Dr Ferdinand Santos III - not his real name - is a Canadian physicist with numerous university degrees, who writes about ‘scientism’ or the corruption of science by philosophy and materialism. Here he explains to James how the moon landings were obviously fake because they were impossible to achieve. And the Soviets were in on it because most of their space endeavours - especially Yuri Gagarin’s - were fake too. https://unstabbinated.substack.com↓ ↓ ↓Monetary Metals is providing a true alternative to saving and earning in dollars by making it possible to save AND EARN in gold and silver.Monetary Metals has been paying interest on gold and silver for over 8 years.Right now, accredited investors can earn 12% annual interest on silver, paid in silver in their latest silver bond offering. For example, if you have 1,000 ounces of silver in the deal, you receive 120 ounces of silver interest paid to your account in the first year.Go to the link in the description or head to https://monetary-metals.com/delingpole/ to learn more about how to participate and start earning a return on honest money again with Monetary Metals.↓ ↓ How environmentalists are killing the planet, destroying the economy and stealing your children’s future.
In Watermelons, an updated edition of his ground-breaking 2011 book, JD tells the shocking true story of how a handful of political activists, green campaigners, voodoo scientists and psychopathic billionaires teamed up to invent a fake crisis called ‘global warming’.This updated edition includes two new chapters which, like a geo-engineered flood, pour cold water on some of the original’s sunny optimism and provide new insights into the diabolical nature of the climate alarmists’ sinister master plan.Purchase Watermelons by James Delingpole here: https://jamesdelingpole.co.uk/Shop/↓ ↓ ↓
Buy James a Coffee at:https://www.buymeacoffee.com/jamesdelingpole
The official website of James Delingpole:https://jamesdelingpole.co.uk
x
Welcome to the Dellingpod with me, James Dellingpole.
And I know I always say I'm excited about this week's special guest, but before we meet him, let's have a word from one of our sponsors.
Gold and silver.
They've been going like rockets recently, especially gold.
I think silver will follow.
But I'm no expert.
What do I know?
I just know that I've got some gold and I've got some silver and I'm very happy to have some.
There are two ways of owning it.
Either you can buy physical gold in the form of gold and silver bullion or in the form of coins, or you can take the monetary metals option.
Monetary metals is a company.
I've had the CEO Keith Weiner on the podcast twice to explain how it all works.
It's a way of owning physical gold and silver, but you get paid interest on your holding.
Now, this is different.
When you hold gold in a vault, you have to pay a fee, a management fee.
But if you buy gold and silver through monetary metals, you get paid interest.
So you don't have to pay storage charges.
You're actually earning income on your gold, which is paid in the form of more gold and silver.
It sounds like it doesn't make any sense, but actually it works because the jewelry industry pays money to monetary metals, which enables it to pay you interest on your gold.
It does work.
So if you want to buy gold and silver through monetary metals, you go to monetary metals, monetary-metals.com forward slash dellingpole.
You can find out more about it.
Monetary-metals.com forward slash dellingpole.
You can earn up to 4% in their leasing program immediately after funding your account.
You can even earn higher yields if you are an accredited investor via their bond offerings.
They let you earn income on their ounces paid in more ounces of physical gold.
The interest you earn is paid in ounces of physical gold or silver, which you get in addition to any prices at appreciation from gold and silver during the year.
Join thousands of investors earning interest in physical gold and silver every month with monetary metals.
Visit monetary-metals.com forward slash dellingpole to earn more.
Welcome to the Dellingpod, Dr. Ferdinand Santos III.
Thank you, James.
What's your real name?
It's a pseudonym, actually.
So I hide my identity for various reasons.
I'm not as brave as you are, James.
You and I agree on many issues, I think, and I did thoroughly enjoy your book, Watermelons, 2012.
It sits in my library and my bookshelf, and it's a must-read for people.
Very prophetic.
Oh, well, thank you.
Yeah.
I don't think I was particularly honored in my own country with that.
Going Back to Liftoff00:15:57
No, you aren't.
No, you're vilified.
So that's why I write under pseudonym.
So I've written about the religion of peace called Islam, which it's not very extensively about.
And I've spent 20 years studying it.
So I'm going to just give you a quick rundown of my background, just so put things in context.
So I have doctors in physics, science, also computer science and AI.
And I do, and I have other degrees, five or six degrees for some reason.
Some of them useful, many of them not.
But it's not the degrees that are important.
It's not that education.
What it does is it gives you a framework of thinking and maybe analyzing subject matter.
So, what I've done with my degrees and experience, I work in IT and software and cloud computing and AI, but I also do some teaching on the side of science and physics.
So, I'm a bipolar personality.
And right now, we live in the UK.
I lived in the States and Canada.
I'm not American, by the way, but I've lived in Canada.
I could tell by the you said a boot.
That means you're Canadian.
That's right.
Very good.
Very perceptive.
Very perceptive.
So you're right on.
So that's right.
And I've worked in places like Russia.
I've worked in the Ukraine.
So I just have a different viewpoint of people.
Like yourself, I'm a skeptic.
I'm very skeptical of authority.
I'm more of a George Stevenson type of person.
So I build things.
I build IT.
I build systems.
I do teaching.
I do experimentation.
So George Stevenson is just, obviously, you know all about George probably James, but that's more of my mentality.
The reality is that you're going to be able to do that.
You mean the guy who did the rocket?
No, that's James Stevenson.
Yeah, the rocket.
Yeah.
He's just an amazing character.
And he's uneducated.
He's illiterate.
He's poor.
He's born.
I went to, I visited a place where he was born near Newcastle.
Eight people in one room.
So he was just let's get it done type of guy.
That's more or less what I am.
I don't have a lot of time for abstract philosophies usually.
And this is where I started talking.
I've been writing about science and scientism, kind of the corruption of science.
And also, I've written a lot with AI.
There's good and bad about AI.
I tend to like AI, but there's limits to what it can do.
But on the science side, and looking at the claims by the science, and I've taught this as well and performed experiments, a lot of it's rubbish.
A lot of it's philosophy.
And you see this with your book on watermelons, the climate alarmism.
There's no science there.
It's devoid of any actual science, right?
So this is how I got writing a blog.
I started to investigate the background around NASA.
So I was a true believer in moon landings when I was young.
I just accepted it.
I accepted the technology at face value.
But as I became trained in science and trained in technology, I went back and had, I spent many years having a look at it.
And what I found was unpleasant.
It's just an onion, layer, it's a massive giant onion with layers of lies.
And there might be a kernel of truth somewhere in the middle, in the center somewhere.
But it's not what we've been told, the entire space program.
Go ahead.
When I was growing up, I had you could collect souvenir editions of the moon landings from petrol stations.
And Shell Garage, I think it was, did this collectible sort of folder thing that you had these coins that you could collect with shiny pictures of astronauts and rockets and things.
And I collected all those.
And with hindsight, I think that was part of the part of the process of embedding it in the public consciousness so that get the kids on board so that not only the current generation, but future generations will also buy into this space rockets, we've been to the moon type thing.
When was the moment when you first started becoming skeptical about the moon landings?
Back in the 1990s, I saw a documentary.
I don't watch TV actually, so that's not a thing.
So like you, I don't have any time for the BBC or the CBC or the ABC or all the Alphabet Soup acronyms.
They're not news agencies, they're just propaganda lists.
And they have a lot of paid sponsors, so to speak, people that control them.
And so I used, but I did run it.
So at the time, I was a little bit younger, and there's a documentary, and someone said to me, a friend of mine said to me, You have to watch this.
It's about the moon landings.
And at that time, I like most people, I just accepted at face value.
The institutions wouldn't lie to me or to us.
And so I watched it and it was there, I think, on Fox, maybe some other channel.
And it really got me thinking.
So I discussed it with some of my friends who are also well-educated, well, supposedly well-educated, smart.
And they had no interest in even discussing with me.
So I presented to them some of the information from the documentary.
And it made sense to me that there was a problem with the narrative, but didn't make any sense to anybody else.
Everyone else just said, no, let's stop talking about talk about something else.
So then I started looking into it.
And I ran into guys like Bart Sebruel and I ran into some books that were written.
Some of them, some of them could have used a good edit, a good editor.
So in the 80s and 90s, by a few people.
And what they said made sense in terms of intuition.
So it wasn't necessarily the information they presented or even the logic of their arguments, but there's something that they said that had a grain of truth to it.
So I kept digging and digging and digging.
And I've read all sorts of, I don't know, hundreds of papers about it, as many books as I can find on it.
And of course, I've gone through the online libraries, including NASA's information and all of the so-called narrative or institutional information, including images and documents.
And then I started to apply my science background and my technology background to it.
So I came at it differently.
The photos kind of were the last piece of the puzzle to fall in.
I was looking more at the other things because I'm more interested, like George Stevenson, is how is a rocket?
How does that work in actual practice?
How do you get a payload off the launch pad?
And so I went back and sort of, yeah, so I went back and started looking at the history of the launch.
And so the 1950s and early 60s is nothing but disaster.
But suddenly, and this is when the light bulb started to turn on a little bit, the switch went on is 1961, suddenly it all changes and everything's happy and everything's working the first time.
So then I did some deep dives into how it all works.
How does the rocket in the capsule?
How does the launch turn into the journey, turn into the exit, turn back into the re-entry, turn into a landing, and all the complexity involved.
And where were we before 1961?
And it just doesn't add up.
So something happens in early 1961 with both the Soviets and the Americans.
And this is part of the fraud.
And the fraud is basically they staged most of what they did in the 1960s.
And that fraud, however, so I thought, okay, beyond the 60s, what's happened?
Let's go to Skyland, which also has some very interesting frauds.
And let's go into the shuttle program.
And the frauds still continue today.
So last April, 2025, Bezos company, Blue Origin, creates an absolute fraud of a flight with Katy Perry and all these plastic celebrities.
And it's such an obvious fraud that it's a cinematic edited film where they've taken simulations and they've added to it some film production to create the impression of a continuous journey.
And this is what the Apollo program did.
So I found out kind of by accident through some of my readings, well, the CIA Langley Center in Langley, Virginia, which is the CIA NASA training center, and all the simulations they had.
And it's just, it's one of the most astonishing engineering feats in the 1960s.
You could stage the entire Apollo program at Langley.
And you could easily convince people it's all true.
So everything from the launch to the landing, everything in between was simulated at Langley.
Everything was done there.
And there's overwhelming proof that they had the capability, the simulators.
So the command module simulator would simulate everything in the journey until the landing, which is simulated in the landing module.
Now, the landing module for Apollo 11, as you probably know, was a homeless shelter.
It looked like something I would build, my garage.
So there's no possibility that the landing module landed on the moon because it was technically impossible.
And I talk about this in my substack.
I go through all the details about why it's impossible.
But if you look at the technology involved and take that perspective to start with, which is what I did, you find out that there's these massive jumps.
It's like George Stevenson built the rocket in 1830.
And then, you know, 10 years later, George Stevenson has built a jet engine airliner.
So it's just too big of a jump.
It doesn't make sense, right?
There has to be steps involved.
So go ahead.
So basically, you're saying that up until 1961, the rockets were just blowing up on the launch pad and things like that.
Yeah, so the Americans can launch anything.
And some of that posts talk about it.
And you can find it on the internet.
It's actually quite comical, the cartoon attempts at a liftoff.
So payloads would lift off.
The rockets would explode or they go off maybe a mile or two, then drop.
And they tried to lift unmanned capsules.
So what the Americans are trying to do in the 50s and early 60s, up to 1961, is that the first step is let's get the rocket off the launch pad.
Second step is, okay, let's get an unmanned, remote-controlled capsule to do something.
