Jason Bermas and Astronomy Live debate Artemis 2's authenticity, with Bermas citing propulsion limits and Starshield ties to question NASA's claims. While Bermas doubts footage like the "thumbs up" gesture and argues unmanned drones could mimic human travel, Astronomy Live counters with parallax data from telescopes in Florida, Utah, Chile, and Australia confirming a 28.3-degree inclination consistent with a lunar flyby. Despite skepticism regarding radio wave bouncing and AI disinformation, orbital simulations and Doppler shift measurements suggest the mission successfully reached the moon and returned over San Diego, challenging narratives of technological stagnation. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Did Artemis 2 Reach Space00:11:38
All right, it says that we are live.
Hello and welcome.
Today we are going to have a conversation about Artemis 2.
Did it actually go to space?
Did it actually do what NASA said it was doing?
That is the question for today and the conversation we are going to have.
So here we have Astrami live.
You all know him, but we have a special guest, a gentleman by the name of Jason.
Jason, can you please introduce yourself and tell people who you are, what you do, that kind of thing?
Yeah, first of all, I'm not contending that the.
Artemis didn't go to space.
I want to make that extremely clear.
I'm not sure that this gentleman even really knows my position.
I saw him going back and forth with some flat earthers.
Not a flat earther, been fighting those people for almost 20 years.
My background is actually documentary filmmaking.
Started doing that back in 2005.
Anyone can go check them out.
Loose Change Final Cut and Fabled Enemies on 9 11.
Then I have some bigger picture stuff on globalism as well.
And just to give everybody an idea of what my basic contention here is.
Is that I find it extremely difficult to believe NASA, which has consistently lied, is part of the military industrial complex.
In my opinion, their real role is not only to militarize space, but other types of black programs that do leak into the public arena.
For instance, on the ISS, they do a lot of work with hydrogels or things like organoids.
I've interviewed Greg Autry of NASA.
It was really funny.
I asked him about.
You know, the Starshield program before it was named that, and said, Hey, can you comment on that?
And he said, Oh, we don't do classified programs.
And then when I asked him to comment, he said, Well, I can't talk about classified programs.
So, you know, essentially, I asked a question on Twitter.
I said, Hey, is there any individuals or groups that can independently visually verify this thing going up to the moon and back, which, you know, allegedly outside of the corkscrew going around low Earth orbit?
Is 238,000 miles away.
I think that this trip was a little over 600,000 with that loop.
And by the way, guys, just so everybody knows, hold on, I've got, I'm a NASA buff.
You know, I've watched just about everything they've put out publicly.
I used to watch the NASA channel and I still remain skeptical.
So somebody sent me, I think, a short video of, I think it's Astronomy Live.
And, you know, it had some video footage.
I think I played it on a broadcast and then I was contacted.
So I'm here to see what evidence is presented that can be independently verified of this thing because I think we're in space.
I think that, you know, rocket technology, et cetera, with this type of thing can definitely send unmanned craft quite a ways away.
But outside of that, especially with human beings, I think it's a lot more difficult and I remain skeptical.
Understood.
So, Can you briefly tell people where they can find you and your social media, your YouTube channel, that kind of thing?
Sure.
It is at Jason Bermas, B E R M A S, over on X, the Info Warrior over on YouTube.
And I've also got a Rumble and a Rockfin.
I'm pretty accessible.
Excellent.
All right.
Astronomy Live, if you want to give a brief introduction, people already know who you are on my channel, but still, why not?
Sure.
So I'm Astronomy Live.
Obviously, I've been around on this channel for a while, but I set out to track Artemis 2 and provide independent verification of the mission and of it completing its objectives of going around the moon in a free return trajectory and returning to Earth.
I saw Jason's clip that he Posted showing some of my footage on YouTube where he mentioned me.
And my contention with him was his statement in that video that there was no way to verify what it was that I was tracking.
So actually, I collected a whole heap of data from the mission, tracking it from launch, tracking it the night after launch, tracking it, going out to the moon and coming back.
And from that data, we can glean a whole lot of things.
So I did a whole breakdown and analysis and a deep dive of my data that has been posted to my channel a day ago.
And I referenced Jason's clip because I think that's a good example of a reasonable question to ask is how can I verify that this is Artemis II?
After all, it just looks like a dot that's moving through the sky.
Of course, it's traveling further from Earth, much further from Earth than the space station or the space shuttle.
And so the angular size of it is naturally going to be so small that you can't resolve it with any telescope on Earth.
It's too far away.
But what we can do is we can track the position of it over time and we can track it from multiple telescopes, including multiple telescopes simultaneously, to do things like gather parallax data to measure the distance of the spacecraft.
And by looking at how the spacecraft moves over time, we can actually solve for the orbit.
And that tells us a whole lot about where it came from, where it's going, and where it's going to return to.
So that's what I covered in my video, as I said on my channel a day ago.
But we can go over some of the information here if I share my screen.
All right, sounds good.
So, what we'll do is I'll let Astronomy Live go first, and Jason, feel free to pop in whenever.
This is an open discussion.
There isn't really a format, which is great.
It's almost like that's how open discussions are supposed to be.
So, I will go ahead and allow you to screen share, and here we go.
All right, so one of the first things is Reds here was also at the launch.
He was filming from Titusville, about 12 or 13 miles away from the rocket over the river, looking at the rocket, and from that angle, you could see.
The crew boarding across the crew access arm.
We can see Reed Wiseman, the commander, Jeremy Hansen behind him.
We can see Hansen on the NASA TV footage stops to look over the railing at the same time we see that same figure stop to look over the railing in Red's footage, and then Victor Glover behind him.
Now, of course, I also tracked the rocket launch and covered some of that here.
I actually found an anomaly which honestly surprised me at the beginning was this dot that appeared in my footage.
You can see it here.
This weird, mysterious dot that suddenly appears out of nowhere.
And it kind of moves up towards the rocket.
Now, you could see the shock barrier from the vehicle breaking the sound barrier here, moving down the rocket in this footage just moments before.
And it turns out that that is related.
We can see a similar phenomenon here with the shock barriers and a star like object moving towards the rocket on this Falcon 9 footage from the launch of SES 12.
And similar phenomena has been observed with the space shuttle program as well.
You can see a similar phenomenon there of a star like apparition as light from the plume of the engines gets refracted through that shock barrier.
That was kind of interesting.
It showed evidence that the vehicle really was breaking the sound barrier, of course.
And of course, I continued tracking it after SRB SEP and all of that.
You can check that out on my channel as well.
But then later that night, I filmed it going around the Earth.
Again, Jason talked about this footage a bit.
But yeah, so here's the footage from the first night.
You could see Orion being trailed by the ICPS.
Now, what I did is by measuring the position of this object over time, I was able to solve for the orbit.
And that told me immediately that the vehicle was in an inclination consistent with the latitude of the launch pad of about 28.3 degrees, which is pretty consistent to the 28.6 degree latitude of the launch pad.
Now, from that, So, you can see the latitude launch pad here.
That's very consistent with the inclination of the vehicle that I measured from the orbit.
Can I just stop you for a second and just ask you, for instance, and again, I'm not exactly sure why you showed the first part of the footage.
I'm not contending that these guys weren't on that or that we didn't go into space.
When you say the telescope footage, where do you get access?
Like, is that a multitude of telescopes that you have access to online from certain different observatories?
Can you just explain that to me, like where you're getting that stuff from?
That's what I'm interested in.
Sure.
So, and to be clear, I wasn't suggesting that you were specifically saying that there was nobody on the vehicle.
Obviously, other people are suggesting that.
I was just presenting this as a breakdown of all the footage we collected, you know, myself and Reds as a team working together.
Now, this footage was all from my telescope, my personal 11 inch Celestron telescope that I had with me that night.
Now, I also conducted simultaneous observations using a telescope I was remote controlling in Utah.
On the iTelescope network.
So I paid to rent these telescopes online.
But that's not the only scope I'm using.
I'm also using my own personal scope.
So by using a scope that I can remote control somewhere else in the world, I can get a really nice baseline of observations to directly measure the distance using parallax, for example.
So I did that later in the mission as well.
I used telescopes in Chile.
I used telescopes in Utah, as I mentioned, in Australia.
And using these scopes, I was able to measure.
The distance via parallax and confirm that it really was, you know, at about the distance of the moon.
So, one of the things I did is after the first night, I took those observations, I determined the orbit, then I loaded that orbit into a simulator and I simulated the burn.
I said, Okay, we know when they're supposed to be going to the moon, I know where they were tonight.
What happens if I simulate the burn?
Where should they be if they're really going to the moon?
And I used those as search coordinates to then find it myself.
So, I didn't ask NASA.
Where is it on its way to the moon?
I figured it out for myself roughly where it should be, and then I searched for it until I found it.
And sure enough, there it is.
Now, how do I know that that is still the same object?
Can I just ask you what time period we are right here on its way?
So, yeah, it's up here.
I've got the time code up here.
This is mission elapsed time two days, eight hours, yada, yada, yada.
So I try to show that on all my footages the mission elapsed time.
So time from liftoff, okay?
So, again, found it here and I continued tracking it for the rest of that night.
Now, again, what I can do then after tracking it like this for the rest of the night until dawn is I can solve for the orbit.
And what that orbit shows us is that it was actually in a 28 degree inclination orbit.
So, I'll just bring the orbit solution over here so you can see inclination 28.38 degrees.
And so, again, the inclination is almost exactly the same as the latitude of the launch pad because The rocket was launching due east.
And so, because it was taking full advantage of the Earth's rotation, launching due east, it took on the inclination equal to its latitude at liftoff.
Furthermore, the time that it was last closest to Earth, the perigee time, was about the same time as the TLI burn.
Now, in this case, for these observations, I've anonymized my location a little bit so that people don't get my exact address.
Orbit Determination Analysis00:09:40
So, these are not quite as precise as what I presented in the video.
In the video, I showed my precise orbit solution.
Except for this one part where I showed the parallax, because again, I have to give my latitude, longitude there.
I'm anonymizing that a little bit just so that people don't show up at my doorstep.
So, again, can I just stop you?
Again, this is just out of pure ignorance.
Obviously, I haven't run these types of software.
You've talked about simulators, et cetera.
The raw data that you're putting into these things, you keep saying the term parallax.
Okay.
Can you kind of explain to me what mathematically you're putting into this software?
That then pumps out all these numbers because obviously the layman isn't going to be able to read these things, right?
Let me hop in here.
Jason, what I want you to do is I want you to take your finger and hold it out at arm's length.
And then what you do, hold your finger up.
Okay.
And then point straight up.
There you go.
And then what you want to do is blink between your two eyes.
What you'll see is that your finger will appear to move relative to the background.
And that is the basis of your depth perception.
The way that is happening is that your eyes are spaced apart by some distance.
So, and they're talking about kind of like what they do with 3D television technology with both of those just a little bit offset.
Yes, correct.
