Bart Sibrel and Joe Rogan revisit the moon landing hoax, framing it as fact rather than theory, citing 1968 Cannon AFB filming claims, CIA-linked Apollo 1 fire suspicions, and NASA’s alleged destruction of original footage. Sibrel points to shadow anomalies in photos, radiation belt risks, and inconsistent astronaut testimonies—including Armstrong’s evasiveness—as proof, while Rogan questions the lack of verifiable evidence. Sibrel ties the deception to broader government corruption, from JFK’s assassination to fabricated conflicts, arguing exposure would spark a moral reckoning. The debate hinges on whether plausible anomalies justify dismissing decades of space history or reflect deeper institutional deceit. [Automatically generated summary]
So, let's take everybody on this journey with you.
So, you were a young man.
You were fascinated by NASA. You were a NASA fan.
You had NASA photos on the wall of your room.
What happened?
What happened to you that essentially you're known worldwide as the leading proponent of the moon hoax theory?
You're the guy who's researched it the most, you're the guy who can auto-recall the most information, and you're the guy that the people that believe the moon landing was real hate the most.
Well, I'm going to have to steel man some of the arguments against you.
You know, obviously, I mean this is a fascinating but yet very challenging subject.
I think today more people are aware of the insanely widespread deception that the government was involved in during the same time as the moon landing.
I think this is important and I know a lot of people Who get very angry when you question the moon landing.
They use terms like patriotism, national pride, like we did this incredible thing, the scientists that we have.
I understand what they're saying.
I understand where they're coming from entirely.
But we have to look at things realistically if we're ever gonna get an accurate picture of how the world works.
And I think if we look at the time that we're talking about, the Nixon administration, we talk about the Gulf of Tonkin incident where they got us into Vietnam, where there was a bullshit false flag that wound up killing how many people?
There's Operation Northwoods during the same time period.
Operation Northwoods was a plan that was signed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff Where they were going to initiate false flags to try to get us into a war with Cuba.
They were going to blow up a drone jetliner and blame it on Cuba.
They were going to arm Cuban friendlies and attack Guantanamo Bay.
So there's the Bay of Pigs.
There's all these things.
There's the Kennedy assassination itself, which they still won't release the files.
There's the moon landing.
And the moon landing, and then there's Nixon, getting Nixon removed from the White House, which I didn't know was a giant government operation, too.
Tucker Carlson laid that all out, and I was like, what?
And then I read a bunch about it.
What he's saying is totally true.
This one's the one that people hold on to the most because it's a source of national pride and it is also like the accomplishments of NASA, the accomplishments of the scientific community, accomplishments of these people that are able to make things like the stealth bomber and all the wild shit that we know that is absolutely real, the space shuttle, SpaceX, all of the amazing engineers and scientists.
It seems to a lot of people that by calling the moon landing fake, you're discounting that work.
You're discounting that amazing accomplishment from humans.
What I want people to do Is to say, what did they tell the truth about?
If this is the one thing that you're willing to hang your hat on, because I know they lied about everything.
They lied about everything.
They lied about MKUltra.
They were dosing up Johns and brothels with acid and monitoring them.
They dosed up Charles Manson.
They probably trained him how to be a cult leader in prison.
The whole MKUltra thing is 100% legit, verified.
There's plenty of documents on it.
They experimented on people with acid.
They did mind control experiments on people.
What did they tell the truth about?
They said, you know what?
I know we're liars and we get people killed and we're funneling money here and there, but what?
We can't lie about the moon landing, guys.
And everybody agreed.
And everybody agreed, this one, this one we're going to be, this is just what it is, is what it is.
And we're going to give the scientific community access to all the data so everybody knows it's verified.
We're going to have third party people test everything to make sure it's verified.
For example, Robert Kennedy Jr. is 100% certain he has more access to the JFK files than Oliver Stone does.
He's 100% certain that his uncle, President Kennedy, was killed by the CIA. Then, as you mentioned, the Gulf of Tonkin.
Robert McNamara, before he died, got it off his chest.
said that the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the Pearl Harbor incident that got America behind the Vietnam War, never happened.
He and the CIA completely fabricated it.
Congress passed a law, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, that led to the death of 3 million people and 58,220 American soldiers without cause.
So, if the corrupt federal government is willing to kill their own duly elected president, If they're willing to needlessly kill 58,220 of their own soldiers, I don't think they have a problem faking an image of the moon on television.
The problem is it's a positive lie.
You see, whoever killed JFK, you're just changing who did it and why.
He's still dead.
It's still a tragedy.
Or 9-11.
You can change who did it and why, but all those people are still dead.
This is a positive lie.
And people don't want to give up that candy, and I come along and say, wake up and smell the manure.
Some people are like, well, I know America has gotten bad, but at least we went to the moon.
And people need to realize the sheer arrogance of the federal government to pull off the moon landing fraud when there's virtually no eyewitnesses except three government employees and a picture we have to trust is on the moon from the federal government.
So it was actually very easy to fake.
And in answer to your first question, I was more than a supporter.
I was gaga idolizing the moon landings with my father in the Air Force and giving me a packet of pictures of Apollo 11.
And as I moved every two years from house to house, they were a prominent place of glory on every bedroom wall from city to city.
But at age four, I got those pictures, saw them...
I mean, even if I saw them once a day, that's 3,650 times over the next 10 years.
Probably saw them three times a day.
So I see these pictures over 10,000 times, believing they're on the moon and thinking it's the greatest thing.
And then I'm 14 years old...
And I see Bill Kaysing, a former Rocketdyne employee who worked for NASA for six years on the Apollo program with high security clearance, only second to Von Braun, who says, look, I edited a memo from Von Braun to the Pentagon warning them they are not going to make the goal.
There's only a one in 10,000 chance they can go to the moon on the first attempt.
So the number one proof that we have is simply deductive reasoning, because today...
With 54-year better rocket designs and computer designs, the farthest that NASA can send a rocket with an astronaut into space is one thousandth the distance to the moon.
That's why they're sending mannequins.
To orbit the moon that can't even land because they would die from the radiation.
So what they're really claiming is, back in 1969, ahead of schedule, on the first attempt, when all of NASA's computers had one millionth of computing power over cell phone, they sent astronauts a thousand times farther into space than they can send us today with 54-year better technology.
So what they're really claiming is...
They had a thousand times better technology in 1969 than they do today.
That's a lot of people to organize and to focus on one very specific goal.
That's not happening today.
So to say that we can't do it today, it's like people would say, if I was steel manning their position, I would say, no, we're not trying to do it today.
If we wanted to do it today, we could do it today.
First of all, Eugene Krantz, flight director, he said...
Out of his own mouth, that a person in the command center in Houston during a launch to the moon can tell no difference whatsoever between a computer simulated flight and a real flight.
They can't tell the difference.
It's just a bunch of numbers going by on a screen.
So if a person in the command center Cannot tell a difference, and how could we as a 10-year-old watch it in our living room at home?
And then, do you really think the CIA is so stupid to tell the person making the glove or the boot or the door handle, hey, we're really not going to the moonbeach?
I also want to put people in the mindset of humans that lived in 1969 with an incredibly limited access to information.
I think we've become incredibly spoiled by the internet and by the ability to search things and just read debunkings, scientific papers, all these different things that are available that you could read today that just were not available back then.
And you knew either what you learned at school or what the government or your employees told you, your employers told you.
And that was it.
That's all you had access to.
So these people that were working for NASA, to think that they had the kind of understanding of the way things are manipulated that we have today, There's no way they did.
There's no way they didn't know about the Gulf of Tonkin then.
They didn't know about Operation Northwoods.
They didn't know about so many things that we know that the government has done.
The Kennedy assassination hadn't happened yet, or it would happen, but they still didn't know who had done it.
You know, they had wrapped it up and said Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone without the Zapruder film, without the subsequent investigations of it, where people said, wait a minute, this guy kept going back and forth to Russia?
Well, the people were innocent, but the government weren't.
They just killed their own president.
They just faked the beginning of the Vietnam War, and they were emboldened.
To fake the moon landing because they had complete control over the media and a public who wanted to believe it and even people at NASA and Command Center couldn't tell the difference between a simulation and a real flight.
That's the thing about the moon landing and why it's so significant.
I mean, let's take a look at the two possibilities.
Even though they went to the moon on the first attempt ahead of schedule with one millionth of computing power of a cell phone, but today they can only send astronauts one thousandth the distance, okay?
Let's say they did that, came back, whoop-dee-doo.
They lied to the world.
They lied to their own people.
They embezzled the modern equivalent of $200 billion.
They gave them medals of honor for being such good liars.
They printed it on stamps and coins.