Even that failed.
So this all changes in 1961.
So the Soviets had their own problems.
The Soviets' space technology was far ahead of the Americans.
The rocket technology was better.
All the technology involved in the liftoff and the management of the capsule is better.
The Russians could launch Sputnik, which is a satellite remotely controlled, etc.
So the Russians were far ahead of the Americans.
And so the Americans by 1961 are a little bit desperate.
So this is the era of John F. Kennedy.
So the Russians, for all their skill in space technology, had their own problems.
They had long lists of dead cosmonauts.
They had long lists of dead animals, cats, dogs, chimpanzees, whatever.
And ham operators in Europe in the late 50s and early 60s were picking up on the Russian frequency, pick up in Russian, cosmonauts screaming for help before they were incinerated, literally being roasted to death.
So it's unclear what the Russians were doing, the Soviets were doing.
Let's just call them Soviets or Russians because there is a big difference.
The Soviets were, it appears to be experimenting with people and animals, probably tossing up capsules with the rocket technology up to 400 or so miles in altitude.
And then that's when the radiation levels really start.
So you can go up to about 400.
And then after that, you're into the Van Allen radiation belts and you're probably going to die.
So the Russians maybe are getting up that high with their technology.
The Americans were nowhere.
They couldn't even lift something 20 or 30 miles off the ground.
So in 1961, this all changes.
And this is the first step, I think, the first clue really, in our standing, the steps involved in some of these frauds.
So the Soviets, I think, I don't know because it's just conjecture, but it's illogical to assume that the Soviets had spies inside the White House, inside of NASA.
NASA was formed in 58.
NASA took all the U.S. space efforts and consolidated them into one organization.
And so the Soviets knew what the Americans were up to.
Americans probably knew of the Soviets ruptured in 1958 and then to 1961.
So in 1961, the Soviets probably understood that the Americans are going to do a Capricorn one.
So I don't know if you've seen Capricorn II.
With OJ Simpson.
Without Jay Simpson, yeah.
So it's a classic.
And I think that's exactly what the Americans did.
So there's something that happens in the Kennedy White House in the spring, February, March, April of 1961.
Something happens there.
And the Soviets get information that the Americans are going to do a Capricorn 1 and claim to be first in space, first in orbit anyways, and have the most advanced technology.
So in the context of the Cold War, this appeared to be very important to both the Americans and the Soviets.
So the space race, so-called, was about prestige, but also about which system was better, the so-called capitalist system, which we don't have, but let's say the state capitalist system versus the communist system, which is just more direct state ownership.
So which system is better?
Which system produces technology?
Which systems can advance mankind, etc.
So this is the context of that Cold War.
And at the same time, the Americans are getting involved, of course, in a colossal failure called Vietnam, incrementally.
So I believe that something happened around March or so, 1961, where the Americans made a decision to do a Capricorn one pretty soon.
And there's various pieces of information floating around in various sources that Kennedy and his advisors met with NASA and NASA said we should go.
We should get our top pilot, a guy called Alan Shepard, we should get him into orbit because it's going to work.
Now keep in mind, until 1961, nothing worked.
So this is amazing.
I mean, just think of it, the difference.
You can't even get an unmanned capsule above 20 miles.
And yet you're going to send a man almost a certain death up to, it depends on the narrative and source, anywhere from 75 miles to 115 miles in altitude is what NASA claims Shepard went to.
It depends.
The sources differ.
But let's say he went to 100 miles in altitude.
The complexity of having a manned capsule where you have to physically, as a pilot, manipulate after liftoff, you're immediately into phase control and you're trying to angle your craft in a certain way to get through the atmosphere.
And then at the top of the trajectory, which is a bell-shaped parabola, basically Shepard went up to Cape Canaveral, northeast to take advantage of the Earth's rotation and down near the Bahamas.
And again, the landing zone, the sources vary.
He landed here, he landed there, maybe he landed over there.
But it's what, three to 400 miles from Cape Canaveral.
So it's just a bell shape.
It's up and down.
But he has to go fat bottom first with the heat shield out of 50 miles in altitude and then take his capsule and then turn it so it's fat bottom coming down.
And he's doing this at over 5,000 miles per hour.
He's doing this with 6G force.
Gagarin Fraud Claims00:15:50
He's doing this for the first time ever.
He's doing this with new technology.
And it's not the technology that you and I recognize.
This is not software.
This is not real-time operating systems.
That's my background, it's Ricomoto.
This has not anything to do with that.
This is hardwired, hard-coded circuits.
And it is impossible to believe that in 1961 in May, that Shepard did that flight, especially when you put in the context of what happened in April, which is the Gagarin fraud.
And so the American, so the Soviets, probably around March, got some news from inside, English spies, saying, look, the Americans are going to do a Capricorn one soon.
So if the Soviets, for their own reasons of prestige and honor, and to give their own failing empire a shot of confidence, because it was going bankrupt pretty quickly, and to get people on the side of the regime, very important for them, as you know, had to react.
And so this is what I think happened.
Many people think, not just me, thousands of people think this happened.
So they had two flights in April of 1961.
Again, a completely different set of technologies, the Vostok 1, a leap in technology for the Soviets.
Again, man crashed for the first time ever.
So they sent up a guy five days before Gagarin on April 7th, a guy called Ilyushin.
Now, Ilyushin was a top gun par excellence pilot for the Soviets.
He was their number one.
He goes up in this, what I call cannonball, Vostok 1, and he crashes in China.
He crashes and almost kills himself.
Somehow he survived.
I don't know how the guy survived.
And it's even unclear where he went.
So on the internet and in various forms, there are these Ilyushin cult members who maintain that he was the first man of space and he circumnavigated the globe.
There's actually no proof of this if you look through the evidence.
There's no evidence to support any of it.
But he crashed lands in China.
Five days later, this guy, Gagarin, who is untrained, there's absolutely no history of him being a top pilot.
He supposedly fought against the Nazis with the Red Army, but there's no indication whatsoever he's in the Air Force.
He is, there's no logs of his training.
There's no simulations of his training.
There's no indication he even really understood the Vostok won.
So here's an amateur pilot.
Now, on the Shepard side, he has five, at least 5,000 hours of training.
So Shepard's a real pilot.
So you can imagine putting Shepard into a capsule and trying this.
But a guy with, it's hard to even know how many hours at 15, 50, 100 hours.
He's basically an amateur pilot.
So five days after the best pilot crashes in the cannonball, up goes Gagarin.
And again, it's a complexity that's never been tried before.
He supposedly circumnavigates the globe in two hours, two and a half hours, and lands in Saratov, Russia, which is the training base he came from, right next to where he practiced parachuting.
So it is to laugh.
So he admitted, and this is, I think, why the Soviets end up killing Gagarin in 68.
He becomes a liability, because I have the impression he's not too smart.
But he had a pretty face.
He was a pretty boy.
He's a Russian peasant, fought the Nazis.
He fits into the Soviet marketing propaganda.
If Gagarin can do it, anyone can.
So, you know, because the technology is so good or so smart.
So he lands where he parachuted trained.
So there's absolutely no evidence of the landing.
There's no evidence of him coming down.
There's a couple of stories of Babushka meeting him and Gagarin saying, you know, after he lands, I need to flow Moscow.
I'm going to call him.
These types of apocryphal made-up stories afterwards.
The Soviets have an image of a capsule, only one or two photos of a burned-out capsule in the field in Saratov with a parachute hanging off.
There's no indication there's a heat shield.
So without a heat shield, you can't exit the atmosphere and exit orbit and come back down.
So there's no pictures of Gaguerin being launched.
There's no pictures of anything.
So the Soviets, their biggest claim to proof was there's some very disjointed communications in the middle of the flight.
And they maintain that has Gaguerin circumnavigated the globe at 200 miles up at 17,500 miles per hour in a cannonball, trying to control it and following a route, predetermined route that's programmed into the circuits and hard-coded, that he picked up landmarks.
So I can show you photos from the ISS, the International Space Station, at 250 miles, which is basically where Gaguerin was.
I can show you photos from John Glenn.
He supposedly went 187 miles in February of 1962, and you can't see a thing.
You're not picking up landmarks.
So in one case, so what happened was that the Soviets had a tape machine with pre-recorded messaging in the capsule.
And that's supposedly what you're listening to.
Now, Gaguerin said that he saw landmarks in the USA when he was over the dark Pacific because his flight path never goes near the USA.
His flight path is Kazakhstan, northeast, like the Americans do off Canaveral, over Alaska, down through the Pacific, doing the reverse Magellan at the bottom of South America, coming out through Africa, back to Saratov.
He didn't go near the United States.
He was over the Pacific.
But he said in a press conference, I saw America.
So nobody had any idea what he meant.
So stuff like this.
I didn't know he'd been bumped off.
How did they kill him?
Oh, so he had a plane crash, of course.
So the guy that flies 200 miles in altitude breaks through the orbit.
So 200 miles is a demarcation where above that you're officially in orbit.
And what they mean by that is at 17,500 miles an hour, the object you're in will follow the Earth's rotation.
This is a theory.
And the Earth spins at 24,900 miles per hour.
17,500, you're falling away from the Earth as it spins.
So you can maintain that orbit and that speed, and you appear to be a stationary satellite.
So this is where the satellites are, the high-orbiting satellites.
And that's where he was.
So this is the big breakthrough.
If you look at the space race, the big breakthrough.
So he went up that high, they claim, and then came back down and landed.
But he was not a very bright person.
I think he was talking and he made many mistakes.
He talked about the tape recording in the capsule.
He talked about seeing America.
He couldn't remember what he saw in other interviews.
He talked about the sun coming in and how he tried to move around the capsule.
So it was all his entire recollection was as bad as the Apollo 11 astronauts.
He couldn't answer basic questions.
He couldn't answer things about the capsule.
Was it quivering?
Was it shaking?
How did you control what the communication was like?
And if you listen to the recordings that the Soviets produced, it's as Banell as Armstrong landing on the moon.
It's stuff like the sky's blue, it's really sunny out, it's light, things are going good, things are going really good.
Oh, yeah, things are going well, no problem so far.
This is the conversation.
It's a simulation.
You're listening to yet again another simulation.
It's all pre-recorded.
It's all done.
And then they make a film out of it.
But the Soviets were not nearly as good at filmmaking as the Americans, as everybody knows.
Americans, that's one of their core strengths.
So you mentioned the propaganda of space.
So back in the 50s, you have guys like Disney making space films.
You have Kubrick coming in 2010 Space House.
You have Star Trek in the 60s.
The Americans are saturated in public consciousness with this idea that space isn't that hard.
But if you actually look at the technology, it is incredibly hard.
And Ellen Musk admitted already just a few months ago that there's no moon landing because there's no fuel.
So Musk said, okay, with SpaceX, which is the same size roughly as the Apollo capsule, I need to refuel nine times, get my SpaceX capsule to the moon back.
That's what he said.
I need to refuel nine times.
Did he?
Because of the burn rate.
Yes.
I didn't realize that.
So Musk has basically called the bluff of the.
He's called the bluff.
I don't think he understood what he was saying.
So, my question to Musk is: he's talking about Mars, right?
So this is Mars.
So if you do probability theory and think about physics, going to Mars is impossible.
You'll die on the way to Mars, right?
But so if it takes you whatever number of refuels on the moon, one, two, five, ten, whatever.
NASA says 20.
So that's not contradicted.
Musk says, no, you'll need 20.
And then they backtrack and cover things up.
But that's what they said.
So I think if that's true to go to the moon, Mars is, it also needs a distance, but it's 40 million to 140 million, sometimes even 250 million miles away from this planet, millions of miles, based on the standard model distance calculation, which I don't personally believe in, but that's what they say.