But what we're doing is that we are using two telescopes instead of our two eyeballs because they're spaced apart further.
And based on how far they're spaced apart, how much of a shift we see in the footage or in the images.
We can do basic trigonometry to figure out the distance to those objects.
So, what you're telling me is you're also accounting for how many miles there are in between both of these telescopes that are there, and that's the parallax mass.
Yes, correct.
Yes, that is correct.
And for those who wish to write this down later, the actual equation is alpha equals two times the arctan of G over two R. You can replay that later.
But anyway, Astronomy Live, go ahead.
Yeah, so.
So, this was the parallax measurement I made.
As you can see, it's got the date and time on here.
This was universal time, date and time.
But so, shortly before, this was about a day before the lunar flyby, I was tracking it as it was approaching the moon, both with my telescope here in Florida and the telescope in Utah on the iTelescope network.
And by collecting simultaneous observations, I can plug in the coordinates that I saw the vehicle at from both positions simultaneously to get the parallax, to get the distance of the object.
And that came out to a distance from the Utah telescope of about 329,000 kilometers, or altitude over the surface of the Earth of about 325,000 kilometers, which is about 86% the average distance between the surface of the Earth and the center of the moon.
So this is almost all the way out at the moon at this point, and I'm still able to track it.
So, I was able to verify again that they were really that far away.
And also, I could go forward in time and predict what they would see with their cameras from the vehicle.
So, these are the Arizona cameras you're talking about.
So, that was with a combination of my scope and the scope in Utah.
But when you refer, I'm sorry, Utah, when you're referring to their cameras, you're talking about the Utah cameras.
Oh, sorry.
So, I was skipping ahead here a little bit to talk about the actual photos from the mission.
So, if I take the orbit solution, I can say, okay, here's where the spacecraft should have been at the time this photo was taken that they posted, okay, and see how well it matches up with what they posted.
So you could see, like, for example, here's the Earth and Moon during the lunar flyby.
And I can take this as well and plug in the date and time of when they took this photo, because the EXIF data is available for this photo.
And I can plug that into my orbit determination and then look and see what they should have seen from the spacecraft at that time.
So when I do that, this is what I see.
It's like a perfect match.
For the orientation of the Earth and the Moon and where they appear relative to each other.
So, wait, what was the first?
So, this is what Artemis 2 put out.
What was the first one that you were putting out?
So, this is my simulation of what they should have seen.
Okay.
So, the other one is basically the data that you're getting from putting into the program, and that's the visual it presents after the fact.
Right.
And so, this right here in the bottom right corner, this make ephemeris, this is me plugging in a date and time and requesting from the program where should the spacecraft be at this date and time.
Based on my orbit determination.
Because again, what's happening here is night after night, I'm tracking it.
You know, this is a now mission elapsed time three days, 10 hours.
So this is like April 5th.
I'm tracking it after tracking it April 4th.
And I found it again because I'm telling my telescope, here's where it should be now based on the orbit that I've already determined.
So if I'm wrong about that, I won't even see anything.
I'll just see stars.
There won't be anything moving in the frame.
So once again, I located it and it was almost exactly where my orbit determination said from the first night.
I then put those orbit determinations together.
And what I get is a more accurate determination using observations from the fourth and from the fifth.
And what you see here, this mean residual, 1.06, this is arc seconds.
An arc second is 1,3600th of a degree.
That means the average error of my measurements is within 1,3600th of a degree, which is about the scale of each pixel.
If you look at each pixel in the actual digital image, that's about the scale of the pixel.
So down to the nearest pixel, I'm getting accurate data in terms of the position of the object over time.
If I were to just plug in random numbers, or if I accidentally found an asteroid that happened to be nearby and I plugged in its numbers, this number would go way up.
It would shoot through the roof because it wouldn't be able to come up with a solution that matches both nights of observation unless it's the same object because you wouldn't have consistent data.
There wouldn't be a consistent orbit that matches up with that data.
So, again, that's confirming to me.
That it's the same object on the next night that I saw the first night because it was where I was looking, it was where I was expecting it to be.
It's moving the direction and speed I'm expecting it to be.
And when I actually plug in the data, they all line up neatly.
And just to be clear, the first night they're still in low Earth orbit, it wasn't.
No, no, no.
So this is all post TLI.
Okay, this is all after they've gone for the moon.
All right, all right, yeah.
So, this is all after they burn for the moon.
They're already heading out to the moon.
And from these data, I can just plot what the orbit actually looks like.
What should we be seeing?
So, I've got this simulation driven entirely by that orbit determination.
It's taking the coordinates of the spacecraft that are predicted by my orbit and plotting that as the red line.
The gray line is where the moon is expected to be.
And so we can see that the moon shows up, the spacecraft goes behind the moon, and then it starts falling back to Earth after it's been influenced by the moon's gravity.
But this is just a raw output of the orbit that I determined from my tracking of the whole mission.
And so we see it starts at the Earth, it goes out to the moon, it does the free return around the moon, and it comes back to Earth.
And again, this isn't from NASA's data, this is from my data of tracking the mission from beginning to end.
So we've got that.
We've got, again, the orbit determination.
We've got it matching up with the photographs.
You know, here's another one.
And again, it matches up very nicely with the simulation driven by my orbit determination.
And then I just ask you something because I know that they took Nikons on.
Are those photographs from Nikons or are those from some other camera system that's just on Orion?
The ones that are obviously not the simulated ones, the ones that are less detailed.
Do you know?
So these, like this right here, that's taken with a Nikon.
I don't know if that's a real photo.
That's not one of the simulations that you're doing.
No, this is a real photo.
Yeah.
Okay.
So this is, all right.
All right.
So this is Nikon.
And then the other one is what?
On the craft somewhere?
So there were a couple different Nikons they took.
They took a D5 and a Z9.
And then they had GoPros on the solar array wings.
Okay.
So the GoPro footage is the one that's much less detailed.
Yes.
And those are on the solar array wings.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So then I basically tracked them coming back.
So less than 24 hours after the lunar flyby, I used a telescope in Australia.
And here you can see that you can see all the glare from the moon.
It's kind of goofy looking because, um, the glare is essentially out of focus.
You see this big donut shape, it's like you're looking at part of a donut here.
The mirror of the telescope is shaped like this, and so anything that's out of focus takes on that shape.
Red's knows this very well from having a very similar telescope.
You're not gonna get an argument out of me, man.
I do documentary films, I know all about lighting and camera, yeah, yeah.
So that's why you see this bright glare because it's still really close to the moon.
It's really difficult to get the spacecraft that close to the moon.
So, again, this was.
Less than 24 hours after they made that flyby, so I caught them again in that footage, uh, and continued to track them, uh, basically all the way back in using again this telescope in Australia, but also telescopes in Chile and Utah, and then finally my own scope.
So then, if I skip forward a bit on re entry day, I caught them again with a video camera.
It's a little hard to see, there's this little dot here moving down in the image, uh, gradually.
Atmospheric Reentry Evidence00:16:03
So that's again them on re entry day.
And then finally, I caught them on film as well.
So I took the video camera off, I put a film camera on, and took these shots on old film with an old mechanical film SLR just to seal the deal there for some additional evidence.
And if you look at how that lines up with the video footage, it's a perfect match.
So this is where it was in the last few minutes of the last webcast I did, the morning of re entry.
And if you trace a line through the dots of where it was in the webcast, it extends that line out.
Sure enough, it matches up with where I see it on film.
Yeah, track this whole thing basically beginning to end, both with my scope and scopes around the world.
And it tells us that it launched from an inclination consistent with a launch from Florida.
It was last closest to Earth when they were doing the TLI burn, when they headed out for the moon for the free return trajectory.
They went around the moon at the distance and time that they said they did.
Because if I plug that in, I get the photos that they see.
Like that's what they should have seen.
And then as they come back, I track them on the way back in.
And from all of that, from the last tracking data, Of them coming back in, I can run a prediction of reentry.
I can actually see where they are going to hit the atmosphere.
So I plotted that out on Google Earth.
So you can see here, initially, they're moving like this way relative to the ground because Earth is rotating towards the east faster than their eastward direction.
That reverses a few hours, not even like really actually pretty close before reentry.
It starts going the other way.
It has this sharp turn.
That's an artifact because of how the The capsule's picking up velocity and it's starting to move faster and faster to the east.
And so, as they get closer to Earth and it starts to move faster to the east, it starts to exceed Earth's rotational velocity.
And then we get reentry should be happening just east of the Hawaiian Islands here, heading up to the northeast where it will reenter and splash down somewhere off the coast of San Diego, which is exactly like the map that NASA published of reentry.
So, I'm able to confirm that as well.
And if you look at the data, if I pull that back up here, so if I solve for the orbit using Almost all of my data.
So, this is the data from the fourth through the eighth.
The air goes a little bit high, 7.29 arc seconds now, because of the course correction maneuvers they're doing on some of these days between my observations.
So it's not moving strictly into gravity.
My calculations are assuming that the only thing affecting the craft is gravity.
That assumption doesn't entirely hold true because the craft is actively maneuvering and performing course corrections, most significantly on the final, leading up to the final day with reentry.
They do a few correction maneuvers to make sure they're exactly where they want to be on the reentry corridor.
So if I run a calculation, Of where they're going to hit the atmosphere from the earlier data, it shows that they hit the atmosphere a little bit differently than they do on reentry day, showing again that this thing is not a natural object.
It's actually making maneuvers in space, it's actually adjusting its course to get exactly what they want out of reentry.
Because again, it lines up well enough that this is the same object, but it's a little bit off.
There's something affecting it that's not just gravity, and that's the active maneuvering it's doing as they're bringing it back and making sure it's lined up perfectly for reentry.
Can I just stop you here quick for a second?
So, when you're tracking it on re entry, what data are you using for that tracking outside of what you've put in a simulator?
In other words, you're not tracking it with a telescope anymore.
Are you using transponders or things like that?
Where are you getting that data from?
So, my data for the re entry is a prediction based on the last tracking data I have, which is about 14 hours before re entry.
Again, where's that tracking data that you have for you?
Like, where are you getting those tracking data from my telescope?
Okay, so it is from the telescope.
It is from my telescope.
It's not from a transponder or anything.
Like that, all this is based on those two telescopes that you have access to.
Yeah, there were more than two on the iTel.
So, like I said, there was Chile, there was Australia, there was uh Utah.
But my scope in Florida, the scope in in uh Chile were the two that I used the morning of re entry.
There was another amateur who used infrasound to detect it, uh, making a sonic boom and coming in over the Pacific.
Um, but obviously, I don't have a telescope in the Pacific Ocean.
I've seen re entries before of other capsules, but not I'm not in the Pacific Ocean, so I can't track it with my scope.
But I can get data.
All the way up to about 14 hours before re entry.
And basically, when twilight hit that morning, that was it.
I couldn't see it anymore.
Okay.
So, yeah, that was a lot.
