All Episodes
Previous Next
June 2, 2020 - Jim Fetzer
02:25:48
The Conspiracy Guy, May 31, 2020 / Apollo Moon Landings
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Thank you.
okay you you
you you you you you you you you you
you you you you you you you you you you you you you you
you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you
you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you
you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you
you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you
you you you you you you you you you you
you you you you you you you you you
you you you you you you you you you you you you you
you you you you you you you you you you
you you you you you you you you you you you you you you
you you you you you you you you you you you you you
you you you you you you you you you you you you you you
you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you
you you you you you you you you you you you you you
you you you you you you you you you you you you you
you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you
you you you you you you you you you you
you you you you you you you you you you you you
you you you you you you you you you you you you you you
Thank you.
This is Jim Fetzer.
We're about to go live with a conspiracy guy for 31 May 2020.
The moon landings were they real or a mass illusion?
How we know we didn't go.
"Guy, the 31 May 2020, How We Know We Didn't Go." I'm gonna begin talking about that, since clearly it's my conclusion we didn't go, where I'm gonna explain as we proceed where I'm gonna explain as we proceed this evening how we know
There's a parallel here to a court of law where someone, an accused defendant, is either guilty or innocent before the trial.
But where the trial is a form of formal vindication of the right of the state to impose a punishment By providing due process.
Recall, under the Constitution, we cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
That does not mean, prior to a trial, that the guilt or innocence of a party is unknown.
It simply means that it requires a formal vindication or certification by way of a court proceeding before the state can proceed to impose a punishment.
So we have a similar situation here.
We can have conclusions, have conducted our research and determined whether or not we went to the moon.
But in a case like this evening, I'm going to lay out the evidence so you'll see for yourself why I have drawn that conclusion and how you could argue the case for yourself.
As you well know, I have Quite a few books, including about what's usually referred to as conspiracy research, where remarkably enough in this day and age, hard to believe, but Amazon.com has banned six of the books we have published at Moonrock Books.
I find that fairly stunning.
Because there's every reason to believe we should not have books banned in the United States of America, but that it should be a matter of the freedom of the speech and freedom of the press, where the president is now taking moves to ensure that the social media maintain their role as a platform
And don't seek to abuse it by functioning as though they were a publisher.
So, scientific reasoning, as I previously explained, has four stages.
Puzzlement.
Something doesn't fit into your background knowledge and experience.
It could be almost anything.
Speculation.
What are the possible alternative explanations of what has taken place?
Adaptation.
What are the probabilities of the available evidence on the alternatives?
And finally, explanation.
When the evidence has settled down, we are entitled to accept the best supported hypothesis as true, but in the tentative and fallible fashion of science, meaning tentative, With the access to new evidence or alternative hypotheses, we may have to revise, reject hypotheses we previously accepted, accept hypotheses we previously rejected, and leave others in suspense.
The crucial stage is adaptation of calculating the probabilities.
Here's an elementary case.
A body is discovered, and it has bruises around its neck.
But it has no bullet holes or knife holes.
So if you're considering alternative hypotheses, one might be then, you know, what is the probability of the available evidence if the decedent were shot by a gun?
Well, the absence of bullet holes renders that probability virtually zero, or as I shall subsequently explain, even nil.
Meaning it could not be the case.
In this instance, you do not have an effect that would be necessary in relation to that cause.
Or for a second example, what's the probability if the decedent were killed by a knife?
Given there's no knife wounds, once again we have the situation of a vanishing little probability, let's call it zero.
What's the probability they were strangled?
Well, with bruise marks around the neck, that certainly is a hypothesis with a higher probability and therefore would be.
A preferable alternative, because it's the hypothesis which, if true, can convey the higher probability upon the evidence.
Now, after the corpse has been subjected to an autopsy, it may turn out that it was not the case that they died of strangulation, but actually from poisoning.
Which would be the point at which the evidence is settled down.
In other words, they could have bruise marks on their neck and yet not have died as a result of strangulation.
So, what we do now is to consider particularly three kinds of impossibilities we need to distinguish.
Logical!
These are things that cannot be the case because their very description is contradictory.
Why there can't be any round squares.
Or humorously, why there can't be any honest politicians.
Round squares because the properties of things that are round and things that are square are not the same.
For something to be round it must have, or to be circular, must have every point equidistant from a central point.
To be square, however, is quite the difference with angles, which don't exist for round objects.
Hence, it's not even logically possible to have round squares.
Presumably, it's logically possible to have honest politicians, it's just they're so rare that we can say it as though it were actually an impossibility.
Physical.
Extremely important.
Could it be the case because it violates the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, such as melting points, freezing points, causal relation, laws of material science?
You cannot have Pure water at a temperature below 32 degrees at standard atmospheric temperature and it not freeze because that is the freezing point.
Comparably, you can't have water, pure water, at 212 degrees Fahrenheit or above at normal atmospheric temperature and not be boiling because those are laws of nature that cannot be violated and cannot be changed.
Technical!
Particularly important in this instance couldn't happen because the technology had yet to be developed.
Thus we could not have had airborne flight before the Wright Brothers, electric light before Edison, automobiles before Ford.
When it comes to the moon landing, the most important questions we'll address will have to do with the technical or in some instances the physical possibility of what is alleged.
It's important to know things about the Moon.
It's terribly interesting that the Moon always presents the same face to Earth, because the Moon is rotating, but very slowly, just in the amount of time it takes to circumnavigate Earth, which means it always has the same face pointing Earth.
What's most important, I think, about the Moon are, number one, that its gravity is only approximately one-sixth that of Earth.
So here you have, you know, Michael Jordan, say, doing a dunk shot.
He could go up, say, 10 feet for a dunk on Earth, but at the Moon, he could go nearly 60 feet high.
And also, and this is extremely important, the temperature rain on moon is enormously different from approximately 250 degrees above in sunlight to approximately 250 degrees below.
above in sunlight to approximately 250 degrees below.
I'm rounding off slightly, more technically precisely, 280 below to 260 above, but it's easier to remember in terms of 250 and 250.
The relative size of the Earth and the Moon we see at the lower right will be a matter to which we shall eventually return.
Well, here we're confronted with the alternative hypotheses.
To wit, H-1, the Apollo missions were real.
And, versus what should be H-2, the Apollo missions were fake.
If H1 were true, that means we actually went to the moon, not just once, but several times, which implies we had the propulsion power, the computer capacity, the engineering skill to pull it off, including, of course, to survive, the Van Allen radiation belt.
Hypothesis H2, I never went to the moon but fabricated the missions using Hollywood-style techniques, which included filming on a soundstage using astronauts as actors in spacesuits, faking photographs, and other activities in an elaborate pretense.
It won't be difficult to decide between these two alternative hypotheses.
I first became interested in the moon landing when I took my wife to London And I chose the place to stay as the Morgan Hotel because her maiden name was Morgan on Bloomsbury Street, where the Morgan Hotel backs onto the British Museum.
And when we checked in that evening, I was looking at the BBC channels, of which there are several, and discovered, rather to my astonishment, a video entitled, Conspiracy Theory, Did We Land on the Moon?
And indeed it was in 2001 that we were there at the Morgan Hotel.
And it offered one scientific argument after another as to how we knew we didn't go, which I found utterly fascinating and would never forget.
Another film subsequently of great interest related here is from 1977, Capricorn 1.
James Brolin, Sam Waterson, O.J.
Simpson are astronauts who are about to be launched on the first mission to Mars, but they're told by the director that there's a mechanical problem and that, therefore, On their return, they would have been unable to survive and talk them into faking the moon landing on a soundstage in the desert.
Perhaps what's most important about Capricorn 1 is how they use a single grainy television image of black and white to project, you know, really only vaguely discernible images that can Seal that this was all, in fact, an elaborate fraud.
There are methodological differences, philosophers of science sometimes disagree, where the confirmationist methodology would have you look for confirming instances, such as in relation to the hypothesis all pennies are made of copper.
You could deduce billions of examples of copper pennies as confirmations.
And yet, the falsification methodology advocated by Sir Karl Popper, the great British philosopher to whom my first book is dedicated, advocates testing hypotheses to see whether they can withstand serious attempts to falsify them.
Well, it turns out that in 1943, because of the shortage of copper for military purposes, they were in fact made of steel.
But you wouldn't know if you just look, as it were, for confirming instances.
By chance, you might never find a steel penny, and you'd assume, therefore, that the hypothesis was highly confirmed and true, when in fact it's actually false.
There are lots of photographic anomalies related to the moon landing photographic archive.
Moon dust in particular either retains imprints or it does not, like wet sand versus dry.
I was certainly astonished when we had the mayor of a center saying you could go on the wet sand but you couldn't go on the dry.
How are you supposed to get on the wet sand without going through the dry?
But just notice the difference in terms of retaining imprints.
Dry sand, like the Sahara, you cannot retain an imprint.
Wet sand you can.
But we have rovers with no tracks and boots with prints and more, which is remarkable given there's no moisture on the moon.
Because there's no moisture on the moon, my inference would be that moon dust cannot retain imprints, but we'll see we have proof either way.
In addition, there was only one extremely distant source of light on the moon, the sun.
Yet we have photographs with converging shadows cast by what must have been multiple sources of light.
The sun being so vastly distant from the moon that any shadows cast by light from the sun would be essentially exactly parallel to one another.
Another additional remarkable point is the cameras were externally mounted and couldn't even be focused or framed, and yet every single photo seems to have come out extremely well, perfectly focused and framed, with a number of photos with an astonishing given the time.
Well, look at this!
Here we have photos of moon rovers that leave no tracks in the moon dust.
