130,000 miles out. You 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 landings
are real as long as you do. If you believe it they're communing with aliens
with a secret crew or Neil Armstrong does it they don't care this 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 during the during the went to the moon they
wouldn't know it's more complicated they wouldn't dare fake any of it because
there were people at the time already saying it was fake They 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 women dare fake it if it was real
I 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 old-school film and you run it through old-school radar
detectors at the airport those metal detectors fucks up your camera
equipment right doesn't it fuck up your film well but doesn't it isn't that
correct it wasn't difficult for them to go to the moon they they went six times
in I know but it's three years they but listen to cars on the moon they they went six times in I know but three years they blow cars on the moon
That's not on the moon
That's what I'm saying and yet for some reason today they can only send mannequins to orbit the moon some we're in agreement on this
This is not what I'm saying what I'm saying is what you could say is
That the real probably maybe they went and they faked the footage and the reason they faked the footage 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 fake the footage and the reason they fake 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.
So how can we possibly trick the public into thinking the moon landings are real even though
the pictures are fake?
Why don't 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 out of the spacecraft?
Because they faked it. As you know 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 and
I have eyewitnesses that were raped by Bigfoot
You can find those well, you know I'm saying like
The guy wasn't here. It's like wasn't here. His son cooperates it.
We have a video of that we can show.
The point is, and 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 sabrel.com, watch his son's testimony,
who saw his father's deathbed confession. He said, who did you kill? He said, I killed a co-worker
at Cannon Air Force Base where he was the chief of security. The military police came in and they
interrogated him as he's dying, wanted to notify the relatives of the person who he
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 of three days of filming.
He 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, Bazaldrin is on the
list, and several people I never heard of. We got that list, we publish 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. The 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 should explain one of the things that Gus Grissom did that got people very angry.
He hung a lemon.
That's right. Yeah, explain that. And one of the things that Gus Chrism did that got people very angry, he hung a lemon.
That'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 preparing reports to give to Congress and 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. And 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 anything. This is your belief. Well, that's, you
know, her conclusion as well right and in his fury
Without permission he held the press conference He invited it a bunch of reporters to the top of the rocket
Where he has fixed a 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 and a few days later
He dies his wife told me that on January 26th
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 faked the moon landing
and didn't kill anybody. Maybe I'll confess my devious nature.
I kind of admire their ingenuity, like the people who tunnel from the dry cleaner into
the bank.
But not if you kill three guards, slit their throats, who have wives and children.
And the first-
What three guards?
Well, I'm just saying, for example, if they faked 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 guests 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.
They always want misdirection, the boogeyman to be in some other country where the biggest
traitors to our country are Americans and high office, right?
That's what's going on.
And the first document of our country isn't 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, where according to Betty
Grissom, they took away his life. They take a third of our income, they deceive
us to a moon landing, and then they use that money to pay the salaries of the CIA agents who killed
Gus Grissom, okay, let's go to Gus Grissom's death. So Gus Grissom died in an accident, right?
He died in a fire, correct his his wife says that fire was set intentionally. I understand
I believe her I understand and I understand that why she would believe that that makes sense
well
if her husband says CIA agents are messing around with the equipment the day before
And he's dead the next day from faulty equipment the CIA killed him. 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. It was just a ground-trust of 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 instead of 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 1 report. We bought it for $10,000 from Roger Chaffee's
widow from his estate. And there was a dip in power right before the fire because the
CIA had something clamped in there to start the fire. They ignited it. It caused a dip
in power. And then the fire began. So where ignited it, it caused a dip in power, and then the fire began.
So where is this evidence that there was a dip in power?
Well it's in the Apollo 1 report.
That there was a dip in power.
Right before the fire, because something was tapped into there that the CIA rigged 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 what they
would kill? But is there a logical explanation in terms of an improvement in
design and space? They 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 in the environment?
Well, that's a fact.
They knew not to do that.
It had caused fatalities before.
What did you hear of this fact?
Well, she told me and it's in the Apollo 1 report.
So in the Apollo 1 report it says they increased the oxygen by how much?
Well, they did 100% oxygen in the cabin.
And did they say why?
They was just testing it, something to test, an experiment, right?
And so then a fire ignites?
That's right.
They rigged it with the oily rags under there, with reversing it.
They did everything they could to make sure those guys burned alive, to get rid of the
guy because Gus Grissom had they asked him
To fake the moon 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
Apollo 11 being filmed at Cannon Air Force Base in 1968 said this is wrong
For the government to do this and was gonna tell a reporter and he was killed in the very
same reason yeah I'm I would love to see the video of that if there was a video
of it would be interesting yeah there's a video of his son but there's also
about this yeah yeah but queued up there people get old and when they get old they
they say crazy things crazy to say we verified he was the chief
of security right i don't know what his mental state was when he was dying i don't know if he
had dementia i don't know you know i'm saying like people could but i'm not saying that it didn't
work for oj simpson's defense team i'm not 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 that memories are terrible Yeah you just said it a second ago. Yeah
most people's memories not 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 to do. A deathbed confession, I would like-
I killed somebody to cover up the moon landing fraud.
I know.
What are the odds of that being dementia?
Not 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, they're dying, you know, usually there's a lot of stuff going on.
It's not just your body or family.
Well, you articulated a lot of details.
Fascinating.
Yeah.