I know it dumped a lot of data on you very quickly there.
But what questions do you have for me, Jason?
I mean, first of all, let me just start with commending you.
I know a lot of people attack you.
I'm actually looking for independent verification of this stuff.
Is it like I'm not playing a game?
Let me just say I'm still skeptical, not of these people going into space, being in low Earth orbit.
I think that's 100%.
I think there is the large possibility that they're sending unmanned craft there.
I guess a lot of my skepticism also rides on the fact that, you know, these guys are in what, like a 330 square foot capsule for the vast majority of this ride, which we've already established is what, over 600,000 miles.
I don't think either of us are contending that.
And then if I can just, I mean, I'll just share my screen, guys, just kind of get my point.
And I don't have a screen share.
You can just pull me up.
I run it through a Stream Deck or whatever.
So this is SpaceX and Starshield.
And as I've stated before, You know, I think first and foremost, outside of Starshield and what was the blackjack program before this, which was launched with Starlink, which to me is, you know, the commercial version, but the DoD still has a back door into it of these networks, there is the large possibility that while in low Earth orbit, they could send something else out.
Now, again, my skepticism is that outside of the United States, the Soviet Union has only been 253 miles.
Out, guys.
I mean, that's a big difference when they were dominating the space race in the 60s.
And I understand they've gone to the ISS with us.
I watch a lot of those re entries with Don Pettit and the cosmonauts and the whole nine.
I think we're going up there.
I also think they're not exactly honest.
And then just to go to the, I know there's a lot of footage out there.
Okay.
And, you know, I'm not going to recycle a bunch of the Apollo stuff because I don't necessarily believe some of the arguments for Apollo being fake.
Are on the up and up, but I do go with the base numbers of just how far we've gone.
I mean, I know Polaris Dawn, what was that about two years ago now, maybe 18 months to two years ago?
That's not 900 miles.
I think they're 880 miles, and they're just starting to pierce the Van Allen belts that, again, I know are extremely controversial.
You know, another question I have is when you have pockets of radiation in these formations, et cetera, just that far away, how far out do they go, and what ones don't we necessarily know about?
Via the public.
You know, there's a vast difference between just our atmosphere, stratosphere, ionosphere, et cetera.
I'm often wondering whether or not you have those differences, especially, you know, again, as you pull into the moon, it does have a gravitational force if there's a lot out there that we don't know about.
Now, this is the one thing that did catch my eye, guys, and it full screen me just for a second that I think is valid.
You know, supposedly there's, I watched the Trump interview with these guys, there's supposed to be a two and a half second communication delay.
Now, I've got this on twice.
I can go find the original footage.
Doesn't seem to be hoaxed.
Doesn't seem like they moved the audio up.
And then you watch the reaction of the second astronaut, and he seems like, man, we just screwed up here.
And I'll just play it for you.
And there on your screen, you're currently seeing a live look inside the cabin of the Orion spacecraft.
Integrity Houston, we are three minutes out from an on time start.
And we have adjusted the fan speed.
We'll take a thumbs up if you're happy with it.
Copy, thumbs up.
Now, it's an immediate thumbs up.
There's supposed to be a two and a half second delay.
And you look at, I mean, just take a look at the other astronaut.
He immediately, I mean, it's not, that's not fake.
You see his reaction.
Look as he turns.
His, his, he immediately's like, Oh man, what did you do?
And he tries to rub his eyes afterwards, but we'll watch the reaction again.
Watch.
And we have adjusted the fan speed.
We'll take a thumbs up if you're happy with it.
And there he is upset.
And then he tries to, you know, oh.
So look, I think these guys are in low Earth orbit.
I'm just skeptical they're outside of it.
I know they sent Snoopy and Artemis 1 and the mannequins and the whole nine.
And by the way, let me just say this to you guys.
I believe we have other technology.
I think there's a good chance that we have programs on the moon, not necessarily obviously human beings out there, but different types of remote or drone technology.
I'm not a big aliens and UFOs guy.
I think the vast majority of that, again, is our own technology, human technology.
And when you deal with propulsion systems, you're also dealing with weapon systems.
So, look, I'll just get your commentary on whether you think that's real, whether that, Maybe gives you a little skepticism, like myself, et cetera.
Because again, I think you tracked a real object and I think they went around.
And I think that these guys re entered from low Earth orbit, the whole nine.
My issue is again, you have Russia also weaponizing space.
They weaponized space many, many moons ago.
That's kind of why we have this alliance where they get to go to the ISS.
Yet they're not doing this.
And obviously, it would be a strategic military advantage to do it.
In fact, no one's done it other than us.
I'll just stop right there and see what you guys have to say.
Okay, so I mean, for one thing, I never take it on face value whenever I see a conspiracy video posted to.
Sure, me neither.
I want to make that clear.
So, first of all, we need to understand a couple things.
One is that from the beginning of the mission, I don't know how much attention you were paying to the live streams and stuff as they were in orbit, almost immediately, they were having issues with temperature regulation.
Yeah, the toilet line, I know.
Well, I'm not talking about the toilet right now, I'm talking about temperature regulation.
Okay.
And getting too cold or whatnot, the vehicle for them, the environment of the vehicle for them wasn't exactly perfectly comfortable.
The air is very dry.
There's not a whole lot of humidity in there because of how the life support system is working, and the air is potentially too cold for them, I think, at night.
I think it was too cold.
It was either too cold or too hot, but I think it was too cold.
And so they were trying to ask for them to adjust the fan speed.
They wanted to make sure that, and keep in mind, there's a tension here too between what the crew's comfortable with and what the crew actually needs.
One of the things you have to understand about being in space is that there is no convection.
There is no up.
So, air doesn't experience heat driven convection like it does on Earth.
And as a result of that, you can get pockets of CO2 that build up in the vehicle in places that don't have enough air circulation.
And that can be bad for the astronaut's health.
So, they want to run the fan speed at a certain level and get a certain amount of circulation through the vehicle to guarantee that we're getting good O2 saturation.
Throughout the vehicle, so the astronauts aren't experiencing elevated CO2 levels that even the sensors might not be picking up because it might be a pocket on one side of the vehicle.
And so there's a tension there, like I said, between what the astronauts want and what the astronauts need.
When they say we've adjusted the fan speed, I could definitely believe that Wiseman was already starting to process giving a thumbs up to saying that before he was even asked to give a thumbs up, because that had been an ongoing discussion and an ongoing request from the crew to try to get the temperatures where they actually wanted them from mission control.
Additionally, I don't know exactly when that particular clip came from, what was the distance of the vehicle, all of that.
There's a lot of variables there, but most importantly, this wasn't some.
New issue.
Well, it was an issue that had been going on from the beginning of the mission in terms of trying to get the vehicle environment the way that would be most comfortable for the astronauts while also dealing with the other factors, like I mentioned.
So let me just ask you, would there be a timeframe where you would be concerned wherever that video?
Because again, I don't know exactly when that video was taken.
Like, in other words, would there be more of a delay, obviously, 200,000 miles out than in low Earth orbit, et cetera?
Is that what you're trying to explain?
Well, I don't necessarily believe that that was in low Earth orbit.
That looked to me like it was probably post TLI because they were extremely busy the first day leading up to TLI.
That looked to me like it was probably a more relaxed environment in the cislunar space.
But again, they could have been halfway to the moon.
I don't know.
I'm just saying, as a precaution, everyone should go back and reference the original NASA video, not let everyone see it.
I agree there, man.
Let me just say, I agree there.
I just didn't have time to go through all the footage to find it.
I was able to find some of the other stuff to debunk it.
You know, I see a lot of these people with the cell phone stuff.
I was able to see footage where clearly in the cell phones you can see the astronauts taking off, and I'm not sure why that would be faked, et cetera.
Again, I guess that this is going to be a stalemate because obviously I'm going to remain skeptical on this, right?
The other thing I want to run by you mentioned, you know, you think they re entered from low Earth orbit, for example, and I assume you believe they re entered where they said they did off the coast of San Diego, right?
Yeah.
Well, the problem with that.
Is that my data tells you there's something coming in that's not from low Earth orbit, that's from cislunar space.
It's coming in from the distance of the moon that's going to be hitting the atmosphere way faster, and it's going to be coming and aiming at San Diego.
So that's, I mean, I guess, but yeah, can't you take that out?
I mean, that's kind of my point.
We have so much going on.
I mean, for instance, NASA.
I'm sure you're not aware of the individual he just passed last year.
Have you ever heard of Dennis Bushnell of NASA?
Not off the top of my head.
So he's one of the chief scientists for many, many years for NASA.
He was actually involved with NASA all the way back in the Gemini program prior to the Apollo program.
And I mean, he's the national security rep. I mean, very little of what he discusses or puts out in white papers, et cetera, had to do with space travel.
Some of it did, for sure.
But like specifically, I have him.
It's in one of my lectures, but in a ton of videos I've done.
He gets asked at this 2018 fire conference.
He'd earlier talked about basically space junk.
Right, and how much of it was out there, and how it was creating a problem and congestion, and how they were going to clean it up.
He'd mentioned something about cleaning it up through you know, magnets or whatever.
Well, one of the kids called him out on it, and he's like, Well, actually, aren't most of these made of you know, different types of alloys that aren't metallic and that you wouldn't be able to magnetize?
And he kind of throws it to the side, but then later on, uh, he gets asked about these certain objects, mainly satellites in space, that are not moving in conventional ways.
Right?
Tracking Beyond Low Earth Orbit00:03:05
Like weapon systems, if you will.
And Bushnell, he hears them, and you can go watch the video, and he laughs about it for a second, and then he goes, No comment.
And like the professor that's putting it on, he goes, Oh, come on.
Are they killer satellites?
Can't you tell us something?
He goes, Look, what he's not telling you is I'm the national security rep. And on top of that, look up Bushnell.
He was also the head of what was known as the quote unquote mad scientist program under the United States military.
The document that probably is the most concerning that he's attached to is his future strategic warfare document from July 2001.
There's two of these documents a smaller one and then a larger one.
You know, I think there's a lot going on in space that we just have not been privy to.
And I mean, I don't know that you're going to convince me out of those positions.
Right.
And I definitely think you tracked something.
I think that we sent something just like I think Artemis 1, again, non man.
It's when we get to the human beings is where I really, I mean, you know how banged up these assets.
I mean, I get it.
This is a 10 day trip.
But this is why I showed you them boarding the rocket.
And I totally think they're off.
Again, I'm not saying they didn't take off from that rocket and that they were in low Earth orbit, all those things.
I'm saying being in space, like for instance, they were really worried.
When they couldn't get those people from the ISS because you degrade quite a bit.
I mean, what is it?
Six months?
Scott Kelly was out there.
I mean, he could barely walk for weeks.
He was doing physical therapy.
You know, your body degrades up there.
And again, in a 10 day mission, I get it.
It's not going to be like that, but it's not a 10 day mission, you know, 250 some miles in the air.