Now, what that would suggest, if the Moondust is able to retain impressions, that the rover was set down using the crane.
On the other hand, we have, say, footprints, boot prints from the astronauts' boots in the moon dust, suggesting it either, you know, that it actually does retain imprints.
In this case, too many imprints because what you see circled there in yellow is a sneaker, the footprint from a sneaker, which ought not to have been present on the moon, since the astronauts were not wearing sneakers, where it appears someone stepped onto the moon dust from off the set.
Now notice, either, either the moon dust retains impressions or it doesn't.
Well, if the moon dust retains impressions, then the lack of moon rover tracks is a falsifying hypothesis.
On the other hand, if the moon dust does not retain imprints, which is what I would infer given the absence of moisture, then we have these moon prints, but worse than that, one of a sneaker.
And here we see some of the photographic anomalies.
We have a flag that casts no shadow.
How could that possibly be the case?
Presumably, it would only happen had it been photoshopped, had the flag been introduced into the image.
Otherwise, surely it would have a shadow.
Just as the astronaut is casting a shadow, the flag ought to be casting a shadow as well.
Here you see, there must be multiple sources of sunlight, because instead of these shadows being perfectly parallel, as one would anticipate, if indeed the sun were the only source of light, we find them converging and intersecting, which should never happen if these photographs were authentic and actually taken on the moon.
Meanwhile, Jack White, who is a brilliant photo and film analyst, did a fascinating study about the number of photographs that were taken, which is really truly quite remarkable.
No one had ever had the insight to consider where he calculated the amount of time available for taking photographs and the number of photographs that were taken.
And to put it most simply, in terms of the time available and the number of photographs taken on Apollo 11, they would have had to have been taking one photo every 15 seconds.
Apollo 12, one every 27.
14 every 62.
15 every 44.
16 every 29.
17 every 26 seconds.
13 every 62, 15 every 44, 16 every 29, 17 every 26 seconds.
Now, that's assuming they were doing nothing else than taking photographs.
The simplicity of his argument has considerable force because it does not presuppose any special knowledge of photographic anomalies or defects.
The agency, that's NASA, sometimes described as never a straight answer, wants a world to believe that 5,771 photographs were taken in 4,834 minutes.
But if nothing but photography had been done, such a feat is clearly impossible, made even more so by all the documented activities of the astronauts.
Imagine, 1.19 photos every minute men were on the moon.
That's a picture every 50 seconds.
The secret NASA tried to hide has been discovered.
The quantity of photos purporting to record the Apollo lunar vehicle and its events could not have been taken on the moon in such an impossible time frame.
So why do these photos exist?
How were they made?
Did any men go to the moon?
Or is it truly the greatest hoax ever?
Or so I surmised up until we have the coronavirus pandemic.
But it's not really a staggering number of photographs that undermines this evidence, but the existence of any photographs at all.
My argument?
Cosmic rays, I suspect, would have contaminated photographic plates and made moon photography impossible.
Meanwhile, we had lighting anomalies.
How can Buzz Aldrin be illuminated from the front and the back at the same time if the distant sun is the only source of light?
In some photos, Buzz is wearing completely different spacesuits.
Did he change his equipment on the moon?
How can we explain the various signs of Hollywood lighting and technical filming techniques such as front screen projection?
Well, let's look at a few.
Here we've got Buzz in his spacesuit.
The one at the top looks somewhat plausible, at least.
But look at the photo at the bottom.
He's clearly illuminated, and yet look at the shadow with his cast showing the sun.
The only ostensible source of light is behind him.
Yet the front of his spacesuit is illuminated.
Here we have photos of alleged moonwalks where they're seen standing in shadows, and yet they're clearly lit up and illuminated, only possible if there were alternative, additional sources of light.
Officially, they didn't bring any with them, not even flashlights.
Here's one of an astronaut with the alleged sun behind him, yet every detail of his suit is visible when he should be merely a silhouette.
The front of his suit ought to be as dark as his shadow.
Similarly, in this photo, the sun is behind the limb, yet a secondary light source appears to be coming from other directions to illuminate it.
The shadows diverge and converge in many of the moon landing photos, some even converge at perpendicular 90 degree angles, which cannot be the case if there's only one source of light.
Look here at the top, you can see in the shadow he ought to be completely dark, yet he's illuminated, as illuminated virtually as below.
And again, on the lower right, he ought not to be so visible given that he's in the shade.
There are even photos of astronaut boots reflecting light when the sun is behind them, which can only be fill lights coming from the side.
These are very simple images that seem to establish the point beyond any doubt.
Here's one of my favorites.
This is another from Jack White, where he observes in this photograph on the left, Buzz has a big helmet, short legs, long arms, and a chest area with a set of controls at the right.
But above, in the right-hand photograph, Buzz has short arms, longer legs, a smaller helmet, and different chest controls at the left.
When you judge by the red spot, they're standing in virtually the same location.
I mean, how could he possibly have changed spacesuits on the moon?
Meanwhile, it turns out a computer analysis from a Project Apollo image turns out to be nothing but a gigantic light bulb.
That's a good one for NASA to attempt to explain away.
What was a giant light bulb doing on the moon?
Meanwhile, we also have visible lines separating front and back.
Jay Weidner has been particularly good at noticing this, almost in the middle of the photograph.
You see there's what appears to be a dividing line between the images in the foreground and those in the background.
It's a technique that makes the background images look virtually as well-focused and clear as foreground images, where Kubrick's published articles about it, including one in my book about, and I suppose we didn't go to the moon either.
Photographic manipulation.
Getting into more extensive variations of manipulation.
NASA simply flipped a photo of Michael Collins during a no-gravity spaceflight and claimed it was taken during a Gemini 10 walk in space.
Here we have a cover photo showing one astronaut reflected in the visor of the other, but since there were only two on the moon, who took the photograph?
Meanwhile, during Apollo 16 liftoff, the camera follows the ascent, but who was left to pan the camera?
It was all occurring too fast for remote control by transmissions from Earth.
Remember, 250,000 miles away.
So here we have this wonderful book by Ralph Rene, NASA, Moon, America, How We Never Went to the Moon and Why, where he lays out these arguments.
Here he finds what he calls the spacey twins, where NASA used the same photo twice, perhaps to cut expenses?
Rene begins with the photographic evidence and early being the sequence where photo one is from the book Carrying the Fire by astronaut Michael Collins, showing Collins in a no-gravity test.
Photo two from the same book, allegedly during a Gemini 10 spacewalk.
He noticed something fishy, reversed number one and sized it so he could overlay it on two and they match.
It's the same photograph.
This is pretty fascinating.
The cover photo of his book shows two lunar astronauts, or astrononauts, as Rene calls them, one reflecting the other's visor.
The reflected astronaut is not holding a camera, so who took the picture with only two men on the moon?
Here you see one's image and the other reflected in it, so who actually took the photograph?
His favorite photo anomaly is photo 3, which Renee titled Mutt and Jeff.
It's basically a photo of Armstrong holding the staff and Aldrin holding the flag.
But while they're basically the same height, the shadow of Armstrong is about 75% the weight of Aldrin's.
They aren't parallel as they should be, but converge, indicating two sources of light.
He used trigonometry to discover Aldrin's personal source of illumination is at 26.4 degrees of altitude, while Armstrong's is at 34.9.
The sun was at 13.5 on the real moon, so where were these guys?
They certainly were not on the moon.
And as I mentioned during the lunar liftoff of Apollo 16, the camera followed the ship up off the surface.
No one left on the moon, so who panned the camera?
Here you have the Mutton Jeff.
Look how much longer is the shadow from the figure on the right than on the left.
Meanwhile, an odd fit.
This is a very nice, elegant proof.
With their backpacks on, the astronauts would need about 35 inches of clearance to call through the 30-inch hatch on the lunar excursion module in the manner claimed by NASA.
Awful tight fit, actually, not even possible.
If they need 35 inches, but they only have 30 on the lunar excursion module, it can't fit at all.
That's not quite a round square in a round hole, square peg in a round hole, but it's pretty close to it.
After getting back to the lab, the astronauts repressurized their cabin according to NASA.
They removed their boots, slipped out of their backpacks heavy with life support equipment, re-opened the hatch, re-opened the hatch, and dumped them along with crumpled food packages and filled urine bags onto the surface.
There's no airlock on the lunar excursion module.
So how could they open the door after repressurization and dump their suits and garbage without dying from the presumptive vacuum and heat?
Or was it in the shade and therefore the cold?
This is very disturbing.
Outright murder.
Shortly before the 1967 test pad fire that killed three astronauts, Grissom, White, and Chaffee, Virgil Griffin told his wife, Betty, if there's ever a serious accident in the space program, it's likely to be me.
He had become a critic of the space program, had expressed unease about the success of actually getting men on the moon.
He actually had a little lemon he suspended from a little holder on his desk to reflect his feeling about the entire program.
It was a lemon.
The decision to run the test with pure oxygen at pressure was nothing short of ironic.
It created a calorimetric bomb set off by the astronauts being told to flip switches that cause tiny sparks immediately after the test pan fired before anyone was notified.
Government agents raided Grissom's home, took all his personal papers, worried that he had written things in critique of the program, since he knew it so well from the inside.
When they returned his papers to his widow, his personal diary and all papers containing the word Apollo were missing.
Five other astronauts died in accidents the same year.
Before the first Apollo manned mission left the launch pad, 11 astronauts had died in accidents.
Grissom, White, and Chaffee in the capsule fire.
Freeman, Bassett, C. Rogers, Williams, Adams, and Lawrence in airplane crashes.
Remember, these were the world's best pilots flying their own personal aircraft.