It's taught in university.
If that's true, which it is, That's so much more profound an event than had they actually gone.
So one of the greatest events in human history is actually the faking of the moon landing.
And we have to understand these people are still at large.
You don't say, oh, well, there's a child kidnapper in the neighborhood and one child disappears every month for the last 30, 40 years.
Oh, well, what can you do?
These people are in charge right now.
They did fake the moon landing.
Don't believe me?
Go to sabrell.com, watch 17 clips for free that prove it.
Well, the most interesting comment I got is I showed all this proof to a college professor of a major university.
All this proof.
I mean, like I said, shadows intersecting at 90 degrees, which you can't duplicate in sunlight, which means it's electrical light, which means they didn't go to the moon.
Well, you could make the argument that the radiation damaged the cameras, and they weren't able to get real photographs, and so they made a conscious decision to use fake photographs.
Where you see Michael Collins in a simulation where he's doing a drill and he's attached to wires and then they just used the same image and blacked it out and reversed it.
Or publicity firms that work for NASA had a limited amount of photos to work with and they decided to manipulate some so that they could have photos that they didn't have of an actual event which really took place.
Starfish 5 is a high-altitude nuclear test conducted by the United States, a joint effort of the Atomic Energy Commission and the Defense Atomic Support Agency.
It was launched from Johnson et al.
on July 9, 1962. It was the largest nuclear test conducted in outer space and one of the five conducted by the U.S. in space.
A Thor rocket carrying a W49 thermonuclear warhead designed at Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory.
And a MK2 re-entry vehicle was launched from Johnston at all in the Pacific Ocean about 900 miles west-southwest of Hawaii.
The explosion took place at an altitude of 250 miles.
So is that essentially like where the space station is and all that stuff is?
Starfish Prime, and this always happens, caused an electromagnetic pulse that was far larger than expected, so much larger that it drove much of the instrumentation off scale, causing great difficulty in getting accurate measurements.
The Starfish Prime electromagnetic pulse Also made those effects known to public by causing electrical damage in Hawaii about 900 miles away from the detonation point.
Knocking out about 300 streetlights.
Holy shit!
Setting off numerous burglar alarms and damaging a telephone company microlink.
These boys were wild!
They just experimented with a fucking nuclear bomb in space and it blew out 300 streetlights in Hawaii.
Shut up.
Imagine your burglar alarm goes off because the fucking government launched a nuke into space.
Holy shit!
The EMP damage to the microwave link shut down telephone calls from Kauai to the other Hawaiian islands.
A total of 27 small rockets were launched from Johnson Atoll to obtain experimental data from the Starfish Prime detonation.
In addition, a larger number of rocket-borne instruments were launched from Barking Sands, Kauai in the Hawaiian Islands.
A large number of United States military ships and aircrafts were operating in support So does it say why they were doing it though?
He's an employee at NASA explaining something that most people don't know, which is above the Earth starting at about 1,000 miles and extending about 30,000 miles.
There's a huge band of radiation.
That astronauts would have to go through to the moon and through again back.
First he says it's dangerous, meaning deadly.
And then he says that the technology for an astronaut to go through it to the moon and back and survive has yet to be invented.
They were using part of that spacecraft on the Artemis mission when they send mannequins through the radiation belt.
He says we must first solve these challenges of radiation protection before we send people through this region of space, meaning the technology to send an astronaut through the radiation and survive has not been invented yet.
He says we must solve these challenges of protecting the astronauts before we send people through this region of space, meaning people cannot go through it until the radiation shielding is developed, and it has not yet been developed, a way to send astronauts through it and survive in 2014. So if it's not been invented in 2014 yet,
then it wasn't invented in 1969. Well, I think another thing that is important to say that if you're saying that radiation is dangerous to instrumentation, it's going to be dangerous to bodies.
But you could say, imply, I'm not saying this is true, but by what he's saying, that what he's saying is instrumentation would be damaged and that would be dangerous.
But if I was going to steel man it, what I would say is if I'm training these guys to film things and they're training all day long to do a bunch of different things, one of the things I would do is to train them how to film the Earth from the moon.
And to stimulate or to simulate that, I would say what you can do is black out all the light when you're in low Earth orbit, focus on one of those circular windows, put the transparency or whatever it is in front of the window, and practice that way.
Well, you could go to sabrell.com, click on A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon, or go to the Moon Man video links at sabrell.com and pull this up smoking gun.
I just gave you the time cues on the most significant part where you could do the side-by-side comparison.
And then on the right is the outtakes where the lights come up and you see that the camera's really at the back of the spacecraft and that's part of the Earth outside of a circular window with a little crescent piece It's molded in front of it.
And that's the take on the left-hand side.
You're about to see Michael Collins break down part of the special effect.
And then they also say, which is another lie, that there's only one window that faces the Earth and it's filled up with the TV camera, meaning the lens would have to be right up against the window to see that.
But the camera's really at the back of the spacecraft with all the lights off.
So after Kelly Smith put his foot in his mouth, I called up NASA. I said, I'm a journalist.
Can I talk to the guy?
No, we don't allow him to talk to reporters anymore.
I said, well, you sent up two Geiger counters on a civilian mission with tax dollars.
To specifically measure the radiation in the radiation belt, which they should have had 50 years ago anyway.
And then I said, can I please have those radiation readings?
And then they said this, Joe.
They said it's a classified military secret.
I said, oh, wait a minute.
When you sent probes to the Sun to measure the temperature of the Sun, the temperature of the Sun is in a military secret.
When you sent probes to Jupiter to find out how much helium is in Jupiter's atmosphere, the amount of helium is in a military secret.
So why would the amount of radiation surrounding the Earth and the radiation belt that most people don't know about, why would that amount of radiation be a secret?
Because if they reveal it, it would prove that they couldn't go through it to the moon.
Anyway, that's data you wouldn't want Russia to have.
So if the Van Allen radiation belts, if there's a way to get through them because you know exactly how much radiation it is and you know that you need this amount of shielding, You don't want Russia to know that.
Spend your own money, bitch.
You can't have our fucking data.
That's what I would say.
I would say that's an American secret.
That's national security.
In that regard, right?
Because if we're going to be doing space wars, they're going to be flying around, but they don't know how to get through the radiation belts, but we do, then they're going to rely on espionage.
As time goes on, the instrumentation is far more efficient.
It's much better, more accurate.
So the data they could get now, we would both agree, right, would be way better data than you got in 1963. That's the argument people are making about now, is that the instrumentation now is more susceptible than it was then because the transistors are smaller and more susceptible molecules.
That does make sense about the radiation belts when they were talking about instrumentation.
Start at 3423. My point is, don't we recognize that the amount of instrumentation that would be dangerous to radiation would also be dangerous to biological human beings?
That's why you have to wear a lead shield when you get an x-ray.
And that's why if you've ever seen those horrific images of people that used to test x-ray machines back in the day, when they would first start using x-ray machines in doctors offices, the technician would put his hand under it and x-ray it.
And they didn't know that you were fucking your hand up really bad.
This guy, they had horrible cancer all over their hands.
The point is, regardless of whether or not it is dangerous to the instrumentation, that was their primary concern, which could be accurate, especially since the first one was unmanned.
It's also that kind of radiation is probably bad for people.
Okay, so let's play the video where you get to hear the audio.
So the audio is really strange.
So this audio is Buzz Aldrin, Neil Armstrong, and Michael Collins in the spacecraft, and they are supposedly 130,000 miles away, and they're talking to NASA. Yeah, let me describe it a little bit before you hit play.
So basically, if they are, which they are not, halfway to the moon, they estimated with radio delay and going through the analog computers, it would be two seconds out for them to hear the transmission and two seconds back.
So this particular reel we uncovered, the unedited reel of this special effects shot of them faking being halfway to the moon, there's a third track of audio, who I believe is the CIA. So first you'll hear...
Why do you believe it's the CIA? Well, it's whoever is helping them fake the moon mission.
And you think it was the CIA? I would presume it would be.
And so NASA says the TV picture looks great.
The person who he has an earpiece in counts off four seconds, thousand and one, two, three, four.
Then we hear a third track of audio.
Not NASA, not the astronauts, which has this kind of walkie-talkie radio type of sound.
He says, talk.
And then Neil Armstrong speaks.
They're creating a fake four-second radio delay to make it appear they're beyond Earth orbit, which they are really not.
Understand, too, that only about 20 seconds of this raw footage was ever broadcast to the public, and these conversations discussing their deception were believed to be private.
Until now.
Here they discuss that these television transmissions were in fact not broadcast live as everyone believed.