We're really traveling here, literally a quarter of a million miles there and back.
Right.
And the thing is, like, you know, I tracked it.
Right from launch the first night, you admit there are gaps, right?
You do admit, and you also admit that you tracked it outside of low Earth orbit after it boosts out, right?
It has those little TLIs.
Is well, the T, I tracked it for before and after TLI, yes.
So, I tracked it before and after TLI.
Now, obviously, I don't have a telescope everywhere in the world.
It's not clear everywhere in the world all the time.
There were additional observations that I had already reserved and commanded for, say, Australia.
Australia was cloudy for most of the time.
There were some observations I was able to get out of Australia.
There were other observations I was not able to get because it was cloudy.
But to within the ability of commanding multiple telescopes in at least three different countries, I was able to track a huge portion of the mission.
The only gap per se is between when a telescope's fired up.
But within every 24-hour period, I basically have some tracking data, and it all lines up with each other.
And it shows that there's a vehicle going out to the moon that originated from Florida, that originated from where I tracked it before TLI, and then continued to go out to the moon.
Amateur Telescope Observations00:15:31
And here's the other thing.
If they had stayed in low Earth orbit at 28 degrees inclination, it would be going over Florida continuously.
We would be optimized for many passes of it at that latitude because we see that with Hubble.
Hubble was launched due east as well.
So it took on the inclination of the latitude of the launch site.
It's at about 28 degrees inclination, thereabouts, and it continually passes over Florida.
We get regular opportunities to view Florida.
I've seen Hubble on more than one orbit in a single night because it just kept going over.
So if it's staying in low Earth orbit, while I'm out there night after night, setting up my scope, tracking this vehicle, The computer's doing the work, and I'm just sitting back in the chair enjoying it.
I should be seeing, like at some point during the morning, I should be seeing a vehicle come over that isn't there.
And I'm not the only amateur out there.
There's a whole group of amateurs who are dedicated to tracking classified satellites that the government doesn't want you to know where they are, including satellites that are monitoring other satellites and performing aggressive maneuvers, going up to inspect up close or maybe even damage or do something to another satellite before backing off and going somewhere else.
And these movements are tracked by amateurs around the world.
There's a whole forum of them called CSAT, and they publish this data that the government probably doesn't want you to have, but it's out there.
And I could get on a soapbox too about my bones to pick about where this current administration wants things to be in terms of information security out at the Cape, out at Cape Canaveral.
They are, as of late last year, they published a press release.
Stating that people filming launches out of the Cape, they basically said, even though what we're doing is very publicly visible, like everyone around the area can see a launch, right?
You don't have to be at the Cape.
You can be in Titusville, you can be in Cocoa, you can be in Merritt Island, you can be in any of these public places and just look to the sky.
Heck, you can see it from Orlando, right?
You can look to the east and see these rockets taking off.
They said that just because what they're doing is very visible to the public doesn't mean you're legally allowed to film it unless you have explicit permission.
They said, Patrick Space Force Base said that in December of last year.
I find that absurd.
Well, now, let me just stop.
First of all, we're in agreement there.
Obviously, I think that's absurd.
And you just kind of talked about.
Let me get to my point, though.
Let me finish my point.
That's absurd, and it's not stopped anyone, right?
There's still people who don't have permission.
Now, I had official permission to film Artemis launch, I had a car pass, I had permission, and it wasn't going off the Space Force side.
They actually don't care about you filming launches from the NASA side.
There's actually two sides to Cape Canaveral.
Most people don't know this, but the north side is all NASA.
That's civilian launches.
They don't care what you film going off from there.
The south side, where most of the Falcon 9s launch, New Glenn, all these other rockets, Atlas, Vulcan, Those are coming off of the Space Force side, and they do care.
And the reason they care isn't so much about New Glenn or Vulcan or Atlas.
It's classified stuff like hypersonic missiles.
It wasn't that long after Artemis.
In fact, I think I was driving back from the Artemis launch when I heard that a hypersonic missile test had gone off at the Cape, and people had filmed it.
And you could see this thing take off like a bat out of hell out of the Cape because it wasn't a big lumbering rocket like SLS.
This thing's a tiny little missile that shoots off like a bat out of hell with a high thrust to weight ratio.
To hit hypersonic velocities.
Do you think the military wants you to know what their acceleration profile is on that rocket?
Of course not.
They didn't give anyone permission to film that.
They didn't even give all, I don't even think they put a TFR.
I could be wrong.
That was either a NOTAM or a TFR.
There was something not even quite right or something fishy about the notifications they were supposed to give.
They just knew no one is around.
No one's in the air.
No one's in the water under this thing.
Launch it, you know, and hoping to catch people off guard and not get it filmed.
Well, it got filmed anyway.
Let me ask you a question, Stronging Life, if I can, just to try and.
Bring some organization to this.
You're saying that if NASA or anyone else for that matter, if they wanted to do something shady, if they wanted to change the orbits or make it go to a place it wasn't supposed to go to, that that would be very difficult to do completely unnoticed because there are amateurs everywhere tracking this stuff, correct?
Absolutely.
That's what I'm saying is that there are amateurs monitoring space, monitoring for classified satellites, publishing things the government doesn't want published, but too bad it's out there.
Cry harder.
And, and, That's just the nature of it.
There are amateurs with tracking sets that are specifically designed to catch satellites whose orbital elements are not published.
No one knows where they are, supposedly, except we do, because you can look up and see them.
So, if this vehicle had stayed in low Earth orbit, it would have been highly detectable to amateurs, both in terms of optical and radio tracking.
It was tracked, but it went out to the moon by myself and others.
So, this is where I ask you a question, Jason.
Given how much is known by amateurs all over the world that are Probably getting footage that the government doesn't want them to get, and that we have a fairly high degree of confidence that we're seeing what we're seeing.
You know, we can trace it back, you know, predict our own orbits, make predictions that turn out to actually work out in reality, being that Artemis actually, you know, landed and landed in the spot that it was supposed to land in.
Given all of that together, isn't there not a good cumulative case to show that Artemis 2 was legitimate, excuse me, was completely legitimate, given what Astronomy Live was able to capture and given what other. amateurs were able to capture at the exact same time.
Well, again, I guess my argument would be those gaps, right?
And I know the other argument was if it stays in the same path of lower orbit, low Earth orbit of the original, that it would be easy to detect.
Was anybody trying to detect that?
And obviously, saying you could see it, I mean, you'd still have to be looking for it, right?
Well, that's what we were doing.
That's what we were doing.
You asked the question of was anyone trying to see it change?
Yes, actually.
Astronomy Live just.
Did that by saying that, but hold on.
He also said he had gaps, and that's when he went to other amateur astronomers, right?
And saying, Well, they would have caught it.
No, he didn't say that.
Did you not say that again, there would be all these other astronomers, amateur, that would catch it if it was still in?
Not with his own data.
All right.
Let me try to.
Hold on.
I think maybe you're misunderstanding what Jason's asking here because I think I understand what he's asking.
I'm saying, Yeah, there's gaps in my tracking data between observation periods.
But there's observation periods each, basically each day of the mission, right?
Including before and after TLI.
In addition to that, if it had stayed in low Earth orbit, amateurs would have detected it because they are looking.
This is the thing.
They're constantly looking for what's up there that's new that they hadn't seen before.
And when they find something, and sometimes they do, they identify it as a unit and unidentified, and they work to figure out what mission it came from based on the factors like I was showing you earlier.
That didn't necessarily mean they always find everything, number one.
Okay.
And number two, they'd have to be looking for it, I believe.
And the third point I would make is that you say that would just stay in this orbit, but couldn't it do, you know, a maneuver, if you will, to go into another orbit for a while and then go back to the orbit?
So, in that, because you said what was a 14 hour gap about that at the very end before it reached that final 14 hours before re entry.
Yes.
Okay.
But that point, that's into the mission.
They've already gone to the moon.
They're coming back.
And if you try to maneuver at that point, You're so close to Earth that the cost, the delta V cost, the change in velocity cost to significantly alter the orbit is exponentially growing every second.
You can't change where it's going to hit very much because the best you can do is try to steer it in the atmosphere and use that to give yourself a little more leverage.
But in terms of where it's going to hit, it's going to hit about the same spot almost no matter what you do at that point.
They were just trying to fine tune the orbit at that point, just tweak it to get it, make sure it's directly in the middle of the uprights, as they said.
Now, In terms of changing the orbit when it's in low Earth orbit, plane change maneuvers are extremely expensive.
You can raise your orbit, you can lower your orbit, but in terms of altering how the orbit's plane is tilted, that is extremely expensive by delta V, meaning it takes a whole lot of fuel because you've built up your momentum.
The rocket pitching over is building up horizontal momentum.
That is a whole lot of fuel being spent to do that.
To change that significantly costs about as much delta V as it costs to launch it to begin with.
And you don't have that fuel once you're in orbit.
To reduce the cost of a plane change maneuver, you have to go way out with a high apogee and then tweak the orientation of the orbit at apogee, meaning you have to go out to the moon anyway, or you have to at least go out well beyond low Earth orbit to change the inclination of the orbit.
And if they can do that, well, first of all, I'm going to see them doing it.
And I didn't, I saw them go to the moon instead.
But why would you necessarily see them doing it?
Isn't there a gap in between that launch and when it's doing these low Earth orbit maneuvers and that first initial TLI that you're talking about that you're tracking this?
Because the delta V on board is measured in feet per second.
And even with a few hundred feet per second, you try to maximize a maneuver.
If I catch you on the next night, well, first of all, I'm going to see that you moved.
And if I don't find you where I expect to, I'm going to hunt around for you.
Because again, the way I found them after TLI, Is by assuming what it would take to get to the moon, right?
I didn't just ask NASA, hey, NASA, where are they?
I figured out where they ought to be and I found them there.
So if they try to change maneuver on me like that, I'm going to catch them.
The same thing happens with the X 37 all the time, the secret space plane they launch.
Yeah, they do maneuvers with this thing, they change the orbit and they do.
They will raise the orbit and they can change the inclination at a high apogee.
They've sent this thing out to geostationary distance before.
Like it's gone way out there, way beyond low earth orbit, where they can do all kinds of fun things, right?
And they can probably go up to other satellites and inspect them.
I don't want to get too deep here in the weeds, but no, this is important.
Oh, no, no, no.
I just, I'm asking you about the X 37 and its tracking outside of low earth orbit.
What is that being tracked?
Is that the same type of thing you're doing with satellites?
Is that a transponder?
No, it's the same kind of thing optical tracking.
Okay.
And amateurs, you know, pick that up too.
And if they lose it, they look for it again, they find it again, they find where it's ended up.
That's happened on each of these X 37 missions that have been going on for years.
I tracked it early on too and caught it flaring in brightness due to glints coming off the solar array that they're using to power it.