Government-supplied jet trainers in very safe craft, and Givens killed in a car crash.
In 1970, Taylor died in a plane crash.
Well, with these as preliminaries, I think you're well positioned to appreciate this wonderful film conspiracy.
Did we land on the moon?
After we take a look, I'll explain how it appears to me that there are some scenes that have been removed that are rather devastating.
But here, take it in.
This is what captivated my attention at the Morgan Hotel on Bloomsbury Street in London back in 2001.
The following program deals with a controversial subject.
The theories expressed are not the only possible interpretation.
Viewers are invited to make a judgment based on all available information.
Tonight, we have a liftoff!
We have a liftoff!
We investigate the most extraordinary event of the 20th century.
It's one small step for man.
Man landing on the moon.
One giant leap for mankind.
But believe it or not, some people say it never happened.
This whole thing is a fake.
Decide for yourself today, as we explore the epic.
We're live!
Analyze official government photos.
Excelled the films.
Supplied flaps on the moon where there's no atmosphere.
And hear the testimony of one former astronaut who's not afraid to speak his mind.
Chester could have covered it up.
Could the government have orchestrated the deception of the century?
NASA could have pulled off the greatest hoax of all time.
You be the judge on Conspiracy Theory.
Did we land on the moon?
On July 16th, 1969, America held its breath.
Yeah.
Nine.
Ignition sequence starts in six.
Two.
One.
Zero.
All engines run normal.
Liftoff.
We have ignition.
Apollo 11 blasted into space, beginning its 250,000-mile journey to the moon.
During their eight-day voyage, the Apollo 11 astronauts saw spectacular views of the Earth, floated in a weightless environment, and supposedly went where no man had gone before.
That's looking good down at half.
Icon.
Picking up some dust.
Going forward, drifting to the right a little.
Contact right.
Okay, engine stop.
We copy.
Get down, Eagle.
There's been, uh, tranquility based here.
The Eagle has landed.
But did it?
Did they really land on the moon?
Most of us think so.
Millions of people watched on television as the lunar lander touched down, and these unforgettable words were spoken.
That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.
But even today, there are those who claim that believing in man's one small step It requires one giant leap of faith.
Bill Kaysing was an analyst and engineer at Rocketdyne, the company that designed the Apollo rockets.
There were many problems that evolved during the 60s that led people to believe that we're never going to make it to the moon.
Three decades ago, when the world watched Apollo's lunar landings, Bill Kaysing was watching too. .
But what he saw on television, combined with his experiences at Rocketdyne, made him a skeptic.
The whole thing then seemed phony to me.
I think it was an intuitive feeling that what was being shown was not real.
As he studied the footage more closely, He was shocked to find several inconsistencies.
Gacy observed that despite the clarity of deep space, the stars were missing from the black lunar sky.
He saw the American flag waving, even though there is no air on the moon.
And he discovered that there was no blast crater beneath the lunar lander, where its powerful rocket engine had fired.
This evidence convinced Kaysing that we never sent a man to the moon.
But NASA dismisses these charges.
There are always going to be people who believe some outlandish theories and the notion that we somehow were able to fake lunar missions is pretty outlandish.
As outlandish as it might seem, it has been estimated that as many as 20% of Americans believe we never went to the moon.
But how could anyone think that one of the greatest moments in human history There's a hoax.
Is it really possible that NASA deceived the world?
According to a former astronaut, it's entirely possible.
Regarding the Apollo mission, I can't say 100% for sure whether these men walked on the moon.
Brian O'Leary was a NASA astronaut in the 1960s and served as a science advisor during the Apollo moon missions.
It's possible that NASA could have covered it up just in order to cut corners Allegedly gone to the moon.
Was getting to the moon first so important that our government would consider faking it?
To find the answer, we have to go back 40 years, to a time when America and the Soviets were locked in a struggle for world domination.
People assumed that the nation that won the space race would win the Cold War.
We defined that as being first to the moon.
It was a time of, more or less, national hysteria.
On October 4th, 1957, the Soviets terrified America when they sent Sputnik, the world's first satellite, into orbit.
The New York Times had to publish an article explaining to Americans that it did not carry nuclear bombs that could be dropped on the city from that altitude.
The American public's fear of nuclear annihilation intensified as Russia took the lead in the space race.
House Speaker, I'm ousting Congress so we may be headed for extinction.
Many feared that the Soviet Union's ultimate goal was to put a missile base on the moon.
Meanwhile, America's space program was having difficulty even getting off the ground.
The chances of getting to the moon and returning safely to Earth were something like .0017 percent.
In other words, virtually an impossibility.
What actually happened, in my mind, is that during the 60s, they said, if you can't make it, fake it.
But if the Apollo missions were fake, how was this monumental hoax accomplished?
According to Casey, the launch of Apollo's Saturn V rocket was real.
It just never sent astronauts to the moon.
The astronauts were Launched with the Saturn V. Then, in order to account for their disappearance, they simply orbited the Earth for eight days.
And in the interim, they showed these fake pictures of the astronauts on the moon.
But on the eighth day, the command capsule separated from the vehicle and descended to Earth as of course was shown in films. the command capsule separated from the vehicle and descended to This theory inspired the 1978 movie, Capricorn One, in which the government attempts to fool the world by faking a mission to Mars.
We do not claim this planet in the name of America.
We claim it in the name of all the people of planet Earth.
The Apollo footage is strikingly similar to the scenes in Capricorn 1.
Producer Paul Lazarus suggests that the film's plot line could be more fact than fiction.
I believe, had they wanted to, that NASA could indeed have pulled off the greatest hoax of all time, never send anyone to the moon, and recreated it in a television studio.
And I believe it could have been done at that time.
Technology was in place.
The body is solid.
Surface seems powdery.
Surface is fine and powdery.
What we put up on the screen was our own simulated version of whatever we could do within a four million eight budget.
But with NASA's 40 billion dollar budget, Kaysing believes they had the resources to pull off a hoax if they couldn't make it to the moon.
The reason I believe that NASA and the government faked the moon landing Absolutely impossible to do it.
And they simply had to come up with some sort of alternative that they felt the public would believe.
Chasing theorizes that the lunar landings were actually filmed in Nevada's high desert at the top secret military base known as Area 51.
Area 51 is one of the most heavily guarded facilities in the United States.
If you went in and tried to get some information, you could be shot and killed without any warning.
Russian spy satellite photos of Area 51 reveal not only a series of hangars that resemble movie soundstages, but also barren moon-like areas, which coincidentally are covered with craters.
Compare this photo of the lunar crater, allegedly taken from the moon's orbit by Apollo 10, with this satellite photo of a crater at Area 51.
Even astronauts acknowledge the similarity of the terrain.
Could billions of people really have been fooled into thinking the Nevada desert was the moon?
Kaysing believes it's possible.
The real reason Area 51 is so heavily guarded.
This is a very secret base and with good reason because undoubtedly the moon sets are still there.
And if they are, no one's getting a look at them anytime soon.
Up next.
Tangoody Base here.
If the Lear module landed with 10,000 pounds of thrust, why is there no blast crater?
Plus, was this footprint really made on the moon?
And later, 10 astronauts die under strange circumstances.
How far could the conspiracy reach?
Find out when conspiracy theory returns.
We've all been led to believe that on July 20, 1969, the Lunar Excursion Module, also known as the Lunar Excursion Module, also known as the LEM, carried American astronauts to the surface of the moon.
But could it have simply been a prop lowered by wires onto a movie set?
Bill Kaysing says that this may explain the absence of engine noise in the official NASA footage.
The noise level of a rocket engine is up into the 140-150 decibel range, In other words, enormously loud.
How would it be possible to hear astronauts' voices against the background of a running rocket engine?
They can have some dust.
City feet, two and a half down.
Great shadow.
Forward, forward, drifting to the right a little.
Contact light.
Okay, engine stop.
Is this evidence that the footage is actually fake? - A sequence shot in a controlled environment here on Earth?
Just months before this historic landing, a prototype Lem was flight tested at Ellington Air Force Base.
While NASA cameras record the test flight, Neil Armstrong struggles to control the unwieldy craft.
Then, at approximately 300 feet, the lander flies wildly out of control.
At the last second, Armstrong ejects.
And floats to safety.
Thank you.
If the lander was so unstable and difficult to fly in the controlled environment of Earth, then how could the LM land six times flawlessly in the alien environment of the Moon?
Dolem had a single engine mounted dead center, and then they had little push jets, thruster jets, a couple of them up on top.
This was supposed to control their attitude as they came down.
Well, I'll tell you a secret.
The instant you moved your tail in that cabin an inch, you would change the load pattern, it would begin to tilt, and it would start that thing spinning. - The arguments that have been arrayed on the side and it would start that thing spinning. - The arguments that have been arrayed on the side of those who believe that the lunar landings were a hoax are very elaborate, and they have to
In the end, there's one set of evidence that is irrefutable, and that is that there are footprints, boot prints, still on the lunar surface.
But conspiracy theorists say that the footprints themselves are suspicious.
The surface appears to be very fine-grained as you get close to it.
It's almost like a powder.
To have a powerful rocket engine blast the surface of the moon, blasting away all of the dust, and then find footprints surrounding the lunar lander, that to me would be an impossibility. .
Photo after photo reveals that the lunar surface surrounding the LEM is covered with footprints.
But Casey says there's something even more difficult to explain.
The fact that there's no blast crater under the LEM is one of the most conclusive pieces of evidence that I find supporting the hoax.
In fact, no sign of a blast crater is visible for any of the six lunar landings.
