Joe Rogan podcast. Check it out. The Joe Rogan experience.

Train by day. Joe Rogan podcast by night.

All day.

All right, folks, drop in. Good to see you, man.

Thank you.

We first met what was, like, at least 20 years ago, right?

22 years ago, was it 22? Mm hmm.

Wow. So I had seen your movie, and I don't even remember how I got in touch with you. Cause this is before my podcast. I don't even.

You emailed me.

Okay, so did I email you off your website? Is that what it was?

I think so. And then you said, if you're ever in LA, let's meet. And I happened to be in LA when you sent me the email.

Ah, synchronicity.

Yes.

Yeah. So let's take everybody on this journey with you. So you were a young man. You were fascinated by NASA. You were a NASA fan. You had NASA photos on the wall of your room. What happened? What happened to you that essentially, you're known worldwide as the leading proponent of the moon hoax theory. You're the guy who's researched it the most. You're the guy who can auto recall the most information, and you're the guy that the people that believe the moon landing was real hate the most. So how'd this all happen?

Well, let me start by saying a comment about what you said. Theory. You know, it's not a theory. They did fake the moon landing. That's a fact whether people realize it or not.

Okay, but we weren't there. So let's just go on what we know in terms of facts, and I'm gonna call it a theory.

Okay. You're so fine.

Just fine. I'm just trying to. Well, I'm gonna have to steel man some of the arguments against you. You know, obviously, I mean, this is a fascinating, but yet very challenging subject. I think today more people are aware of the insanely widespread deception that the government was involved in during the same time as the moon landing. I think this is important. And I know a lot of people who get very angry when you question the moon landing. They use terms like patriotism, national pride, like, we did this incredible thing. The scientists that we have, I understand what they're saying. I understand where they're coming from entirely. But we have to look at things realistically if we're ever going to get an accurate picture of how the world works. And I think if we look at the time that we're talking about the Nixon administration, we 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 was there? Like, a million people dead because of that?

3 million people, including 58,220 Americans.

Okay, there's that. There's Operation Northwoods. During the same time period, Operation Northwoods was a plan that was signed 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 onto 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.

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? He said, I know they lied about everything. They lied about everything. They lied about Mkultra. They were dosing up johns and brothels with acid and monitoring them. They dosed up Charles Manson. They probably trained him how to be a cult leader in prison. The whole Mkultra thing is 100% legit, verified. There's plenty of documents on it. They experimented on people with acid. They did mind control experiments on people. What did they tell the truth about? What did they said, you know what? I know we're liars, and we get people killed and we're, you know, 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.

Well, we'll. You brought up a bunch of good points. Have my opinion is really the opinion of the experts. For example, Robert Kennedy junior 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 cost. 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 911. 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 eleven. 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.

What changed?

Well, what changed is having an open mind.

But was there a moment?

Yeah, well, the first moment was. So from the age of, I was asleep in bed when it happened. But at age four, I got those pictures, saw them. I mean, even if I saw them once a day, that's 3650 times over the next ten 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 casing, a former rocketdyne employee who worked for NASA for six years on the Apollo program with high security clearance, only second to von Braun, who says, look, I edited a memo from von Braun to the Pentagon warning them they are not going to make the goal. There's only a one in 10,000 chance they can go to the moon on the first attempt.

And what year was this?

That was back in 1966, I think.

And so three years later, they went to the moon. Is it possible that they were able to overcome whatever challenges that get. It got him to 10,000 to one?

Well, no, because, I mean, so we're going to go over many proofs.

Yeah, this is important, but, I mean, I need to every step of the way.

Well, here's how you can prove that's not the case.

Okay.

Okay. Just do so. The number one proof that we have is simply deductive reasoning. Because today, with 54 year better rocket designs and computer designs, the farthest that NASA can send a rocket with an astronaut into space is 1000th 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 1,000,000th of computing power, cell phone, they sent astronauts a thousand times farther into space than they can send us a day with 54 year better technology. So what they're really claiming is they had 1000 times better technology in 1969 than they do today.

Not necessarily.

Well, but that is because you can't have better technology in the past and in the future, it's impossible.

But they haven't done a moon landing program today. So if they started a moon landing program today, the technology is vastly superior. Right.

So it would take less time. It would take less time to return to the moon if they. But it's taking more time.

They're not right, but they're not doing it right.

Like, during the Apollo, they can't do it.

Okay, that's what you're saying. Yeah, and I'm with you, but. But the Apollo program doesn't exist today. The Apollo program was a massive program to try to beat Russia, to get the first person on the moon. And it was a concerted effort by how many scientists, how many people were involved, how many employees, how many, like, overall, I mean, very compartmentalized. Right. But how many people overall were involved in the Apollo moon landing?