They were first screened and edited for playback later.
unidentified
Roger, Neil, we just wanted a narrative such a weekend when we get to Playback Week and sort of correlate what we're seeing.
Here they discuss the fact that they have turned out the lights and have blocked out sunlight from entering the spacecraft through the other windows as to not cause any reflected light to...
Well, we set out the sun coming into some of the other windows under the spacecraft, so it's looking through a number one window, and there isn't any reflected light.
The reason this was done is so that the truth of the matter would not be revealed.
It is this.
Though the federal government would have you believe that this is a view of Earth from a distance out of the spacecraft's window as it nears the moon, it is not.
What they have ingeniously done is placed the camera at the back of the spacecraft and centered the lens on a circular window in the foreground, outside of which it is completely filled with the Earth in low orbit.
The circumference of the window then appears to be the diameter of the Earth at a distance, with the darkened walls of the spacecraft appearing to be the blackness of space around it.
That is why they wanted the interior dark and blocked out the sun from entering through the other windows.
Here you can see the extruded window, probably two inches thick at the bottom.
This is because the earth shine is coming in at a downward angle.
It also causes the earth to appear to be an irregularly shaped circle, for you are seeing the outside of the window at the bottom and the inside of the window at the top, which together form two different sized halves of a circle.
Subsequently, this take was never used.
As they perfected the shot, a crescent-shaped piece of black material was inset slightly into the window to create the illusion of the Earth's Terminator line dividing night and day.
It is uncannily convincing.
During this segment, intended to be edited and played back later for the worldwide television audience, dated July 18, 1969, Neil Armstrong condemns himself as he states that he is 130,000 miles out, or halfway to the moon, as the NASA flight log also states on this date, when he is in reality in low Earth orbit of a few hundred miles.
Here, during another segment, also intended to air after review, Neil Armstrong falsely explains to the viewers how the shot is attained by putting the camera's lens to the window's glass, as it would have to be if they were the claimed distance away from the Earth.
unidentified
We only have one window that has a view of the Earth, and it's filled up with a TV camera.
If the window was completely filled up with a TV camera, as he stated, then an astronaut's arm would not be able to get between the camera and the window, as it obviously does here in this outtake.
unidentified
South America becomes invisible just off beyond the Terminator or inside the shadow.
Much less suitable for broadcast, for the lens was being zoomed out, and the scene was being changed to that of an interior of the astronauts at work, and apparently the stop button popped back up on the recorder without notice.
Here is the diffused work light that they use to see camera controls, but not throw light onto the spacecraft's wall.
Here they remove part of the crescent insert.
Finally, Finally, the iris is opened up and you can see the real location of the camera and the very bright and near earth out the window.
MUSIC Okay, so here's what I would say if I was trying to counter what you're saying.
All right, the Earth at 130,000 miles out is halfway to the moon.
The moon is one quarter the size of Earth.
The moon on a full moon is fairly bright.
I mean, you could walk around outside in the dark.
I mean, it's pretty amazing how bright it is when it's a full moon.
Imagine that four times greater and twice as close.
So the Earth, which has blue reflective light because of the oceans, and it's glorious, it glows in the sky.
You would imagine that if you were filming Earth from 130,000 miles out, You would have to blacken the insides of the walls, and you probably couldn't get the camera any closer to that window in reality, even by saying it's in front of the window, it's covering the window.
It probably doesn't even fit any closer than that with all the instrumentation.
We're filming it specifically to try to get an image of the Earth and what it looked like at 130,000 miles out.
Would it even look that small?
I don't think it would.
It would probably look a lot larger.
So if they're shooting it through this window and the light is probably pretty intense, it might be the only way to film the Earth with the kind of cameras that they had back then.
Would be to do it that way, to block out everything in the room and to film through that circular window as close as they can get that camera to, and it's just shitty footage of something that they eventually figured out how to do right, so that it wasn't deception.
I'm just going to try to ask the most logical questions to refute what you're saying without giving an opinion.
I'll give you an opinion eventually.
But this right now is, if you were going to film the Earth from 130,000 miles out, and the Earth is four times larger than the Moon, and you're halfway to the Moon, I would imagine it would fill up that window.
The difference between that and low Earth orbit, I'm sure there's a difference, but I still think from that small window, it might be the whole window filled with Earth.
The video said tape multiple times, and then said they'd remove the tape.
Could have been a transparency, I suppose, but that line is very, that's a very nice gradient, which was what it would look like if it was like the sunset, not tape or...
Well, I mean, just go back to the segment with the little yellow circle around the window, and you can see they're fiddling around with the window, breaking down the model.
Well, I think the point is that they had to represent the Terminator line because of where they were in orbit.
So if they're flying away from Earth and they're going towards the moon at a very specific time, you'd be able to know what part of the Earth was dark at what point in the flight, right?
And to me, this is like the only thing that I could say if I was going to steelman it would be what I said, was that maybe he misspoke by saying it's covering the window.
Maybe what he meant was that the camera was pointed at the window.
It was covering the window.
And if you're gonna film something that's incredibly bright, that's coming into a bright environment, it's gonna be obscured by all the light.
You know that, right?
So the way to film it correctly would be to adjust the aperture correctly, darken the room, and then point towards that window.
And you would be saying that the camera is covering the window, because it is covering the window.
That's what it's covering.
When you're filming something, you're covering something.
So it's covering the window.
It's looking out the window.
You blacked out the cabin so that you could actually see what's bright coming out of that window, which is incredibly bright because it's four times bigger than the moon and twice as close because they're halfway there.
If that's the window of the spacecraft, then that's not the Earth floating in space, which they claim, which means they're faking being halfway to the moon.
Faking this footage because this is the best footage they can get with equipment They have looking through that window and they came to a conclusion The best way to do it is to back the camera up black everything out and just film that circular window And that's the earth and that's the only thing and we'll pretend that it's the earth with space But we really can't get that because the positioning of the camera the the amount of room if you look as the thing goes bright This is my question to you I think this is compelling and it's bizarre.
But when you say they removed the transparency, well, there's no transparency.
You don't see it.
You're literally just seeing black figures in motion.
Now, in clarity, now you see clarity.
So now you see the amount of distance, very small space they're working in, amount of distance where the circular window is, where the Earth is, and then where the camera is.
So the camera is still just a few feet from the window.
It's not like it's in a giant room.
It's just a few feet from the window filming the Earth.
Through where the camera is and how big the camera is and how small the window is, the amount of space they're working with, they couldn't get real clear footage of the Earth in space in the distance.
So they decided to film it this way.
Film it through that circular window.
We'll black out everything.
It'll look like space, but you will see the Earth from where we are, which is 130,000 miles out.
Because I think if it's very difficult to go there, it's even more difficult to go there and document it, right?
And specifically when you're talking about camera equipment.
If you take camera equipment, the old-school film, and you run it through old-school radar detectors at the airport, those metal detectors, it fucks up your camera equipment, right?
I'm sure they would love the public to believe that because many filmmakers like myself agree That the footage is fake.
So how can we possibly trick the public into thinking the moon landings are real even though the pictures are fake?
Why don't we create a feature film saying, well, we just only did it as backup and some of that footage got leaked into the real footage.
They showed so little real footage to begin with.
Why didn't they just have a camera on the side of the rocket showing live pictures during the descent instead of a little Atari computer animation and then suddenly a picture of them stable and coming out of the spacecraft?
Because they faked it.
As you know from my book, we have an eyewitness who saw them film Apollo 11 at Cannon Air Force Base, June 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, 1968. Yeah, but I have eyewitnesses that were raped by Bigfoot.
The first thing the guy says as he's dying about to meet his maker...
Fearing not being on the right side of judgment is that he's a murderer.
He killed somebody.
His son, who you can go to sabrell.com, watch his son's testimony, who saw his father's deathbed confession.
He said, who did you kill?
He said, I killed a co-worker at Cannon Air Force Base where he was the chief of security.
The military police came in.
And they interrogated him as he's dying.
Wanted to notify the relatives of the person who he killed.
Who did you kill?
Such and such a person.
A fellow employee at Cannon Air Force Base in 1968. Why did you kill him?
We both eyewitnessed the filming of the fake moon landing June 1st, 2nd and 3rd of 1968. My friend thought it was morally wrong he was going to tell a reporter, and I killed him to cover it up.
His son confirmed he was Chief of Security at Cannon Air Force Base.
He lived right across the street from it.
He stood beside President Johnson, who was there for the first three days of filming.
He gave him a list of 15 people.
That were there who were allowed in the VIP entrance to eyewitness it.
Neil Armstrong's on the list, Basaldrin is on the list, and several people I never heard of.
We got that list.
We published it in my book.
And this is real.