But LEM specialist Paul Fjell says he can explain why the lunar module left no crater when landing on the moon.
The amount of thrust that you need coming out of the bottom of the descent engine is about 1,500-2,000 pounds thrust.
And all that does is just push dust away.
There's no burning or anything like that.
Yet NASA's own scientific illustrations clearly depict a blast crater.
Then there's one other point.
If they had truly landed on the moon, this dust would have then descended on the lunar lander on the footpads, and we find not a trace of dust on the footpads.
When I discovered that alone, I said, no way am I looking at a lunar lander that landed on the moon.
Could it be that the LEM was just a prop on a giant lunar movie set?
But Armstrong said, that's one small step for man and one giant leap for mankind.
The footprint that he made could have easily been made in Area 51.
Jason points out that the LEM's departure from the lunar surface is even more suspicious.
In the footage of the ascent stage going up, what you don't see is an exhaust plume coming out of the rocket engine nozzle.
What a ride, what a ride.
But what do we see?
We see the ascent stage suddenly pop up without any exhaust plume whatsoever, as though it were jerked up by a cable.
Is this evidence of a conspiracy?
Was the government capable of such a massive cover-up?
To propose that this was all fake and a hoax, they have to say that every piece of evidence, that every physical, scientific test that one could offer to support the reality of the lunar landings, they have to say that all of those are fake.
I would say that my conviction that Apollo was a fake was really not according to one specific piece of evidence, but it was cumulative.
This whole thing is a fake.
Coming up.
We're getting a picture on the TV.
If there's no air on the moon, why is this American flag waiting?
Plus, could these official NASA photos have been doctored?
All of the photographs were fake.
And later, is it possible for humans to have survived the deadly radiation in deep space?
when conspiracy theory continues.
If the moon landings were actually filmed on a movie set, then where's the evidence?
Thank you.
According to David Percy, an award-winning filmmaker and photographer, the proof is in NASA's own lunar photos and video.
Our research suggests that images of the Apollo landings are not a true and accurate record.
In our view, the Apollo pictures were faked.
Many of the images are replete with inconsistencies and anomalies.
In fact, Percy claims that when examined, these images suggest that man never went to the moon at all.
This famous scene of man taking his first steps on the lunar surface is one of the most recognizable in history.
But why are such important images so grainy and hard to see?
Hey, we're getting a picture on the TV!
Have you had a good picture?
NASA claims it's the result of 1960s technology.
If you go back and look at it, the Apollo 11 mission was some pretty awful video by today's standards.
These were ghostly images that just did not look very real at all.
And that was a function of the transmitter at the time, the camera at the time that we had available to us to fly on Apollo 11.
But investigative journalist Bart Sabrell believes that NASA intentionally made the images hard to see.
NASA orchestrated the hubs in a very unique way, through television.
They had one picture which they completely controlled, black and white, grainy, that convinced everybody we were on the moon.
We had no reason to doubt it.
They had complete reigns over the pictures, over the sound.
I mean, sad to say, it was easier than people believe.
But despite the lack of clarity, conspiracy theorists see evidence suggesting that these images were staged.
It's absolutely unreal!
Although it appears that the astronauts are moving in the moon's gravity, which is one-sixth that of the Earth, Percy notes that when the speed of the film is doubled, the astronauts appear to be running as if in Earth's gravity.
Also, when the footage of the lunar rover is doubled in speed, it looks as if it's driving here on Earth.
But there's another reason some believe the Apollo missions were shot on Earth.
If there is no air or wind on the moon, why is this American flag waving?
Thank you.
The fact that the flag flaps on the moon where there's no atmosphere means that there must have been a little blast of wind out in Area 51 where they shot this.
Could these questionable images simply be the result of astronauts struggling to plant the flag into the lunar surface?
Or is there more going on than meets the eye?
What about the still photography?
Some say the design of the bulky spacesuits would have made it extremely difficult for the astronauts to operate their chest-mounted cameras.
The man who designed these cameras is Jan Lundberg.
Once on the moon, on the lunar surface, in the dress, in the lights of the system, you couldn't see the camera.
They couldn't bend their head that far down.
They had no viewfinder, they had to aim by moving their body.
If the cameras were so difficult to manipulate, how were thousands of photos taken with crystal clarity and precise framing?
The pictures that we see that allegedly were taken on the moon are absolutely perfect!
But with closer examination, Casington's flaws begin to emerge.
Unfortunately, errors were made which are now being discovered Conspiracy theorists point out that lighting is a major flaw in the lunar photos.
Case in point.
On the Moon, the astronauts' only source of light was the Sun.
They had no extra lighting.
No flashes, no things like that.
Yet in this photograph from Apollo 14, the shadows are cast in different directions, suggesting multiple light sources.
The shadows cast by the rocks in the foreground should have been east-west, like the LEM shadows.
And in this photo from Apollo 17, again the shadows are pointing in different directions.
Outside in sunlight, shadows always are in parallel with one another, so the shadows will never intersect.
Conspiracy theorists say it's not just the shadows that indicate the use of additional lights, but what has been photographed in the shadows.
For example, here's an astronaut who descends into a huge shadow cast by the lunar module.
Yet his entire body is still visible.
How is it that he is not shrouded in darkness?
Here's the same maneuver from another Apollo mission.
Again, the astronaut is brightly lit in what is obviously dark shadow.
And in this picture, the sun is directly behind the astronaut.
His figure should be a silhouette.
Yet even the smallest characteristics of his suit are recognizable.
It seems like he's standing in the spotlight.
But I can't explain that.
That escapes me.
Bye.
And finally, in this picture with the sun behind the lunar module, The front of the craft is clearly visible.
The words United States are crisp and clear.
How could these backlit pictures be so detailed?
It's because there's more than one light source, which means they're not on the moon.
But NASA simply dismisses these arguments.
There are a number of claims that the pictures taken by Apollo astronauts were faked and There are so many, it would be an exercise and futility to go off and try to answer all of those.
But the questions continue.
Why do some of these images shot at different times and different places appear to have identical backgrounds?
These two photos seem to have the same mountain backdrop, yet the lunar module is only present in one of them.
Seemingly impossible, Since the LEM never moved, and its base remained even after the mission.
What a ride!
What a ride!
Some suggest the same artificial backdrop was used when shooting two entirely separate pictures.
Background discrepancies are also apparent in the lunar video.
The best evidence are some pictorial anomalies in the photographic record of the trip to the moon.
There is one for Apollo 16 where the same shot, the same hill, appears in two different days.
This tape was shot on what was reported to be the first of Apollo 16's lunar excursions.
And this video was from the next day, at a different location.
That is the most beautiful sight!
NASA claims the second location was two and a half miles away.
But when one video was superimposed over the other, the locations appear identical.
The conspiracy theorists see that as evidence that we didn't go to the moon, that it was staged, and the opposite point of view is that it's a case of bad editing.
Conspiracy theorists claim that even closer examination of the photos suggests evidence of doctoring.
For reference, crosshairs were permanently etched into the lunar cameras, so they would have to appear on top of every image.
The End But in this photo, a crosshair is behind a part of the lunar rover.
This situation is impossible and has to be the result of technical manipulation and doctoring of the image.
And in this photo from Apollo 11, the equipment in the foreground is covering the crosshair, not behind it.
And in another from Apollo 12, the American flag is covering one crosshair and the astronaut is covering the other.
When presented with these questionable photos and videos, NASA refutes the conspiracy theories.
Some range from incredibly complicated to incredibly goofy.
Um, there are arguments that are, um, wrong optically, they're wrong physically, they're wrong scientifically, they're wrong historically.
There's, uh, you know, a great deal of claptrap that is sort of woven into these arguments.
But despite what NASA says, the conspiracy theorists still insist that Apollo was a hoax.
When I looked at all the pictures and all the footage, I'm absolutely convinced, I bet my life on it, that we didn't go to the moon, and I know for a fact that we didn't.
Coming up next, tragedy strikes the Apollo program.
The program could be stopped, never destroyed.
Three astronauts die in a pre-launch simulation.
But was it an accident?
She was going to blow the whistle on the whole project.
And later, could the astronauts have survived a trip into deep space?
Before they got one half-way to the moon, they would have picked up a death dose of radiation.
Next, theorists say is true.
How could NASA perpetrate such a widespread hoax without someone from the inside blowing the whistle?
Virgil Gus Grissom was selected as one of the original seven astronauts.
A family man and a veteran of several space flights, he was a national hero, and was likely to be the first man to walk on the moon.
But Grissom was also an outspoken critic of the space program, and was quoted as saying, someone's going to get killed.
Unfortunately, Grissom's worst fears were soon realized.
On January 27th, 1967, two years before the first moon landing, Grissom and his crew boarded the Apollo 1 capsule for a full-scale simulation.
The problems began almost immediately.
First, the capsule's communication systems failed.
No, I didn't raise it up at all.
I can't raise it up.
Do you want to try the phone?
Suddenly, the capsule burst into flames with the astronauts sealed inside.
The capsule burst into flames with the astronauts sealed inside.
Ed White and Roger Chaffee lost their lives before ever leaving the launch pad.
The capsule burst into flames with the astronauts sealed inside.
Gus Grissom's family believes the Apollo 1 fire was no accident.
I think it was intentionally sabotaged.
found in the accident investigation and how was that handled, was the CIA involved or whoever.
But it was done intentionally.
Grissom's family doesn't know who was responsible for his death or why it happened.
But they say NASA knows the truth.
Dusty, he's alive for this program and I feel like that it is up to NASA to come forward and give us a direct answer to what really Were Gus Grissom and the Apollo 1 astronauts victims of a tragic accident?