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 queued up Jamie, is his son giving his deathbed confession,
right, as he's dying of cancer, of what he saw his father say.
He says, I lived right across from Cannon air force base. My father was chief of security
He shows us a picture of his badge and his uniform. He was there
Yeah, and then and and the and what bill casing said I had to look up from my own library bill casing said the whole moon landing
Fossification was supervised by the United States Air Force.
Well, my dad was in the Air Force. I never heard of Cannon 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 Cannon Air Force Base. And so that's where it
was filmed. And I even confirmed that several people were there, including a gentleman by the name of Robert Emmanager.
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,
spent his whole life saying the moon landings are real.
You see that?
Same thing with the astronauts. Stephen Greer's number one source that UFOs are real. It's been his whole life saying the moon landings are real. You see that?
Same thing with the astronauts. Stephen Greer is the 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, has the Apollo astronauts said so. You see that?
Which one? Edgar Mitchell?
Well yeah, Edgar Mitchell among many others.
Let's come back to that. I got to among many others. Let's come back to that.
I gotta take a leak. Let's come back to that.
And this is great. I 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 cover this.
You don't have to!
You know you don't!
This is the right way to do it. Trust me.
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 bad, how badly managed, mismanaged the whole Apollo
program was and that he saw so many flaws in it
they thought it was never gonna get off the ground and then Thomas Barron yes
Tom Ronald Thomas Barron great and he died on train tracks that's right that
was kind of with his family CIA 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, Mena, Arkansas that found the cocaine that that was the whole part of that Tom Cruise movie
The true story behind the Tom Cruise movie with was that guy's name again?
that Jamie Barry Seals. Barry Seals, yeah, who was smuggling drugs and dropping them off into Mena, Arkansas
while Bill Clinton was the governor.
And they killed these kids and put them on train tracks.
Here's a relevant point about Bill Clinton, two of them, on page 156 of his book.
You know this.
He says that he doubts as president the authenticity of the moon landings.
Well, he said in a very coy way.
Right. That's what he's saying.
Well, he told an anecdote about a carpenter that he was working with in 1969.
He was saying how amazing it is that these guys, these people, they landed on the moon.
And the carpenter said, no, those TV fellows can get you to believe anything.
I don't believe a 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 years in the
White House I think he 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 relevant word for what I'm sure but here's the
second point about 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?
And 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 it's a dangerous thing also because they
wanted to win this Cold War with Russia they wanted to get this economic and
cultural victory right oh that's could be their excuse what okay so so here's
another question you murder Americans to do that?
Allegedly murder Americans. Well, we assume. Yeah. Yeah, but we don't really know.
The Thomas Ronald Barron one is a wild one because that report was
buried, correct, after 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,
they're 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.
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 after millions of aircraft had already been built, 10 years more technologically 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? All days in space?
Well, from setting the goal to doing it, it took only eight and a half years and but the actual launch
Since then they're talking about it being taking 15 years to return to the moon
Even though they have 54 years better technology
It's gonna take twice the amount of time to return to the moon with five decades better tech
But again isn't that
they would you'd also say because it's not as focused an effort it's not like
well it is a focus ever because eight presidents have said they're gonna
return to the moon in five years right yeah they all say that you had Bush
senior said and and Reagan said it and Clinton said it and Obama said it and Bush
senior Bush jr. Trump they've all said we're
going to return.
Trump said we're going to the moon?
Yeah, he said we're going to go to the moon by 2024.
Time's running out, tick-tock, tick-tock.
You've got 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-
And they only have mannequins orbiting the moon in 2018 100% behind schedule my point and they only have mannequins orbiting them
So my point was that the leap between what we do now in terms of the difficulty
Difficulty of getting into space getting into lower earth orbit and coming back
It gets compounded greatly by actually going to another planet landing taking off coming back
Like that's that's much more difficult and the only time that was ever accomplished
was between 1969 and 1972 seven attempts six successful
Allegedly accomplished allegedly accomplished, but let's just say what they're saying just what they're saying. It's it seems very strange
That no one else did it seems very strange that stopped stopped right there and it seems very strange that no other missions involving human beings.
That's right. 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 to steal man their position. Like it took so much money and so many resources that we
don't have that we better serve 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.
Well, 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
They're on so all they had to do is choose a landing site that had reflective surfaces
Additionally Russia put an unmanned probe on the moon with laser reflect. Yes, so that doesn't prove anything
I was gonna use that but that's 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? Well, yeah, I mean that you have to understand
They already faked a full-body picture of an astronaut standing on the surface of the moon
Which was filmed in Clovis, New Mexico, according to an eyewitness.
Okay, so you're asking the Fox for further proof that they didn't steal a
chicken? You're saying after faking a full-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 just check in so yeah the moon landing mm-hmm. Yeah, this photo was taken by a
Ireland or something nice was it so he's in it
He's just a guy. No. What is show? The image? Oh, 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 uh... 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
so it's not 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 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.
Yeah.
The curator saw my film, says, oh, I wonder about that. He, 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.
Yes, that'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 steel man that you would say what was the chain of custody between
Neil Armstrong and this he personally gave it to him do any said I picked this
up off the surface of the moon this is the rock where I remember it here you go
They put it in a box. That's not much chain of command to get messed up
The thing is like who's got it after that and is it possible someone stole it swapped it out with another rock that looked
Like that was bullshit
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 fraudulent, who knew
there was a moon rock there.