So, yeah, there's all kinds of fun things that we do as amateurs a cat and mouse game with classified satellites.
That again, the military doesn't tell us where the X 37 is in orbit, those orbital elements are classified.
That's not public, but we as amateur astronomers find it anyway because it's up there and we can see it.
Do you think there's anything up there you haven't found?
In terms of small bits that have come off spacecraft, like screws, and I'm not even talking about things like that, I'm talking about actual technology.
The only one that is known to be difficult in that sense that I can think of would be the MISTI satellite.
But the catch for the MISTI satellite is that it only worked in terms of trying to hide itself if it knew where you were, if it knew who was trying to track it and where.
Amateurs found MISTI initially.
MISTI was launched by the space shuttle way back in the day, and it was designed as a covert.
Reconnaissance satellite that would try to hide itself so that foreign nations wouldn't know when it was overhead and taking pictures.
The problem was that they weren't counting on all these amateurs like me who are just in random spots all over the world looking for it.
And when they found out that that was happening, they had to figure out where the amateurs were who were tracking it.
And after they figured that out, they could reorient the shield that would try to block sunlight from reflecting off of it to hide it from the amateurs.
But you can't do that all the way around the spacecraft because you have to be reflecting sunlight or else you're just going to cook yourself.
So you have limited cloaking ability, essentially.
Yeah, they can hide the optical signature with Misty, but they could only do that once they identified you as a problem.
So, do you think there's any technology or propulsion systems that they're utilizing outside of the purview of the public that haven't been tracked in some manner?
I mean, yeah, but it's probably not as exotic as you're thinking.
It's probably more along the lines of, I mean, exotic, yes, but not in the way that you're probably thinking.
I'm not thinking that they probably have UFO anti-grav tech or something.
I'm thinking that, yeah, they might have advances in electric ion engines.
Hall effect thrusters, uh, maybe even maybe they're even playing with Vasmir up there.
Maybe they tried, um, maybe they tried the M drive, uh, up there, but it's it's probably not as uh exotic as what you're thinking.
I do think they probably have technology, reconnaissance technology, um, that is uh, you know, not all public.
Like we have synthetic aperture radar now, right?
And that's that's a pretty nice advancement that.
I'm sure it was in their hands before it was public, and maybe they have something similar at the optical range.
I don't know.
We wouldn't necessarily know about that, but that's not propulsion tech.
That's just I can see you better tech.
Have you ever seen the.
Yeah, sorry, Pat.
Sorry, Patrick, you're right.
M drive is bogus, it doesn't work, never could.
Doesn't mean they didn't try it though, Patch.
Yeah, they tried it.
But okay, so let me see if I can get down to core here.
So.
It seems to me that given everything that Astronomy Live has said, that the only way that it is suggested this could be quote unquote faked is if a second spacecraft were to take the place of the original spacecraft.
So, because at the distance.
Hold on, hold on.
I wouldn't say takes the place.
I'd say that simultaneously these two things are going on.
Like another either secret launch site for this object, or perhaps that object is already somewhere within an array of technology we have.
To launch to give the idea that human beings are on that object.
That's my contention.
Faking the Moon Landing00:14:58
Yeah, the only issue is that that launch would have to happen in secret.
And that is very difficult given that all the launch sites are pretty well known.
And especially if you wanted to launch it in that same exact orbit and have it be in the right place at the right time, as Astronomy Life said, you would need to spend a lot of fuel, a lot of fuel.
To get from a secret site to align with the orbit at just the right time to fool Astronomy Live and have his data read out what it was supposed to read out in order to match with the mission as NASA described it.
That is, in my opinion, wildly fantastical.
To me, it's not wildly fantastical.
I'll just be quite honest with you.
You know, for instance, before I got cut off there, I was going to mention the Crow 666 footage.
Have you guys ever seen Shoot the Moon?
Oh, no, no.
Hold on.
Hold on.
I'm not saying that the guy gets everything right.
I'm saying he gets everything wrong.
Well, what I am saying is some of that raw footage, you don't believe that some of those videos are craft that are putting a shadow on the moon?
If not, again, guys.
I'm willing to hear other people.
So, what do you think that footage is?
Because I've seen people try to say it, debunking that it's just planes or birds, etc.
It certainly looks like there's something up there.
Am I wrong?
Can I tell them the story, Reds?
Yeah, go ahead.
Okay, so going back, this is before Reds and I ever met.
Years ago, we're talking what, over a decade now, maybe 15 years?
Gosh, it's been a long time.
When Crow first started out on YouTube and he was posting videos of moon waves.
That he claimed were evidence of the moon being a hologram.
I offered him to collaborate with me and my scope here in Florida because here's the deal if that's real and it's really happening at the moon level, it's not just some local atmospheric phenomenon, you should see that at multiple points around the earth simultaneously.
So I said, Pro, here's what we do you stream the moon from your location, I stream it, I don't need to know where, it doesn't matter.
I'm not trying to get your location.
You stream the moon from your location, I'll stream it from mine with my scope at the same time.
If we both see a moon wave at the exact same time on our cameras, you're right.
There's something funny going on at the moon.
He refused to do that, which tells me immediately he's not to be trusted.
He knew what was up.
I'm not saying he faked it with CGI, but I'm saying he knows that's not really something happening.
It's an atmospheric phenomenon.
And I'll tell a story.
I was doing.
I'm not talking about the moon wave.
That's not what I'm talking about.
No, I understand that.
What I'm saying is that when Crow is presenting footage to you, He has a reputation of being very dishonest in properly reporting what the footage is showing.
So, to what Astronomy Live was saying, the moon wave that was going on, Astronomy Live said, okay, if you believe that the moon is a hologram or whatever the fuck, then here's what we should do.
We should do a simultaneous observation.
And if you see a moon wave at your location and I see a moon wave at my location at the exact same time, even though we're hundreds, if not thousands of miles away, then there's a problem there.
But if we don't see it, then it's a local phenomena and it can be dismissed or the holographic glitch hypothesis can be dismissed.
I get it.
I mean, I get that he didn't want to do it.
I'm just asking about the raw footage.
Do you think he faked that or do you think it's not real or do you think that that's what I'm asking?
I'm asking about the footage that shows that it looks like some type of craft there.
Do you think that's not craft?
Again, I like to have civil conversations with people like Mick West that do the debunkings and all that stuff.
Like, if you think that it's a bird, tell me.
If you think it's something else, if you think he faked it, tell me.
I mean, that's what I'm asking.
I'm saying that based on my history with Crow, going back over 10 years now, I don't have any reason to trust anything he presents.
Just there's no credibility there for me because he wouldn't do that over 10 years ago.
It was a real simple thing.
All he had to do was just tell me when he's going to be live streaming and I'll stream at the same time.
He wouldn't do it, which tells me he knew what was going on and he knew he'd be busted if he did it.
So, I don't trust anything that guy presents.
I'm not claiming to know how he's fixing it, but I'm not going to waste my time on trying to figure that out at this point because I already tried to deal with him 10 years ago and I found out right away he's a dishonest operator.
Okay, so let me just frame just a couple things and get your opinions here, guys.
If that footage is real and he didn't fake it, not of the wave, but whatever craft seemed to be up there, and if you mentioned conspiracy theorists and people posting fake footage, and if That footage that I showed earlier of the communication is actually real.
Obviously, you said, you know, maybe he was prepping.
Doesn't that give you a little bit of concern that we're not necessarily being told the truth about everything in space?
I am saying, Jason, that there is zero reason for me to accept that footage as real.
I don't have to know how he fakes everything he does to know he has no credibility.
Again, I tried to work with him years ago where all he had to do was just tell me when he's going to stream the moon.
I'll stream the moon at the same time.
Let's find out the truth.
I learned right away he's not interested in the truth.
So what is he interested in?
Engagement?
Who knows?
But it's not the truth he's interested in.
I'll go even harder on that.
I'll go even harder on that.
I'm trying to grant him maximum charity here, right?
I'm not claiming to know his motivations.
I'm just claiming to know one thing is true, and that's that he's not interested in the truth.
So I have no reason to accept any footage he presents.
When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras, right?
If he presents then later something fantastical, it's the boy who cried wolf.
The lesson of that story isn't sometimes the wolf actually does come.
The lesson of that story is when you keep crying wolf, you're going to get eaten.
It's not a good thing because no one's going to believe you.
Well, that's the position crows in now.
I believe that until it is demonstrated otherwise, every single piece of video that he presents on the internet is 100% bullshit.
Until it is demonstrated otherwise.
And the reason why I say that is because I went to Astronomy Life, what was it, like 10 years ago or something like that?
It's been a while.
And I asked him, hey, I'm interested in doing some observations with you.
Are you willing to work with me?
And if he was lying to me, he would have told me, no, I don't want to talk to you.
I don't want to work with you.
I don't want anything and that kind of thing.
But he did not hesitate in the slightest.
He was actually excited.
And so.
We've been working together for over a decade at this point, and we were able to get great observations, you know, ISS measuring the distance to the sun, that kind of thing.
But when we offered the same exact thing to Crow, he blocked us immediately, told everyone that we were trolls, and that was before we had any real interaction with them.
Just the idea that we would want to work together basically scared him because he would know that at that point there's someone there to double check his work.
And so, what does that tell me?
That tells me that he's kind of full of shit, and I think he knows that he's full of shit.
So I will make a definitive statement right here, right now.
And if I'm proved wrong later, so be it, but I'll make a definitive statement.
I think whatever footage Crow is showing you about spacecrafts around the moon, I think it's completely 100% fake.
Okay.
And by the way, he's not showing it to me.
I don't have a relationship with this guy.
I've watched his documentary.
I think I was on a union of the unwanted with him.
I don't know, maybe seven, eight years ago.
And he was talking about realms and the moon wave.
And quite frankly, I'm not really interested in that type of stuff.
I like the forensic evidence.
And if you guys think that, you know, he faked, well, I'm just telling you, like, his footage looked pretty convincing.
It didn't look like he faked it.
Let me ask you something here, Jason.
Yeah.
So, Imagine for a moment that I had been caught faking, say, some of my ISS footage, right?
I filmed ISS.
Let's say I got caught faking that footage that I claimed I was tracking ISS, but I was just CGI faking it and I got busted for that.
Would you believe anything I presented to you about Artemis 2?
Would you have any reason to even waste your time looking at any footage I claim to present of Artemis 2?
Well, isn't that kind of like all the flat Earth arguments with the ISS footage where clearly there are some.
Pieces of footage where they are on ropes, guys.
Like, I think you would, or, or not, no, there isn't any.
You don't think the one where I don't think any on that's zipping by in the background and you can see the harness on them.
The belt is uh, come on, and then he fades off.
Oh, that's that's the highlights, yeah.
The highlights, real okay.
Do you know what?
All right, so let me let me run something real quick for you, Jason.
No, I Jason, you brought this up.
You brought this up opportunity.
I just want to make it really clear that I do believe that we're also on the ISS.