Or were they intentionally silenced because they knew too much?
We may never know.
The cause of the fire is still a mystery, and the capsule remains locked away at a military base.
But Grissom wasn't the only Apollo critic to meet with a suspicious and untimely death.
Thomas Ronald Barron was a safety inspector during Apollo 1's construction.
After the fire, Barron testified before Congress that the Apollo program was in such disarray that the United States would never make it to the moon.
He claimed his opinions made him a target.
Has there been any pressure on you by now?
No, we were moratting out of someone to laugh at home when the first thing we go to is not back.
But it's going away now.
As part of his testimony, Barron submitted a 500-page report detailing his findings.
There was real fear that the program could be stopped dead in his tracks.
And exactly one week after he testified, Barron's car was struck by a train.
Barron, his wife, and stepdaughter were killed instantly.
I believe that Thomas Ronald Barron was murdered because he had the proofs to tell about the Apollo Project.
Baron's report mysteriously disappeared.
And to this day, it has never been found.
But the Apollo program continued.
And so did the strain of untimely deaths.
Between 1964 and 1967, a total of 10 astronauts lost their lives in freak accidents.
These deaths accounted for an astonishing 15% of NASA's astronaut corps. .
To keep something that's alive wrapped up and covered over, you've got to eliminate all the people that you talk about.
Could the government have gone this far to pull off such an elaborate hoax?
NASA says it's impossible.
There were probably a quarter of a million people who were directly involved in the Apollo program and another half a million people beyond that.
Three quarters of a million people can't keep a secret like that.
That's just not going to happen.
But Bart Sabrell insists that most NASA employees knew nothing of the deception.
Very few people at NASA knew.
Things are so departmentalized.
You've got the person building the pulse in Houston, or doing this in Seattle, or doing this in Florida.
No one knows the full picture.
So, you know, you had no one seeing the full picture of anything, except a handful of people.
If the conspiracy theorists are right, and only a few people knew the whole story, then the truth may remain buried forever.
When we return, could the astronauts have survived the deadly radiation of space?
Getting them past the radiation belt would have been impossible.
And a Russian cosmonaut breaks his silence.
When conspiracy theory returns, suspicious deaths.
Yeah.
Evidence of doctored photos and flags waving in the airless vacuum of space are not the only reasons to doubt that we ever went to the moon.
Some say the astronauts could never even have survived the trip.
The reason why they couldn't go to the moon is because of a phenomenon that few people know about called the Van Allen radiation belts.
500 miles above the Earth, these bands of intense radiation surround our planet and are thousands of miles thick.
Any human being traveling through the Van Allen Belt would have been rendered either extremely ill or actually killed by the radiation within a short time thereafter.
Other than the Apollo missions, no other manned spaceflight has attempted to pass through this deadly radiation.
Every manned mission in history, Gemini, Mercury, Skylab, Spatial, has been below the radiation belt.
All except going to the moon.
To protect the astronauts, the capsule would have needed six feet of lead shielding, according to physicist Ralph Rene.
Obviously, the only shielding they had was the literally paper-thin outer hull of aluminum.
And there's suits consisting of glass fiber, some aluminum fibers, and silicon rubber.
It's very interesting concerning radiation, that the astronauts were protected by a thin film of aluminum, and here on Earth they put a lead shield on us when they take a dental x-ray.
Some theorize that if the Van Allen belts didn't kill the astronauts, even deadlier doses of radiation deeper in space would have.
Violent explosions in the sun called magnetic storms flood space with intense radioactivity.
A magnetic storm will come along and that can increase the intensity of the radiation belts by maybe a thousand times above what it was before.
According to Rene, the Apollo 16 mission coincided with one of the sun's most intense storms ever recorded.
Around the rotating sun came this immense flare, the biggest one of the 20th century.
It went on for three or four days, all the while it's slowly rotating around.
Although the effects of radiation are horrific, ranging from hair loss to cancer to death, the solar flares had no adverse effect on the Apollo 16 crew.
NASA had another problem, and one is that the moon's surface is totally inhospitable to man.
If you do it in the dark, and that includes any point of the shadow of the spacecraft itself, the temperatures go down to 250 degrees below zero.
In the sun, the temperatures go up to 250 degrees above zero.
Rene also theorized that the astronauts' liquid-cooled spacesuits could not have provided sufficient protection from the intense heat and radiation.
But NASA maintains that this hypothesis is wrong.
The claim that the radiation on the lunar surface would have incapacitated or hurt the astronauts adds equal parts bad science and a bad understanding of how we went about designing the equipment, the spacesuits that they We're incredibly tough and very resilient to lots of different things.
If those suits do what NASA says they can do, then I want to see them suit up a guy or two, put him into Three Mile Island, the pit there that's still hot, and have them clean up the mess.
But they can't and they don't.
The fact remains that no Apollo astronaut has ever suffered a serious illness from a trip to the moon.
Could this be because they never left the safety of Earth's atmosphere in the first place?
This is the main reason why the Russians never really intended to send the men to the moon.
Was it the fear of lethal radiation that caused the Russians to abandon their plans to go to the moon?
According to one of their chief cosmonauts, it was certainly a factor.
Of course, we were worried to go out into the unknown of space.
Of course, we were fearful.
We had no idea how a human would be affected by the radiation.
We suspected that possibly the radiation could even penetrate through the craft itself.
Are the deadly perils of space proof that NASA faked the Apollo missions?
To this day, the Russians have never sent a man to the moon.
And we have no plans to return.
A final word when conspiracy theory continues.
Various theories and explanations.
Do you believe it's possible for our government to perpetrate such an incredible hoax?
Is it conceivable that with its $40 billion price tag, the Apollo program was nothing more than the most expensive movie ever made?
It is my personal belief.
And I totally believe this, after all the years of research I've done on this, that NASA never landed a man on the moon.
I would say that anybody who believes that we did not go to the moon is an absolute nut.
Anyone that wants to call me a crook, or a nut, or a crackpot, they're welcome to do that.
But they're also welcome to go examine the evidence, which is everywhere.
The United States went to the moon in the 1960s and 1970s.
End of story.
Is there any way to put this controversy to rest once and for all?
The only thing the experts agree upon is that the answer is a quarter of a million miles away.
If NASA truly landed on the moon, remnants of the six successful Apollo missions would have been left behind.
The base structures of the LEMs, I would like to invite NASA and all of their supporters to simply take the most powerful telescope on Earth and see if there's a lunar lander there.
If there's a lunar lander there, I'll never say another word about an Apollo Hoax.
If there's no lunar lander there, I'll rest my case.
But no telescope exists that can examine the Moon in such detail.
Do objects from the Apollo missions remain on the moon in silent testimony?
Or is the conspiracy theory true?
In two years, Japan will send an orbiter to take close-up photos of the moon's surface.
What will they find?
Until then, the question remains, did we land on the moon?
Now, there's a little addendum to this, which which is fascinating in and of itself, where you have three astronauts who are talking about their experience.
And you'll notice how their demeanor is completely inconsistent with them having actually authentically experienced what they're reporting themselves.
They're halting, hesitating.
The principal spokes guy doesn't look like he believes a word he says, so I want you to judge based upon their demeanor.
Two other points.
I want you to put in caps any questions you may have for me for us to discuss and address after the completion of the presentation, which is going to include my going through quite a few more arguments that, in my opinion, demonstrate beyond any doubt we did not go to the moon.
I'd also like to point out a misuse of language that occurred between the word refutation And the word rebuttal.
A refutation is a decisive proof that a position someone has asserted is false or indefensible.
But you notice the NASA spokesman did nothing of that kind.
He kind of wandered around the issue.
I haven't heard him refute a single one of the arguments that have been presented regardless.
So what he's done is give rebuttals, which are simply responses that may fall woefully short of being refutations, as indeed is the case here.
Now watch the appendix here to the conspiracy theory.
Followed by question and answer. - Thank you.
At this time, I'd like to introduce the Atoll 11 crew.
Astronauts Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins, Edwin Alton.
Neil?
It was our pleasure to have participated in one great adventure.
It's an adventure that took place not just in the month of July, but rather One that took place in the last decade.
We all here and the people listening in today had the opportunity to share that adventure over its developing and unfolding in the past months and years.
It's our privilege today to share with you some of the details of that final month of July that was certainly the highlight for the three of us of that decade.
We're going to divert a little bit from the format of past press conferences and talk about the things that interested us most, in particular the The things that occurred on and about the moon.
We will use a number of films and slides which most of you have already seen.
And with the intent of pointing out some of the things that we observed on the spot which may not be obvious to To those of you who are looking at them here from the surface of Earth.
Now I gotta say, that is to me unbelievably pathetic.
Any of us would have more enthusiasm and conviction talking about a camping trip to Yosemite.
These men are alleged to have gone all the way to the moon, 250,000 miles each way, and succeeded in a spectacular triumph of science and technology incomparable to any other.
And yet they seem embarrassed, they seem in shame, because those are real emotions they could not conceal.
One of my favorite essays in the book, and I suppose we didn't go to the moon either, is by Winston Wu, who offers 35 proofs we didn't go.
He observes, for example, NASA's inability to send men to the moon today means they cannot have done it in 1969 and the years following.
Areas of high technology typically show advances every few years, except for our ability to travel to the moon.
Wernher von Braun led an expedition to the Antarctic in 1967 to collect moon rocks as proof that we had gone.
Either we didn't go or it was done using secret advanced technology in which the public has remained uninformed, an issue that I shall be glad to address as we proceed.
Here we have Winston's article, 35 Proofs We Didn't Go.
Valid reasons to doubt NASA's historic manned lunar mission.