Well, a couple hundred thousand.

Okay. That's a lot of people to organize and to mow, 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. Today.

Well, actually, they are 400,000.

It says at the peak, Apollo program employed 400,000 people and required the support of over 20,000 industrial firms and universities. So here's the argument against that. It would be fake. Everyone would know and everyone would tell, and it would get out.

Well, that's. Let me show you how that's not true. First of all, Eugene Krantz, flight director, he said out of his own mouth that a person in the command center in Houston, during a launch to the moon, can tell no difference whatsoever between a computer simulated flight and a real flight. They can't tell the difference. It's just a bunch of numbers going by on a screen. So if a person in the command center cannot tell a difference, then how could we, as a ten year old, watch it on our living room at home? And then, do you really think the CIA is so stupid to tell the person making the glove or the boot or the door handle, hey, we're really not going to the moon. Be sure not to tell anybody. And then that wouldn't be the question.

The question would be that too many people would have to know and it would get out.

No, it wouldn't. If someone in the command center doesn't know, then the command center people can be fooled. Once the rocket is up, there's only three eyewitnesses to it. It's actually much easier to fake than we realize. A bank teller. And how many bank tellers are at Wells Fargo? Hundreds of thousands. 400,000 bank tellers, probably. But do they know what the CEO knows about corruption in the bank? I don't think so. You see, there's a big difference. And then we have no independent press coverage. World War Two had a billion or more eyewitnesses in Europe, but there's no independent press coverage, only three people. It's much easier to fake than people realize. And then people wanted to believe it.

I also want to put people in the mind 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. Thats 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, theres no way they did. Theres no way they didnt know about the Gulf of Tonkin then. They didnt know about Operation Northwoods. They didnt know about so many things that we know that the government has done. The Kennedy assassination hadnt happened yet, or it happened, but they still didn't know who had done it. You know, that 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 is.

This guy kept going back and forth to Russia. Jack Ruby was in the mob. What the fuck really happened here back in 1969 when the moon landings were happening? This is an innocent country. It was a different way. People had a much different way of looking at things.

Well, the people were innocent, but the government weren't. They just killed their own president. They just faked the beginning of the Vietnam War. And they were emboldened to fake the moon landing because they had complete control over the media and a public who wanted to believe it. And even people at NASA and command center couldn't tell the difference between a simulation and a real fly.

They also had a history of faking things. They had a history of deception. It was a part of the fabric of the organization. They were deceiving people all the time. They were deceiving United States citizens all.

Well, and they still are. That's the thing about the moon landing and why it's so significant. I mean, let's take a look at the two possibilities. Either they went to the moon on the first attempt, ahead of schedule, with 1,000,000th of computing power for cell phone, but today they can only send astronauts 1000th the distance. Okay, let's say they did. That, came back WHOOP Dee doo. Or 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. Comma watch 17 clips for free that prove it.

Have you had any debates with people that think, we definitely went to the moon and what you're doing is dangerous and ridiculous?

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. All this proof, the footage.

We encountered chemistry there. That doesn't mean they didn't go to the moon. That means that photograph was faked.

Okay.

Okay.

Well, why would the pictures be fake if they really went?

But in any case, no. You could make the argument that the radiation damaged the cameras and they weren't able to get real photographs, and so they made a conscious decision to use fake photographs.

Well, I think if you were really going to the moon, you wouldn't dare fake any of it. To be accused of that.

I think they had a lot more hubris back then. They faked a lot of photographs back then. It was pretty common. I mean, you know the famous one of the Gemini 15, 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.

Yeah. So you're saying NASA has a track record of faking space flights before then. Yeah, you're right.

Or publicity firms that work for NASA had a limited amount of photos to work with, and they decided to manipulate some so that they could have photos that they didn't have of an actual event which really took place. It was a spacewalk.

But what we have is them faking being halfway to the moon.

Right. But they do do things like spacewalk. They do do things like the space center. So that's where it gets confusing.

Well, they can't. They can't leave Earth orbit.

That's where it gets confusing. So the real problem, the question is the Van Allen radiation belts now, Operation Starfish prime, that was the operation where they detonated a nuke in the radiation belts, right? Didn't they do something like that? Something kooky? They were trying to blow a hole through the radiation belts.

I've heard that. It's not confirmed. I don't know.