That's the standard model.
You'll never get there, of course.
How are you going to get back?
How are you going to land?
So his rockets is talking about using the starship.
Starship is the SpaceX's new, it's equivalent of a shuttle.
The old shuttles, they're monsters of shuttles.
It's a 400-foot spaceship enterprise replica, more or less, but it vertically lands.
It vertically takes off and it vertically lands.
It's a special rocket.
But he's not been able to get to work.
He has 11 or so tests.
They've all failed.
Five or six have blown up.
So you'll never get there to Mars.
The technology is not available, but the fuel isn't available.
For some reason, they keep talking.
I don't know whether you, there was some woman in the papers recently who's got some part in the British, some sort of British space exploration body.
And she announced to the newspapers that she said one reason she was sure that the moon landings were real was because if they weren't real, the Russians would have said so.
The Russians being our great, the great rivals of the West would call it out as a scam.
But of course, your theory explains why this is so.
The Russians were in on it because they were playing the same game.
But before we go on, you're suggesting to me that some of the early cosmonauts before Gagarin did actually get into space in rockets.
No, no, I'm not.
No, I don't believe that myself.
But it's hard to tell because of him.
The ones who died, how high do you think they got?
I think they were sacrificed.
So yes, in that case, so yeah, what you're saying is exactly true, I guess.
So they were sacrificed.
I think they're testing radiation levels.
I think they went up to 400 miles, but that's nobody knows.
But if they got to 400 miles, that would mean that those ones who died hold the record for the furthest away from Earth's surface.
Yes, absolutely.
By some margin.
By some margin, yeah.
So yeah, so there's been some claim.
So, so I don't know.
So this is where it gets interesting with the narrative because the radiation levels really start at 400, but maybe they start beneath that.
Maybe these people were being fried at 300 miles an altitude.
We don't know.
Or maybe something happened with the capsule.
Maybe the capsule at a certain altitude just simply blew up.
We don't know.
Maybe 100 miles up there, they're dying.
So it's hard to say.
The Soviets, of course, weren't very good at sharing information and being transparent, but neither is NASA, of course.
So we don't really know who went where.
But I think the reality of both programs in the 1960s is a list of failures.
And I think what happened with the terms of the cooperation, so there's been some PhD studies I've read from Russians even on the cooperation between NASA and the Soviet space agency cooperation.
So I think the Americans, because the Soviet experiments where people died in the hills as well, knew very well that, say, by 1962, 63, they were not going to the moon.
I think the Americans knew that.
I think at that stage, then the failback, because Kennedy, in 1961, as soon as Shepard does his parabola, which I think is a Capricorn one, I think it was fake.
There's no evidence, by the way, that Shepard had a heat shield.
So if you ask NASA, show me Shepard's heat shield in the original model, you don't get anything.
Kennedy announces three weeks after that, roughly, or maybe six weeks after that, I think, six weeks after that, that they're going to the moon by 1969, the end of 1969.
So they're in a tight spot in 62, 63.
That's when the filmmaking starts, I believe, in earnest.
And that's really when the CIA Langley Center, Simulation Center, also, which had been developed many years earlier, really takes on this gargantuan form of basically reimagining space, reimagining the moon.
That the complex at Langley was simply gigantic.
And that now can be replaced by AI, CGI, simulation software, which NASA also uses.
And so this is what people don't understand.
People, when you talk about the moon fraud, they will point that the photos are fraudulent, and we can talk about that as well.
But some of them are just ridiculous.
The technology is inadequate.
The lunar module landing and simulation of that landing is just, you know, it's just something of a Hollywood script.
There's no flame from the lunar module landing.
There's no flame in the lunar module when it takes off and supposedly rejoins a command module.
The lunar module and command module integration has never been done.
There's absolutely no proof that if you have a command module and attached to it to the lunar module, that they can disconnect and reconnect.
That's never been done anywhere.
Anyway, even now.
Even now.
Yeah.
So this is what the question to Musk.
If your rockets, if your starship is going to vertically land, you need a special pad on Mars.
There isn't a special pad on Mars.
So you can imagine.
So just go back to the lunar modules.
10,000-pound thruster rocket.
And the argument from the narrative from NASA is that it's a vacuum.
Space is not a vacuum.
Space is full of energy, full of molecules, full of particles, full of planktons, neutrinos.
It's full of rays, gamma rays, cosmic rays, solar rays, plasma energy.
It is a medium through which light from the stars travel.
A vacuum is nothing.
A vacuum in real life doesn't exist.
You can make a vacuum.
But in space or nature, there is no such thing as a vacuum.
Otherwise, you have nothing.
Nothing is nothing.
You can't even transfer light.
Light is a transference of photons through a medium.
So if I'm seeing stars at night, it's coming through something.
And our atmosphere is part of that ether.
So this is the fraud.
One of the great frauds, this is why I talk about my substack as well.
All the frauds of scientism.
Einstein's Ether Fraud00:05:27
One of the great frauds is getting rid of the ether.
So up until Einstein, who's a charlatan and a mathematical philosopher of the lowest rank, up until Einstein, the ether was accepted.
He got rid of the ether because this is a different topic, but I'll just mention quickly because there's hundreds of thousands of experiments, James, that's called light interference experiments that do not find the movement of this planet.
Back in 1887, the famous Nicholson-Morley experiment, up to today, hundreds of thousands.
Now, maybe there's good reasons why when I use light interference with basically large gyroscopes, different altitudes, maybe there's a good reason why I can't find the mood on this planet.
And one good reason why, in my opinion, is the either.
So if you actually believe that this planet rotates, rotates, I think we can discuss that.
It's a separate topic.
I don't think it does.
Rotates or orbits.
But if you believe this planet orbits the sun 585 miles every single year and has done so for four billion, whatever Darwinian years it will be, I think critical thinking is probably not your strong point because going 585 miles in this orbit and having everything stay the same.
So your time, your side wheel, your star time staying the same, the constellation staying the same, nothing changing is physically, the laws of physics, laws of time, impossible.
There's no probability chance.
So what they did was, so all these experiments, 1887 until today, you can't find the translational velocity in physics, it's called, which means that it's a train.
I can't see the train going down the track.
I can't prove it's going down the track.
Translational is one direction.
Give me directional.
So that's the theory.
The Earth, Copernicus and heliocentricity, claim that the Earth moves around the Sun, but there's no physical proof it does.
The only way to physically prove it is through light interference experiments.
And what I'm saying is, and it's true, but you'll never get it from the narrative.
You'll never get it from a textbook.
They lie.
They've never found this.
And this is where relativity comes in.
So this is where Einstein and the mathematical wizards, mathematicians, as we call them, they now enter the scene after 1887 because they're Copernicans.
They're shocked.
What do you mean we can't measure the translational velocity of this planet?
Of course we must be able to do that.
No, you can't.
It's failed.
Nicholson and Morlay were Copernicans.
I call them sun worshipers.
They did their experiment many times.
It all failed.
Dayton Miller did 200,000 of the same type of experiments on a bigger scale, much more advanced, much more complicated, found nothing.
Okay, these people are all Copernicans.
Sagnac in 1913 disproved relativity along with disproving the Earth's translational velocity.
Sagnac was a French physicist, and he followed up the 1887 failure and did his own even more complicated expression of what Michelson Morlay tried to do.
And it also failed.
So on and on it goes.
So these large gyroscopes can't find the translational movement of this planet.
So relativity comes in and says, look, if I have object A and object B moving around, it's all relative.
So we don't know if we're moving or not because I'm moving, it's moving.
And if I do some comparisons, I don't know who's moving, where it's moving to, et cetera, et cetera.
And all the mass.
I mean, James, I got through the mass of relativity.
If it was an Excel spreadsheet, it would be lit up like a Christmas tree saying, circular reasoning, circular reasoning, circular reasoning, check that logic and that sell.
Your spreadsheet wouldn't work.
Have you tried looking at Newton's physics?
Because I mean, he was a, he was of calculus.
Newton is far more accurate.
Oh, yeah, there's issues with Newton.
Oh, yeah, he's far.
So Newton's okay.
Newton.
So I thought he was more into alchemy than he was into.
He was, yes.
But his physics is more accurate.
So Newton is a macro.
And there is, so the main issues with Newtonianism, as Newton said many times, he could not explain, he was trying to explain, but could not explain the structure of the solar system.
So he said, man, I don't know why the sun doesn't eat the earth.
So he talks about gravity.
So gravity is electromagnetic energy.
And it comes from the core of a planet, core of the Earth.
And it's related to the size of the planet as well, et cetera, et cetera.
So gravity is basically an electromagnetic force that comes out.
Newton knew this.
He didn't really understand how it worked.
So people say that we don't understand gravity.
It's probably true.
We don't really understand how it works.
It's related to the electromagnetic energy.
Might have been real, of course.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So Newton would say, fine, you know, the apple dropped.
I saw it.
And I tried to explain it in terms of physics and mass.
Seemed to be okay.
A lot of what he talked about force, mass acceleration is sensible.
He misses things like friction, but okay.
His mathematical details have been simplified.
So global warming is a massive con.
There was no evidence whatsoever that man-made climate change is a problem, that it's going to kill us, that we need to amend our lifestyle in order to deal with it.
Revised Edition Explained00:04:51
It's a non-existent problem.
But how do you explain this stuff to your normie friends?
Well, I've just brought out the revised edition to my 2012 classic book, Watermelons, which captures the story of how some really nasty people decided to invent the global warming scare in order to fleece you, to take away your freedoms, to take away your land.
It's a shocking story.
I wrote it, as I say, in 2011, actually, the first edition came out.
And it's a snapshot of a particular era, the era when the people behind the climate change scam got caught red-handed, tinkering with the data, torturing till it screamed in a scandal that I helped christen ClimateGate.
So I give you the background to the skull juggery that went on in these seats of learning where these supposed experts were informing us.
We've got to act now.
I rumbled their scam.
I then asked the question, okay, if it is a scam, who's doing this and why?
It's a good story.
I've kept the original book pretty much as is, but I've written two new chapters, one at the beginning and one at the end, explaining how it's even worse than we thought.
I think it still stands out.
I think it's a good read.
Obviously, I'm biased, but I'd recommend it.
You can buy it from jamesdellingpole.co.uk forward slash shop.
You'll probably find that just go to my website and look for it, jamesdellingpole.co.uk.
And I hope it helps keep you informed and gives you the material you need to bring around all those people who are still persuaded that, oh, it's a disaster.
We must amend our ways and appease the gods, appease Mother Diet.
No, we don't.
It's a scam.
We've simplified Newton.
Because of that, there's some issues.
But basically, Newton's okay to explain a macro view of physics.
It does work.
It's a framework.
But his view of the solar system is missing other forces.
He called them, his name of other forces.
He didn't really know what to call them.
And so these forces are known, called the Coriolis force and the Eunar forces.
And they're centrifugal and centripedal forces.
But in essence, they're universal forces.
And that's what really keeps the solar system in its shape, in a structure.
Gravity beyond a certain point is quite weak, obviously, right?
So the standard model itself has problems with gravity.
Because if you're looking at planets that are hundreds of millions of miles apart, the force of gravity is quite weak, except for the sun, which is quite massive.
So it depends on the size of the orb.
If you look at constellations and galaxies, it's the same thing.
They're too far apart to attract or repel each other.
And so they know this.
And they write about it.
And so they come up with all sorts of other arguments.
Dark energy, dark matter.
I often talk about the ether or the ether, as you pronounce it.
What exactly is it?