And some guy said, hey, man, 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 in Antarctica where he picks up, you know, 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 in the snow
Yeah, and it hardly ever snows there
So there's not much to cover them up and maybe the orbit beam of the South Pole. It's more prone to lunar meteorites, right?
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, correct?
This is all true. Okay. So Werner von Braun maybe meet 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, yes, 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 there's one picture of him him I think right after he was captured
where his arm is broken and I was just talking oh it's right after his capture
because I thought it was in Antarctica that he had no no no no it was he's in
his Nazi uniform and it's right after he got captured and brought over an
operation paperclip that's how I was wondered how he broke his arm. It's like either he was being sassy during interrogation or he
got, you know, bombed and, you know, got pulled out of rubble. One of the two. Could have been
he loved Hitler so much he fainted when he found out Hitler was dead. Or maybe he got
carpal tunnel syndrome from doing the salute too 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. Werner
von Braun was one of them. The Simon Wiesenthal Center had said while he was
alive that 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 and we had in charge of the moon faking did not just one of
them but one also said before he died he was that the government is planning on faking
an alien invasion.
So the guy who faked the moon landing.
He said that?
He said that.
That the next-
What's the evidence of that, that he said that?
Well, his secretary says so.
Oh, that bitch might be crazy.
You know, you never know.
She might be doing coke, making stories up.
She might be a scammer. She seems sincere to me. She might be trying
He said they're gonna be an asteroid threat next followed by a fake alien invasion
That's what he's and keep in mind these Apollo astronauts who spent their whole life lying
Saying the moon landings are real are also the key people who were saying UFOs are real and so is we're not from
Rampy people Edgar Mitchell was one of them.
And Robert Emmanaker made films, you know, propaganda films to plant the seed that UFOs
are real and he was at Cannon Air Force Base when they faked the moon landing. Okay, can
I assume then 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? I don't know about those. So this is the first description. I think UFOs are real 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 they, 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 sabral.com and so where do they stop their own time they're not from
outer space they're interdimensional and potentially fallen angels disguising
themselves because they're liars of Something like you said can't be proven or disproven. I'm from this galaxy
300 light-years away. This is kind of what Tucker Carlson thinks
He he thinks there's a spiritual element to it
He thinks they've always been here and he thinks that this is what's kind of documented in the Bible is like good and evil
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. It talks about fallen angels interbreeding with humans,
as talked about in Genesis 6, and creating a race called Nephilim who were men of renowned world leaders.
Could 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 human created intelligence that's not of 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 Neuralink, you're
seeing how this guy who is paralyzed can now utilize a computer and
manipulate everything with his mind. He can move a cursor around. You're seeing
artificial intelligence come 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 on complicated 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.
And 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'd probably look like aliens. It'd probably look like some weird sort of creature
that's not really biological anymore. So 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 but what is the what kind of force would a demonic force be something?
I would
Overpower the human race and render it non-existent
Well, wouldn't 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 splicing program or
through either some sort of complicated gene splicing program or life and consciousness gets integrated with technology
inextricably so where everybody is some sort of a hybrid system?
Well 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. Right. It opens up
with the Tower of Babel
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 Babel 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, and 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 fake the moon landing.
So that was the first one that really cemented it for me.
Absolutely. It just, I gave them the really cemented it for me. Absolutely.
I gave him the benefit of the doubt as long as possible.
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.
OK, and it has 1 sixth Earth's 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 doesn't
have the kind of wind that blows around a flag. Now 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 say 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 into consideration that there's very little gravity
So it's 1 6 Earth gravity so things definitely in and 1 6 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. Well 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
just see. And a funny thing happened on the way to the moon at sobrell.com
there's a clip of the flag blowing in the wind. We show that a couple of times.
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. 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?
Well actually NASA pointed a camera at the screen there so they took the footage, they
put it on a big screen, you've 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, right?
So it's deliberately fourth generation. So they're intentionally
Degrading 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 mean, if you can get someone on the moon,
you can get better footage.
Right, I mean, Gilgamesh Island went to color
of what we know in 1965.
Why didn't they have color, right?
I mean, this is NASA's greatest accomplishment.
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 done 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?
Yeah, 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.
Why 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 generations do we have better footage of
the flag waving around the moon because there's some there's some footage of it
where you're just like this is weird yeah there's some in a funny thing
happened on the way to the moon about halfway through they filmed in color the
next one on Apollo 12 okay let, let's see that one.
Well, I was trying to find that.
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?
There's a different one.
There's one, Apollo 5.
That's me.
This one's pretty good, I think.
Click that one, Apollo 15.
Yeah.
Click on that one, Jamie. I don't... Apollo 15. No one's pretty good. I think Apollo 15. Yeah, click on that one, Jamie
Apollo 15. No, Jamie back where it says a putt. No, I said the one that says Apollo 15 right there. That's it
Yeah, okay
So this one this is color. He plants it. It still looks shitty, but he plants it and
Let's get a look at when he gets out of the way
you see it moving around so this is it so this thing is kinda just waving on
its own no one's even touching it
it looks like is waving in a breeze
it's so it stops moving and then it starts moving again
now
again there's one that shows that even more so than that, an astronaut 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 further is this go, Jamie?