Cool, I don't think all of it is fake, guys.
But I don't think any of it is.
Well, okay, but again, that I'm just trying to make that point that he talked about one thing being fake and then never trusting them again.
You're telling me they've never faked any footage.
Well, there's two different points to that one, we're not NASA, and two, let me run a thought experiment.
I have a 066 either.
Right.
Again, I'm going back to the point that he's making that if somebody fakes something and you think it's intentional, then you can know.
And I'm not, listen, I'm not an abused girlfriend, guys.
I get it.
Once I'm lied to, you're right.
It's hard to get my trust.
But sometimes liars present truth.
I mean, none of us are perfect.
Now, if you are maliciously trying, again, you guys think this guy's malicious.
I understand that.
But again, if NASA's faking footage on any level, which I think they have, But I understand why people think the same way you don't.
You understand.
I understand why you wouldn't ever trust anything from Crow.
Is that kind of clear?
Go ahead.
Okay.
I want to run a thought experiment.
Okay.
I have a door that goes to my hallway.
If I have a camera filming me walking through that door, okay, you would say that that's real.
You have no reason to believe I don't have a place to stay in a door in the hallway and that kind of thing.
All that's real.
Now, let's say I clip the videos and I do a fade as I'm transitioning through the door because I want to merge two clips together.
But the way I merged it and at the time point that the fade effect went into, well, Effect in the edit, it looks like I was fading out.
But since the scenery is exactly the same, the scenery would be the same between the two fades.
The only thing different is me walking through the door.
Does that mean that in actuality, I actually didn't walk through that door?
Or does that mean that I just had a really piss poor position on the fade transition?
Well, it means you're editing something.
Yeah, yeah, I'm editing a transition.
I told you what I'm editing.
I understand.
But the edit of the transition, but a transition itself doesn't screen fakery.
Well, furthermore, the fact that it was edited, we know exactly what edited video that comes from.
It was a video called Life in Space, and it was not presented as raw, unedited footage.
It was a highlights reel.
Someone took that highlights reel, clipped out that transition, and tried to pretend to present it as if it had been unedited footage and that NASA was lying.
And you just presented that point to us as evidence that NASA is lying.
You were the one that was lied to by the person who was trying to tell you that NASA was fake.
I would also point to other footage where it really seems like the guy grabs the guy's line right next to him and adjusts him.
You mean the STS 135 footage where he grabs the guy's pocket?
I know these footage.
I know these clips.
Yes.
You're telling me that that doesn't look like he's on some kind of a line.
Not even close.
No, not at all.
Not even a little.
You think all footage from the ISS.
They've never faked any of it.
There's no evidence to indicate that they ever did.
None.
All right.
I remember the, like, do you remember the green screen fiasco?
You had the one astronaut from ESA that was standing, well, not a green screen, it was a blue screen with the, with the, where they're going through with George Bush and he's in the wheelchair.
Yes.
I know exactly what you're talking about.
Yeah.
That one, they said that that was, you know, a thing where it's like, oh, they accidentally revealed that a, Piece of footage where they forgot to turn on the chroma key, not understanding that.
If you know, I get it.
If you put a grid pattern on the chroma key, you're gonna up the chroma key again.
Oh, it's listen, I've done a lot of chroma work and you can work around it with high end software depending on what you're shooting with.
Yeah, but why would you add that level of complexity?
I get it.
I don't think that that shot was like them faking stuff on the ISS.
I think they were shooting for some kind of a documentary, etc. etc.
I don't think they fake everything, guys.
I think they fake some things if they have no reason.
If they have the capability of doing it for real, one would have to ask the question, then what would be the purpose of faking it if they had the capability of doing it for real?
I don't have every answer and I don't think I have an answer.
There is no answer to that question because any answer would be nonsensical.
If you have the capability of doing it for real, why would you fake it when you could just do the real thing?
It's like, what if we faked the footage of the fake moon landing on the moon?
It's like, why would you?
What?
But that's literally what the conspiracy guys are saying.
They're saying something similar like that, and it's just as idiotic.
Physical Impossibility Debate00:06:06
I would totally disagree.
First of all, that's not what I'm saying.
I think that you can fake things and have real things, and whether that's to confuse or to control a situation, et cetera.
I showed you these videos.
I mean, some of my favorite footage is John Glenn as an old man going up there and working out in his 60s.
Like, I think that's 100% real.
Anytime I hear from somebody that they don't believe that the ISS exists or that they're going up there, I totally disagree with them.
I say, no, I think that's really happening, and I think they have a long time period of doing that.
We kind of went off.
So let me just ask this question Given what Astronomy Live said about Artemis 2, are you saying that given everything that was shown, given the work that he did, the way he was able to verify it, the I would say the physical impossibility that the orbits can be shifted so wiki wonky to fool the masses on Earth with access to high power telescopes.
Despite all of that, you're saying it's a physical impossibility.
I'm not saying it's a physical impossibility.
So, okay, barring technology that may or may not break the laws of physics, you're not really going to be convinced by anything Astronomy Live has shown you here today.
That's not true.
I'm totally convinced he tracks something that he's doing.
I mean, in terms of Artemis, not that he's being honest.
I think that there are just too many gaps to convince me.
I think that I'm glad that you have independent entities and I hope universities, observatories.
I hope that we get even more of this stuff.
I need things to be checked.
So, what would it take to convince you?
Let me ask you this Does our government lie to us?
Yeah, but are they lying to us about this?
That's a great question.
I think they are.
I mean, okay, you can say I'm just saying once you have a government that's lied to you about so much, I take everything with a heavy, heavy grain of salt.
And from you guys' own admission, I don't want to go into the government.
Hold on, hold on.
I shouldn't believe anything they have to say because they have maliciously lied about things that have killed people.
Okay.
I independently tracked the mission.
Yeah, we're not the government.
You suddenly tracked a lot of it, right?
But you tracked it.
Hold on.
You admit, let me just see if I can get this admission from you.
It is impossible to visually track this thing start to finish in an amateur capacity unless you had what?
Would you need hundreds of satellites across the earth?
Okay, so simultaneously we're doing it.
So, something I heard you say before we ever had this discussion today was that you understood there would be gaps where.
And amateurs are going to lose it, but you wanted to see tracking of the mission start to finish to the extent that amateurs can provide it.
Absolutely.
Hold on.
I said that in the sense that obviously, because the flat earthers came at me, that obviously the earth is round and that you're going to need people on both sides of the hemispheres in order to do this, right?
That was my position, and that you would lose it for small periods of time.
I was asking again.
If there's this, and obviously there isn't.
I mean, there are guys like you and there are a few others, but there doesn't seem to be this working group to try to keep it, you know, as visually tracked as possible.
And I know the ham radio stuff is out there and the transponder stuff, and I'm also skeptical of that only because of what commercial equipment you can get.
For instance, you know, most of them go, what, 10 miles?
If you've got the good ones, you can go 100.
I've got a dish out back there.
Hold on.
If you've got the dish, you can get to 4,000.
I again, oh, I've gone a lot further than 4,000 with ham radio with a dinky little antenna.
I've got a drawer back there.
You've got more than 4,000.
Well, I guess my information is wrong.
I thought that 4,000 was kind of the cap on these transponders.
No, no, I've received direct transmissions from a geostationary weather satellite with a dish and a little dinky receiver feed.
But is that UHF and VHF waves that hammer?
Is that something that's well, I would, I'm just trying to understand the communications technology, Reds.
Which is what you're using for the?
It's in the gigahertz range, okay?
And so I'm receiving the transmission directly, line of sight, from the geostationary weather satellite that's like, you know, 36, whatever, thousand kilometers in altitude.
It's a lot further than 4,000.
Sure.
And I'm receiving the data from that satellite a lot.
With ham radio equipment?
Yeah.
It's an RTL SDR.
It's just a little USB dongle I plug in the computer.
Okay.
So, and there were guys doing this kind of thing with Artemis 2.
Save it for parts channel.
I'll recommend him.
Gabe, he was tracking it and receiving data from it with just what he had laying around.
Like he wasn't, it's not like he set up for years to try to get ready for that.
And there's other guys who did, who really made a lot of dedicated effort to try to not only receive the signal, but even measure its velocity from the Doppler shift of it and look at the trajectory correction movers.
So, Scott Tilly, he's done a lot of great work.
He was, in fact, he was invited by NASA to track it as an amateur.
They wanted his data.
To see how much, uh, how good the quality of data is they can get from an amateur station, so that potentially in the future they can hire out amateur guys to try to do some of the ranging data too.
Would be easier, yeah.
It would be much easier for them to do it that way.
And plus, I would just want to make this clear that the reason why they would want to reach out and contract and pay us to do this because we're not already on their payroll.
So, we being amateurs, we being independent means that you can.
Distrust the government.
Occam's Razor Application00:05:04
You can see that the government lies, cheats, and steals, and all this stuff, but we are independent.
We are not under their control.
We're going to observe what we observe.
We're going to measure what we're going to measure.
And then we can take our measurements.
We can take our own data and see, okay, given all of this, what should we expect to see?
I'm going to check later to see if it actually happens.
And what Astronomy Life has shown here is that it actually happened.
Let me see if I can get an admission from Jason here, because the base point of contention I had with your original clip where you showed my video.
Was that there was no way to verify or validate what I was seeing?
Now, you may disagree at the end of the day on what was actually going on there, and if there was some chicanery in the gaps between my observation periods, fine, we can argue about that all day long.
But will you at least admit that there's actually a ton of things you can learn from my data?
And actually, it does point to it.
Listen, I think you guys got me wrong.
I think there's a chance they actually did it.
Okay, okay.
That's all I wanted.
I just wanted to see if we can get that far.
I'm just high.
I don't lean towards that.
I want to make that extremely clear.
But I'm actually searching out the data.
I'm not being sarcastic when I'm telling you I'm glad there are guys like you doing these things.
I want more of this independence because obviously I don't trust the government, right?
I'm just saying there are huge gaps.
I'm not going to sit here and tell you I understand.
That's why I was stopping you when you were talking about parallaxes and what kind of footage, et cetera.
I again remain extremely skeptical just on the technology basis of where we are in the United States compared to everybody else and where we were so many years ago.
How this technology really, if you do look at Apollo, hasn't improved much, right?
What the rockets, maybe about 15% less fuel, something like that.
I think they were getting like, it was like 360 down to 320.
So there was, you know, some revisions in the Saturn V as to what we were just using, but not like, 70 years, in my opinion.
And I understand the funding and all these other excuses, et cetera.
I mean, obviously, you guys can tell that I'm going to remain skeptical, but I want to say right now, I don't 100% know what happened on either one, whether it fully happened or it didn't.
Okay.
I'm looking for the compelling evidence on both sides.
And, you know, in this arena of space, I think there are a lot of national security aspects.
And when you're talking about my government, you're talking about national security.