Yeah, well, it's secret squirrel stuff. But what is operations? Google that. What is Operation Starfish Prime? I remember reading that going, they did what? They shot a nuke into space. Starfish prime is a high altitude nuclear test conducted by the United States, a joint effort, the Atomic Energy Commission and the Defense Atomic Support Agency. It was launched from Johnson Atoll on July 9, 1962. It was the largest nuclear test conducted in outer space and one of the five conducted by the US in space. A Thor rocket carrying a w 49 thermonuclear warhead designed at Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory and a mk two re entry vehicle was launched from Johnston et al 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?

That's right.

Above a point 19 miles southwest of Johnson et al. At a yield of 1.4 megatons. The explosion was about ten degrees above the horizon as seen from Hawaii at 11:00 p.m. Hawaiian time. So what was the goal behind this? Or at least what was the publicly stated goal behind blowing up a fucking thermo nuke in space?

Well, I guess they were trying to see if they could open up the radiation in order to go to the moon. They knew that the radiation.

Was this connected, though? Was this program connected to NASA officially?

I think they were trying to see if they could open a way for not to go through it.

Look what it says there. Starfish prime, and this always happens, caused an electromagnetic pulse that was far larger than expected, so much larger that it drove much of the instrumentation off scale, causing great difficulty in getting accurate measurements. The starfish prime electromagnetic pulse also made those effects known to public by causing electrical damage in Hawaii, about 900 miles away from the detonation point, knocking out about 300 street lights. Holy shit. Setting off numerous burglar alarms and damaging a telephone company microwave link. These boys were wild. They just experimented with a fucking nuclear bomb in space, and it blew out 300 street lights 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 et al. To obtain experimental data from the Starfish prime detonation. In addition, a larger number of rocket borne instruments were launched from barking sands, Kauai, in the Hawaiian Islands. A large number of United States military ships and aircrafts were operating in support of starfish prime in the Johnson Etal area and across the nearby North Pacific region.

A few military ships and aircrafts were also positioned in the region of the South Pacific Ocean near samoan islands. The location was at the southern end of the magnetic field line of the Earth's magnetic field from the position of the nuclear detonation. Detonation, an area known as the southern conjecture region for the test. So does it say why they were doing it, though? Yeah, I'm interested to see, like, why did you guys do that? Give me some sort of a logical explanation why you just took a fucking chance. Launched a nuke 250 miles into the sky. Okay, what did they say they were doing? Okay. They began a response to the Soviets announcement on August 30 of 1961 that they would end a three year moratorium on testing began in response. Right, but why did they do it in space? I understand that they might have did nuclear tests back then because the moratorium was over.

Aliens.

Aliens killed aliens with nukes. That's probably why the aliens are showing up more. Well, that's the. All the folklore, the folklore about fat man and little boy. Then when they dropped those bombs, that's an alien start showing up like, hey, hey, hey, what are you doing? Which I would do if I was an alien. That's around the time I would start landing. Like, as soon as they start dropping bombs on cities like Jesus Christ. So we know they did that. That's a real thing, why they do it. The speculation is that they were trying to open up a portal to make passage through the Van Allen radiation belts possible. Now, the people that say that it's easy to go through the Van Allen radiation belts will tell you that it's a donut. It's not a full. It's not like covering the entire sphere of Earth evenly, that there's openings at the top and the bottom. Is this correct?

Well, yeah, but then they would have to launch at the North Pole or south Pole, where it's not possible to launch because of the temperatures.

That's the only way you could do it, to get through those holes?

That's right. According to NASA's own flight plan, they went directly through the center. That's why they launched in southern Florida, to be close to the equator.

Okay. So what they would say is that it's not that dangerous, and it's just like being exposed to a few x rays and that the people were shielded.

Well, go to sabrell.com and watch a little about it.

But you're right there. So I want to. I just don't want to give you the opportunity. What they would say to you.

The clip there's is of Kelly Smith. He's an employee at NASA, explaining something that most people don't know, which is above the earth. Starting at about 1000 miles and extending about 30,000 miles, is a huge band of radiation that astronauts would have to go through to the moon and through again back. First he says it's dangerous, meaning deadly. And then he says that the technology for an astronaut to go through it to the moon and back and survive has yet to be invented.

Let's listen to him say that. And when did he say this?

I think he said that in 2014.

Okay. All right. Jamie will find that. We'll pull that up. But that would be the argument against the moon landing being hoax. Let's go.

Navigation and guidance for Orion.

We are headed 3600 miles above Earth.

15 times higher from the planet than the international space station. As we get further away from Earth.

We'Ll pass through the van Allen belts, an area of dangerous radiation. Radiation like this could harm the guidance systems, onboard computers, or other electronics on Orion.