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
Does it show it where he walks by it there it is it's it's back there because you see his image
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 on 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 Devil's
Advocate? Would he call it Steel what? Steel Man flag now. Can I do the flag advocate? What do you call it? Steel? What steel man?
Okay
The reason why it's doing that and really on the moon is because there's micro meteorites hitting him and they're bouncing off of him
And hitting the flag what that pretty good one is that real?
No, I thought they were trying I was trying to come up with an excuse as to why the moon landings are real
You like that one? That is a good one.
Micro-mediates will mess you up.
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, who gave me a million dollars to produce these films as his 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 micrometeorite.
So they were there three days.
They were 150% chance they would have been killed from a micrometeorite grain of 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 weighing 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? And what year was that? I think that came out in 1959,
and then he recanted on his math shortly thereafter
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 Sabrel.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 rocket that contained one thirty thousandths of a percent of the amount of fuel?
Von Braun said it would take one of my favorite one of my favorite
Films is the film of the lunar module leaving the moon
When when it leaves when the camera pans and it looks
Let's film. Let's show it. let's show, what year was that?
I think that was one of the last missions and I think you're talking
about where the camera perfectly tilts up with the 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. but it'd probably be more than that
going through all the analog equipment right but you could you could time it
you could save you could have a five-second delay so this is it this is
it what so this is launching off the watch this we 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 to 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 yeah you can play around the world you can say the
the panning is interesting but you could put a timer on it the the thing looking so goofy is
so crazy like that that thing is supposed to get off 1 6th 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 a cheap science
fiction movie what is this and then here it goes like that's what that's leaving
a planet how's it leaving is that some new space technology where's the fire
coming out of the bottom of it how's'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
Right work. It's weird. It's not doesn't say the timer
It's that somebody in Houston had to anticipate the timing
Ignition lift off which I guess you could have guessed it was gonna 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 that I guess you could guess if you say I'm going to launch
also they time in five and so you know then you count ten because he's gonna
say you know you got a five second delay and so when he gets to like every
counts 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.
Three-second delay.
We also could have fucked 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.
The delay itself of the radio, light waves there and 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 it detach, and then you kind of
got it as long as you got enough of a field of view in the footage, but boy it looks fake
It's 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 or fake
Not all of them, but the vast majority of things that look fake or fake now watch how this pulls up
Here it goes it detaches is like majority of things that look fake or fake. Now watch how this pulls up. Here
it goes. It detaches. It's like... What 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. They practiced 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
simulator that Neil Armstrong almost got killed in six weeks beforehand he
couldn't fly it on earth in the safety of a tried-and-true environment and that
was six weeks right but also again the
Gravity of Earth is much greater than the gravity of the well
They took that into account that was supposed to be a simulation of it
But so it was more powerful to overcome the earth's gravity and comparison
Yeah, but what so then you're dealing with a totally different machine and you're dealing with totally different factors
Maybe you'll be easy with one sixth Earth's gravity
different factors. Maybe it would be easy with one sixth Earth's gravity. Maybe easy like we boom it lands and we apparently it was but one sixth I would like to know like
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 like what are those calculations
and how is that amount of force being generated by that thing and is it because that's so good that would be a really good
question because if you can't prove that you could do that like 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 claim 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 you know with
your car batteries also batteries of tape, like my Tesla only goes 350 miles.
That's right. 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 degree outside. So this is an indirect proof.
If you really went to the moon and spent 200 billion dollars
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.
Ron Howard's grandfather warned him the moon landings were fake. He didn't listen.
He wanted to make an IMAX movie. He went to NASA, said,
give me all the originals so I can transfer it to HD and project it at 120 feet wide.
They said, give us a couple of days. And 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 dollars 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 this Jimmy? So is this landing? Is that there's Neil
Armstrong? 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 an 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 it 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, so the plan was to pre-program
the camera and hope that NASA camera operator in Houston,
Ed Fendel, got his timing just right on Apollo 15.
The tilt mechanism malfunctioned, 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.
So while the cameras were perfectly, it was too close to the module and again, once it
lit up the engines, it 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 liftoff at the time.
Persistent rumors suggest that NASA had to pay the networks to cover Apollo 17 mission
at all.
And when final liftoff 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 Jeannie I love Lucy oh that's what it
was I love Lucy yeah well that's from Wikipedia that continually defends the
fake moon landings if you type if you type in moon landing fraud you don't get anything
about the fraud you get a thousand videos defending you know the supposed
moon missions. Now if the moon missions are real then anyone who says otherwise
is an idiot. Okay so how do 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 moon landings.
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?
Was the first time they ever pulled that off,
the first time they ever tried it,
was that Apollo 11?
I think they used a simulation.
But did they do that on the moon?
Well, they couldn't practice they
had somebody for the first time they did it they have a single time did they
have the ability to land something on the moon and have it take off remotely
do they have that kind of control back then no I don't think so probably not
right so if they did if Apollo 11 did happen and they did take off and that
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.
Work every time flawlessly.
With a person in it.
With two people in it.
Three.
No, two.
Two people in it, one person in the lunar orbiter.
Ten were launched into space.
Of those, six landed by humans onto the moon.
First two were flown test 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 having it launch on Earth, I'd be fascinated to see what it looks like, how
that thing gets into the air.
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.
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 to get off of the moon's gravity, get away from the moon and fly to
earth?