His son, after telling me this information and confirming it, his house was broken into a few days later.
Everything about his father was confiscated.
Days after that, two agents show up from the government.
This is less than two years ago.
Threatened to kill him and his family if he ever talks to me again about his father's participation in the moon landing fraud.
The White House was involved in investigating this.
The FBI was and the United States Senate Intelligence Committee investigated this.
And that man and those reports are sealed because it's a great embarrassment to the federal government that they did actually fake the moon landing.
I was the biggest fan.
If I can go from being the biggest fan to having to accept the sad fact that our government is that arrogant.
And not only that, I interviewed the widow of Gus Grissom, who was going to be the first man to walk on the moon.
And he was preparing reports to give to Congress and the Senate that his wife told me were confiscated from his house by CIA agents before they even informed her that he was dead, which he had died a few minutes earlier.
She told me I interviewed her for four hours.
This is the man who is going to be the first man to walk on the moon.
And he was the most beloved of the press corps.
And he was so frustrated he kept complaining up the chain of command they wouldn't fix anything because the higher-ups knew they weren't going to go and hadn't committed yet to faking it and therefore hadn't told the astronauts yet.
And that's why they weren't fixing anything.
belief well that's you know her her conclusion as well right and in his fury without permission he held the press conference he He invited a bunch of reporters to the top of the rocket where he affixed a lemon the size of a grapefruit on a coat hanger.
He said, this thing is a lemon, a piece of junk, made the evening news, and a few days later he dies.
His wife told me that on January 26, 1967, he came home from work and said the following, Hon, for some strange reason, the CIA is all over the launch pad today.
I wonder why they're here inspecting the equipment.
Never seen him here before.
He's dead the very next day from faulty equipment.
His widow told me he was murdered by the CIA. The man who was going to be the first man to walk on his moon, his son, 747 pilot, Said the same thing who I interviewed for three hours, that his father was murdered by the CIA. So it's one thing if they faked the moon landing and didn't kill anybody.
Maybe I'll confess my devious nature.
I kind of, you know, admire their ingenuity.
You know, like the people who tunnel from the drag cleaner into the bank.
But not if you kill three guards, slit their throats, who have wives and children.
Well, I'm just saying, for example, you know, if they faked the moon landing and didn't kill anybody, that's one thing, but that's not the case, you see?
And I know the type of person you are and the type of guest you have on your show.
We're true patriots, and patriots have to face facts that when people take an oath to this country, It's to protect it against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
They always want misdirection, the boogeyman, to be in some other country where the biggest traitors to our country are Americans in high office, right?
That's what's going on.
And the first document of our country isn't the Constitution.
It's the Declaration of Independence where it says when any government becomes destructive of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.
According to Betty Grissom, they took away his life.
They take a third of our income They deceive us through a moon landing, and then they use that money to pay the salaries of the CIA agents who killed Gus Grissom and two of his friends.
Well, if her husband says CIA agents are messing around with the equipment the day before, and he's dead the next day from faulty equipment, the CIA killed him.
They rigged it with the oily rags under there, with reversing them.
They did everything they could to make sure those guys burned alive, to get rid of the guy, because Gus Grissom, had they asked him, To fake the moon landing, he would have said, no way, and then he would have gone to the reporters.
The same reason my source, Cyrus Eugene Akers, killed his coworker, because his coworker witnessed Apollo 11 being filmed at Cannon Air Force Base in 1968, said this is wrong for the government to do this, and was going to tell a reporter, and he was killed for the very same reason.
And then if you're really old and you're mentally compromised and maybe you have full-blown dementia and maybe you imagine things, that's also possible.
Well, one of the videos, if you have it queued up, Jamie, is his son giving his deathbed confession, right, as he's dying of cancer, of what he saw his father say.
He says, I lived right across from Cannon Air Force Base.
My father was chief of security.
He shows us a picture of his badge and his uniform.
And what Bill Kaysing said, I had to look up from my own library.
Bill Kaysing said the whole moon landing falsification was supervised by the United States Air Force.
Well, my dad was in the Air Force.
I never heard of Cannon Air Force Base.
It's tiny.
Fewer eyewitnesses.
And then every department of the military has their Special Ops Intelligence Division headquarters.
It's headquartered at Cannon Air Force Base.
And so that's where it was filmed.
And I even confirmed that several people were there, including a gentleman by the name of Robert Emenager.
Never heard of the guy.
A science fiction writer who promotes UFOs, which is another reason to doubt UFOs, because the same guy who says UFOs are real spent his whole life saying the moon landings are real.
You see that?
Same thing with the astronauts.
Stephen Greer's number one source that UFOs are real.
I have a book coming out about this as well at my website.
He says, his number one source that UFOs are real, as the Apollo astronauts said so.
There's another guy who NASA had hired to make a report, and he had this 500-page report, I think it was like 500 pages, about how badly managed, mismanaged the whole Apollo program was, and that he saw so many flaws in it that he thought it was never going to get off the ground.
Well, he told an anecdote about a carpenter that he was working with in 1969. He was saying how amazing it is that these guys, these people, they landed on the moon.
And the carpenter said, no, those TV fellows can get you to believe anything.
I don't believe a thing they say.
And then he said, back then I thought the old guy was a crank.
I'm paraphrasing.
But now, after eight years in the White House, I think he might have been ahead of his time.
You know, NASA has never kept a schedule a single time in their entire history, except the most complicated mission of all time.
They were ahead of schedule.
And do you realize there's never been an aerospace machine, airplane, whatever, That ever worked on the first occasion.
Not even the Wright Brothers plane.
And a 747 after millions of aircraft had already been built.
Ten years more technologically advanced than the Apollo rocket.
It took 168 attempts to get off the ground.
And yet, for the first time in history, there was an aviation project that worked on the first occasion that happened to be the most complicated one of all time.
So humans have accomplished some pretty amazing things, but the leap between that and the moon landings in terms of getting biological living human beings to survive this two-week journey to land on the moon and come back, how long did it take total?
So my point was that the leap between what we do now in terms of the difficulty of getting into space, getting into low Earth orbit and coming back, It gets compounded greatly by actually going to another planet, landing, taking off, coming back.
Like that's much more difficult.
And the only time that was ever accomplished It was between 1969 and 1972. Seven attempts, six successful.
Like, it took so much money and so many resources that we don't have that would be better served going to other things, and that's why they haven't been back.
Why should they go back?
They went there.
They understand.
They can prove they went there because there's laser reflectors on the moon that they can shoot lasers at, and they will bounce off and show you that there's a laser reflector on the moon.
Well, that's not an argument either because in 1958, according to Scientific American magazine, They were bouncing lasers off the moon without any man-made reflectors they're on.
So all they had to do was choose a landing site that had reflective surfaces.
Additionally, Russia put an unmanned probe on the moon with laser reflectors.
Well, yeah, I mean, you have to understand they already faked a full-body picture of an astronaut standing on the surface of the moon, which was filmed in Clovis, New Mexico, according to an eyewitness.
Okay?
So you're asking the Fox for further proof that they didn't steal a chicken?
You're saying after faking a full-body image that was shot in Air Force Base and pretending it's on the moon...
I mean, it seems highly likely that they gave him a fake moon rock.
But you have to leave the door open to someone who's involved, who's fraudulent, who knew there was a moon rock there, and some guy said, hey, man, I'll give you $100,000.
Another interesting point is six weeks before they're allegedly going to the moon for the very first time, somehow with that deadline, Von Braun, former Nazi, takes a leisurely vacation in Antarctica where he picks up dozens of pounds of lunar meteorites.
Let's explain that too, that Antarctica is one of the best places to find meteors, meteorites, because the fact that it's completely white, it's all frozen snow, and the meteorites will stand out.
So he was a legitimate Nazi, and this is important too, because this is a thing that I know a lot of people have denied.
Operation Paperclip was an operation that took place right after the end of World War II, where we acquired a bunch of Nazi scientists that went on to do the Apollo program.
Werner von Braun was one of them.
The Simon Wiesenthal Center had said while he was alive, that if he was alive, they would prosecute him for crimes against humanity.
And keep in mind these Apollo astronauts who spent their whole life lying, saying the moon landings are real, are also the key people who are saying UFOs are real.
And Robert Emmenager made films, you know, propaganda films, to plant the seed that UFOs are real, and he was at Cannon Air Force Base when they faked the moon landings.
He thinks there's a spiritual element to it, and he thinks they've always been here, and he thinks that this is what's kind of documented in the Bible as, like, good and evil.
I mean, the top two UFO researchers said UFOs are real, number one.
Number two, they're not from outer space.
And number three, they're demonic.