Naturally, we have to pass through this danger zone to twice, once up and once back.

We must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space. We must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space. We must solve these challenges before we send. Okay, did you just say that over and over again? Yeah.

He said it was Orion, though is his name. He said it was for Orion. You think he was talking about a different time period? He said you would have to solve it for when Orion was traveling.

When was Orion?

Well, he says he must solve these challenges before we send people.

Right.

Was through this region of space.

What was he talking about, though?

He's talking about sending people beyond Earth orbit through the radiation belt. And he says that video from.

What's that?

What's this video from?

Yeah, what is it? When was he said? 2014. He was talking about this. And what was this?

The Orion project was to have a step toward going to the moon.

And what year was this?

I think he said that in 2014.

So the Orion project was a new project to go to the moon in 2014. Just not as focused as.

Correct they were using part of that spacecraft on the Artemis mission when they sent 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.

Well, that's not exactly what he was saying. I see where you're going with this. But what he did say that was it was dangerous radiation. You wrote deadly in all capital letters. But what he was just saying, it was dangerous, and he was specifically talking about instrumentation. He didn't say dangerous in terms of like, to people.

Right. Because that would be more of a clue that they didn't go to the moon. So he didn't mention that it would.

Be a thing that you would go, but, hey, how did they do it? And then they get it. Would you open up a can of worms?

Right. He says, we must solve these challenges of protecting the astronauts before we send people through this region of space. Meaning people cannot go through it until the radiation shielding is developed and it has not yet been developed a way to send astronauts through it and survive in 2014. So if it's not been invented in 2014 yet, than it wasn't invented in 1969.

Well, I think another thing that's important to say that if you're saying that radiation is dangerous to instrumentation, it's going to be dangerous to bodies. But I'm saying, even if you don't say that, even if you're not.

He didn't say people.

He did say people before we could send people, but he could, you could say imply. I'm not saying this is true, but by what he's saying, that what he's saying is instrumentation would be damaged and that would be dangerous.

Well, and he also included people before we send people through this region.

Right. But it could be because they would lose their instrumentation. You could interpret that. I'm just trying to be as generous as possible.

You're overly generous.

So what is this genesis from Reddit?

Someone says this is the full context of what he says in that.

Okay, here it is. My name is Kelly Smith, and I work on navigation guidance for Orion. Before we can send astronauts into space on Orion, we have to test all the systems. Only one way to know if we got it right, fly it into space. For Orion's first flight, no astronauts will be aboard. The spacecraft is loaded with sensors to record and measure all aspects of the flight in every detail. We're headed 3600 miles above Earth, 15 times higher from the planet than the International Space Station. As we get further away from Earth, we'll pass through the van Allen belts, an area of dangerous radiation. Radiation like this can harm the guidance systems, onboard computers, or other electronics on Orion. Naturally, we have to pass through this danger zone twice, once up and once back. But Orion has protection. Shielding will be put to the test. As the vehicle cuts through the waves of radiation, sensors aboard will record radiation levels for scientists to study. We must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space.

So the challenges have not been solved in 2014. So how could they have been solved in 1969?

The thing is, even if they did solve it back then, how did they do it? This is the question. This is what we know about the spaceship, what we know about the Apollo eleven, what we know about the shielding that it had.

They had one 8th of an inch of aluminum. Now, when you get a dental x ray, they use one quarter inch lead. And so that's for 120 fourth of a second. They would be in that for an hour to an hour and a half going to the moon and an hour to an hour and a half coming back.

So what would that be the equivalent to, roughly, in terms of, like, x rays?

It would be 100 times more than a lethal dose, according to their own reports, which are documented@sabrell.com. All for free. You go on there and watch the videos and read the documentation.

Okay. And to be clear, and to be clear, how many people have gone through that supposedly? Well, what was the first ones? The first one, there was an orbit of the moon, a manned orbit of the moon before there was a land.

Yeah. There were allegedly 24 people who have allegedly gone through it to the moon and back. But the footage we uncovered shows them faking being halfway to the moon from Earth orbit. So it proves that they could not even go halfway to the moon because they're faking being halfway to the moon.

Well, whatever that footage was, though, in all fairness, that footage wasn't released. Right? That footage was found footage, correct.

That was outtakes of them shaking being halfway to the moon, which even my greatest critic agrees, that is them faking being halfway to the moon, and they're doing it from Earth orbit. And it's dated two days into the flight where they're supposed to show the video. Halfway to the moon.

We'll show the video. But if I was gonna steal 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.

Except date.

That way we make sure we get it right.