Well, how did they do it with one 30,000th 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 like some people smarter every
day recreated the lunar lander and tested it okay successful see what they
did this is one they did on earth
Yeah, I mean these guys made it
I don't know if this worked in space obviously cuz they couldn't get it there
But right 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 right that's small. That's different
That's right. I think that video. I showed you a second ago of
the test footage.
I don't know where it is.
I don't know where it went.
I'll find it again.
But I don't know.
Again, I'm trying to find the official test footage.
Let's talk about the AI's latest discovery.
That's the latest breaking news.
They had an AI conference in November.
You know, they have all these conferences conferences automobile conferences, video equipment conferences, shoe conferences, and they had the latest AI conference in
November in Moscow. And 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 hooked up
together called the neural
network.
And they let people play around with it for three days.
One group had it write a symphony, one group had it write a novel.
Another group tested its deep fake detection program, which has never been wrong.
It can tell you in one second a video, whether a video of Biden or Trump is real or deep fake, it's never been wrong. It can tell you in one second a video, whether a video of Biden or Trump,
is real or 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. It 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 the 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 see that?
Go to sabrel.com. I 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 click to proceed, all the data on your computer will be stolen and you'll
be associated with child pornography. That says that I have go to subroad.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.
Does 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 real in the world
With a deep fake detection program that's never been wrong. How is that not public? How is that not major news?
Exactly, right? 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,
he 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 they deliberately don't
mention that you think RT is that it was fake which They deliberately don't mention that. You think RT is out. Who said it was fake?
Which guy?
Well, the former director of the Russian Space Agency.
Who is he?
His name is Dmitry Rogozin.
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. Your network.
Well yeah, and then are they really anti-corruption? No, they're not. And 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, it...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.
It's surprising, but it does believe so.
The neural network has analyzed a lot of data,
including light and dark contrast, et cetera.
And then it believes the photo is synthetic.
Very interesting, 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
them for my YouTube channel. And he says everybody there knows that the Apollo missions are fake so why don't they like 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 that would have blown the whistle. That'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? Russia knows. 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. Now, 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 comment 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. He 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 fly me to New York they put me up in the Waldorf
Astoria 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 gonna have to cancel the program. I'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. They did fake the moonlanding.
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 let's talk about it so 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. Try 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 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, and 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, and I'm sure you've seen them try to debunk it, what is
their take on it?
I've never heard it debunked, to tell you the truth.
They've on it. I've never heard it debunked to tell you the truth. They've ignored it. In fact, the reporter from 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, um Jamie
What are your thoughts just out of the the gate. Looking at this photo I go suns behind them.
Well what about the one side by side?
What's your opinion on that one?
This photo was not as interesting.
This is bigger.
That's one.
Go to the side by side one. What's your opinion on that?
Sunlight on the left?
Electrical lighting on the right.
Why does it 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.
And what they did was, and you can find that clip,
it's under sabrel.com moon mine 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 app and the shadows intersecting 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 landings are real. That's a light. That's a close source, right?
Yeah, but my point is what they actually did is they proved that the moon missions
We're taking with an electrical light because they it's gonna 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 doesn't matter the shadows the shadows are still gonna run parallel
It doesn't matter because that's why 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. It's
probably the brightest source that they have around them. You've already admitted 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
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 math scientist to know
where the Sun is or the Sun and Earth are at this particular time of day. They could
create different shadows.
Well, not really because the Sun...
Why not?
Well, 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. You think you're gonna see... I can take pictures in here with multiple light
sources though and they're gonna look different. Right, but Jamie, 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 right now and that would be that would be like shining a flashlight on the ground at high noon on a cloud to stay
You're not gonna see the beam of the Sun light
The thing is the surface and the surface take it from a filmmaker. That's called reflective light
It's gonna it's not gonna 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.
Alright, that's why I would...
This is the reason I wanted to go with a different photo, because that's the one he sent and
has other stuff on it.
I wanted to try a different photo.
Well this one is not nearly as convincing.
It just has shadows going in different directions all over the place.
That's because it's taken with an electrical light.
Well 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, Jamie. 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. Who says it's sunlight? That's's sunlight? If you had electrical light there were sunlight the shadows would be parallel that you're actually proving
It's an electrical light because sunlight is parallel
Yeah, it's all right, but no, 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 we're not
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's the where's the lunar lander though in relation? Maybe we don't we don't know
That's part of the problem where 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 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 I mean
Well, why because I just showed you what a picture look like is why I might be an electrical light
There's lots of light sources. Yeah, that's true. Well, it's true. But there's also a hot spot
They either they either filmed it on the moon or they filmed it on earth
And that's where I if it's if it's not 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 as they're trying to fake. So what were you saying is that if if it's
Electrical light it's more than one source of light that they have like suspended and so these are gonna cast light in different directions and it's
gonna create shadows that come at different angles as opposed to the
enormous Sun which bathes everything in a fairly even distribution of light. Yeah if
there's two light sources like two electrical lights they would run in different directions or if there's two light sources, like two electrical lights, they would 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 gonna cast the shadow, or in front of it, it's gonna cast the shadow straight ahead.
And if you're to the side of it, it's gonna 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.
Get the original off 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 were there was one picture of the original print
of the soil being brown right there that'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 in the Chinese probes, the soil is caramel brown, because
that's the color it really is.
Right.
But if you landed a probe in the desert in California versus you landed a probe in the
middle of Austin in rainy season,
you're gonna 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?