The bigger the lie, the easier it will be believed, observed Adolf Hitler.
This is certainly one of the stunning big lies of all time.
So here Winston talks about the alternative hypotheses, given the evidence he induced, H1, the moon landings were a hoax and we never went or H2.
We went to the moon, but there's a dark secret surrounding it that caused us not to go back and that led to faking of at least some of the videos and photos of the moon.
And I think that's, you know, appropriate way to put it, except that we don't really have a reason to think we went at all.
So this is really what you might call on the order of wishful thinking.
Winston has so many wonderful arguments.
NASA's inability to send men to the moon today means they could not have done it in 1969.
Fact.
Every major technological accomplishment in history has been replicated or repeated well under 40 years, all except one.
Within 40 years of Christopher Columbus setting foot in America in 1492, thousands of other Europeans had done the same.
Within 40 years of the Wright Brothers' flight across the Atlantic Ocean in 1903, thousands of others had done the same.
Within 40 years of Sir Edmund Hillary, Reaching the summit of Mount Everest in 1953, thousands of others had done the same.
Yet, 40 years after 12 men allegedly set foot on the moon in 1969-72, not a single person or country has done it, nor attempted to do it, including the Russians who were ahead of us in the space race.
Indeed, that was what precipitated the whole claim to go to the moon, Sputnik, which left the Western nation surprised and America embarrassed.
Meanwhile, fact.
Since the Apollo moon missions in 69 to 72, it sent astronauts 240,000, really 250,000, to the moon and back six times.
240,000, really 250,000 to the moon and back six times.
No one has ever gone higher than 400 miles above the Earth.
Even the space shuttle missions have gone below that, remaining well under 400 miles.
Fact!
So far, 14 astronauts have died in space shuttle missions that went 200 miles above the Earth.
Yet, during the Apollo program, NASA allegedly sent astronauts 240, call it 250,000 miles to the moon and back, six times with no loss of life at all.
In other words, 200 miles equals 14 casualties, 240,000 zero casualties.
Does this seem odd?
Would you buy that?
Can you fathom the enormous difference between 200 and 240,000 and how big of a stretch?
Here's one of the moon rocks.
This actually turned out to be a piece of petrified wood.
I think without any doubt that the moon rocks have been what most would regard as the strongest evidence that we actually went to the moon and therefore that discovery Learning that Wernher von Braun had actually conducted an exposition to the Antarctic to pick up moon rocks, which could then be presented as having, you know, come from the moon and be actual genuine moon rocks, which simply didn't make their mode of transportation to Earth the same.
Instead, they had been dislodged from the surface of the moon by the impact of small asteroids captured in Earth's gravitational field and brought down to Earth.
Well, Werner and his crew were able to gather them up.
And this, of course, was January 7, 1967, in anticipation of what would occur about two years later.
Conclusion.
This is Winston's conclusion.
Remember, he's got like 33 more arguments.
Hopefully you can see the totality of reasons and facts constitute a powerful case to question the authenticity, no doubt about it.
So he concludes either the moon landings were a hoax, we never went, or we went to the moon but there's a dark secret surrounding it, secret technology, all the like.
All the evidence, fake photos, logic, and common sense point to H1, the host, the hoax explanation.
On the other hand, the argument we did go is scanty, shady, nonsensical, mostly based on religious faith and pride rather than anything provable.
Thus, on the weight of the evidence and data, it leaves heavily on the hoax side.
On the balance of scales, the evidence for the moon hoax would win by a landslide.
And here you see the book where you can find Winston's essay and a good many others.
This is my favorite of all the books I've edited from Moonrock Books, the second edition, which is supplemented by a good number, a half a dozen or more essays.
There are more facts that defeat Hypothesis H1 that we actually went to the moon.
Inconsistent reports about the visibility of stars in the sky.
The flimsy moon lander with no blown out dust cavity.
The no moon dust on the lander's landing pad.
Falsifying fact after fact after fact.
Here's this very interesting oddity that occurred.
Neil Armstrong saying the sky is black.
You know, it's a very dark sky.
Meanwhile, Mike Collins on Gemini 10 is saying, my God, the stars are everywhere above me, on all sides, even below me.
The stars are bright and they are steady.
This is written 14 years later.
Remember, the Gemini 10 spacewalk was shown has now been proven fake.
Mike Collins on, in relation to Apollo 11, I can't see the Earth, only the black starless sky behind the Agena rocket.
As I slowly cartwheel away from the Agena, I see nothing but the black sky for several seconds.
Gene Cernan on Apollo 17.
When the sunlight comes through the blackness of space, it's black.
I didn't say it's dark, I said black.
Yuri Gagarin, first Russian cosmonaut.
Astonishingly bright, cold stars can be seen through the windows.
Well, think about it.
I mean, the Moon has no atmosphere, so you're not going to get the twinkle phenomenon that is what makes the stars twinkle.
They'd all appear as billions of bright lights.
The sky from the moon would appear to be ablaze with little points of light.
Meanwhile, the moon lander is so flimsy.
I did a presentation, a discussion of moon landing with students who had gone to the Space Museum in Washington and they were just dumbfounded.
It's like it's made out of different colored forms of tinfoil.
This is rickety, flimsy.
Couldn't possibly accomplish the feats.
Notice there you have another case of the lander pad, not only with no dust, but it's in front of the X, which is on the lens, which of course is a physical impossibility.
Here's some very interesting arguments.
The lunar rover had inflatable tires, which would have exploded if pre-inflated, and there was no air on the moon to inflate them.
Pro-Apollo nutters claim the rover had solid wire mesh tires.
Yes, the rover in the museum had these fitted in the mid-70s when they realized pneumatic tires could not have functioned on the Moon.
NASA has had over 47 years in which to clean up the plainly obvious mistakes with the Apollo program.
It's happened again and again.
In fact, despite numerous photos taken on the Moon's surface, not one of them contains any frames showing planet Earth in the void of space.
That's very odd.
Fact, Neil Armstrong suffered with mental illness in his later years, a direct result of him putting his name forward as the foundation stone for the biggest lie in history.
Or could it be he became paranoid by the overwhelming number of websites exposing him as a liar?
I mean, this is really a tough row for him to hoe.
Fact, rumor has it Apollo 12 astronaut Pete Conrad was going public about the fake moon landings on the 30th anniversary back in July 1999.
Killed in an automobile accident one week before he would have revealed the hoax.
Fact!
It takes a space shuttle 66 hours to reach the International Space Station, which is a mere 200 miles above Earth.
NASA claims Apollo 13 was 55 hours into its duration from liftoff when it encountered a problem at a distance of 200,000 miles from Earth.
Okay.
Space shuttle, 66 hours to go 200 miles.
Apollo 13, only 55 to go 200,000-something strong.
Fact.
NASA had not perfected the lunar landing craft in time for Apollo 11.
In 2016, they're still trying to get a rocket to land and take off again, over 47 years after Apollo was supposed to have done just that.
Fact.
Film footage taken inside the capsule of all Apollo missions shows a light blue haze.
And the curvature of Earth through the capsule window, when they were supposedly halfway to the Moon, and in the blackness of space, proving it was only in Earth's orbit.
Fact.
Moon pictures in NASA's website are fake, with backdrop scenes pasted in.
The pictures reveal a black-lined pencil where the background meets daylight sky, blacked out completely.
Fact.
The LM used on later missions was the same spec as the first mission, that is, with no modifications.
It would have therefore been impossible to carry the rover vehicle to the Moon in the same confirmed LAM, even if it collapsed into a more compact form.
Here are more imposing impediments.
Saturn V rockets could not have escaped low Earth orbit.
Temperature increases could have melted the spacecraft.
Van Allen radiation would have taken the astronauts' lives.
Had we landed on the Moon, we could not have come back.
Take a look.
This is by a candidate of technical sciences.
This is from a Russian study physicist calculating that the center-phi velocity would have been incapable of getting into lunar orbit, of going outside of low-Earth orbit.
Here's a summary.
Given these obtained estimates, all arguments over what could have been achieved during the Apollo program should take into account that not more than 28 tons Including the Apollo 11 craft itself, out of 46 could have been placed into lunar orbit.
In other words, not quite twice as much as could possibly have been placed into orbit was being claimed here.
I find this argument very interesting, but it depends upon a very certain subtle observation.
Temperatures in the thermosphere up to 400 miles above our surface, which can reach from 932 Fahrenheit to 3,632 Fahrenheit, for example, exceeding the melting points of the materials of which a spacecraft is made.
Aluminum alloy, 671°F.
Stainless steel, 2750°F.
Titanium, 3034°F.
Nickel-steel alloy, 2647°F.
Heat-resistant glass, 1400°F.
steel 2750 degrees Fahrenheit, titanium 3034 Fahrenheit, nickel steel alloy 2647 Fahrenheit, heat resistant glass 1400 degrees Fahrenheit.
All of those were they raised to the temperatures that would be encountered in the thermosphere would have melted.
The question becomes however the distinction between temperature and heat in In other words, you could have a temperature that high, but if the spacecraft were passing through it very rapidly, it might not have heated up sufficiently to melt.
I find that troublesome given the variation in these melting points, but that would be the argument one might make in defense as a rebuttal.
Here, and this is fascinating, NASA unwittingly revealed the Van Allen radiation belts prohibit human spaceflight.
This was on August 30, 2012.
Since Neil Armstrong, first man on the moon, passed away a few days ago, I thought I'd post the following NASA article.
The following is a comment.
NASA is still seeking to develop technology to safeguard humans for spaceflight into radiation-laden space within and beyond the Van Allen radiation belts and the protection provided by our magnetosphere.