I mean, you see, the thing is, Ferdinand, whatever your real name is, I kind of inclining towards the view that actually space is fake and gay and that we're living under a giant dome and that these rockets that Elon Musk's sending up into space are doomed never to get anywhere because they're going to there's nowhere left to go ultimately.
What's your take on that?
Do you think, I mean, how far do you think Elon Musk rockets are going?
Hard to say.
It's hard to say.
So this is kind of the window darkly of Shakespeare, right?
So we don't have any access for transparency because we'll never go to these altitudes ourselves that they supposedly are going to.
We don't know.
And also because the people involved in these projects are liars.
I mean, they're pathological.
Yeah, they are.
Absolutely pathological.
So NASA is a CIA company.
It's part of the U.S. military.
So Trump in September last year declared NASA to be a spy agency.
Did he?
So, yeah.
So that's interesting.
Do you know what I've talked to somebody once?
Zero Gravity Mysteries00:15:36
Was he on the podcast or not?
He told me that he was working in telecommunications and he'd once been involved in this project where he'd dumped into these CIA characters and they got quite friendly.
And they said to him one evening over a pint, Do you know what NASA stands for?
And he said, Isn't it North American?
They said, No, it stands for not a space agency.
That's exactly right.
And never a straight answer.
It's just a black budget project, isn't it?
For the deep state.
I think you're right, 100%.
So my post, I talked about it.
talk about the money laundering.
So NASA has consumed from the U.S. tax system and maybe its debt system as well, U.S. $1.5 trillion in the last...
$1.5 trillion.
$1.5 trillion since the beginning of the Apollo program, $1.5 trillion.
So the Apollo program in today's money, and this is another thing I discussed in my post in terms of the fraud, was around $250 to $300 million in today's money.
That's what it was worth.
So you can imagine the money laundering and looting that went on.
But you can also imagine the amount of money that the CIA and NASA can pay science journals, TV, talking heads, universities.
There's unlimited funding to get out the narrative that they want to get out.
So they could produce, and it's quite obvious to many of us that they did produce, the fiddle, the Apollo 11 film to start with.
And they could distribute that through their networks and get people to buy in because they control the communications.
So they control all the fees for Apollo 11 through Perth Australia, through CIA complex, of course, CIA and NASA and Perth Australia.
All the comms are controlled.
All the flights, contrary to what NASA claims.
Now, all the flights are cloaked.
The Soviets never tracked Apollo, no one tracked Apollo.
It's simply a lie.
I'll tell you why it's a lie as well.
Because in 1969 or 1961, if you talk about Gagarin, people always say, well, they tracked it.
No.
If you understand radio detection and ranging called radar, you understand what was happening in 1961, 1969, you understand what a radar system is.
You're bouncing a radio beam at a frequency off an object.
So you're pointing your beam and just you're pointing it at the sky and it hits something, comes back, and the signal is weak.
There's a dplexer it's called, hits your antenna, duplexes, and you translate it into, there's a computations, and you figure out more or less where that thing is.
So if you use fire a radio beam, Say 10 miles in altitude, say 50 miles from your location.
You hit a suitcan, it shows up on your radar screen.
There's computations involved.
It shows up as a little dot.
But the problem with radar, in this country, 1961, UK, you had roughly 50 to 60 radar stations.
They had a terrestrial limit of 90 miles.
They had an altitudinal limit of no more than 12 miles in height.
Okay, so the Soviet bombers could fly, they flew roughly around 70,000 feet, roughly.
So that was a limitation.
So you have them scattered all over the country.
Okay, it's a spoke system with no hub.
So you've seen the old war movies with Churchill and the War Room and the Battle of Britain, all that.
So you have the lady pick up the phone saying, I think we have incoming.
She's calling Central Command.
There's no networking.
Central Command doesn't know and say, call them because their radar is limited to 90 miles.
My radar is looking 90 miles over the channel.
I see them coming.
I see them coming for anyone else because I'm the furthest radar point away.
So this is what you're dealing with.
You're dealing with spokes without a network of radar installations connected by telephone.
So if Gagarin has flown his bomber or his magic cannonball from Saratov, if he flew that over Eastern Europe, Germany, France, England, over East Canada down into Washington, he would probably have passed 150 radar stations.
There's no continuous data management of that flight.
You're calling and calling.
So you're being picked up, but you're limited at the altitude.
So anything above 20, 30 miles altitude, you're not picking up in 1961.
There's no way they track anything.
Apollo 1969 is the same thing.
There's limitations on what you can pick up.
Even today, the optical radar trackers that are used, which are very advanced, can only go out to what 20,000 miles.
Really have problems.
Yes.
So you're never told this.
You're told that there's some magic thing on this planet sitting in a terrestrial site pointed at the sky.
And the Soviets were, you know, they followed Apollo all the way to the moon, all the way back, 250,000 miles away.
The Soviets have problems with an American stealth bomber coming in at 80,000 feet in reality.
So this is the stealth bomber, right?
That's what they have, the Americans.
They can fly above the radar.
And then they have protective coding to bounce the radar beams somewhere or camouflage the beams so they don't bounce back.
That's what they've done with the stealth bomber.
So radar technology in the 60s, James, you couldn't track a bloody thing.
There's no way they track it.
Before I forget, I don't want to distract you too much, but what happened to Ilyushin?
Did he, was he, was he bumped off as well, or did he carry on?
No, he carried on for a while.
I don't know what happened to him.
I didn't follow up with him.
I was looking at his flight, looking at the details.
He did survive, but he exited, I think he actually did Air Force altogether.
How high do you think he got to?
The Illusion Fan Club will say he went further than Gagarin and circumnavigate the globe in some cases, but I don't think he went anywhere.
I think he went, I think the whole thing, I think the Volstock 1 is a mess.
I think this is what happened.
I think he went up, he flew from Kazakhstan and ends up in west-central China.
The Chinese actually take care of Iliusian.
He's in China for months being rehabilitated.
I don't know how he survived.
Only because he's probably a great and highly skilled pilot.
He somehow got his craft maybe bottom first and he got the parachutes out and he was able to crash and land somewhere.
Just an amazing story in a cell how he survived.
But I think he just went up maybe 100 miles in altitude.
And so just look at Kazakhstan where it doesn't automatically look at where he landed in China.
It's 100 miles up maybe and a straight drop down.
He could have gone up and down in 15 minutes.
That was his flight to him.
But the Illusion Fan Club will have you believe he circumnavigated the globe 10 times and was doing a Russian Kazakh dance or something in the capsule.
It's not true.
There's no proof of that.
So when that happens, and the Soviets know that the Americans are going to do a Capricorn one soon, there's probably some guy in Washington screaming at Moscow saying it's going to happen.
They're going to do the Capricorn One.
Five days later, this peasant guy, Gagarin, goes up.
And it's okay.
You know, Arian's fine.
He lands exactly beside where he trained as a parachutist, where the best pilot they ever had was half dead in China.
So why would anyone buy that?
Yeah, no, I get that.
It's interesting, isn't it?
That I think people who are skeptical of the moon landings tend to also hold the view that the West is so corrupt and awful that we all know about the CIA, we all know about the deep state and stuff.
And we're inclined possibly to romanticize the traditional enemies because we think, well, if the baddies in America are saying they're enemies, then they must be okay, really.
So we tend to overlook that the Russians or the Soviets were playing the same game and that they're just as bad as they're just as susceptible, let's say, to these games as we are.
Right.
I think 100% right.
Yeah.
And that's completely valid.
The Soviets murdered people and tried to cover them up.
They claim things like, for instance, they claim in the 60s that they sent a probe to the moon and brought back moon rocks.
Well, some of those rocks have been looked at and they have nothing whatsoever to do with the moon.
So they're frauds and they're completely different than the rocks that the ESA, the European Space Agency, brought back in the 90s.
And by the way, those rocks are also different than what the Apollo program bought.
Well, I was going to ask you about this.
You surely don't believe that the space station is real, do you?
I've been writing with that.
So I have a couple of posts on that.
So I don't buy the narrative.
So if you look at the videos and images, and so the fanboys for NASA, they go crazy, as you know, they get very violent.
We mentioned videos or images about the Apollo landing, the Davos, the fraudulent ones of the drunk Bald Aldrin on the lunar surface.
There's one of Aldrin.
It's taken from there's two shots of him from two different angles, and the photos are completely different, completely wrong, because they should be opposites of each other.
They're not.
And then you look at things like the waving flag and shadows.
But you look at the height of, they had a chest camera, but look at the height of the photo, it's wrong.
So it's all wrong.
But they get very violent and upset.
They talk about cameras and apertures and shutter speeds and all sorts of other stuff that's irrelevant.
But the ISS is full of fraud.
So there's videos that they're obviously in a zero gravity plane.
I mean, this is obvious.
So they have training, NASA and the ESA.
They take McDonald Douglas or an Airbus.
It's called the zero gravity plane.
You fly up and then there's a maneuver where you can get into zero gravity, but at 10 miles or 20 miles in altitude.
And you're in zero gravity weightlessness for maybe four or five, six minutes.
And then you come back down into what's called 2G, but you can repeat it.
You can repeat it.
And then you can take it and edit it.
So the McDonald Douglas plane that the Americans use is exactly the same structure and size as the supposed ISS.
They're exactly the same size.
They look the same.
So in one of my posts, I have, I just put together a composite photo.
I say, okay, here's the zero gravity plane, and here's the ISS, the spot difference, because there isn't any.
So what are they showing us?
So if the ISS is real, which they claim it is, at 250 miles in altitude, then I wouldn't have this fraud.
So that's a fraud.
Then the NASA fanboys get very violent and say, well, you know, maybe they're just showing you training videos.
And there's other videos where it looks like they are the ISS.
But even the ISS itself, I was watching a live feed live of one of Musk's SpaceX capsules, a dragon, docking at the ISS.
Okay, so here's the narrative about space.
And this really gets the fanboys, NASA fanboys angry.
So above 62 miles in altitude, it's called the Karman line.
Above that, if you look up, it's black.
And the reason why space is black is there's not enough molecules.
Everything's too diffuse.
It's on a vacuum because that's simply anti-science, but it's a diffusion of molecules and energy.
So the solar radiation from our sun has nothing to reflect on.
So it's just, there's just nothing there in the medium to reflect back the sun's energy.
Below 62, if I look from 62 and I look down, I see the albedo reflection of the Earth, sunlight coming off the Earth.
That's the startup.
I've watched videos of landing craft of the ISS 250 miles up.
Porthole comes up in the capsule, and it's a bright, sunny day.
The sun flooding in everywhere.
So I've asked them, I thought, explain this to me.
You just told me, you've been telling me for years that space is black.
I see this light.
So either this is a fraud, you're not at above 62 miles in altitude, or you're lying about what space is.
That's one of the two.
And then you always go back to shutter speed.
Oh, no, it's a camera.
No, I want to talk about the camera.
Put the camera down.
I'm going to put the backpack on, the Jetson backpack.
I'm going to go outside and walk around, which apparently they were doing in 1984 with the space shuttle.
What would I see if I walked around?
The light.
It's not black at all.
So they're lying to us.
It doesn't make any sense what they're saying.
And they're confused.
The narrative is always confused.
So there's a guy in 1984.
You may remember the space shuttle Challenger, which blew up eventually.
This guy called McCannis.
It's a money shot.
It's one of the iconic pictures of space.
He did an untethered backpack walk aft of the space shuttle, 320 feet behind the space shuttle.
And another astronaut, a guy called Gibson with his Nikon Digital, took the money shot.
It's one of the iconic photos of space history.
McCannis kind of on an angle.
You can see his backpack and see his camera.