Except it's dated two days and three days into the flight when they're supposed to be halfway to the moon. Damn.

A steel man's not working.

Yeah.

Okay, so let's.

You're really bad. I'll just try it.

I'm just giving. I have to.

No, you don't. No, you don't. And here's why. Because we've heard their side of the story for 54 years.

Everybody hasn't. This is where you're wrong.

No, their side of the story. We've heard that the moon landings are real for 54 years.

We've heard.

You've heard that, but they don't need extra time.

It's not that truth. The people today that are in the scientific community that believe the moon landing is real. So you have to approach it from the perspective of how they're going to debunk your debunking.

Tell you something else about the radiation.

Let's look at the footage first. Cause I think we're just, we're beating around the bush. The footage is so shocking that you immediately go, okay, what is this? Like, what is this? I just want to know what, what logically could this be? The only thing that I could think of that was logically would be that they were practicing.

I'm asking, though, is this the video I'm sure should be showing here or not?

Yeah.

Oh, so this is one when you compare back and forth, right?

Correct. I mean, there's more, isn't there one.

Of just the actual video that we can watch?

Well, you could go to sobrel.com, comma, click on a funny thing happened on the way to the moon. Or go to the moon man. Video links@sobrel.com and pull this up. Smoking gun. I just gave you the time cues on the most significant part where you could do the side by side comparison.

And the side by side comparison is for.

Well, on the left, Neil Armstrong claims this is 130,000 miles out. He claims that the camera lens is at the glass and that's the earth floating in space. What's on the right hand side are the outtakes that we got an unedited reel of the special effect shot by accident. And the lights come up and you.

See, okay, so this is the exact same size image, roughly the same distance.

They were really out on the left, he claims. And this is the part they showed to the public, that that's the earth floating in space, halfway to the moon, looking back. And then on the right is the outtakes, where the lights come up, and you see that the camera'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 molded in front of it. And that's the take on the left hand side. You're about to see Michael Collins breakdown, part of the.

So this is where effect. This is what I want everybody to.

Look at, because this is where.

Okay, hold on a second. This is where it gets really weird. So they're saying they're 130,000 miles away, so they're in deep space.

So that proves it's the window. You see that?

That's people standing in front of the. We used to think that we're looking out into space at the earth, but now we realize there's people standing in front of it. So there's other stuff going on. So something. There's. You're filming a room, and then that's really the window.

That's an.

It's a window, yeah.

That's an arm getting in front of the window. That's an outtake they never showed, because it shows that it's a fake shot.

Okay. Do you think that that is just a piece of the earth in a circular window, or do you think they put something over the window to represent the earth?

Another photographer believes it's part. It's like a transparency of. There's the circular window.

Let's let this play out. Let's let this play out.

So if that's the window, the point is it's the window.

Back it up a little bit.

They're using the window to create a 1ft model of the earth, and they're.

Using the darkness of the cabin by blocking out all the windows.

And it looks like.

It makes it look like it's space.

Exactly. It makes it look like the earth is floating in space. So we have them faking being halfway to the moon, which means they cannot go halfway to the moon. And here we are 54 years later, and they still cannot go halfway to the moon. That's why there's mannequins orbiting the moon. They said in 2014, in 2018, they would have people orbiting the moon. They were 100% behind schedule.

Yeah, but that's politicians, they lie about everything. And they might have had grand plans and didn't get the funding, but this is shocking weird stuff because it's hard to explain. It's hard to come up with a rational explanation of what this could be.

Well, that's them.

Because if they are they halfway to.

The moon, that's what it is.

But we should play the audio. So they tell. And they say in the audio, we're 130,000 miles away.

Right. And then they also say, which is another lie, that there's only one window that faces the earth and it's filled up with the tv camera, meaning 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. Let's play that part of the earth outside of the window. It's very ingenious.

Let's play that so we can hear the words. We can hear them say that because it's even more interesting. So if you see the footage and then you hear the words, you go, what could they possibly be doing here?

Go to the moon.

This is you.

Yeah.

Where can we find the raw video?

The raw video is in. A funny thing happened on the way to the moon. Go to sobrell.com. It's on the homepage.

That's his YouTube channel.

Yeah, that's not Mike, my film. That's another no.

Go to sobrell.com. He's got links up there.

Let me add one thing about the radiation. So after Kelly Smith put his foot in his mouth, I called up NASA. I said, I'm a journalist. Can I talk to the guy? No, we don't allow him to talk to reporters anymore. I said, well, you sent up two Geiger counters on a civilian mission with tax dollars to specifically measure the radiation 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 isn't 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 or.