Until that technology is available, our exploits into space will continue to be well below the beginning of radiation belts so intense Van Allen called them a sea of deadly radiation.
What we know from the effects of radiation on Earth teaches us Apollo was nothing more than a fantasy.
Notice, in other words, NASA is actually acknowledging, and this was supposed to be in relation to a planned trip to Mars, that we could not have even gone to the Moon.
Here's a nice diagramic representation of the Van Allen Bells for Apollo, where any lunar mission to be successful, the equipment and crew aboard would have to be adequately shielded from exposure.
And you'll notice that it was observed that would require like six feet of lead to protect.
Meanwhile, there's this piece about the moon landing.
How does it bring him back?
Observing the difference between the ascent stage and the descent stage, which had a compulsion unit, is very peculiar.
That had we arrived on the surface, we could not have returned.
In fact, if you look At other footage, it appears that the ascent was yanked up by a cable, just as is mentioned.
Here are some surprising proofs we didn't go.
NASA destroyed a treasure trove of original moon landing footage.
NASA appealed for help with its space poop problem.
Earth has 55 times the density of the moon, yet photos don't reflect it.
Look at these.
Why did NASA just destroy Apollo tape recordings found in a basement?
This is rather stunning.
In Florida, they found a whole basement full of treasure trove.
But they destroyed it.
Why?
Because with modern technology, who could have detected the fakery?
This is what I love.
Help NASA solve its Facebook problem and win $30,000.
After all, when you gotta go, you gotta go.
Sometimes you gotta go in a total vacuum.
Astronauts have previously relied on adult nappies while wearing their launch and entry suits, a temporary solution only good for around a day.
NASA is now sponsoring the Space Loop Challenge, through which it's seeking the public's help to devise an in-suit waste management system for astronauts to use for up to 144 hours at a time.
Only for a day, these missions to the Moon and back took seven and eight days, which suggests, by the way, that the whole program, the whole claim we went to the Moon is nothing but a massive pile of space poop.
Here's one that's particularly intriguing by Scott Anderson.
He did an interview with me on The Real Deal, where he discovered what looks like the outline of a Corvette that was buried in the debris.
Which of course would make sense if this was actually in the high desert plains of Arizona, but not on the Moon.
Meanwhile, look at the relative size of the Earth and the Moon, okay?
If you're taking a photograph of Earth from the Moon, Your whole visual field is going to be completely filled because the Earth is so much more massive than the Moon.
But look, this is supposed to be a photograph of the Earth from the Moon.
Obviously, this is a photograph of the Moon that's been doctored to make it look as though it were a photograph of the Earth, but it's pathetic, hopelessly inadequate.
So, did we go to the Moon?
We did not have the propulsion power, the computing capacity, and the communication ability, which made it technically impossible.
Let me elaborate.
In other interviews I've done with Dennis Camino, for example, who was the Navy's leading electronic troubleshooter before he resigned and went to work for Raytheon, we have reviewed the computer and it turned out to be not even a functional computer.
It's weaker than, you know, what you'd find in a normal cell phone today.
As far as communication ability, I responded to A Huffington Post article that was really ridiculous, saying brilliant physicists, you know, refutes moon landing skeptics, where what he said was something just as trifling as, if you don't believe we went to the moon, you need to have your brain examined.
It was that childish and immature, just as we had the one spokesman for NASA saying, if you don't think we went to the moon, you're a nut, when all of the evidence is against it.
So I took the occasion of putting up one post after another proving we didn't go to the moon and the most interesting additional comment came from a fellow who said he was in communications in that era, 69-70, and to broadcast you would have needed a van the size of a bread truck.
We're talking about broadcasting 250,000 miles.
I'd observe, too, that there was no delay in the soundtrack, you know?
You'd think broadcasting over 250,000 miles you would have some delay, so you'd have a question and then a delay in the answer and so forth, and it sounds like they're communicating directly on the telephone.
from a very reasonable short distance away.
We did not have the ability to survive in Alan radiation or to endure the environment of the moon, technical and physical.
Notice especially with that 250 to 250 up above and below, that's a 500 degree variance.
How did you have a spacesuit that would enable you to survive at 250 degrees Fahrenheit above and at 250 below, which would take place merely going into the shadow and coming out of the shadow.
It's just ridiculous!
We didn't even have the ability to steal with space boot, which means the whole moon landing tail is a massive pile of space boot.
Here I want to add there just about the hot and freezing, the temperature on the moon, because I do think this is completely fascinating.
Here's a radiometer experiment of surface temperatures, and look how massively they vary on the moon.
I don't think we could design a spacesuit that would enable us to cope.
Meanwhile, it's rather fascinating.
We had an early photograph in National Geographic of Buzz Aldrin on the moon on the left.
And later, later, the National Geographic talked about the war on science.
And suggested, you know, gave the image of showing that the whole thing was filmed on a soundstage.
And why is it the War on Science cover is actually authentic to the facts and the earlier article is not?
Let me mention, by the way, Scott Henderson is going to be speaking at my Question Everything conference in Austin, Texas, 7th and 8th, where I bring together 20 experts.
On different issues.
If you want to check it out, MixedEndStream.com.
You can learn about it.
There's all kinds of events going on there.
Before we conclude, I want to observe that I am changing the date of these events.
We're having the next at two hours earlier.
So we'll begin at 6 p.m.
Pacific next Sunday, 8 p.m.
Central and 9 p.m.
Eastern.
Let me see what we have here now, if I can get the camera to work.
There I am!
If you have questions, okay, let me take a look at what we have here.
Can you make a video on the recent NASA SpaceX launch?
Any inconsistency, if there are any?
Well, I suspect others have done that.
I haven't sought to find it.
Why do so many NASA engineers and technicians believe the Apollo flight to the moon were real?
I think it may have to do with saving face, you know?
It's awfully embarrassing.
Look at those fake astronauts, you know, pretending they'd actually gone to the moon.
I mean, it's really shocking.
Let me look back and see if we have more questions here.
I'd be very glad for you to add any additional comments or questions you may have, because The whole thing is completely fascinating.
When you study philosophy, one of the key issues is how you can tell the difference between reality and illusion with the question of testability.
How can you gather evidence to confirm or falsify a given hypothesis?
In science, of course, the principal methods are observation, measurement, and experiment.
Now, when we hear about a secret space program using alien technology, talking about anti-gravity, and all that, where even some individuals whom I esteem, such as John Lear, maintain there's actually a secret base on the dark side of the moon, I really have to pause and consider How to respond to such a position?
How can we test it?
Well, theoretically, of course, if we could view the dark side of the moon, then we might have the opportunity.
At one point during the program Conspiracy Theory, there was a discussion about having a powerful A telescope look at the moon?
I suspect now that the Hubble, which is mounted in space, is sufficiently powerful to detect a lunar lander if there were one on the moon.
But I am given to understand that the Hubble is excluded from looking at the moon.
That's because, obviously, to protect the official government story from falsification that would be readily available if we only took advantage of it.
I've been trying to recapture what the Japanese claim to have found or not found, but I'm very, very troubled that we are getting, you know, coordination in the hoax.
There actually were Russians, Russian sources, if you went to my very first website, assassination.com, in the very first group of articles in the upper left-hand side of that rather complicated and now a bit archival website, I had an article published in Russia, I believe it was in Pravda, explaining why there was no good reason to believe we'd gone to the moon.
And when you consider that the necessary conditions that would have to be satisfied for this to have happened, Meaning we'd have had to have had sufficient propulsion power to escape low Earth orbit.
We would have had to have had the computing capacity.
We would have had to have the communication capacity.
We would have had to have the ability to negotiate through the Van Allen radiation belt.
None of those conditions are satisfied.
Which means the failure of having actually a capacity to launch into, you know, above low Earth orbit means we didn't go to the moon.
The failure to have a computer that could have navigated our way there with the one that they diagram isn't even functional.
I mean, that's a joke!
That's another sufficient condition to know we didn't go there.
That we didn't have the communication capacity.
You notice there was no van the size of a bread truck on the moon.
That we didn't have six feet of lead shielding to protect us from the Van Allen radiation belt.
And when you look at all the anomalies in the photographic record, I mean, it's just embarrassingly bad.
I love Jack White's purely quantitative argument that basically According to NASA, the astronauts were taking a photograph every 50 seconds, if you could believe their numbers, which is really simple, straightforward, elegant.
There's nothing very subtle about it.
And, of course, all the other anomalies.
I, as a professor of logic, of course, love a dilemma.
Either the moon dust retains impressions or the moon dust does not retain impressions.
If the Moondust retains impressions and we have rovers with no tracks, which refutes, leaves the conclusion that these are fake photographs.
If the Moondust does not retain impressions and we have the boot prints, even including the sneaker print, which proves that these photographs are altered.
So either it does or it doesn't, but either way, the photographs are fake.
So why would you fake this massive arrangement of photographs, which, as even the designer of the camera had to admit, he couldn't understand these various anomalies, especially when you consider the way they were externally mounted meant you couldn't even focus or frame the camera, and yet we have hundreds of perfectly framed photographs.
Actually, thousands, as Jack White observed.
I'm glad to see we're getting more questions here in CAPS.
Excellent!
Keep it up!
To what extent did the Kennedy statement about the end of this decade have to do with the hoax?
Well, it was John F. Kennedy who declared the goal of the country, you know, our scientific objective was to land on the moon by the end of the decade.
I'm convinced Jack was unaware of the technical scientific obstacles that made that accomplishing that task impossible.
It felt a tricky dick.
Of course, to perpetrate the hoax, which was very much, you know, his stocking trade.