Behind him is the Earth.
And it's all black.
Okay, so I just watched a SpaceX video, dragon landing, life feed, not even a video, live feed, and I see nothing but light.
So if I put the McAndos backpack on, why wouldn't I see light?
There's no explanation for it.
They can't explain it to me.
And the same with the moon landings.
You can go through shutter speeds all you want, but you're going to pick up something in the cosmos, atmosphere or not.
And you just change your exposure.
So here's another one, James.
The Hubble telescope has around 2 million data points.
It's 300 miles in altitude.
Roughly, right?
300 miles in altitude.
So there's 400 terabytes of data.
I've gone through the image libraries.
I see hundreds of images of stars.
There is blackness, but there's stars.
There's lights.
Now, the narrative tells me there shouldn't be anything.
So my question back to NASA, and received an answer to other PhDs in physics, is, why wouldn't you have put a telescope on the moon?
I'm looking at the Hubble, 300 miles up, and you're telling me everything above 62 is black, right?
Why wouldn't I put a telescope?
I don't see that.
It's false.
If I put a telescope on the moon, I'd have a perfect observatory platform for the entire cosmos.
Imagine all the data I could collect.
They never did that, James.
Why did they do it?
Because the black curtain at Langley didn't matter because there's a black curtain behind me at Langley.
I'm on the moon surface in the simulation.
That's why they didn't want to give away their location.
So, all that's happened in the 19 since 1961 is that video technologies got better and that they can now fake more impressive-looking, more realistic-looking space scenes.
Absolutely.
That's one of the areas I work in is AI.
I can tell you that deep fake AI is real.
The deep fake AI videos are very difficult to distinguish from reality.
Fake Feeds, Real Fraud00:15:16
So, Musk last year, the last year was in 2024.
I can't remember.
He had a fake video on a SpaceX launch.
So, SpaceX is famous for live feeds.
So, you're watching what you think is a live feed of the Falcon 9 rocket taking off from Cape Canaveral.
But it's all an AI deep fake.
And then there's an interruption.
If you want to keep watching this live feed, scan your phone against this barcode.
If you scanned your phone, you bought cryptocurrency.
So, Musk was scanning people out of money with a deep fake AI.
And this is not just the only incident.
There's many others like it, where they've used deep fake AI to either fake you out or to make money.
So, the simulation environments, and this is something that people don't really understand.
If you work in IT, you understand simulation.
A simulation is like a football match on the pre-football match, right?
So, we play on Sunday.
On Wednesday, we're going to have a simulation football match.
Everything's the same.
The only difference is there's no people in the stands.
That's it.
That's what a simulation is for Apollo.
Those simulators they had were so advanced.
You had 1,000 or so programs every single situation, including failures.
So, Apollo 13, which was a failure, Apollo heard there was a problem, it returned, was just a simulation.
One of those simulations where the Soviets picked up the Apollo 13 capsule in the Bay of Biscay a few days after the supposed launch.
But they had this program.
You could program in failures or problems.
The entire thing could be tracked in the simulator.
That's 1969, James.
Like you said, imagine what they have now.
There's online simulations for the ISS.
I've used them.
It looks like you're going into space.
NASA has far greater, more powerful systems and simulators than we can find online.
You can even have your own Apollo simulator if you want.
So the simulation industry, the CGI AI industry, is a problem.
You don't know what you're looking at.
And Musk has proven it.
He's done it already.
He's proven how real.
And he's even made comments.
So he's been interviewed and they're showing SpaceX docking or something at the ISS or whatever.
They lift off the Falcon 9.
Falcon 9 famously comes down on vertical landing, right?
Because there's a type of fuel and everything.
And Musk has said many times, it must be real because it looks fake.
Or something like that.
Yeah, it looks so fake, it must be real.
He's made that comment a few times.
So If you had to summarize what you think is going on.
Okay, so we've got NASA being set up as a kind of deep state black budget project, presumably also to create the, well, I don't know what would be the mind manipulative purposes of fooling people who've been into space, I suppose.
I think it starts in the 60s.
So I think we cannot underestimate the importance.
For us, this sounds maybe a little bit silly, but for the American Empire back in the 60s, the Soviets were the great threat, and they had to win the space race.
It was something that they couldn't lose for credibility purposes.
So whatever was necessary, they're going to do it.
So they had to win that.
And once you start down the road of fraud, once you start down the road of lying, and it's so big, the Apollo lie is so huge, as you know, James, that you can't walk it back.
So they've been panicking since 1969.
They're picked since 74.
How can we misdirect people so we can memory hole the Apollo program and the moon fraud?
We might go back, but we first need to build a lunar gateway, which might take some time and money.
Oh, please give us some more money for that.
So the money laundering continues, the looting continues, the prestige continues.
They publish all these videos and papers with advanced advances of technology.
The ISS has just mountains of information on the impact of space on human bodies.
If you'd been to the moon six times in five years from 69 to 74, you'd know this order.
The time she would be there.
You'd know the effect of Van Allen radiation belt on humans because you went through it, supposedly, six times, or even more than that, because you had Apollo 8 doing a circumnavigation of the moon as well.
So all of this.
Why is this why so large?
If the furthest we've been conceivably is 400 miles and the moon is how many 300 and something Mars isn't 300 how many miles?
250,000 miles.
33,000 miles.
Okay.
250,000 miles away.
And we've been 400.
And when does the, when does the, you're saying that at 400,000 miles, the radiation starts kicking in.
When does the Van Allen belt get really bad?
When does the radiation start?
So the radiation starts around.
So the reason why NASA knows about radiation is in 1997, the space shuttle discovery went up to 400 miles.
Now, the space shuttle is a sign of, yeah, it's 400 miles in altitude.
So it pushed the limit.
So NASA never built a space shuttle to go beyond 250, 300.
But these guys pushed on to 400.
I think they're doing it, just testing the radiation levels.
And they turned back.
This is 1997.
And they said that the radiation was so bad that they almost fainted.
Like they're just, they can feel it needed.
How do you know?
They weren't lying.
How do you know that wasn't fake as well?
Oh, it could be.
Who knows, NASA.
But yeah, who knows, right?
So maybe they're at 100 miles in altitude.
That's when it started.
But you know, there's a limit, right?
So beyond that, the Van Allen radiation belts go from at least that level, 30 to 60,000 miles at a radiation level that is thousands of times what is on Earth.
So unless you have a lot of lead coating in your capsule, you're not going to survive.
And they simply don't have the protection for it.
The very thin outer coverings of the Apollo capsules were a mix of aluminum, nickel, and some other composites.
There's absolutely no evidence that they went through the Van Allen radiation belts.
They didn't even take any readings.
There's no evidence that they took readings on the moon.
So if you actually went through the Van Allen radiation belts, you'd be sick.
You would have taken readings.
You'd be recording them.
You'd be the first thing in your mind, obviously, right?
As a normal person, you land on the moon, what's the first thing you do?
Well, you have an outside Geiger counter, and you're going to take radiation readings because you don't know what's out there.
You're not going to jump onto the moon without doing some testing and analysis.
Is it safe?
But no, these guys just hop out and start walking around.
So you know it's a fraud just because of human behavior, the way they act.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So, but how far would you go with this?
Do you think that space could be fake and gay?
Something out there because you can see it through your telescope, right?
So I do some telescopic activity.
I don't know really what I'm looking at, to be honest.
I was about to say, what are you looking at?
You could be looking at these portholes through the oceans above.
It could be.
Who knows?
And another interesting thing, too, is that a lot of dogma around the standard model, which says the universe expanding and it's limitless, is simply not supported by facts.
So it's only like a quasar, which I read about as well.
The quasars are just bright lights.
Like you mentioned, it could be lights at the porthole, but they're all pointing down at Earth.
It's very interesting.
The pattern of quasars point down at Earth.
It's fascinating.
The gamma radiation is also a pattern that avoids the Earth.
So this planet is privileged.
It's in a hollow, a protected hollow.
And so the standard narrative is completely wrong.
They call it the axis of evil, the astrophysicists, because they're all atheists and they're quite pagan.
But they can't believe that we're in a privileged place like this.
And so their dogma about endless time is wrong because the speed of light's wrong.
That's another topic that you might want to dig into.
Speed of light's wrong.
If the speed of light is wrong, then long ages is wrong.
The four billion years is wrong.
And the distance between planets is wrong.
And the size of the universe is wrong.
And the Big Bang is wrong.
And Einstein, of course, is always wrong.
But it just further proves that he's wrong.
So the speed of light is something that...
So there's a very smart woman who has an IQ of over 200.
Her name is Voss.
Her last name is Voss.
She's American.
She holds a KinsiQ record.
I think it was 215 IQ or something.
So whatever the IQ test is, whatever it means, you can argue it's valid or invalid.
She's probably pretty smart.
She was asked in 1980s in an interview, what would be the one greatest thing or discovery or revelation that would completely overturn the social and world order?
What one thing would do it?
Like that.
Speed of light's wrong.
The entire world of physics and cosmology, James, is shattered if it's wrong.
And your second thing was, there's a divine creator.
So I gave two answers.
Can you explain to me in a way that a complete idiot, i.e. me, could understand, why is the speed of light wrong?
Okay, so the okay, there's a lot of mathematical calculations dating back to the 17th century.
Okay, they're full of assumptions like the science always is.
The assumptions are wrong.
They're based really on stellar light and then try and project the movement of the light source, the speed of light from that source to the Earth, and they use some trigonometry and Euclidean mass to do so.
But 17th century, basically, it's wrong.
But what they're saying is that the speed of light, all things equal, is 186,000 miles per second.
That's what they're saying.
So Galileo disagreed.
There's lots of problems with the Galileo myth.
I write about that and a lot of nonsense about Galileo.
But Galileo did physical experiments and found the speed of light to be far greater than that.
He said it's basically instantaneous.
Isaac Newton, back to him, he said the same thing.
Speed of light, he thought, was infinite.
He writes it.
He said, I don't know what it is.
Now, if you consider the speed of light varies in the medium or the ether in which it passes through, so if it's glass, water, if it's air, it's all different speeds.
But you cannot measure instantaneity.
And going back to these light interference experiments, going back to these large gyroscopes, they also found that the speed of light was not 186,000 miles per second.
It was much greater.
But it's even greater in space, James.
So this is where the long ages and all the distance planets and stuff could be completely wrong.
If the speed of light in space, because the ether is so thin, is almost infinite, it means that Alpha Centauri, which they tell us is 24 trillion miles away, four light years.
It could be right next to us.
Right.
Going back to what you're saying, right?
Going back to what you're saying, that the stars be much closer.
If the speed of light from Centauri is almost at the speed of infinity, it's here in hours.
Okay, it's here in hours.
It means that it's not 24 trillion miles away.
Also, it might mean the moon is closer.
I was going to say, yeah, and the sun.
And the sun.
So I did some Euclidean mass.
I pulled out my trigonometry, my Euclid, and I looked at the Sun.
I did some measurements.
I'm not saying they're right because it took me a long time to do it over many months.
I came up to one or two million miles away.
That's why I think the Sun is.
Could be wrong.
I shared it with people and they told me I'm an idiot.
You're a moron.
It's 90 million miles away.
Everybody knows that, blah, blah, blah.
Show me your mass.
There basically aren't any.
They're going back to the 17th century to these calculations, which are just seriously wrong if you look at the mass and assumptions.
So I don't accept that.
Einstein, one of the reasons why his theories are rubbish, is he accepts the speed of light, but never bothers to prove it.
So Einstein never did any experiments.
He just, he was a philosopher.
He, according to his theory, is this invariant light speed.
If that is wrong, all this stuff is wrong.