And that's what I talk about, where it talks about fallen angels interbreeding with humans as talked about in Genesis 6 and creating a race called Nephilim who were men of renowned world leaders.
When you say interbreeding with humans now imagine if what they are is a form of artificial intelligence Or I should say instead of artificial artificial is a word that it's got a lot attached to it already Maybe digital intelligence or a human created intelligence.
That's not of biological origin, but it is a living thing It's just living in a different kind of way now if that Is something that human beings are eventually going to...
We're going to have some symbiotic relationship with electronic that's biological.
You're seeing it already with Neuralink.
You're seeing how this guy who was paralyzed can now utilize a computer and manipulate everything with his mind.
He can move a cursor around.
You're seeing artificial intelligence come to the forefront where people are realizing the power that it has and how quickly it's developing.
It's happening very rapidly.
Within this year, it's kind of confusing people.
When better artificial technology comes along and better interfaces come along and we start realizing the only way that we are going to survive is if we integrate.
Isn't that kind of the same as something coming down and interbreeding with human beings?
If these things, if this is the path of progress, this is how it goes in intelligent life forms on complicated planets, when they have complicated technology.
They develop internal combustion engines or some other source of power.
They start manipulating their environment and they eventually get to the point where they can make an artificial life form.
And that artificial life form is far superior intellectually to the biological life form.
And the only way the biological life form can survive is if it integrates.
With the artificial intelligence and people will start to do it initially and those people will have access to Tremendous resources that biological people don't have and then it'll be Required just like it's almost required for everyone to have a cell phone Everyone's going to integrate and in case over time What would that look like?
Well, it probably look like aliens.
It would probably look like some weird sort of creature That's not really biological anymore.
So it doesn't have all the flaws of our primate DNA It doesn't have all the but Does it have a soul?
Are we creating a thing without a soul that has a mandate and has plans for the universe and for life forms?
And would that kind of be demonic?
It seems like that's demonic.
I mean, if you want to be real simple about demons, you think they live in hell and they got pitchforks, but what kind of force would a demonic force be?
Something that would overpower the human race and render it non-existent.
Well, one way to do that would be to integrate with humans to the point where it makes biological reproduction a thing of the past.
All reproduction is done Through either some sort of complicated gene splicing program or life and consciousness gets integrated with technology inextricably so where everybody is some sort of a hybrid system.
So when you're watching these people plant this flag on the Moon, The moon is supposedly it doesn't have any wind or definitely the kind of wind that blows around a flag.
Now the flag had a rod at the top of it and the rod at the top of it kept it in place and it kept it stiff so it stayed horizontal and when you watch the video footage the flag is waving around in what looks like a breeze and so a lot of people have Tried to kind of explain it away.
And see if you can find a video of the flag itself waving.
Now, you do have to take into consideration that there's very little gravity.
So it's one-sixth Earth's gravity.
So things definitely in a one-sixth gravity environment, they move differently.
The problem is when the flag gets ultimately planted and then they back away from it and no one's touching it anymore, then it seems to independently be moving in the breeze.
Well, it's my opinion they had a lot of air conditioning pumped in there because the backpacks had the cooling units removed so they wouldn't fall over backwards.
So it was very hot in there and they had lots of air conditioning.
But if you can overcome the technological hurdles to get people to the moon, you can overcome the technological hurdles to allowing people to have clear access, clear footage of what this thing is instead of fourth generation stuff.
The reason why it's doing that, and really on the moon, is because there's micrometeorites hitting him, and they're bouncing off of him and hitting the flag.
Well, actually, Von Braun, we found publications of his.
Mind you, my film cost a million dollars.
It was financed by a board member of an aerospace company who builds rockets for NASA, who knows it's fake, who gave me a million dollars to produce these films as his patriotic duty to expose it.
We found documentation from von Braun that says every 24 hours on the moon, there's a 50% chance of a catastrophic deadly error because of decompression from a micrometeorite.
So they were there three days.
They were 150% chance they would have been killed from a micrometeorite.
Grain of sand traveling through space at 25,000 miles an hour.
And he said you would have to immediately go into a cave once you landed.
They never did that.
He also said in writing, in order to go to the moon in one rocket, he says that cannot happen.
You need three rockets, each weighing, each being 10 times the tonnage of the Queen Mary or some 800,000 tons each in order to go to the moon.
And the Saturn V was 2,500 tons, not 800,000 tons.
The panning is interesting, but you could put a timer on it.
The thing looking so goofy is so crazy, like that that thing is supposed to get off one-sixth Earth's gravity and fly like that?
How?
What's it doing?
It looks so fucking fake.
It looks like it's being pulled by strings.
Look, it might be real.
I'm certainly not an astronaut.
I don't know what I'm talking about.
But if you had a guess, if you showed this to me and said, hey, do you think this is real or fake, and you didn't give me any context, I'd be like, what is this?
A cheap science fiction movie?
What is this?
And then here it goes, like, that's what?
That's leaving a planet?
How's it leaving?
Is that some new space technology?
Where's the fire coming out of the bottom of it?
How's it doing that?
I mean, it just looks fake.
It might be real.
It might be one of those things that is real but looks fake.
All right, see, so then this is where it gets weird because it doesn't say the timer.
It said somebody in Houston had to anticipate the timing ignition liftoff, which I guess you could have guessed it was going to be in five seconds and just lifted the remote control.
If you had a stopwatch and you counted it and you had a far enough vision where you could see the base of the lunar module, you could see it detach, and then you kind of got it as long as you got enough of a field of view in the footage.
But boy, it looks fake.
It also looks fake in the way it's moving up.
Watch it again, Jamie, because it's moving up like it's being pulled by strings.
But one-sixth, I would like to know, like, how much thrust do you need to get off of the gravity of the moon if it's one-sixth Earth's gravity versus what it takes to get off of Earth?
Like, what are those calculations?
And how is that amount of force being generated by that thing?
And is it?
Because that would be a really good question.
Because if you can't prove that you could do that, like, how do you do that?
And so they're saying they powered air conditioning off much more primitive batteries, 24 hours, three or four days in a row, against 250 degree outside.
So this is an indirect proof.
If you really went to the moon and spent $200 billion, you would never destroy the technology.
But one of the clips we have is them saying that they intentionally destroyed all of the equipment To go to the moon.
All the diagrams, all the hardware, all the schematics, all the original telemetry of where the rocket was at the time, and all the original videotapes.
Ron Howard's grandfather warned him the moon landings were fake.
He didn't listen.
He wanted to make an IMAX movie.
He went to NASA and said, give me all the originals so I can transfer it to HD and project it at 120 feet wide.
They said, give us a Every single original videotape from every single Apollo mission.
Now, if you really went to the moon and spent $200 billion, the last thing you would do is destroy that technology.
But if you perpetrated a fraud, that's exactly what you would do.
The cameras were very successful capturing the images of numerous EVAs, but while they could be controlled from Houston, it was felt that several second delay between Earth and the moon would make capturing the module's ascent impossible.
So the plan was to pre-program the camera and hope that NASA camera operator in Houston, Ed Fendel, got his timing just right on Apollo 15. The tilt mechanism malfunctioned, meaning the camera was never panned upwards and thus The lunar module rapidly accelerated upwards and out of the picture.
On Apollo 16 mission, the astronauts actually parked the rover in the wrong place.
So while the cameras worked perfectly, it was too close to the module.
And again, once it lit up the engines, it accelerated swiftly out of picture.
Happily, Apollo 17 got everything right.
What is perhaps most remarkable about looking back on it was that no one realized the significance of the liftoff at the time.
Persistent rumors suggest that NASA had to pay the networks to cover Apollo 17 mission at all.
And when final liftoff of humanity from the moon took place, it barely raised a mention on that evening's news reports.
That's a really important point, too, because people were really tired of it.
If I were going around saying George Washington was not the first president, it was really Mickey Mouse, do you think there'd be a thousand videos to reassure people that George Washington was the first president and not Mickey Mouse?
But there's A thousand videos out there that took tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of hours to produce to defend the moon landings.
If it's so obvious, they should speak for themselves.
It has to be continually supported because it's made out of straw.
If Apollo 11 did happen and they did take off, that time they did it was the first time anybody had ever tried to use one of those things to get off the surface of the moon.
You know, because if they were able to make a lunar lander that Neil Armstrong got in, that thing that looked very different than the ones that were on the moon, but that thing, if he's doing that to try to overcome the six times gravity that Earth has over the moon, what does that look like when they're testing that thing?
Like, how much thrust does it have?
And where is the engine?
Where is the rockets that propel that thing into space?
Like, where do you fit those?
This is my question.
You know, and so how did they explain that away?