We spent a lot of money to get that data, and that data is very important. If there's manned warfare in space, like we have a space force now, there's an anticipation that we could live in a future where there's space wars. Right. This is a real thought. The space program is real. You know, this space force is a real organization. If you've acquired. Yeah, it really is. I have a t shirt Tim Dillon gave.

Oh, that must prove that it's real.

It's real. Do I have a t shirt?

Actual t shirt.

But no, there is a space force. I think it was Trump's idea, right? Yeah. Trump started a space force, which is awesome. Anyway. That's data you wouldn't want Russia to have. Like, so if the Van Allen radiation belts, if there's a way to get through them, because you know exactly how much radiation it is, and you know that you need this amount of shielding. You don't want Russia to know that. You don't. You want them to spend your own money, bitch. You can't have our fucking data. That's what I would say. I would say that's an american secret. That's national security in that regard. Right. Because if. If they're. If we're gonna be doing space wars, they're gonna be flying around, but they don't know how to get through the radiation belts, but we do. Then they're gonna rely on espionage. They're.

Well, they sent probes. They've sent probes to the moon. So they would probably have Geiger counters on there.

Right.

But as they would know, the radiation readings.

All right, but they sent probes to the moon a long time ago. As time goes on, the instrumentation is far more efficient. It's much better, more accurate. So the stuff that they get, the data they 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 of transistors are smaller and.

Yeah, makes sense. Make sense. Yeah, it's more complex.

You can start the clip if you want.

That does make sense about the radiation belts when they were talking about instrumentation.

Start at 34.

My point is, don't we recognize that the amount of instrumentation that would be dangerous to radiation would also be dangerous to biological human beings?

Well, of course. That's why there's mannequins orbiting the moon instead of people.

That's why you have to wear a lead shield when you get an x ray. And that's why if you've ever seen those horrific images of, of people that used to test x ray machines back in the day, when they would first start using x ray machines in doctor's offices, the technician would put his hand under it and x ray it, and they didn't know that you were fucking your hand up really bad, this guy, they had horrible cancer all over their hands.

And that's from 120 fourth of a second, not something that's 100 times more lethal going on continuously for 90 minutes.

The point is, regardless of whether or not it is dangerous to the instrumentation. And that was their primary concern, which could be accurate, especially since the first one was unknown. It's also that kind of radiation is probably bad for people. It's not. Unless you're the fantastic four, right? You go through it and you get superpowers, right? Isn't that what happened to them?

Well, yeah, I mean, let's get back to the technology issue. I mean, when they first exploded, the first atomic bomb, 1945, just ten years later, atomic bombs were 1000 times more powerful. So if they could go to the moon on the first attempt with 1,000,000th of computing power, cell phone, we would have been on Mars ten years later, we'd be in another solar system by now, and there would be bases all over the moon.

It's the only interesting one of the facts, that there's no other technology from 1969 that's not easier, cheaper and faster.

To reproduce today, except going to the moon. Except because it was a bluff like in poker.

Okay, so let's play the video where you get to hear the audio. So the audio is really strange. So this audio is, this is Buzz Aldrin, Neil Armstrong and Michael Collins in the spacecraft. And they are supposedly 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 2 seconds out for them to hear the transmission in 2 seconds back. So this particular reel, we uncovered the unedited reel of this special effect shot of them faking being halfway to the moon. There's a third track of audio who I believe is the CIA. So first you'll hear, 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.

Okay.

And so just in presence, NASA says the tv picture looks great. The person who he has an earpiece in counts off 4 seconds, 1001. Two, three, four. Then we hear a third track of audio. Not NASA, not the astronauts, which has this kind of walkie talkie, you know, radio type of sound. He says talk. And then Neil Armstrong speaks. They're creating a fake.

Let's play it.

Four second radio delay to make it appear they're beyond Earth orbit, which they are really not.

Okay, let's play it.

Van Allen, radiation belts. Understand, too, that only about 20 seconds of this raw footage was ever broadcast to the public. And these conversations discussing their deception were believed to be private. Until now. Here they discussed that these television transmissions were, in fact, not broadcast live as everyone believed. They were first screened and edited for playback later.

Hi, Roger, dear.

We just wanted a narrative.

Such a weekend. When we get to playback, we can sort of correlate what we're seeing. Thank you very much.

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 fall.

So that's really the window of the spacecraft, right.

Let it talk to shut out the.

Sun coming in some of the other ones under the you, spacecraft. So it's looking through a number one window under 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.

Roger, Houston. Apollo eleven calling in from about 130,000 miles out here.