All the relativities are wrong.
But they never prove it.
Sagnak and Dayton Miller and countless other people disprove the speed of light invariance.
It's been disproven, but you'll never hear about it because it doesn't fit the narrative.
They need the speed of light at that speed.
It fits into their model.
Relativity now is secured.
I can now use that to justify the Big Bang model.
The foundations of the Big Bang mathematically are relativity and the gravitational field developed by Einstein, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
So they think it quite viciously.
And if you want to pass through physics or you want to get a degree or you want to, you know, I don't know, get a paper published or book, and you say the speed of light is wrong, it's not happening.
No.
You get the James Dellingpole treatment.
Well, you would, because, but isn't every field pretty much from astronomy to climate science to, well, you name it, it's fraudulent.
Paleontology, of course.
Paleontology.
Yeah.
You go through carbon dating, it's also fiction.
There's lots of assumptions.
You get all sorts of different answers depending on how you apply the assumptions of carbon dating.
There's been testing of atmospheric gases, et cetera, by people that are pretty objective.
They're not even, they're not like me, they're not Catholic.
They're not particularly faith-based.
Compurbicans, but they tested the atmospheric molecules and looked at what we have in the atmosphere.
And they concluded that this planet can't be more than 10,000, 20,000 years old.
These are basically people that are indifferent to faith.
Equation and Empire00:13:14
They're not quoting the Bible or anything.
They're just saying, look, based on what we know about how the atmospheres could be built, there's no possibility this planet is 4 billion years old.
You look at the electromagnetic and you look at the magnetic shield around the planet.
Can be 4 billion years old.
It decays 5% every 100 years, roughly.
So you just work backwards.
Right.
Well, did this get you into trouble when you were learning this stuff at university?
Well, you've got five degrees.
Yeah, some high-billion degrees.
So when you go through the process, so you play the game.
So when you do the studying and education, you're probably younger, right?
You're oftentimes younger.
You just accept these guys and what they're talking about until you find out they don't.
They're a lot of different credit points.
Well, yeah, exactly.
So it's George Stevenson again.
So George Stevenson, one reason why I liked the guy, he hated the royal elite.
He wouldn't have anything to do with them.
And he viewed them as almost like an enemy because he was self-taught, self-created, self-made, and they weren't.
And they could not understand.
And they made fun of him because he had a funny accent.
He could hardly understand the guy from Northumbria.
But here's a guy who made things, created things.
Look at look at the benefits of the railways and locomotion.
It's incredible.
How it's impacted one man.
Did they bump him off?
It sounds like sort of the person they would bump off.
And the thing about Stevenson I really like is he had an opinion about everything.
So if you read details of his life, he's giving people advice on medicine.
You take that medicine, you eat that, and don't do that.
Oh, if you want to farm, here's how you farm.
Use that type of fertilizer.
Oh, you want to grow cucumbers?
I'll grow a bigger cucumber than you.
And he did actually.
Grapes, I'll have the biggest grapes in the country.
He did, actually.
He goes to the biggest grapes in the country.
He had an opinion about everything.
This is a guy who didn't go to Cambridge or whatever, didn't go to the fancy schools, but he knew a lot just from being alive and using his brain.
And this is what's missing society.
We bow down to authority.
I have no idea why.
We just say, yes, if it's a science, I will go get a job and wear a diaper and believe in a flying virus.
Well, don't we bow down to authority because of all the stories we're told?
All these narratives that, like you mentioned at the very beginning, that question about why would NASA lie to us?
Why would because we're told these stories about these benign figures out there called authorities, experts, whatever.
And they're our friends and they're there to help us.
We look up to them.
So once you have that premise embedded in your brain, as we do from a very early age, you're lost, aren't you?
You're lost.
Yeah.
Your critical thinking skills collapse.
You don't think rationally about what's being told to you.
And so physics is the same thing.
You're told that relativity is science.
If you actually spend time, it doesn't matter.
You don't need neophysics.
You don't need any degrees.
You can just sit down and use your common sense and say, okay, what's this guy on about?
And how does it align itself with the real world?
And you find out it doesn't.
So they don't tell you this in the education system.
You have to find out yourself, unfortunately.
But if you spend a few hours, you will find it for yourself that a lot of it's just absolute rubbish.
So if you take what Einstein said to its logical conclusion, you and I live in our own separate universes, literally.
According to relativity, you have your own grid, and everything that happens to you is different than everything that happens to me.
That's exactly what relativity says.
We all live in our own little grids.
And so it's just it's philosophical junk, but that's where it goes to.
But they don't teach this.
But if you think about what you've told me about Yuri Gagarin, he was a semi-literate peasant who could barely fly.
And yet he was sold as this guy, the first guy who orbited the Earth.
Yeah.
I mean, he was amazing, just incredible.
And so he was an actor, not a very good actor at that.
Einstein was surely the same.
Einstein was, they wanted a wacky scientist whose ideas would enter the public consciousness.
Crazy hair.
Marilyn Monroe, he comes up with all these crazy aphorisms that get every book of collected quotations has loads of Einstein.
He was just amazing.
I mean, the guy was a fabricator, wasn't he?
He's a myth.
So if you go off his wife's story, Einstein in public lost, he only had three or four debates only.
He never answered questions publicly.
He never debated people.
If somebody like Dayton Miller, which Einstein knew all about, Dayton Miller had 200,000 experiments between roughly 1920 and 1935, which disproved relativity.
200,000 experiments with the light interference and gyroscopes.
Completely rubbish relative.
Einstein knew it.
He even wrote to his friends, if Miller is right, relativity is finished.
Miller was right.
But he never debated Miller.
He never engaged in any conversation with Miller.
He just ignored him.
And they went to the media and they did a hatchet job with Miller.
So Einstein was, and most people don't know this, he was payrolled by the Rothschilds.
And I know this because Hebrew University, yeah, so Einstein is Jewish.
Rothschilds are Jewish.
Einstein runs into this guy, Wiseman, who's a professor at the University of Manchester in the 1920s.
Wiseman's also a creature of the Rothschilds.
He's a lecturer there.
I came over what he taught.
But the Rothschilds put Wiseman and Einstein together.
It's the Zionist Project of Israel.
The Rothschilds want to have a university called the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.
It's actually established in 1925.
Between 21 and 25, Einstein and Wiseman and the Rothschilds get together to talk about how to set it up.
Einstein was a scientific figurehead for that university.
This is why he's in your face 24 hours a day, because they have trademarked and copyrighted his name.
Anything to do with Einstein is paid.
The Rothschilds make at least 10 million US dollars a year in revenues off Einstein's name.
It's all licensed through the Hebrew University.
Further, they gave Einstein $100,000 at the time to invest in the university.
So Einstein was actually an owner, a per investor, and was a fellow member and all this stuff.
He didn't have the money.
So they gave it to him.
So Einstein won a Nobel and he got the money in 22.
He won the Nobel in 21 for something that was also wrong, but it was the theory of photon, photon, and transmission of photons.
It was disproven in 1917.
But anyways, he got a Nobel basically because of relativity, because the Copernicans are now safe.
They could justify that the Earth rotated around the sun, da-da-da-da-da, because of relativity.
So he got his reward in 22, but all that money went to his ex-wife.
So they got divorced in 20 or 21.
Einstein knew about it.
The wife knew about it.
He's going to get the money.
So she demanded all of it.
She got all $500,000 US dollars.
The guy didn't have any money in the 1920s.
So he's a creature of the Rothschilds.
And then they marketed the guy.
So he's in every newspaper, every magazine.
He's meeting the King of England.
He's over in New York.
He's over at Princeton.
In 1933, he gets a big Princeton job with a big salary.
And he dies.
And I think 1955, 58, or something, he dies with a US estate worth $15 million.
So I went through his financials from the time he started working as a patent clerk all the way through his Princeton professorship and did the taxes, the cost of living, some assumptions.
I got to maybe to two to four million US dollars as in that estate for the average person paying taxes.
His was 15.
So my conclusion is pretty simple.
He was paid by Romschild.
But he saved that, of course, and go to jail, right?
So, but that, but he was using the anti-Semitic claim back in the 1920s.
He debated a guy called Lerner, who's called a Nazi.
He did actually join the Nazi Party, Philip Lerner.
Lerner was a well-known German physicist.
He destroyed Einstein in 1921 on one debate.
He actually destroyed relativity.
Einstein got destroyed in 1927 in the Solvay conference of the quantum mechanic, quantum mechanics physicists, guys, Heisenberg.
They obliterated him.
He got destroyed again in 1930.
He was asked in the U.S. on a tour in the 1920s, what's the speed of sound?
He didn't know the answer.
The speed of sound varies.
So you can at least say, well, it varies on the medium, glass, water, air.
What speed of sound are you talking about?
At least that would be intelligent.
He said to the guy, reporter, go look it up in the textbook.
The greatest scientist ever didn't know the speed of sound is roughly 700 miles per hour in air.
The greatest scientist ever.
It's all marketing, as you said, James.
It's sad.
It's really sad.
So Einstein is a fraud.
If I tell people that, I think they become very discomforted.
What do you mean it's a fraud?
Everyone knows.
Everyone knows that's true.
Well, it's true.
His mass.
Have you ever gone through his mass?
No.
How do you know it's true or not?
I have.
There's seven letters of his mass.
They're all topological.
There's constants.
We're referencing constant reference.
It's all tied in together, a big bundle of fraud.
And you can get whatever answer you want.
I can manipulate his equations to get whatever answer I want at the end.
And there's no physical proofs of his theory.
All the physical proofs are not proofs.
In fact, the main physical proof, 1919 cell operation with the solar eclipse by Arthur Eddington, an English Methodist physicist, and he was a friend of Einstein, was a complete fraud.
All the calculations were frauds, the claims were frauds.
And back to Newtonian physics, Newton and Gerber explained almost exactly how stellar operation or the bending of starlight around a body due to gravity, how it worked.
So there's no need for relative.
It doesn't do anything.
But you're not told that.
Wasn't Einstein involved in the nuclear program?
Not really.
So the equation, he didn't get involved directly, but his equation.
So this is another fraud.
So E equals M C squared.
Yeah, everyone knows that's true.
It must be true.
Einstein's a go-go.
Better watch out, better beware.
Albert says E equals M C squared.
There you go.
So it must be true.
Yeah.
So energy equals mass times the speed of light squared, but it doesn't because that's also a fraud.
It comes out of experiments in the early 1930s.
One guy is an English physicist called Dirac.
He was more of a theorist, but he postulated some ideas about energy and matter and electrons and anti-electrons.
So if there's positive matter, there's negative matter, more or less.
And so there's a guy called Carl Anderson, American physicist, who proved it.
And they called it a positron.
So positron actually disproves relativity as well.
So the positrons exist, the electrons exist.
And so what they said, the summary's narrative, was that these things come from energy out of nowhere.
So it's almost like the Darwinian origin of life theory that life just pops up anywhere.
Just random chance of chemicals in a warm pond somewhere, and bang, there you go, you have a 70 trillion cell creature like a human.
So it's the same thing.
So they start talking now about things popping in and out of existence.
So it's anti-science.
Carl Anderson proved that when you take radiation and you release it into the either, you point it at either, you release the positrons.
They're already there.
The positrons are like anti-modern.
So they're a fundamental part of particle physics.
It's foundational.
So E does not equal Mc squared.
And the entire equation was built in Einstein reasonable ignorance about what a photon is.
A photon has mass.
In his equation, a photon does not have mass.
A particle has to have mass.
It's just basic reality.
He takes mass away from the photons, which makes his equation wrong.
And there's a number of other reasons.
I wrote an article about it.