That's the man on the moon.
There's like, you could, it looks different.
It's not. 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, well you have to find it on eBay or whatever, the original picture. Don't you think it's online?
Could be, but you'd have to go to eBay and type in Apollo 11 photographs. Well everybody knows eBay is the most trusted source of information.
Well, what we need is the original prints that came out in 1969 and 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 are the 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? Well I've
seen 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 right on top of one another so
yeah it's it's supposedly many miles apart but yet the backgrounds look the
same yeah they 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 wanna 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 the advantage.
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. You 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 use 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 Cernan, he left
a picture, a family picture there on the surface of the
moon.
And 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, Kodak paper
from that time, you know, what temperature is 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. But how long does it take before the image gets destroyed?
Oh, it should be immediately.
Immediately.
Immediately.
Yeah. And so the AI said that and then it says, OK, well, is this a picture of Kodak
film on the moon? You know, it says, yes, it's supposed to be, but how can it be there just leisurely
laying around when it's 100 degrees hotter than what it would cause it to destroy it?
What was different about the cameras that were used on 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.
Hasselblad 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.
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
while 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.
Rise knew that recreating the perfect replica of the Apollo 11
Hasselblad 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 recreation of the
camera. Right. Okay well the most significant part about this, when my film
came out Fox was gonna air it as is and right beforehand their lawyers freaked
out and said well we didn't show the other side of the story. It'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 but my point well wait let me say so they made a special
where they interviewed me it was conspiracy theory did we go to the moon aired three times by popular
demand one of them one of the most convincing parts is they interview the representative from
house of blad cameras they show him a picture of
Allegedly a guy on the surface of the moon and sunlight and he's embarrassed. He says I
Don't know why it looks like that looks like he's standing under an electrical spotlight to me and it's also because the hotspot, right?
It's creative. 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.
I don't think they would have a problem saying, well, we just, you know, destroyed the pictures
while we have as a TV image.
It is really, really crazy if they destroyed 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.
I'm 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.
Trevor Burrus If you had a say but also you have to take
into consideration that people back then then there was no VCRs
They 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 and look at these things no one anticipated AI
Being able to look at the images and determine that they're fake. I haven't heard your devil's advocate excuse yet, Joe for
Why they intentionally destroyed a 200 billion dollar investment that doesn't make any sense to me
It doesn't make any sense to me why they would destroy 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
I can't think of a reason why other than
Gross incompetence, which no they said they intentionally destroy it not accidentally
That's I mean if there was if there was any technology you might intentionally destroy
Maybe the atomic bomb after World War two, which we used it to end the war now
Let's just destroy it all if you can't they did because then other people can have it well the point I see what you're saying yeah
It's who we're saying ten years later. It's a thousand times more powerful, right?
So why would they destroy that technology unless they're covering their tracks of a fraud now one of the things about this is that?
This subject is connected instantaneously with idiocy
is connected instantaneously with idiocy. If you believe the moon landings are fake,
you are a moron.
And it's something that is pushed heavily,
especially by people that only have
a cursory understanding of the moon landing itself.
And 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 location in Mars? Well that
was much later. Well but the point is, you know I'm saying, when 1969
technology. That saying, Occam's razor, that the simplest explanation, Occam's razor is the
simplest explanation is true, is true. But 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 landings are 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
Right the guy in the command center can't tell the difference between a real flight and a fake one, right?
There's only three eyewitnesses and no independent press coverage. They have complete control
Everything's compartmentalized. Yeah. 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 done with an electrical
light and we have an eyewitness of Cyrus Eugene Acres. And then there's another clip, I think it's clip seven, 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.
He turned beet red, got mad.
Where did you get this?
Get out of my house, started 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 back seat 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?
Why 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. Do you have that recording?
Yeah. I gave him the timecode there
Okay, and then so my book goes into all these things that are not in the film
So here's you climbing into the car
And there it is so that's the son son saying that that's right, okay
How old is this son at the time? Well, he was about I guess 23 years old
Okay, but but 23 year olds are retarded. Well, you get a 23 year old kid. They're dumb ass. They're mad
Their dad just got punked, you know the whole thing's happening your dad kicks this guy, fuck this guy, want to call the CIA? Have him whacked? Well, 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.
I'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 Kaysing. I'm like, Bill, you're not gonna 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.
Eeeeee! I can't hear him. He can't hear me. Well Bart, I told you and as I'm telling him about the footage, it's interrupted by this screech.
Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
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 bad out of hell to CNN. I 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. Know the enemy.
He gets on the parkway going toward town. He gets on the parkway going toward town.
I get in the parkway going toward town.
I'm like, I wanna see this guy.
Who is this guy waiting to follow me
the 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
and 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 year is this?
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. And 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 in 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. Oh, 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, I escaped their custody.
How'd you do that? Well, you gotta read the book. It's a long story. I make my way back to Nashville,
I pee in a cup, I say, got him. I'm gonna show my news director at NBC that I've been drugged by
this exotic true
serum drug because I told them everything they wanted to know.
You don't have to waterboard anybody.
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 train to out with the CIA, right?
I check back with him a few days later, says, Bart, well, there was a problem at the lab.
And I'm like, well, what problem?
He 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 a urine sample 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 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. and then they're so afraid that I'm going to prove that I was
drugged they break into the lab in the middle of the night and take only thing stolen was
my urine sample gone the next day.