Like, what is the conventional explanation as to how that thing had the amount of power that was required to get off of the moon's gravity, get away from the moon and fly to Earth?
Well, how did they do it with one-thirty-thousandth of a percent of the fuel that Von Braun said they had to?
Why is it today, to quote, return to the moon, you have to make nine fuel trips to be able to go to the moon and return, but somehow they did it in one trip?
I don't know if this worked in space, obviously, because they couldn't get it there, but they made their own, and I'm trying to find out how successful it was.
You know, they have all these conferences, automobile conferences, video equipment conferences, shoe conferences, and they had the latest AI conference in November in Moscow.
And just like at these conventions, you can try out a car driving around the track that gets 150 miles a gallon that somehow never makes the market.
Well, Google had its most advanced AI, a bunch of AIs hooked up together called the neural network.
And they let people play around with it for three days.
One group had it write a symphony.
One group had it write a novel.
Another group tested its deep fake detection program, which has never been wrong.
It can tell you in one second a video whether a video of Biden or Trump is real or a deep fake.
It's never been wrong.
First, they fed it pictures from the moon's surface from the unmanned Chinese probes from a few years ago.
It said they're real.
And then they fed it, in comparison, pictures from the Apollo missions.
And it said absolutely fake for multiple reasons.
Fake background, fake foreground.
They even pointed out that one picture was not even a real astronaut.
It was a miniature of the astronaut.
Because the AI detected that the footprints were not the way a human normally walked.
It was they were stamped in there with a miniature.
set wasn't even real.
It was a miniature of the set so they could show a vast background.
I wrote an article about it and there's a video of it of Putin himself being shown the results that the latest AI says the moon landings are fake.
And then when I tried to track down the original article, it warned you if you click to proceed, all the data on your computer will be stolen and you'll be associated with child pornography.
Well, I don't know that they showed it that footage, but they showed it still pictures from the Apollo mission, and they showed it still pictures from the surface of the moon, from the unmanned Chinese probes.
It said the Chinese probe pictures are real, the Apollo pictures are fake.
The smartest AI in the world with a deep fake detection program that's never been wrong.
Why is it that Fox News cancels their number one program if they're in the business to make money?
You know, we had the former director of the Russian Space Agency a little over a year ago.
He said the moon missions were fake.
Fox News calls me up the next day.
They said, Bart, we want to do an hour-long special about whether the moon landings are real or not.
And we just want to be honest with you.
We haven't read your book, we haven't seen your film, and irregardless of what's in there, we will conclude that the moon missions are real.
The point is to reassure the public.
And then, during that hour-long program, which I saw after the fact, They had a quote from one scientist in 1969 that said, congratulations, and therefore they said, see, the Russians think it's real.
And I'm like, well, what about the former director of the Russian space program who said six weeks ago that it was fake?
And they said, we will conclude without investigating it, without reading your book, and even if your book and movie prove that it was fake, we're still going to conclude that it was real.
He says they're blackmailing NASA. NASA is giving them illegally, according to their own federal law, secret space technology in exchange for China not blowing the whistle.
And that's the alleged reason why it must be real.
The Russians would have found out and the Chinese would have found out and would have blown the whistle.
That's just not true.
Let's say I had a picture of a world leader with a prostitute.
I could upload it to the internet and take them down, and then that would be it.
Or I could blackmail them year after year after year.
And that's what I have a source in the command center of the space station at China, China Space Agency.
He says they know.
Everyone knows it's fake.
They're blackmailing NASA for technology.
So the federal government is violating their own espionage act.
You see that?
Russia knows.
The guy's not surprised.
At all.
In fact, my interpretation of his emotion, he's afraid.
He looks afraid that the truth is going to come out.
Now, you see, and then RT doesn't cover that story.
They don't cover it.
And I saw another AI story on RT, so I went in the comments section.
And I've left, I leave about two or three comments a year in there.
I've never had one taken down in three or four or five years.
I leave a comment, hey guys, why didn't you cover That the latest AI, where Putin was there, says that the moon missions are fake.
They took down the comet.
They won't let you go to the original link.
You see, Fox News is covering up for the federal government.
You see?
It's a great embarrassment.
I showed that footage that we talked about for quite a while to a news director at NBC. He practically fainted.
He says it absolutely proves they didn't go to the moon.
I said, when are you going to broadcast it?
He thought.
He says, I can't.
I don't want to go down in history as the man who caused the next civil war.
He says this will outrage the public.
Ten years later.
A new director at NBC News sees the footage.
They say it proves we didn't go to the moon.
They fly me to New York.
They put me up in the Waldorf Astoria Hotel.
They pay me thousands of dollars for the exclusive license to that footage.
And they said, Bart, I'm sorry to tell you this.
You can keep the money, but we're going to have to cancel the program.
I'm like, well, why is that?
He says, well, we got a call from someone in the federal government threatening us.
I talked to a guy who teaches aerospace at a major university, and he said even if he saw Buzz Aldrin confess on national TV that the moon missions were fake, he would still think they're real.
Okay, so here we have on the right-hand side a picture taken from the alleged last mission to the moon.
You'll see on the left-hand side is sunlight.
Try it yourself.
Go out in your front yard or your parking lot at work on a cloudless day.
Two people, two telephone poles, two trees.
They will always run parallel.
They will never intersect.
It's impossible for sunlight shadows to intersect.
Over here on the right...
What they claimed was taken in sunlight.
After all, there's no atmosphere.
It's 20 times brighter on the moon than on Earth.
The last thing you need is an electrical light.
And the astronaut's shadow is going at 12 o'clock and a rock five feet away.
The shadow is going at 9 o'clock.
A 90 degree intersection proving that that was taken with an electrical light that's really close, and it's probably behind the astronaut, and if you go to the right of it, it's gonna throw the angle off.
That proves it in a court of law.
Take a jury out, they'll see the picture on the left.
Turn out the lights in the courtroom, bring in a spotlight, and you will prove in a court of law that that picture was taken with an electrical light which proves they are on Earth and not on the Moon.
It does matter because that's what I was trying to get up before I cut off is that from this photo here, which is very similar to the other photo, it looks like the sun is probably behind it.
It's probably the brightest source that they have around them.
You've already admitted that without adding extra laser reflectors that the moon's surface is reflective.
So there's going to be reflection off of that.
And you're going to probably have the Earth, which is also now a second source of light, coming from a different angle than the sun is, to create potentially, without knowing exactly everything, because I'm not...
The math scientists know where the Sun and Earth are at this particular time of day.
Right, but Jamie, the difference in the amount of light that gets emitted by the Earth and the amount of light that gets emitted by the sun is substantial.
It's still that rock on the upper right-hand corner, even if it was getting light from the earth that made that shadow that underneath it to the left that goes in the wrong direction, you would still get the same kind of shadow that you get off the astronaut behind the rock.
There's no reason why that would blast out that shadow.
My point here right now, look, the sunlight behind the guy's head, right over here on the left, shadow coming to the right, over here on the right, shadow going to the left.
Electrical light, it's more than one source of light that they have suspended.
And so these are going to cast light in different directions, and it's going to create shadows that come at different angles, as opposed to the enormous sun, which bathes everything in a fairly even distribution of light.
The soil and the original picture around his feet is caramel brown.
Look at the pictures from the Chinese probes that the AI said was real.
It was a caramel brown color.
And they had the background grayish blue.
And they said, oops.
We can see the fake background too easily.
So they color corrected them.
Go to eBay.
Go to your library.
Find a publication from 1970. And you'll see, and all the lunar pictures, the originals, there's one there.
There's the brown one there.
Go back.
There was one picture of the original print of the soil being brown right there.
That's the color.
All that set of pictures that I had, those 20 pictures I got from my dad, All of them had the soil that color, including the famous one of Buzz Aldrin, right?
They all had a caramel brown.
And in the Chinese probes, the soil is caramel brown because that's the color it really is.
Other people have put them in films, and it's true that they claim they're in two different locations, but the backgrounds line up exactly on top of one another.
This brings me back to the thing that I was saying earlier, that if they did...
Look, the Hasselbad cameras that they used to photograph things on the moon, one of the things that people would always say is, oh, they were special cameras.
They were different.
They protected against radiation.
They did a bunch of things.
They could operate under the incredible temperature of the moon.
They have, according to Eugene Cernan, He left a picture, a family picture there on the surface of the moon.
And he took a picture of the photograph that he left on the surface of the moon.
And then someone said, okay, at what temperature does photographic print paper, Kodak paper from that time, you know, what temperature is it destroyed?
It was something like 145 degrees.
Well, it's 100 degrees hotter than that on the moon, and the picture looks perfectly fine.