There's four or five reasons why equals that equation.
Energy equals mass.
So that's where the nuclear capability supposedly came from.
It came from this equation.
It doesn't.
It has nothing to do with that.
That's also a fraud.
Deeper energy being released has nothing to do with that equation.
Are you familiar with the theory that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not nuclear bombs at all?
They were basically mass bombing raids, which were rebadged as nuclear bombs.
Tesla vs. Von Braun00:09:59
There's no sort of nuclear, there's no radiation footprint in either of those sites, for example.
Interesting.
Yeah, some people have told me that.
To be honest with you, I know anything about it, but if there's no radiation footprint, like there was a 9-11, that probably tells you something.
So what is the problem?
That's convinced me.
They wouldn't have found one of the hijackers' passports if it hadn't been killed.
Out of his pocket as he was.
Yeah.
It's like the suicides they have.
The note on the kitchen table says, Amia Kalpa, I'm such a bad person.
It's just such a prop that they use, the passport.
But interestingly enough, speaking of 9-11, the Matrix movie, Neo's passport, is 9-11, 2001.
The movie was made in 1999.
They like to tell you.
They do.
That's part of the thing.
They mock you all the time.
It's all theater, but at the same time, they tell you it's theater.
And if you don't accept it, if you don't, their theory goes that if they show you that it's theater and that you don't respond to it, then it's your lookout.
It's your fault.
You deserve it.
Karmically, that they are exonerated.
Exactly, yeah.
And it's the endless layers of the onions of JFK's assassination.
He was killed by the CIA and probably even Mossad.
Maybe the Mafia as well.
Who knows?
Maybe all three together.
I think so.
The layers and layers of obfuscation around that.
I mean, it's hard to peel it all back and say, okay, we know the CIA did it because you can never get to the CIA.
There's so many layers in between the CIA and whatever happens.
9-11 is the same thing.
I believe the narrative when it first came out until I read a report from the National Institute of Security and Technology in the United States.
So in the IT industry, NIST, as it's called, is a framework that everybody uses.
So if NIST is saying something, then people take it seriously.
They went and did a study of 9-11 in the site.
They found uranium, beryllium, strontium, all radioactive material, and they concluded it was a nuclear incident.
That's what they concluded.
Now, that's an American-run organization.
Oh, okay.
And it does in-depth analysis.
You mean that the device that was used to blow up the buildings was basically a nuclear device of some kind?
Probably a nuclear device of some kind, or it could be one of Tesla's do weapons, direct energy weapons that the FBI and CAA developed based on Tesla's designs.
I think it's a nuclear device based on it in this sense.
Do you think that because I've heard various competing theories on Tesla?
One is that, yeah, free energy, he was a genius, it was real.
Another is that he was just another psyop, another figure they conjured to fool us.
Do you think Tesla's the opposite?
So, so do you think that we could have free energy and we could and petrol, sorry, water-powered cars, for example, really work and that they just kill off anyone who invents it?
I don't know about that.
Possible, I think there is energy that within either the atmosphere, there's free energy available.
I think Tesla's right, but sadly, his designs and his ideas were taken by that beauty and he died.
So he died in poverty.
Yeah, they were taken by some of the uncle of President Trump, no?
Could be, yeah, not sure who was there.
I don't think, yeah, so they were taken.
So his files were gone.
So he died.
It's a sad story, really.
So if you compare Einstein to Tesla, Tesla developed alternating current technology, basically electricity.
So the grids that we use are based on Tesla's engineering skills, more or less.
Edison developed a drug current electrification idea, which doesn't scale.
So it knew that.
Sorry.
Edison was evil.
Edison was just a good idea.
Yeah, he was.
He was a businessman.
And he was ruthless with Tesla.
He basically bankrupted Tesla, so did Westinghouse.
Edison took his idea.
Tesla actually saved Edison's company a few times, like fixing things, and then went out on his own.
But Tesla also had his own personality issues.
He probably could have got investors and could have done very well for himself, but he was a bit of a loner.
He had to work alone at nights and so on.
But he built the alternating currents technology and grid.
And he had definite ideas about free energy coming from the electromagnetism of the Earth.
And he writes that he had solved that problem and he did it in Colorado.
He found a way to somehow provision that energy and supply it into a distribution system and use it.
But it's all gone because the FBI, within two hours of his death in a hotel in New York, took all his files, took everything.
So the U.S. deep state has his information.
And he supposedly demonstrated in New York the use of a direct energy weapon and brought down a building by using sound.
He just used sound waves.
With the sound waves, he brought it down.
Entire building in New York.
Did nobody know what happened?
Well, no, he did it as a demonstration to various personalities.
I forget who they were, city officials and some other people.
And he had some concept.
He was able to take the sound waves and then align them with the vibrations he said of the earth and the electric energy.
And so the sound waves were magnified by a factor of whatever, X percent, and it brought down the entire building.
I read about it.
I have to find a word where I read it, but if that's true, then the Americans have do technology.
But that was back in 1932 is when he demonstrated that.
Before we go, we haven't mentioned Verna von Braun.
I mean, it must have been a pretty bad deal if even by 1960, they were still producing these really shit rockets that couldn't fire anything.
I mean, what good were the Nazi scientists if they and they'd had 15 years to raise their game since the end of the war?
Exactly.
The V1 V2 rockets are pretty primitive, right?
They're flying over to London and to other locations, but they're basically going up and straight down.
So their altitude was limited.
So it's 15, 20 miles max altitude.
If that, I think that all sounds like that.
Make a good point there.
You know what Verner von Braun has on his gravestone, don't you?
No, coming.
It's the opening lines of Psalm 19.
And Psalm 19 basically, in my view, tells you that space is fake and gay and that the earth is flat.
And if Vernon von Braun has that on his gravestone, what does that tell you?
It's a good clue.
I'll have to read Psalm 19 again.
I like the Psalms.
Well, Psalm 19 is one of the best.
It's the one where the sun comes forth like a bridegroom out of his chamber and rejoices as a giant to run his course.
It's good.
So that's a clue.
So Von Braun said regarding the Apollo program, he mentioned that the Saturn V rocket, which is what was eventually used, had to be the size of the Empire State Building.
So if you compare the Saturn V rocket, which they use, it's maybe 1% of the total volume, let's say 10% of the total volume of the Empire State Building.
So I was doing some calculations on fuel and tonnage, and I came to the conclusion that the Apollo 11 rocket module missing 75% of the fuel.
So this is where going back to Musk, Muss saying, look, I need to refuel nine times to get to the moon and come back.
I would agree with that because if you look at the numbers, look at the burn rate per second, which is what, 20 tons per second, whatever the fuel is, it doesn't matter what fuel is.
There's certain types of fuel for it.
You're never getting to the moon.
You're certainly never coming back.
And I thought they're missing, I calculated they're missing what 75%.
Von Braun would have agreed.
He would have agreed.
He was running that.
He was running the Apollo program.
He said we need the Empire State Building.
The Saturn V rocket compared to the Empire State Building is quite small.
Saturn 5 rockets may be 400 feet in height, not even that, 300 feet in height.
But the capacity is quite limited.
It's a slender tube, more or less, full of fuel.
So they didn't go anywhere, James.
I think we agree on that.
I'm conscious that I've oh, that's brilliant.
My wife's brought me some tea.
Well, I mean, do Canadians need tea as much as English people do?
No, Canadians probably too much coffee now.
But what would you drink four o'clock in the afternoon, say, when you were starting to flag?
What would you have coffee?
Yeah, Canadians will pop a coffee.
Yeah, I'll have TV, actually, but most Canadians will pop a coffee.
But that's, that's some, like, you're savages.
I mean, surely one of the, I thought Canadians were closer to being English than Americans were.
Oh, they are, yeah.
Well, they follow the same traditions, but not usually tea time.
So there's no real tea at four o'clock idea and candle.
There is amongst the older people, perhaps, but not amongst the younger generation.
And as you know, the demographics of Canada have changed.
So it's becoming far less oriented towards the British and English and far more towards the Muslims.
Elites and the Freemason Conspiracy00:05:18
I've completely abandoned, although I've got some lovely Canadian friends, I've completely given up on any plans I might have had to visit Canada.
Because, I mean, first of all, President Bieber, Castro, what's his name?
Trudeau.
And then you've got, I mean, like, hold my beer.
Can you get any more shit?
And you say, yeah, we're going to go for Mark Carney.
Former Bank of England governor.
It's amazing.
It is.
It's all part of the global.
Currently setting, as you know, the build is elite.
Trudeau.
Oh, so this is the other thing with the Ukrainian war.
So the top advisor, the Ukrainian, I call her Nazi, because I think she is, who's advisor to Trudeau over the foreign policy.
So she's now the chief advisor to Zelensky.
Is this Christian from Friedland?
No, what's Freeland?
That's right.
Friedland.
Yeah.
So these are basically Khazarians with ancestral beef against the Russians.
Absolutely.
Yeah.
And they're using Canada and America and the rest of the West as kind of their bully, their bully machine to settle old scores.
Yeah.
And it's a proxy word for the US as well.
And one of the great failures of Trump so far, he hasn't been able to end the war.
But I think he's found out that the CIA deep state is pretty deep.
It's not that easy.
You can start at work.
It's a very easy story one.
It's more difficult, I think, to end it when you have the CIA climbing orders.
I tend to assume that any narrative that factors Trump as a kind of a good guy is probably flawed.
I mean, does he really want to end the war?
Probably not.
I think all sides want to prolong the war for various reasons.
Quite true.
Yeah, and then the US, of course, is money laundering, half the money stolen, recycled, politicians, contractors.
So, you know, who knows what's really going on in the background.
And they want to keep the child trafficking going because those elites, they have an endless appetite for adrenochrome and child sacrifice victims.
So, you know.
The Epstein Islands.
It's just incredible that that's been buried, more or less redacted out of existence.
We'll be told that Epstein never had an island, Epstein never existed.
Well, you were talking about how effectively they've buried the ever since 1969, they've been trying to bury the moon landing story, you know, by talking about Mars and stuff.
In the same way, they did a very good job on Epstein Island because they managed to turn it into a story about Prince Andrew having sex with a 19, was she supposed to be 19 or 17?
I mean, certainly over the age of consent.
And so they focused on this, you know, rotten princeling.
And I mean, I don't know how they did it in the US, but that's certainly how they handled it in the UK.
They turned it into something it wasn't because the real story was about seriously underage children being trafficked for murder and every imaginable disgusting satanic advice.
Exactly.
And by the elites and their friends, Oprah Winfrey supplying children.
And a lot of these Democratic supporters involved as well.
Of course, Bill Clinton and Bill Gates down there.
And then maybe Trump was there as well.
Who knows?
I don't think you get to reach that level unless you are happily sacrificing children to Satan at least a couple of high satanic holidays a year.
I think that's the deal, isn't it?
That they're all into it.
They're all at it.
It's the compromat, it's the sort of community of evil.
It's everything.
It's what they do.
Yeah, that's Balfamet.
It's interesting.
So the symbols they use, there's a lot of symbologies.
They're always doing one of these, right?
They're always doing the same sign.
What is that one?
Well, I think it's something to do with the Freemason.
It's the Freemason Illuminati.
I've seen it in the pandemic.
Keir Starmer does it.
Surma does it.
They all do.
And almost all these elites do it.
And remember during the Ronas pandemic, the first lady, I think her name was Jean Carroll to get the stab.
Remember that event?
They had the TV cameras.
She's the first person to get the magic stab against Rona.
And she was, I think, a lady from Northern Ireland, but she lived in the Midlands somewhere.