During another segment, also intended to air after review, Neil Armstrong falsely explains to the viewers. How the shot is attained by putting the camera's lens to the window's glass, as it would have to be if they were the claimed distance away from the earth.

We only have one window that has a view of the earth. And it's filled up with a tv camera.

If the window was completely filled up with a tv camera, as he stated, then an astronaut's arm would not be able to get between the camera and the window, as it obviously does here in this apptake, South America becomes invisible.

Just off beyond the terminator or inside the shadow.

You can also notice how the astronaut operating the camera reacted to the mistake by attempting to pan away from it. This is a segment that they believed wasn't even being recorded.

Keep going.

Much less suitable for broadcast, for the lens was being zoomed out. And the scene was being changed to that of an interior of the astronauts at work. And apparently the stop button popped back up on the recorder without notice. Here is the diffused work light that they use to see camera controls. But not throw light onto the spacecraft's wall. Here they remove part of the crescent insert. Finally, the iris is opened up and you can see the real location of the camera and the very bright and near Earth out the window. Here is the slate for the 19 July.

Okay?

Yeah.

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. You could walk around outside in the dark. I mean, it's pretty amazing how bright it is when it's a full moon. Imagine that. Four times greater and twice as close. So the earth, which has blue reflective light because of the oceans. And it's glorious. It glows in the sky. You would imagine that if you were filming Earth from 130,000 miles out, you would have to blacken the insides of the walls. And you would. You probably couldn't get the camera any closer to that window in reality, even by saying it's in front of the window, it's covering the window. You're talking. I mean, it probably doesn't even fit any closer than that with all the instrumentation. If you were filming it specifically to try to get an image of the earth and what it looked like at 130,000 miles out, would it even look that small? I don't think it would.

It would probably look a lot larger. So if they're shooting it through this window and the light is probably pretty intense, it might be the only way to film the earth with the kind of cameras that they had back then would be to do it that way, to block out everything in the room and to film it through that circular window as close as they can get that camera to. And it's just shitty footage of something that they eventually figured out how to do, right, so that it wasn't deception.

Well, the camera's at the back of the spacecraft, and that's the circular window, and it's filled with the earth.

Right.

If they were halfway to the moon and the earth was at the window, the earth would be a tiny dot.

It wouldn't be that small window. But stop. It wouldn't be that small because the moon's not that small. You got to think about how big the moon is, okay? And the moon is one quarter the size of Earth. Think about how close the moon is. So the moon is a big ass fucking thing, right?

So let me ask you this, Joe. Do you think the moon landings are real or not?

I'm not saying that.

Wait a minute. I just want to know what you think.

What do you think? I'm going to go at this and 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 are going to film the earth from 130,000 miles out and the earth is four times larger than the than moon and you're halfway to the moon, I would imagine it would fill up that window. You wouldn't you? Even the difference between that and low earth orbit? I'm sure there's a difference, but I still think from that small window, it might be the whole window filled with earth. That might be what you get.

Well, that's not the opinion of myself as a filmmaker and three other filmmakers who, for a living, our job is to make fake scenes look real. And so we all conclude that that's the window that they have made a mock up of a 1ft model to pretend.

But is there an image of that mock up? I never saw a mock up. I didn't. There's all.

You saw them fiddle around in the window.

You definitely see them fiddle around in the window.

And the camera, they lied about the camera being up against the glass. The camera is obviously at the back of the spacecraft to create that.

Well, they said that can't. They said the window is filled with the camera. That's what they said.

But it's not. It's at the very back of the spacecraft. The lights come up on the part they didn't intend on showing. And the camera has been at the back of the spacecraft all the time.

Right.

They had to lie. If they really were halfway to the moon, the only way they could film this shot would be to put the lens at the glass of the window. But it's a fake shot. And part of the faking is the camera is really at the back of the spacecraft. All the lights are off. Part of the earth is outside of a circular window, and it looks cleverly like the Earth floating in space, but that's really the window from Earth orbit.

Jamie, go ahead.

In the video, it says that this line here, which like the terminator line, correct?

Mm hmm. Yeah.

So that with tape transparency or something.

That'S like, I don't know, some sort of crescent insert they put into the window to make it look like the terminator line between the night and day, I think it looks very good.

Video said tape multiple times and then said they removed the tape. Could have been a transparency, I suppose. But that line is very, that's a very nice gradient, which was what it would look like if it was like the sunset. Not, not tape or.

Well, yeah, it's less clear, right? It's less clear than like the top end.

If it was a transparency sitting on the, on a glass or something, that line would be moving. Would have to be hard set.