What was different about the cameras that were used on the moon and what protection was in place supposedly to protect them from radiation and temperature?
Hasselblad engineers gave it a coat of heat-resistant aluminum paint and removed the mirror and focus screen to save weight and allow the camera to be operated close to the head as opposed to the waist.
Excuse me.
To aid in the photo composition, they attached a bracket used for mounting camera accessories called a cold shoe to the side.
It also held the astronaut's checklist while they were on the lunar surface.
Inside the camera, highly precise motors allowed astronauts to scroll through a roll of film without using a hard crank.
Rise knew that recreating the perfect replica of the Apollo 11 Hasselblad camera was going to be more difficult simply because there wasn't much accurate information available about it.
We have the fact that you can't have a thousand times greater technology in the past than in the future, right?
We have the footage of them faking being halfway to the moon.
We have shadows intersecting at 90 degrees, which can only be done with an electrical light.
And we have an eyewitness of Cyrus Eugene Akers.
And then there's another clip.
I think it's clip seven, Jamie.
I interviewed Edgar Mitchell in his house for my second follow-up film, Astronauts Gone Wild.
I showed him the fake footage that we just looked at.
He turned beet red, got mad.
Where did you get this?
Get out of my house.
Started cursing at me.
Kicked me from behind.
And in the commotion, We left a high-quality wireless microphone on him.
And in the commotion, my camera operator forgot to hit stop record.
So while the camera is in the backseat of the rental car in the guy's driveway, he's in his house with the door closed, and we're recording his private conversation with his son.
And you'll hear them say,''Do you want to call the CIA and have him whacked?'' Now, if they really went to the moon, and I'm some idiot who thinks it was done in a TV studio, why would they care?
Why would the CIA care?
And why would a civilian Apollo astronaut have the CIA in his Rolodex?
Do you see?
That's indirect proof that they didn't go to the moon, because why would they be talking about having me killed by the CIA if they really went, and I'm some silly person who thinks they faked it?
You get a 23-year-old kid, they're dumbass, they're mad, their dad just got punked, you know, the whole thing's happening, your dad kicks this guy, fuck this guy, want to call the CIA, have him whacked?
Well, I don't know if you read the book, one chapter is called A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to CNN. Okay, when I found that tape of them faking part of the moon mission in my home studio and just quietly wept, oh my gosh, they really did fake it, I freaked out.
I'm like, oh my gosh, I have proof that The moon landings are fake in my house with a blind roommate and a toddler son.
I'm panicking.
I call it Bill Gasing.
I'm like, Bill, you're not going to believe what I found.
They really didn't go to the moon.
They really didn't go to the moon.
And he's like, well, Bart, I told you.
I'm like, no, you don't understand.
They really didn't go.
He's like, well, Bart, I told you.
And as I'm telling him about the footage, it's interrupted by this screech.
I go to church that night to get advice from the elders what to do.
They say, drive like a bat out of hell to CNN. I already made a copy of it and put it in safe houses.
As I'm leaving church, one of the last cars late at night, a van backed into a swimming pool that had been closed for three hours since sundown, pulls out immediately when I go by.
I'm like, that guy was waiting for me.
I pull over to the side of the road.
I said, I'm not going anywhere until this guy is in front of me.
I got all night.
Finally, he realizes he got caught.
He passes me.
I follow him.
Know the enemy.
He gets on the parkway going toward town.
I get in the parkway going toward town.
I'm like, I want to see this guy.
Who is this guy?
Waiting to follow me the day I find the secret footage.
I look at him in the eye.
He looks like a great white shark.
He would kill me and go home and have a great dinner and not think about me tomorrow.
And as soon as we connect, my car shuts off.
The electrical engine, everything shuts off.
What year is this?
This is 1999. What kind of car do you have at the time?
I had a Toyota van.
And he meets up with another car on the other side.
They start literally looping around as I'm running from side to side being chased by these people.
I flag down a cab who takes me to CNN. In Atlanta, where I have a friend who works there.
And I'm literally trying to give them the tape through the back door.
This is all in my book.
Maybe it'll make a great movie someday.
And I'm abducted by government agents in an unmarked white van who handcuffs me.
And I can hear them behind me say, well, where's the thing?
I thought you had the thing.
He's got the thing.
They're all wearing rubber gloves.
They put something on my wrist.
That looks like something you get when you go into a hospital.
And within one minute, I feel like I'm on LSD to the point where I'm throwing up.
Well, they're the ones who monitored my phones, who followed me from church, who followed me to CNN, who stopped me from getting the tape there, who drugged me with something so severe I'm throwing up and hallucinating.
And then they're so afraid that I'm going to prove that I was drugged, they break into the lab, you know, in the middle of the night and take only thing stolen was my urine sample gone the next day.
And then the next question is something about copies of the tape and I don't even remember.
It's a blur.
And, you know, I'm literally in the middle of the night running away from these people.
X-Files type of things that, you know, we'll make a movie someday about.
And just unreal what I went through.
And they really did go.
They're still keeping up with it.
You've got to remember, what's his name?
Ralph Nader.
He wrote that book.
Was it Deadly at Any Speed?
And all it was is GM simply didn't want to spend $200 per car to put in an airbag.
You know what they did when Ralph Nader was trying to get them to put...
They sent FBI agents on him, to hound him, to entrap him with prostitutes and drugs, to discredit him, only to not put $200 airbags in a car.
Imagine the harassment to a reporter who has proof that they faked the moon landing.
And now, in my book that just came out, We have an eyewitness who says he saw them fake the moon landing at Cannon Air Force Base and even admitted to killing a co-worker to cover it up.
Well, they're contradicting themselves because we just showed Kelly Smith who said the field of radiation is dangerous, that we need to develop shielding before we send people through this region of space.
So the shielding to send people through it so they don't die has not been invented as of 2014. They also could have meant the shielding for the instruments so they don't...
Just logically, if you look at the timeline between 1969 and 2024 and the amount of progress that has taken place in actual, outside of Earth's orbit space travel, it's non-existent by human beings.
Another question is, did they ever manage to get anything alive through the Van Allen radiation belts and have it come back to Earth before they tried it out with people?
Did they do it with a monkey?
Did they do it with a chicken?
Did they send anything into space and have it come back alive?
Here it says, some people believe that the Apollo moon missions were a hoax because astronauts would have been instantly killed in the radiation belts.
According to the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Agency, OSHA, a lethal radiation dosage is 300 rads in one hour.
What is your answer to the moon landing hoax believers?
Okay.
Total dosage for the trip is only 16 rad in 68.1 minutes.
I think we're good to go.
Also, this radiation exposure would be for an astronaut outside the spacecraft during the transit through the belts.
The radiation shielding inside the spacecraft cuts down the 14 rads per hour exposure so that it's completely harmless.
Well, I have a clip at sabrell.com where they talk about it's a show from the 1950s where they set up probes with Geiger counters and they say it's 100 times the lethal dose.
It broke the Geiger counter because it vibrated so much.
Again, these numbers of the amount of radiation in the Van Allen radiation belts are from the people who faked the moon landing.
There's a clip from my book at sabrell.com that has a scientist showing the radiation levels and talking about how it's a barrier between deep space travel.
Well, this magnetic field of the Earth causes this magnetic area which collects over however old the Earth is, all those years, radiation that goes nowhere.
So it keeps getting bigger and bigger and bigger.
It also shields us from cosmic and solar and galactic radiation and from people not getting cancer.
So...
You have to have it to have life on Earth, but paradoxically, it also prevents you from leaving the Earth.
So it says the numbers along the horizontal axis give the distance from Earth in multiples of the Earth's radius.
The inner Van Allen belt is located at about 1.6.
RE, the outer Van Allen belt, is located at about 4.0.
The distance of 2.2, there's a gap region between these belts.
Satellites such as the Global Positioning System orbit in this gap region where the radiation effects are minimum.
So there's a gap in between the two belts.
And so as the International Space Station and Space Shuttle on this scale orbit very near the edge of the blue Earth disk in the figure, so are well below the Van Allen radiation belts.
So most of the space stations, space shuttle travel, all that stuff is in that area.
Just look for that part in the film that shows the animation of the Van Allen radiation belt.
And then those book clips, and I said my book is interactive, one of those clips has two or three links underneath it, including documentation from, I think it's called Scientific American.
From a 1958 publication that says that the radiation is 100 times a lethal dose.
We have an article to that linked in one of the video clips description.
100 times a lethal dose.
It says so.
Talks about the rad, you know, the lethal dose and so forth and how much is in the Van Allen radiation belt.
Based on probes they sent up in the late 50s in which the Geiger counters broke because they vibrated so much.