Blue Origin's Phallic Symbolism00:02:52
And I think her name is Carol, but I can't remember now.
But she was doing this.
She shut the stab and she's in a wheelchair, of course, the diaper on, and all the nurses are out.
She's doing this on the camera after the stabination.
Do you know what it's bizarre?
Do you know the name of the person that they chose to have the first jab in Britain?
I can't remember her name.
I think.
You won't forget it.
He was called Bill Shakespeare.
Shakespeare, yeah.
First man.
Yeah, sorry.
Now, I'll maybe build this too, but the first woman certainly did from a wheelchair in the hospital.
Just incredible.
So you see that.
You see it all the time.
So it's a signal.
And some of the other insignias they use on so Bezos owns a space company called Blue Origin.
Blue Origin is kind of a micro imitation of SpaceX.
So Bezos' logo on his so-called spacesuits looks like Baphomet.
It looks like the head of Baphan.
I kid you not.
It's like a goat, isn't it?
It's like a goat.
Yeah.
And if you look at it a certain way, it looks like Baphomet.
And so they're telling you, like, you know, the Matrix movie with the 9-11 2001 passport, they're telling you something.
They're telling you exactly that they're evil.
There's just no hiding it.
And they don't care.
But you know what?
What upsets me more, just because it's just more ubiquitous, the Amazon logo, which looks like a semi-erect penis, or it looks like a kind of, you know, sort of it's a curvy, it looks like a sort of phallus on one of those Greek, those Greek satires that you see.
That's right.
You're right.
And his space capsule looks like a phallus.
Oh, that was.
I'm not kidding.
It looks like a phallus.
Musk is interviewed about it.
He talks about Musk.
He talks about the difference between SpaceX and Blue Origin.
And he makes fun of the phallic symbol that Bezos is using for his space program.
But they're all in on it.
This is all weird, isn't it?
It's just all weird.
I think Musk was in on it too.
Like any guy talks about going to Mars, honestly.
Like you have to, the critical thinking is just not a friend of yours because you just get out your calculators, they're doing cumulative probability theory using just basic maths.
You're not going to Mars.
I mean, you can look at fuel, you can look at continuous running technology for anywhere from four to 12 months in space.
Why We Believe Earth Is Round00:03:41
It's just not, you've never done it before.
You've never been up above 400 miles.
He talks about it like if they're going to be there tomorrow.
He even said last year, he said 2026, SpaceX will go to Mars.
That's pretty easy.
He's predicting that.
It will.
It definitely will.
CGI.
Yeah.
So before we go, Ferdinand, as I must call you because I don't know your real name, not that this matters, but I'm curious.
So what sort of model of the universe do you subscribe to?
Do you think we're living on a round spinning globe type thing?
So I look at physics and I just look at the evidence.
I don't see evidence for a perambulation around the sun.
I don't see evidence for that.
think a rotation of the earth is is feasible and possible because of the electromagnetic energy uh the universe what about why doesn't the water slip off when it when it like like on a tennis ball when it when when you hit a tennis ball which is wet you see the water coming off Why don't the oceans fall off?
That's a good objection.
Yeah.
So there's, you talk about the pull of gravity and so on.
But yeah, they're good objections.
And so the flat earth movement has observations that are linked to science and directly reference science that should be answered.
So I'm called a flat earther, even though I'm not, because I say Einstein's rubbish, right?
So all you're a flat earth.
No.
But if you look at the evidence of flat earthers and go back to parallax in the 19th century in London, they do talk about flat water being a problem, right?
The flat plane of the water for a distance.
If the earth has a gently, a gently curved circumference, you should be able to see that circumference horizon, even if you look straight down the canal for a certain number of miles.
So these are not insensible arguments at all.
They have to be answered with science.
So I don't take, if someone believes in flat earth, there are some good arguments that you make.
There's arguments around flight paths as well that have been made.
There's arguments, like you mentioned with the water falling off the earth.
There's also arguments related to physics, right?
Gyroscopes.
So people have taken gyroscopes.
If the planet's rotating and moving, the gyroscope should behave in a certain way.
And oftentimes it doesn't.
So these have to be explained with science.
Yes.
But the universe myself, in terms of model, more of a tichonic folks.
Tycho Brahe was the greatest astronomer of all time, right?
Greater than Ptolemy.
And he had a view of the universe being small.
I think the universe is small.
The Earth at the center.
I believe the Earth's at the center.
I think the planets rotate around us.
That's a tichonic model.
That's my personal theory as well.
Okay.
Yeah, I think you're right.
We certainly agree that heliocentrism is basically a form of rebadged sun worship Luciferianism.
It's just that's one thing.
There's no data supported.
There's no science to support that.
All the science he uses support heliocentricity, and I've gone through them on my substantive.
You could say the same, it supports geocentricity as well.
Billions Start to Flow00:06:31
You can't.
You can take the exact same data and claim so you can apply them to geocentricity.
And Einstein, back to Einstein, he said that his theory supported geocentricity more than it did heliocentric.
Ah, interesting.
By the way, everyone who's been watching this, I've been Ferdinand's deep dives into things like the Soviet cosmonauts and that thing, which I think is really interesting.
I haven't seen this done so thoroughly before.
And thank you for doing that.
Because I think we needed a corrective to do.
Okay, so Bart Sebrel, he's got lots of good stuff and lots of anecdotes and things.
But we tend to forget the cosmonaut angle and we tend to forget that Yuri Gagarin was another psyop.
It wasn't like the Soviets were doing great stuff and were honest and full of integrity.
Basically, they're all at it, aren't they?
They're all at it.
All the different superpowers.
And the Russians themselves now, like there's Russian PhDs have published it and many of them written books about it.
There's payoffs between the US and Russia.
So the billions start to flow in the 1960s between the Americans and the Russians.
The Americans have every incentive to keep the bankrupt Soviet Empire alive.
It was done by 65, the Russians.
So they used the Gagarin gags, they call it, or faux event, the Soviets do, to really generate patriotism in the Soviet Union.
They're really proud.
They're the first, they're first starving, hated Americans.
We're so good.
It's like winning the big hockey tournament or something at the Olympics, whatever.
So you feel so good about yourself.
But the billions start to flow.
out of the NASA money looting and laundering, which is for the Apollo program, more than 250 US billion.
Just a massive amount of money.
And the Soviets are paid.
They're paid to shut up for a while.
And John F. Kennedy said we'll be in the moon by the end of 69.
So the Russians become, the Soviets become handy.
So if something goes wrong, the Russians are going to cooperate because we bribed them.
We know all about all the dead cosmos.
We know all about their fraud.
We've got all the stuff on Gagarin.
Gagarin is an actor.
He didn't go anywhere.
So if you don't help us, Soviets, we'll come out with all of this and both sides are going to lose.
So it starts now to turn into cooperation.
And the ISS is based on what?
Russian-American cooperation in space.
Nothing different than what went on in the 1960s.
ISS started in 1998 based on those two countries, space agencies, getting together, building a couple of tubes somewhere up in space, whatever their narrative is, which I think going through mathematical probability is almost impossible.
I calculated that it would be less than a 36% chance of it actually happening.
But whatever the narrative is, it doesn't seem right.
But they've been cooperating and exchanging money for a long time.
The Americans supposedly have given the Soviets moon rocks as well, et cetera, et cetera.
So I don't think the space race after 1961 is real.
I think it's a space con.
Yes.
Can I just just check you up?
You mentioned this figure.
So you said the total NASA expenditure or budget rather since 1961 has been $1.5 trillion.
That's right.
And you said that only $200 to $300 million in current terms was spent on the actual technology.
Is that right?
Or is that?
Apollo program.
That's just for the Apollo program.
This is for Apollo.
The ISS is another 300, 300 billion.
And then NASA gets $25 billion a year, even more if you had in all the agencies and all the complicated money flows.
So they get $25 billion a year, go back to $60, do some calculations, come up with over a trillion.
The Apollo program and the ISIS are part of that budget, but the Apollo program was at least 300 billion in face money.
And ISIS is at least 300 billion.
So there's 900 or so billion beyond that for things like the shuttle program, you know, other technologies that are trying to develop.
No, so I misunderstood you.
But so only a tiny fraction of that would have gone on the actual nuts and bolts of making rockets.
Most of it would just have been siphoned off.
I think so.
I think they're massive money laundering.
Oh, yeah, absolutely.
So Chuck Schumer, senator from New York, he had a company, some number of company, receiving millions of dollars every year from NASA.
That was uncovered, I think, last year.
So that's just one guy.
So you imagine they're paying politicians, senators, they're paying the media, they're paying off universities.
They're bribing everybody.
They're giving money to the Soviets or Russians to play along.
They're giving money to the European Space Agency as well.
They're helping to fund that.
So they're trying to control the whole narrative with this $1.5 trillion.
So I can imagine that maybe half.
It's like the Ukraine war.
How much money disappeared in the Ukraine war?
A third?
Do you know?
Before I, when I was still a normie, I used to do these sort of magazine, these, yeah, feature, feature stories for newspapers and things.
And do you know the time, the occasion when I was most extensively vetted in all my career?
I've never had been so thoroughly vetted as I was for this story.
Guess what it was?
Okay, go ahead.
Well, I had to go to NASA in Houston to write some story about some project they were engaged with.
And I remember thinking at the time, in my innocence, I was thinking, but why would they need to research me?
Why would they need to know anything about me?
I mean, you know, surely I'm representing a respectable newspaper.
Isn't that enough?
Why would they need to, of course, with hindsight, they need to know that I'm not some kind of moon landing denier who's going to kind of use abuse my insider access.
Ferdinand's Legacy00:03:07
That's right, exactly right.
They got control of everything.
Yeah, and so I'm not surprised he did.
No.
Anyway, tell us where we can find your substack, what your and who was Ferdinand Santos III, by the way.
Okay, so this comes from Saint Ferdinand III of Castile, who was a 13th century Spanish king and crusader who reconquered Seville and Cordoba for the Muslims.
And he built churches and schools.
And so my Christian name when I was baptized is Ferdinand, based on him.
So he's an unknown historical figure.
Most people know anything about him, but he's one of the great figures of the Reconquista.
Oh.
Have you got Hispanic blood in you?
Absolutely not.
Not at all.
Scottish, English.
It's just quite an unusual name, Ferdinand, isn't it?
I mean, okay, so Archduke Ferdinand.
I suppose he wasn't very Hispanic either, but Franz Ferdinand.
That's right.
It is an odd name, but I like it.
Yeah, yeah, no, it's good.
It's good.
Do you get called Ferdy?
Ferdy, yeah, Ferdie sometimes or Fred.
Sometimes Fred.
Well, thank you, Fred.
Ferdy.
Sorry, sorry, you were going to say, what's your substack again?
Where can we find it?
It's not unstabinated on substacks.
Just a search on stabinated.
It'll come up.
So unstabinated is one word.
I'm stabinated.
Stabinated.
So S-T-A-B-B-I-N-A-T-E-D.
Okay.
I didn't get the COVID job, so I'm stabbinated.
I'll put the link at the bottom.
But I've really enjoyed your deep dives and your genuine scientific expertise and your open-mindedness.
I can put things to you and you don't go, who is this person who is not a scientist trying to talk to me about things I know much more about?
So thank you for that.
We were very limited in our knowledge.
We are.
We are.
Thank you very much.
And everyone else, I hope you've enjoyed the show.
Obviously, you have.
I don't know how much, I don't know about the substat model anymore.
I don't trust it.
I think it's a honey trap.
I think it's designed to corral the world skeptics into this one site and then close us down, deny us an income.
But keep supporting me there while you can until I migrate somewhere else and you can follow me, I hope.