And, you know, like I have, I don't know if you guys have read Andy Jacobson's work.
You know, Area 51, those type of testings, but a lot of that was way outside of the public purview and still is.
You know, I don't necessarily think you know the stealth bombers that we're seeing are the height of the technology we have in aerospace that were rolled out basically to the public in the 90s.
But if you look, I mean, you can see remnants of it all the way back with the flying wing and the Horton brothers post World War II.
So, look, you know, I'm you know, I get you guys get contentious and like people are.
Constantly arguing and they're shit posting everywhere, and maybe there's some bad actors.
I just want to let you guys know I'm not a bad actor.
I want to see what's actually going on.
I would love to believe that we're going to the moon and we're going to Mars and all these other things.
I mean, on the Mars thing, color me fucking, excuse me, really skeptical.
We don't care about cussing here.
Well, again, I'm not trying to make it into that kind of a show, guys.
I'm just telling you, look, I think there's a possibility this happened.
I wouldn't have come on the show otherwise.
I'm not Donnie DeBunker on everything.
I'm just looking at some of the baseline arguments on both sides.
I think traveling that type of distance, again, in an object that's a little over 300 square feet.
And again, with all these unknowns that other nation states and other entities just haven't figured out, I don't know that you're going to convince me.
Yeah, I got one question, if I may.
And then after that, I'll let Astronomy Life go.
Given the information that Astronomy Live has, given the information that Astronomy Live was able to independently collect and work with and make the video that he ended up making, looking at it from his perspective, if Astronomy Live were to consult Occam's Razor, where do you think he should go?
Consult Occam's Razor?
Man, that's a good question.
I guess, you know, I think again, Occam's Razor would be dependent on which questions you're asking, right?
Because obviously, I think he is independently tracking something.
Apollo Program Comparison00:06:42
I think that he has the best of intentions.
But again, if I have a scratch off and I scratch it off and it's $500, it's a lot different than it's a quarter million dollars.
If a shark, if a shark is.
If Asami Live is of the opinion that his information is aligning very, very well with the Artemis 2 mission profile, would you say that he is in any way, shape, or form violating Occam's Razor by holding that?
No, I think he's trying to do God's honest work.
I don't think he's nefarious at all.
I don't think that he's trying to manipulate the data.
I mean, I think he's giving it an honest effort.
On astronomy life, go ahead.
So, one thing I want to point out about the Apollo program and the moon race back then is you know, the Soviets were trying to get to the moon.
They were trying to develop their N1 rocket to launch their crews to the moon.
It never launched successfully, it never even got into orbit successfully.
And that was the key distinction between the Soviet space program and the US space program at that time.
The Saturn V got the crews to the moon, and that was the most powerful rocket of its time that actually worked.
After the Saturn V was retired, we had this guy behind me, the space shuttle, which was.
Only designed for and only capable of sending crews to low Earth orbit.
And we were content with that for many, many years.
Whether that's right or wrong is a discussion for historians, but that's what ended up happening.
Now we have the SLS rocket, which is capable of sending crews to the moon again.
It's a super heavy lift vehicle similar to the Saturn V. In fact, it has even more thrust than the Saturn V. And it's using shuttle drive parts, but in a very different configuration.
One of the key differences there is the mass of the payload of the vehicle itself.
The space shuttle, the actual orbiter, was a very heavy, very large vehicle.
Versus the Orion capsule, which is a whole lot smaller.
And so you can throw it a lot further, especially when you add an extra SRB segment and an extra spatial main engine on the bottom.
So, yeah, it's completely expected that given the performance of that rocket, we can actually send crews to the moon.
And we haven't had that rocket until now, essentially.
So that's why we're able to send crews to the moon.
We're able to do that now, obviously, in an environment with much more advanced computers and camera technology, so we can receive back HD photos during the mission.
At far higher quality than was ever possible during the Apollo program.
And yeah, the solar array wing cameras, it was streaming back at low quality, but we were getting high resolution downloads of the actual still photos coming from the Nikon cameras that the astronauts were shooting from.
Back during the Apollo program, of course, things were much more limited, but then again, so was their ability to fake it.
And if you look at independent tracking back then, they were doing it too.
Amateurs were doing it back then too.
You had Larry Basinger, who was receiving radio transmissions very marginally, but he was getting.
Audio from the moon from the astronauts' transmissions from their suits that was trying to transmit back, and he was picking that up with a big old antenna he had in his yard.
So that was, you know, independent confirmation of the Apollo program that's very hard to explain unless they were actually going to the moon and putting boots on the moon.
Now, this was just a flyby mission, but because of its nature, because it was a free return trajectory and they were doing correct trajectory correction maneuvers, but That is relatively minor, and they didn't have the delta V needed to change the orbital plane, change the inclination by a big amount.
And so it was showing me that it launched from Florida, it went out to the moon, it came back, it reentered over the Pacific at the time that there was supposed to be a reentry over the Pacific.
If they were trying to bring a crew back from low Earth orbit in the same spot, I put it to you that that is extraordinarily dangerous and deadly, and also would create a problem because you would see not one, but two reentry trails.
Coming in at very different velocities on the satellite, one from a slower lower Earth orbit, one from a much faster cislunar trajectory.
But if you look at the weather satellite data, we actually see the reentry trajectory of Artemis 2, and it's coming in at the expected velocity from cislunar space.
So I would say that all the evidence is pointing to this mission having taken place as NASA described.
And to the best of my ability, I verified that.
Now you're welcome to continue to have your doubts.
But I would put it to you that your statement initially from before we had this discussion, that there's no way to validate what I did or that what I did was Artemis II, I would put it to you that statement is false and that there's actually a ton of validation.
Now, you may disagree with the conclusion or you may still have lingering doubts, but you can't deny that there is a ton of evidence pointing to the fact that this was Artemis II.
Well, again, I think there's a difference between what type of evidence you say is pointing to an absolute validation.
Right.
I mean, again, I think there are gaps in the data.
You keep talking about two re entries.
I'm not necessarily saying that the other one would even re enter.
Who knows?
Maybe that object ends up getting destroyed.
Again, I'm of the belief of separate types of weapons and propulsion systems.
You guys don't seem to be of that belief.
I don't want to get too far off the topic, but I also kind of wonder what your views on quote unquote UFOs or UAPs or aliens and those types of things are, because I, you know, I haven't seen the evidence there.
Instead, the evidence that I've seen is that we've been messing around with different types of craft propulsion systems to varying degrees of success.
I mean, but again, that gets off our topic.
I don't think that either one of us is going to be happy with the ending on this because I'm certainly not going to admit that I think I'm totally out of left field being a skeptic here and that I've totally been convinced.
But again, I think that there was and still is the possibility that it did happen.
And one last question before we go to super chats, if we can.
The last question I have is what evidence would be sufficient for you?
Yeah, I think that if you did get a group of observatories together that had high power telescopes that could have a continuous, and I understand that there would be some gaps, but live stream of the event at the highest possible quality, I think that that would definitely be.
Sufficient Proof Criteria00:07:11
Put me in the realm of leaning much further into it absolutely being a reality.
All right, let's go to super chats real quick.
Tori Hanzo for 269 sex.
It was thanks for doing this, heart emoji.
Thank you, heart you too.
Max for 30 uwus, whatever currency that is.
Would you kindly let the guest know he's a flurf?
Would you like to respond to that, Jason?
Know, I've been doing this a very long time, and back in the day when people would try to discredit my work, say on 9 11, I'd get a lot of lizard people things.
Oh, you believe in shape shifting Anunnaki lizard people, somewhere in like the 2010s, it shifted from lizard people to flat earther, and somehow that became popular.
I just want to let everybody know I've also watched all the flat earth documentaries and I've seen the arguments, etc., and none, you know, the ice wall, Admiral Byrd, you name it.
They've never been convincing to me.
I can tell you right now, again, as a kid that wanted to go to space camp, you know, I'm 46 years young.
I'm very much of the Challenger explode.
I'm not a flat earther.
I hate to disappoint all those that would love to put me in that box.
But you can go, I've had the YouTube channel since 2007.
There's literally over 3,000 videos on there.
I don't think I had to mention flat earth once, probably in the first thousand or so.
But when that became popular, If you can find me endorsing it or going, yeah, the earth, go for it.
Not a real thing.
All right.
Unfornicated for $2 says, thousands have done earth, moon, I'm sorry, earth, moon, earth bounce with ham EQPTs.
I'm not sure what that acronym is.
Astronomy Life, quick question.
EQPT, do you know what that is?
I'd have to look it up.
I don't know.
I know what earth, moon, earth bounce is, but I haven't done it yet myself.
Yeah, that's when they send the radio waves back and forth to measure the.
I helped someone do it one time, but I want to eventually do it with my own equipment.
So, hopefully, I'll get there.
Okay.
So, thousands have done Earth, Moon, Earth bounce with HAM EQPT, or I guess it's just short for it.
Oh, it just says equipment.
Okay.
Just type out equipment then, please.
Thank you.
Anyway, so I guess thousands have done it before.
Jason, your response.
I'm not, I'm not, guys, am I saying the moon doesn't exist or that it's a hologram or that you can't bounce radio waves off of it?
I'm not saying any of those things at all.
I mean, again, my skepticism.
You know, rides on these human travels.
I mean, you look at the first Apollo mission where they just circled the moon, literally, what was it, Christmas Eve?
And they're giving a hymn off of it where you see video outside of the thing.
Yeah, I'm skeptical.
All right.
Icy Spin for $1.99 says, Why didn't you watch Full Context of Early Thumb Up?
And that also has a thumb up.
I guess that is in reference to the video that you showed of the astronaut giving the thumb up when they were talking over mission control or whatever.
So I guess there was quote unquote full context missing.
Was that just a Clip that you got, or did you actually see the full unedited clip that wasn't placed into a meme?
No, haven't seen the full clip fully.
Admit that, uh, that's why I couldn't timestamp it.
Um, that's why I only played that one because I've seen some other clips out there that I did go back and found the original footage and it wasn't what it showed.
I understand people fake things, like I said, it doesn't seem to me that one has been faked.
I've been, I've seen no context of that one, I've seen that one be very hard to find amongst a bunch of the other stuff that is fake.
If that's fake.
If they move the audio up, any of it, please tell me.
I am, again, I don't like spreading fake things.
That looks like actual documented evidence.
And again, even if it is, you know, as Astronomy Live stated, he's still skeptical that that would be a problem.
All right.
Unfornicated for $10 says he doesn't trust radio because he has never used it.
He is basically saying, I'm ignorant.
Therefore, I'm skeptical and won't ask anyone.
He should look into Bassinger and Up.
Apollo, was that the one that you brought up, Astronomy Life?
Yeah, Larry Basinger.
Okay.
Jason, your response.
Yeah, my response is I have looked into that evidence.
And again, these transponders that you're getting information from, they could be from satellites and other things outside.
For instance, they're telling you Artemis had a tracker, just like Apollo's had trackers.