They said it was 100 times a lethal dose back when von Braun said you would need three rockets weighing 30,000% more than the Saturn V rocket.
But all that stuff was buried and now they're rewriting history to falsify the moon landings.
So one of the problems is that if they did fake it in order to redo it, even if the technology exists today to be able to shield a craft to get through the Van Allen radiation belts and to fuel it adequately to get to the moon, to pursue that and to pursue that transparently, Where you have to explain the protection that you're putting in place because of the danger, because of the measurements that we have.
Because we did send the Orion up there.
We did send different probes up there to figure out how much radiation is.
That would throw into question whether or not the original Apollo missions were true.
So if it was, even if we are capable of doing it today, if those were fake, it would stop us from doing it today somewhat.
And it's one of those things like I talk about with the UFOs.
It's like Lucy with Charlie Brown and the football.
Like you always think you're going to get that football but nope, they pull it away from you.
It's like this – if they do want to actually go to the moon and go to Mars and if we have the technology, they're going to have to publicly address – What precautions that they're going through in order to shield people from the radiation if they're being accurate and honest about it.
Well, yeah, Kelly Smith made an attempt to do that.
I don't know if it's intentional or unintentional, but he said the technology necessary to protect astronauts from the radiation to the moon has not been invented yet.
So if it's not been invented yet as of 2014, and it's not been invented yet as of today, it certainly wasn't around in 1969. And this explains that footage of why they're faking being halfway to the moon.
Because they can't even go halfway.
They can't leave Earth orbit.
And what a surprise.
54 years later, they still cannot leave Earth orbit.
Well, the college professor I talked to said even a confession from Buzz Aldrin that the moon missions were fake wouldn't dissuade him from the glorious moon landings.
Yeah, he said the moon landings were his historical anomaly, meaning they're out of place to have had greater technology in the past and in the future.
I believe he knows that the moon missions are fake, but he needs cooperation with NASA to fulfill his dreams, and he's playing ball.
Again, this is one of those subjects, and this is why so many people are reluctant to take it on.
But if you even talk about the moon landing being fake or entertain a person like yourself that says this, you're automatically put in the category of being a fool.
I'd become a filmmaker whose job is to make fake scenes look real.
And I could tell that they were fake backgrounds.
I could tell that the shadows intersected.
I said, still...
That's not enough proof for me to say such a thing as they faked it.
But when I found that footage of them faking being halfway to the moon right in front of your eyes with a third track of audio of the CIA telling them to fake a four-second radio delay, that's it.
The two NBC news directors agreed it proves they didn't go to the moon.
And the weird thing is, Joe, this is the linchpin.
This is the finger out of the dike.
You know, the JFK witness list, they say it's 200 people they knocked off to keep that a secret.
9-11, 3,000.
Maybe they killed 20 people to cover it up.
Even though it killed the fewest number of people, it's the one that will enrage the public the most if they find out.
Because they waved their flags, they got down on their knees and prayed and they cried.
They gave them medals of honor.
They printed it on stamps and coins, and they taught it in school.
The glorious moon landing.
This is what the NBC News director tried to get me to understand, which I didn't understand until recently.
If the truth comes out, it will bring down the corruption.
It's the linchpin.
The moon landing fraud coming out has to happen, or we will never have honest government ever again.
It does not seem like these are happy guys who just returned from the moon.
Scooch ahead a little bit.
Here we go.
So look how nervous they look.
Look at Michael Collins fidgeting.
And obviously you would be nervous.
You're addressing all these people.
But it's the tone in which Neil Armstrong takes.
And then after this we're gonna show the 25th anniversary speech which is one of the most bizarre Yeah, go to him talking Over it's developing and unfolding.
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 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 and with the intent of pointing out some of the things that we observed on the spot, which may not be obvious to those of you who are looking at them
They were all three orbiting the Earth, so they had the same experience, but he forgot.
So if you get the written transcript of that, The I don't remember seeing any, they change it to Buzz saying it.
You see?
Lightning strikes twice in the same place.
What a coincidence.
First a typo that says Buzz said it instead of Michael Collins, and then in the video, Michael Collins answering a question he should know nothing about.
In 1994, Neil Armstrong made a rare public appearance and held back tears as he spoke these brief cryptic remarks before the next generation of taxpayers as they toured the White House.
unidentified
Today we have with us a group of students among America's best.
To you we say we've only completed a beginning.
We leave you much that is undone.
There are great ideas undiscovered.
Breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truth's protective layers.
The only people who had the capability of tracking it were the American government and the Soviets who were blackmailing us for knowing that it was fraudulent.
Well, they obviously know that the moon missions are fake.
Putin was not surprised.
It was around that time that we sold grain to the Soviet Union before cost, even though they're supposed to be our enemy.
And around the same time, after Richard Nixon said communist China is an enemy, That he went to China, which is generally the inferior person visits the superior person.
You see?
And so he went, because I think they know.
I think they found out and blackmailed him too.
And we know they are blackmailing NASA for technology in exchange for not blowing the whistle.
It's not that extraordinary that China would find out about the moon landing fraud and instead of blowing the whistle would blackmail as a more valuable tool of the information.
I think that's what the Soviets are doing.
They were being blackmailed.
It's another good reason for the truth to come out so we won't be blackmailed by China and Russia anymore.
What do you think would happen if definitive proof came out, if Trump opened up all the files, if everybody started talking about it and definitive proof was – we got to a point technologically where we are ready to travel to other planets.
We realized, hey, this is impediment and this impediment could not have possibly been traversed by the Apollo astronauts.
But wouldn't the problem then be we would have to revamp the entirety of government?
If that's the case, the intelligence agencies have done this.
If they really did kill Kennedy, if they really did fake the moon landing, if they really did all the things that we think they did, like no one would have faith in them anymore.
It could ruin the reputation of the United States of America.
But we have a gangrene limb.
William Benny, you know, worked for the NSA for 30 years.
He says the CIA, the NSA, they're spying on the private cell phone conversations of Supreme Court justices to get dirt on them, to blackmail them into voting the way the CIA and NSA tell them.
That's a dangerous situation for a country to be in.
There needs to be a major, major house cleaning.
I'm not even sure what would happen if, let's say, all the federal government ran on electricity and you could unplug it all with one plug.
I'm not sure what would happen to you and me and everyone else's life if we unplug the federal government.
I don't know why we can't just have the independent states of America and manage our own affairs because they are so corrupt.
They're killing their own president.
They're starting war after war based on lies and fabrications, right?
We have so many murders of people that they have done themselves.
The federal government is killing their own people and we're funding it.
We have the fact that shadows can't intersect unless it's electrical light.
We have footage of them faking being halfway to the moon.
We have the deathbed testimony of an eyewitness who saw them filming Apollo 11 at Cannon Air Force Base.
And we have the fact that you can't travel a thousand times further into space in 1969 on the first attempt with one minute the computing power of a cell phone than you can 50 years later.
Technology has never been better in the past and in the future.
That proves it.
If it weren't a sweet lie that people loved and don't want to give up, people would see the truth for what it is.
It's of historic importance because the faking of the moon landing for mankind is more significant than if they'd actually gone.
That they lied to the world, embezzled money, murdered their own people to cover it up.
And to not know that truth is like having cancer and not knowing.
We have to know.
We can have a great awakening about everything else, but if we still are deceived about the greatest accomplishment of mankind, you see, then there is no great awakening.
It's a spiritual issue.
It's a spiritual battle between truth.
It's ironic.
You know, there was a famous writer who said about the Tower of Babel, the monument to their pride became a memorial to their folly.
Do you think that this is a subject that even intelligent people that get this information of a resonance, it resonates with them that they're going to try to ignore?
Because it's so controversial that you instantly get labeled a kook if you believe this.
The problem with intelligence is people can be smart but only within a narrow field.
Like I asked my doctor, get this.
What do you know about natural medicine?
You know what they said?
Virtually, word for word.
All I know is what pill to prescribe for this illness that I was taught in university.
That's all I know.
They're intelligent within that narrow field, but they can't critically think.
Universities are universal thinking.
I was forbidden by the University of Pittsburgh after having a contract to speak to a student body group about the moon landing fraud.
They forbid it.
And the free speech, free expression, United States of America.
You see, this is a major problem.
People are emotional about this.
They have to be willing to be wrong.
And people are so arrogant.
I mean, a college professor teaching aerospace who says if Buzz Aldrin confessed on national TV that it was fake, filmed at Cannon Air Force Base, just like Bart said, he would still think he walked on the moon anyway.
That's what we're up against.
This is a god to them.
The god of science is putting a man on the moon when it's really just propaganda.