And again, what year was this?
That was 1999.
I'm going to sneeze.
Sorry. Oh, Jesus. Yes. Truth, you're allergic to truth? No I'm allergic
to whatever's in the air in Austin. We were talking about it before the show that I made fun of
people that have allergies. Alfalfa tablets help me out a lot. Gotta take like four or five a day.
Okay so this is 1999 and this is when you first get a hold of that footage
that we watched earlier. And 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 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, you know, I'm literally in the middle of the night running away from
these people, X-Files type of things that we'll 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, to entrap him with prostitutes and drugs, toredit him only to not put $200 airbags in car.
Imagine the harassment to a reporter who has proof that they faked the moon landing.
And now in my book that just came out, we have an eyewitness who says he saw them fake
the moon landing at Cannon Air Force Base and even admitted to killing a coworker to
cover it up.
Okay, 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 belt.
So what is the explanation, the official explanation as to how the astronauts were able to get
through the Van Allen radiation belt safely?
Because I know that people have disputed this and it is something that people talk about
all the time because it's the number one thing that people say.
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 could have meant the shielding for the instruments so they don't...
No, he said people. We must develop this technology before we send people through the space.
I was agreeing with that. So the instruments don't break so that the ship doesn't die,
which will then harm the people.
Right. But that was what we were talking about earlier.
But 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, he says we must first solve these challenges before we send people through this region
of space. So the challenges have 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.
I'm just like I said, I'm just what devil's advocate
Yeah, but the point is that does it make any sense doesn't make a lot of sense
No, no, it doesn't make a lot of sense that they use that you were gonna 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 of
Earth's orbit space travel.
It's non-existent by human beings.
Another 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 as the outcome was not good
right
When they did operations starfish prime and they blew that thing up didn't it make the red Van Allen radiation belts worse in that spot
That's what I heard that it 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
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. According to the US 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.
Well, I have a clip at sabrel.com where they talk about it's a 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 where are they getting?
Again, again, these numbers of the amount of radiation in the Van Allen radiation belts
are from the people who faked the moon landing.
So what kind of proof is that?
So this is they're saying that the total dosage for the trip is only 16 rad.
That's correct.
How do we know that?
Because the people who faked the moon landing said so?
What is the source of this?
NASA.
NASA.
I'll find another source, if you'd like,
of what the Van Allen radiation belt is.
Yeah, but let's do that.
Let's find out a source.
How would you?
Yeah, that's a good question.
Because no one else has been there.
Why don't you Google how lethal
are the Van Allen radiation belts?
There's a clip from my book. no one else. Why don't you Google how lethal are there? Radiation belts, there's a clip. There's a clip from my another one try another
Looking for deadly Van Allen is the only one who's been there really right right there
There's a clip from my book at sabral.com that has a scientist showing
The radiation levels and talking about how it's a barrier between deep space travel.
Now, 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.
So 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 Van Allen
belt is located at about 1.6, i.e. The inner Van Allen belt is located at about 1.6,
i.e. the outer Van Allen 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 effects are minimum. So there's a gap in between
the two belts and so as the International Space Station and Space Shuttle on this
scale orbit very near the edge of the blue Earth disk in the figure so are
well below the Van Allen 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 1,000 miles.
Right. 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 know 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 gonna 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 worked so well on the Apollo missions
So what kind of protection would how thick was the aluminum shielding?
1 1⁈1 1⁈1 and was there anything a coating on the inside?
Of it that protected them further
No, just 1 1⁄8 of an inch of aluminum and how much protection would 1 1⁄8 of aluminum inch of aluminum provide?
Well half as much as a dental x-ray
You know lead vest or 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 Van Allen 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
Let's find that that's it. That CNN from the 365 mile trip.
Let's find that that's that's that's in the film that's in
the film of 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 and I said my book has interactive one of
those clips has 2 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. It says so. It 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 Saturn five rocket. But all that stuff was buried. And now 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, it's 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
to 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 it 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. Mm-hmm
Yeah, and
It's one of those things like like I talk about with the UFOs
It's like Lucy with Charlie Brown and the football like you always think you're gonna get that football
But nope, they pull it away from you. It's like
this if if they do want to actually go to the moon
and go to Mars and all, and if we have the technology,
they're gonna 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 or unintentional, but he said the
technology necessary to protect astronauts from the radiation to the
moon has not been invented yet. So 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 it's's cheaper to send mannequins. You don't 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.
The 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 and micrometeor well and the fuel and the fuel because
Elon Musk is a smart guy. He says it's gonna take nine fuel trips in order to have you can find him saying that
I'm sorry eight
Trip pull up with him saying that I think he's made it more efficient now
He's made bigger containers. So what are 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 landings
He would still think they were they were real anyway Musk says it would take eight starship launches to fuel up a single moon
Trip Elon Musk isn't 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
Take that's what they already have
Yeah, he said the moon landings were were his historical anomaly
Meaning they're out of place to have
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. Yeah. Yeah. That makes sense. This again, this is one of those subjects and this is why so
many people are 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 in the
category of being a fool.
Isn't that interesting? If you believe the lie, you're intelligent and if you believe the truth, you being a fool isn't that interesting if you believe the lie you're intelligent
And if you believe the truth you're a fool not just that itself policed
And it's policed 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 why you're wrong.
And has anybody ever done that?