I would say that there are large scale manipulation tools that are able.
To utilize those types of transmissions.
That's why I was talking about UHF, VHF.
He's talking about gigahertz range.
I'm not saying that the science doesn't exist and that you can't glean real data.
I'm saying that real data can also be manipulated.
That's all.
All right.
Bart for 25 Poland dollars, I believe.
PLN, I think that's Poland.
Verifying whether NASA is lying by watching conspiracy theories on TikTok sounds like a great idea.
Disappointing face emoji.
Guys, just all right.
So, for instance, that video, I hate emojis.
I'm an adult.
I use an emoji with one girlfriend when they first came out, literally 15 years ago.
I make fun of people that do emojis.
I did have this too.
I could have gone into the zoomed in one, but I wanted the more full blast one.
Again, guys, I'm working on a documentary.
Like, I have other things to do.
I can only put so much time into it.
I knew I should have found the damn raw footage for everybody.
I apologize.
The emoji criticism is great.
And just so you know, I don't have a TikTok.
Again, I'm not a 14 year old girl doing dance videos.
I've never had a TikTok.
The only reason I have an Instagram, which I think there are like two posts on, is because I used to run a bar.
Believe it or not, my social media intake is pretty low.
All right.
Icy Spin for $1.99 says, What positive evidence do you have the all was fake?
I think there was some mistyping going on there, but I'll read it one more time.
What positive evidence do you have the all was fake?
Or let me see if I can parse that out.
Do you have any evidence to suggest that all of the footage from Artemis was fake or that some of it was fake?
Social Media Clarifications00:03:53
Or what can you point to to suggest that?
Artemis was not legitimate with their internal shots of the astronauts and stuff like that.
I didn't say it was fake.
I've never said that stuff.
I just said I don't necessarily believe that they're on their way to the moon.
I mean, these are the kind of arguments that they kind of get into it.
When I was talking about, do I believe that certain ISS footage was faked?
Again, I've seen videos that, yeah, it makes me look like they're shooting this somewhere else.
By the way, of course, NASA has an ISS.
In fact, I've watched Reed's last name, Mike Weissman.
I've watched Weissman actually on NASA TV do a full tour.
Of the ISS that's on the base there.
Maybe Astronomy Live has seen the same video, but it's like a 15 minute guided tour.
Now, obviously, you know, this is in the research facility and they can't get it into a state of zero gravity, et cetera.
You'd have to be on the Vomit Comet or maybe something else at this point to do that.
I don't think they faked anything.
Like I said, I just don't necessarily think that they were in the region they said they were.
And I'm not even saying they weren't.
I think, again, You know, people have this idea that I'm playing indefinites on this one.
I'm not.
I'm just a resident skeptic.
Awesome.
And just a word for the live chat.
If you, apparently it was A and two uppercase I's.
Yeah, Artemis 2.
If it comes together and looks like a different word, all, which is a very common word in the English language, you can straight up go fuck yourself with that.
All right.
Thank you.
Moving on.
ILA for $9.99.
The reason that Russia can't launch people to the moon is because their engineers earn $850 a month while its former administrator has yachts.
All right.
So let me just kind of.
So apparently they're saying that Russia is a shithole.
So there's your answer.
Let me challenge that statement just for a moment.
Okay.
It's probably been a little bit more than a decade now.
Maybe not.
Maybe it was back in 2017.
But before we commissioned this new revamp of NASA into SpaceX, And, you know, the Musker Duts as a hero and everybody going up in the ISS at SpaceX.
We were launching our astronauts with Russia from Kazakhstan.
So, again, they were on the level to bring those astronauts up to the ISS and we were partnering with them.
And, you know, she mentioned the chief space guy over at NASA.
He was getting, or not NASA, Russia's space station.
He was getting in fights.
Do you want to talk about online drama with Musk?
Remember where they were all talking about.
Nukes in space.
Yeah, Rogozin was a Rogozin.
He was a.
Yeah, yeah.
Well, I'm just saying that that guy was going back and forth with Musk when Musk was challenging Putin to one on one hand combat.
And then Rogozin was talking about weaponized space and Russia having weapons in space.
And I believe that, just like I believe we have weapons in space.
And I think that we have an agreement with them, obviously, in certain aspects, or we wouldn't be on the ISS together.
So the whole idea that they just have shitty technology.
That just doesn't fly with me, or they're not funding it in the right manner.
Putin's not a dummy, and the people surrounding him are not dummies.
And you know, they have a first world military now.
Do they have a you know, again, uh, Rogozin?
I think he also said something like uh, DARPA got brought up, and he said Russia's DARPA is even better.
I'm not saying that, I'm not saying it's better or worse, uh, I'm saying it's there, and it's certainly in the competitive arena.
All right.
And Unfornicated for $5.
Last super chat.
Contradictory Evidence Review00:05:35
He claimed ham distance on 400 or 4,000 kilometers for ham radio.
Miles.
What distance is the moon again?
They say about 238, but it changes, obviously.
It's under 250.
Yeah.
So it's quite a while.
Yeah.
So there and back, it would be longer than 4,000 kilometers or miles.
Pick your measurement.
I don't care.
Metric, imperial, whatever.
So basically, With ham radio and stuff like that, are you still under the impression that it is as limited as you previously thought it was?
I believe the 4,000 number came up.
Do you still believe that?
Well, I guess I'd have to look.
I mean, he's talking about USB sticks and different types of things.
All I'm saying is that when I looked into it, I saw the commercial gear that the enthusiasts have is like 10 miles.
I saw that the more, you know, More than commercial gear, the expensive stuff was like a hundred, but then you had these transponder stations.
Look, it said that they could travel globally with these transponder stations of 4,000 miles, right?
Um, I don't know enough about the technology to say one way or another.
I don't think Astronomy Live is lying to me that he can, you know, hook up a dongle and do that if that's the question, yeah.
And uh, so that is all the super chats and the only ones that we are going to read.
So, guys, I love you, but.
Don't send me any more money because you will be wasting your money.
And I would prefer that you keep your money.
Money is nice to have.
Astronomy Live, I'm going to allow you to say your final say.
And then, Jason, I'll give you the last word since you are a guest here.
Astronomy Live, the floor is yours.
All right.
Thank you.
I mean, I think we've kind of gone over in circles at this point the topic.
I don't think there's much more to say.
Obviously, we have a difference of opinion here about what the evidence points to.
And I'd just like to say, like, Science doesn't work on absolute proofs.
Science works on evidence, and proofs are for mathematics.
So In terms of what the evidence shows, in terms of where the spacecraft was, I've got tracking of it, obviously, launch.
We were there.
I got tracking of it that night before it went to the TLI burn, before they did the TLI burn and sent it out to the moon.
I've got it tracking, you know, I tracked it after the TLI burn, all the way out to the moon and back.
And it shows a consistent orbit that is only changing in as much as occasionally they're doing a trajectory correction maneuver.
But, like, for example, those first two days, April 4th and 5th, they hadn't done any correction maneuvers.
And the orbit lines up, the observations all line up neatly with each other.
I disagree that we have the kind of propulsion technology that could somehow cause them to, I don't know, change orbit completely from that point.
They have a limited amount of fuel.
They can't really change their inclination very much until they get out to a high distance.
But there's room there for difference of opinion.
Opinion, but the difference of opinion part stops at this, and that is that there is undeniably a ton of evidence that I've collected here, and that this evidence points to it being Artemis II.
I have yet to see contradictory evidence that would suggest it's something else.
I have yet to see even a shred of evidence that there was chicanery going on.
And ultimately, the evidence points to whatever that was launched from Florida and it came back to the Pacific Ocean and re entered over the Pacific.
Now, if you fire a missile at it and blow it up, well, then you're going to have a bunch of pieces hitting the Pacific Ocean.
But Either way, this shows that something launched from Florida, went out to the moon, came back, and reentered over the Pacific.
And I don't expect to change Jason's mind on this, but I would just ask that in the future, if he does reference my work, please at least have the.
Well, I'm not going to say he's been dishonest here, but I'm just saying I think any honest takeaway from this is that, yeah, I did collect a ton of evidence.
You might disagree about my conclusions, but there's no denying there's a ton of evidence there.
And it points to being Artemis too, but I'm open to receiving contradictory evidence because that's how science works.
It works on looking at where the evidence is pointing and always being open to new evidence.
I'm open to new evidence.
But, and this is important, there has been a ton of disinformation here coming from bad actors.
There's been a ton of AI slop.
I'm sure Jason would agree with me.
There's been a ton of AI slop surrounding Artemis 2 that didn't come from NASA.
And I would like to know more about where that's actually coming from because it feels coordinated to me in terms of the sheer volume of it that's flooded X in the last week of fake videos of the splashdown that aren't real.
They're just AI generated.
And they don't look like the actual capsule.
I mean, it takes a cursory look to realize it's AI generated, right?
That kind of source, that kind of material coming from those kinds of sources, has to be taken with extreme skepticism.
But I am open to receiving contradictory evidence or evidence that would better explain my data.
So far, I haven't seen it.
The best explanation I have for my data is that that was Artemis 2.
It launched from Florida, it went around the moon, and it came back.
All right.
Independent Honesty Statement00:02:19
Jason, you get the last word.
I will just say that both of you have repeatedly mispronounced Twitter.
So just Keep that in mind anyway.
Uh, please go ahead with your final uh, final set, bro.
It's X. Uh, look, let me let me just say this.
Uh, first and foremost, I agree with him on science, right?
Like, whenever I'm hearing trust the science or this other thing, science is an ever evolving subject matter, uh, based in nature, uh, being able to present your hypothesis and again and again and again and again, coming up with the same results in a controlled environment.
So, look, I appreciate that.
I was never Intended to be malicious about anybody's work, you know.
Again, somebody in my chat posted a video of, Hey, this guy's actually doing it.
I wanted to acknowledge it, I didn't know it was going to lead to this debate.
Uh, because again, I am about acknowledging people actually putting in the work, which I believe this guy is doing.
I want to make that a thousand percent clear.
Yeah, I think that we have a different opinion of where we are technologically, um, and whether or not we're dealing with quote unquote honest actors on a global scale, whether that be NASA, SpaceX.
The government, et cetera.
I think that these independents are acting in an honest manner.
And I am totally open still to this thing being real and that they actually did this.
I'm very doubtful of it.
I think I've explained my positions over and over again here.
But, you know, I appreciate the forum.
Again, I think that civil conversation is really important.
And you can't have a free society or, or, One where you can actually truly change somebody's mind, which we should actually be trying to do, right?
We should all be able to present our arguments without conversations like this.
So I appreciate it.
All right.
And to finish off, Jason, I request that you send over the links to all of your socials to Astronomy Live.
I will place them in the description down below.
So if people wish to check you out, they can do so.
Again, that will be listed in the description of the video.
Like, share, subscribe, all that good stuff, that kind of thing.