Meanwhile, of course, Jack had been taken out by Lyndon and the whole business and, you know.
Supposedly reaffirmed the technical supremacy of the United States, having been embarrassed by the launch of Sputnik, but it was all a charade.
It was all politically motivated.
So we spent basically, as the conspiracy theory video reports, a billion dollars on the most expensive movie made in history.
Do I think Stanley Kubrick filmed the fake moon landing?
Yes, I believe with high probability Stanley Kubrick was hired by the American government to fake the moon landing.
There are lots of signs that Kubrick has given in some of his films, including the shining.
There are clues to his having faked the film.
Stanley Kubrick appears to have died an untimely death.
I think he was sick of all the fakery and fraud.
So yes, and I am far from alone in believing that Stanley Kubrick was the key player in conducting the fraud.
As well, they would have to have had a large changing room.
No, if you mean on the moon, I mean the whole thing is simply ridiculous.
I don't get how they would have easily disengaged the lunar module from the Apollo rocket.
I think that's a good question in this part and parcel of the issue about, you know, how could we have got back once we got there?
Presumably, the argument would be that just as with regard to moon rocks, That if you can get up above Moon's surface and capture it in Earth's gravitational field, then it'll bring you right back home.
But the whole thing is obviously a fraud.
You know, I think there's just no question about it, where it's just a matter of looking at the evidence.
I cannot tell you how frustrating it happens, you know, when I engage in discussion with those who may be skeptical about Sandy Hook or the Boston bombing or Parkland or Charlottesville or Las Vegas, but they're not willing to look at the evidence.
That's even true with a lot of friends and relatives about the COVID conspiracy, and there's no doubt about it.
This whole thing has been a monstrous fake.
Apollo 13 had some disaster.
You know, there are those who are going to be able to give you much more specific details about different aspects of these moon landings.
Indeed, there's another video clip that I ought to have included, but for absent-mindedness in that respect, where you can actually see that an astronaut falls down and he's lifted up because of wires attached to his spacesuit.
And you can actually see, you know, these wires are visible in this video clip, and I'm sure I have it somewhere on my computer, if I can ferret it out.
And indeed, you know, the capsule taking off is being hoisted by a cable.
I mean, look!
You have to ask, what hypothesis, if it were true, can explain all these diverse elements and ingredients?
Obviously, the idea that we actually went to the moon, if it were true, would confer a zero probability on all of these anomalies.
I mean, really, truly zero.
Whereas if we faked it, all these anomalies have actually a high probability.
So I think once you lay out all the evidence, it's really not a complicated case.
It's not a close call.
It's not, well, maybe we went to the moon, maybe we didn't.
No, we didn't go.
It wasn't even physically possible, for example, for the astronauts to have survived the Van Allen radiation belt, though that's an interaction between the laws of physics.
And the available technology.
But I'm telling you, these spacesuits were actually costumes.
These were costumes.
This whole thing was a joke.
A lot of people have been very amused by the fact that the American public, as a rule, has a low degree of scientific literacy and a high degree of gullibility, which is, alas, our condition.
Whereas I mentioned a week ago that I'm very worried that all those who are wearing masks, which recycle depleted oxygen, that therefore doesn't replenish our red blood cells, so that we're killing more of our brain cells, that we're going to have an average decrease in the IQ of about 5 points when all is said and done.
Any other questions or comments you'd like to add, I'd be very pleased to feel them.
Visiting London and staying at the Morgan Hotel backing onto the British Museum was a wonderful experience, but it turns out that one of the most enduring
Aspects of that visit was seeing the film Conspiracy Theory on the BBC, which stuck with me, and I would wind up discussing it in courses on critical thinking when I was, you know, as a professor of philosophy at the Duluth campus of the University of Minnesota.
Is there a society anywhere with a high degree of skepticism?
Well, I regret to report that the Skeptic Society, which is run by Michael Shermer, is a pseudo-scientific operation.
I have had interactions with Michael Shermer, and I guarantee you that even though he has an office on the campus of Caltech, Which of course is located in Pasadena, the city where I was born, at Huntington Memorial, where you can see the Rose Bowl, from the hospital where I was born, is in fact a pseudo-intellectual organization.
He has come out in favor of the official account of 9-11.
When I go through that in spades, you're going to see how completely ridiculous and indefensible that is.
He's a fraud, a poseur.
So I cannot recommend the Skeptic Society.
He edits a journal, but I'm telling you it's a psy-op.
That's the very sad thing about it.
One of the most important aspects, by the way, of reasoning things through is building on what you know to be true.
For a certainty, although, you know, there's a technical sense in which none of our empirical knowledge about any events in space-time can be known with complete certainty.
All that can be known with certainty are the relations between premises and conclusions and purely deductive arguments that have no empirical content.
Because you can know these logical relations obtained Independent of experience and therefore they are the only kinds of arguments in pure logic and pure mathematics that we can know with certainty.
All empirical knowledge has an element of uncertainty on the other hand.
There are areas where you can know with a great deal of assurance that you're floating and use those to judge others.
Let's see, what else?
One lie leads to another.
We wouldn't be where we are this evening with a COVID without lies.
Yeah, I agree.
I agree completely with that.
That's exactly right.
The lunar module looks relatively small.
Do you think there could have been enough room to store the rover, bulky costumes, equipment, food, water?
No, I don't believe so.
Not to mention all these moon rocks they brought back.
I mean, you know, you get going here and there's just one disproof after another, after another, after another.
I mean, it's very much like 9-11.
Well, when I discuss that, you'll discover you have the theory, you know, as we're floating in space and all these little threads that are supposed to link it to the ground about the hijackers, about the planes, about the witnesses, about the videos.
Every one of those little threads that links the 9-11 story to reality is capable of falsification and has been repeatedly.
I can't account for that.
That's an interesting question.
I think Buzz Aldrin was one who went through a very emotional time having to deal with the fact that he was thrust out so publicly in defense of a massive lie.
That's a tough row to hoe, and while there are politicians who are capable of pulling it off, some in our most recent administration, for example, both Barack Obama and Michelle, and I may have occasion to delve into that more deeply.
Are living fraudulent lies, but they seem to pull it off with aplomb.
They don't seem to care much about the fact that they are living lies.
Where I suspect, by the way, that the Democrats may try to make an effort to promote Michelle, which is why in my programs, otherwise, I'm making certain points to penetrate the deception.
It's really a fascinating story, and if I hadn't done a whole lot of homework and discovered that she had played football at Oregon State, she actually was pretty good at tackling before she transferred to Princeton and adopted a female persona, born Michael LaVaughn Robertson, turning herself into Michelle Robertson, where a physician attached to her walked into her taking a leak standing up during the campaign in Trenton.
And had to report finally that Michelle Obama, contrary to rumors, is not a man who underwent a sex change operation.
Rather, Michelle Obama is a man with breast implants and a huge shaving bill.
I have no doubt about it.
I have all the proof you could possibly want.
But we'll save that for another time.
Truth comes out about events such as the Kennedy assassination, the moon landing, Paul McCartney, 9-11, Sandy Hook, Well, yes, that's what I'm about.
Bringing experts together to sort these things out.
I've been pioneering collaborative research and I have a friend, very well positioned, who has told me time and time again that that is my enduring contribution to the world.
My enduring contribution is to pioneer collaborative research, which has inspired many others to undertake falsifications of the accounts.
And I have no doubt every one of you will be able to find additional falsifications of the official moon landing story.
Was there really enough technology to lift the ascent vehicle and dock with the command?
I don't believe there was.
No, I think it's another, you know, fraudulent aspect.
I mean, it's Truly the case that in relation to the moon landing, that NASA gave it all away with its space poop problem, when you can only handle one day's worth of space poop, and yet these ventures to the moon and back were taking seven or eight, you know, the whole thing is nothing but a colossal pile of space poop.
I mean, I'm telling you, the whole moon landing is nothing but a massive pile of bullshit, and it's just staggering how many still are just insistent that we really went.
But with no doubt whatsoever, if you look at the evidence, it leaves no doubt about it.
And just notice how we did not have the technical capability required to go to the moon.
It was a technical impossibility for all the reasons enumerated here.
And I'm just delighted to have you all here with me this evening.
Remember now, next week the program and henceforth will be occurring two hours earlier.
I figure, you know, 10 to midnight Central, 11 to 1 a.m.
Eastern.
It's much easier if it's 8 to 10 Central and 9 to 11 Eastern.
So just bear in mind the Conspiracy Guy will be back next week on a two-hour earlier schedule.
And I highly recommend you check out the conference.
Check out the conference.
Yeah, what about the guy who said we lost the technology to return?
This is about as dumb as it gets when they're grasping after straws.
NASA supposedly destroyed the technology it used to go to the moon according to a spokesman for NASA.
I mean, look!
Give me a break!
This is simply ridiculous and absurd, compounding one absurdity with another.
So, you know, I'm really glad you were able to join me tonight.
And we have many other adventures to undertake.
And in the process, just remember, when you undertake an intellectual investigation, you want to compare, in contrast, hypotheses.
What are the alternatives?
Is it real?
Is it fake?
What would the probability of the evidence be if it were real?
What would the probability of the evidence be if it were fake?
And even discovering what evidence has been faked and falsified can be the key, because there are very few agencies, entities, or personnel who'd be in the position to fake evidence of the kind here.
The assassination of JFK in relation to 9-11.
On and on and on.
So this is Jim the Conspiracy Guy thanking you all for being here.
I'm very grateful to have you in your comments and your questions and I look forward to seeing you again.
Thanks so much.
But if anyone asks, you know now how we know we didn't go.
▲
Export Selection