I've never debated anybody about whether it was real or not nobody ever wanted to
No one 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 child right well through teenager
mm-hmm, and I
Admitted that I was wrong and still when I had all this evidence indicating the fraud
I still gave him the benefit of the doubt that
That million dollar film that was financed by someone who builds rockets for NASA who knows the moon missions 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 Phil Plait. 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 and over again. The blue earth allegedly bouncing around. I'm like, well, let me listen to that
from the top. We never played the talk, by the way. 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 window. The lights come up. And then it dawned on me they really did fake the mental
landing. So before that that you were on the fence
Well, originally I thought they went and thought it was the greatest thing
I worshipped it by having pictures in my room for many years
And it was just bill casing bill casing 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 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 faked it.
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 of the CIA telling them
to fake a four-second radio delay, That's it. The 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.
You know, the JFK witness list, they say it's 200 people.
They knocked off to keep that a secret.
9-11, 3,000.
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 waved their flags, they got down on their knees and prayed and they cried.
They gave them medals 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 until recently.
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. Let's look at the Apollo 11 post flight press conference because this is a weird one because
these guys just returned from the moon and they look like they're in a hostage video.
Well they look like they're at the funeral of their mother.
It does not seem like these are happy guys who just returned from the moon.
Scooch ahead a little bit.
Here we go.
So 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
yeah go to him talking this is where just write it down. Over its developing and unfolding. Go back a little bit, go back a little bit so you can hear.
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.
in the month of July, but rather one that took place in the last decade. We all here 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
here from the surface of Earth.
surface of Earth. The flight, as you know, started promptly. 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. Our memory of that actually differs little from the reports that you have all heard from
those previous Saturn V flights.
And those, the previous flights served us well in preparation for this flight in the
boost as well as the subsequent phases. We would like to skip directly to the trans lunar coast phase and remind ourselves of the chain of events that 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. Yeah one interesting thing to
note there 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're being prompted on how to answer the questions.
They just look very odd.
It looks 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 stars looked and 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 a question he should know nothing about having not been on the
moon and it gets attributed to buzz Aldrin because it's not convenient but if you
well because they didn't have 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 so 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 near 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. He probably didn't like it, didn't enjoy it, didn't 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, we sent him to another planet.
He landed on our moon and he walked around.
We got 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 because 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 good this is a speech at the 25th anniversary of NASA and he's giving this speech to like
Is it American valedictorians high school valedictorians like some of the best brightest high school kids when Clinton was president?
Yeah, and so this speech is
So bizarre I've never seen anybody give a rational
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. So listen to speech.
In 1994, Neil 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 have only completed a 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.
Okay, 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 publicly.
You can also notice that he was looking down except that part he had memorized.
Perhaps someday you'll be able to remove one of Truth's protective layers about the
moon landing.
How about that? Bizarre. 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, I said, find me a picture
of Neil Armstrong on the surface of the moon. It's still picture
They went in and out and out
Scratching their heads. He refused to have his picture taken. He 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 Palawan crew do you the guy's a test pilot I
don't think threatened his life man or you could 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 i don't i think he would have resigned and
they wouldn't allow that that would bring suspicions so i think they had to
make it
i think they would have to thresnall speculation that's right it's my
speculation but this years of research videos not speculation that's right i
think i think they most people again are not aware of that video i think think they threatened his family's life to get him to participate. Perhaps, but we're just
speculating. Yeah, right. But the video again, that's not speculation. Has anybody ever gone
over that video and go, well, well, well, it's real simple. Anybody ever kneel to grass ties in it?
Like, that'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...
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 our enemy and around the same
time after Richard Nixon said communist China is an enemy that 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 and blackmailed him too,
and we know they are blackmailing NASA
for technology in exchange for not blowing the whistle.
You know that for a fact.
Yeah, I interviewed a guy who works
for the Chinese Space Agency, saw my YouTube channel.
Right, but that's just him saying that.
That's not necessarily.
That's his eyewitness testimony.
I understand, I understand.
From talking to people who work there.
Well, I understand what you're saying, but it's still like it's a guy saying it. A guy who works in the Chinese Space Agency.
But if you're gonna 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
moon landing fraud and instead of blowing the whistle would blackmail as a
more valuable tool of the information. I think that's what the Soviets are doing
to. We're 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 realize realize, hey, this is an 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, because 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 and 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. They really did kill Kennedy.
If they really did fake the moon landing, 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 into voting the way the
CIA and NSA tell them. That'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 could unplug it all with one plug.
I'm not sure what would happen to you and me and everyone else's life if we unplug 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.
The 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? Like what
have we not covered? We've basically done this right now. We're at like 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 Canada Air Force Base. And 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
That's an interesting thing too that you said it's a positive lie. It is
Yeah
It's not a lie like that got us into a war that one of killing 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 this 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 it or to silence
someone.
I 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.
OK.
And you've been at this a long time, Bart.
Are you tired of talking about the moon landing?
How long have you been at this for?
It's of 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, embezzled 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,
but 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 yes. Because it's so controversial that you
instantly get labeled a kook if you believe this. The 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
describe 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. 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.
You 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 Cannon Air Force Base, 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. So 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 sabrel.com. There's 17 clips they can watch for free and then decide for themselves.
Okay. Thank you, Bart. Appreciate you, man.
No problem.
Bye, everybody. Thanks for watching!