Well, I mean, just go. Just go back to the segment with the little yellow circle around the window and you can see they're fiddling around with the window, breaking the mob.

But, Jamie, they only showed 20 seconds. No, no, I know.

I was.

If that's what I thought it was, I would.

Why not just create, recreate the fake scene, I guess, with, you know, a giant picture of the earth outside of.

Well, I think the point is that they had to represent the Terminator line because of where they were in orbit. So if they're flying away from Earth and they're going towards the moon at a very specific time, you'd be able to know, like, where you know, what part of the earth was dark at what point in the flight. Right.

I would think so.

I mean, they had to have known.

They knew with the public relations with the public.

Yeah, but I mean, they would do it the right way if they're gonna.

Not necessarily. They made lots of mistakes. Yeah.

Okay, so, yeah, well, this one's a weird one. And to me, this is like the only thing that I could say if I was gonna steal, man, 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 going to film something that's incredibly bright, that's coming into a bright environment, it's going to 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.

Well, the shot where Neil Armstrong lies and says he's 130,000 miles out, we see a little blue earth with a bunch of black space around it. Right. But that's not the earth floating in space. That's the circular window of the spacecraft that has part of the earth outside of it. That's what it is. The lights come up and you see. That's what it is for sure.

If you're saying that blackness is space, that's deceptive, but.

Well, that's what they were saying.

But it doesn't mean they weren't 130,000 miles out.

Well, why would they fake being 100,000, 30,000 miles out if they were really 130,000 miles out?

They had a policy of deception in terms of imagery, which it seems that they did, even though they did that. I'm just steel manning. It doesn't necessarily mean that the whole thing was fake. Right. Well, if I was trying to understand.

So it's not that they're 130,000 miles output, it's that they're in space faking the shot.

Yes, they're doing it.

They're faking being halfway through.

Right. The reason why it's so bright is because they're just like the space station.

That doesn't. I don't know, I just. I'm getting more confused on all of these pieces because, like, I thought that they didn't even go to space.

No, no, no, no. Nobody thinks that. Nobody thinks that. They did go to. Jamie, you need to catch the fuck up on Reddit.

Well, look at this part here. Keep playing this part, Jamie, and you'll see that this is the window. Here's the work light inside of the spacecraft. Either that or it's a giant UFO. Right?

No, you do. It's definitely. It's obviously a work light.

Okay. And then here is Michael Collins breaking down part of the special effect shot using the window. You're gonna see them dismantle this.

But let's be honest. What we're seeing, what we're seeing is motion in front of the window. That's.

That's the window.

Yeah.

Of the space, not the earth floating in space like they claimed a minute earlier.

That's true.

Which means they're faking.

Right, right. Stop.

You.

You're saying, like, make the transparency all these different things. You're saying there's no evidence of that. You just see movement in front of it. I understand your assumption, but there's no evidence of a transparency.

Well, it's not an assumption.

It's that you see him moving. You see just dark shadows. Let's see it one more time. You see dark shadows moving.

Well, the point is, that's the window of the space.

100%. I'm agreeing with you.

If that's the window of the spacecraft and that's not the earth floating in space.

Correct.

They claim. Which means they're faking being halfway to the moon.

Not necessarily.

They would never, not necessarily went halfway to the moon.

It could mean that they went halfway.

To the moon, but they faked it anyway.

They're faking this footage because this is the best footage they can get with 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 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 remove 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 coupled together. So it's quite deep.

Right. But it's still not that big where they are. But where they are. Right.

10Ft away from the window.

That's pretty small.

Yeah. This.

This whole room is pretty small. Right. It's basically smaller than here to the. Where our screen is that we're looking at.

But the point is, it's not the earth floating in space, it's the window.

It's definitely not made up.

The earth floating in space, blacked out environment.

If they're trying to pretend that space, that's deception.

Exactly.

So still doesn't mean that they're not.

One thing at a time. So we concluded, yes, they are faking being halfway to the moon.

No, no, that's not what we concluded. We concluded that they are faking that the blackness around that image of the Earth is space. That's all we're confirming.

That's why I'm confused.

But hold on, Jamie. Hold on, Jamie. So we're. We're confirming that they definitely were. If they were saying that that blackness, which is clearly the inside of the cockpit. Right. Clearly what they're saying that that blackness is space and that circular image is the earth looking at the earth through space. That's clearly deception.

Okay, so Apollo eleven is being deceptive with their photography. Why would they do that if they really went to the moon?

Okay, the steel man. I know this is annoying.

You mean steel man means devil's advocate, is that what you're saying? Yeah. Yeah.

I'm taking the other side's position. Why? Because it's interesting to see how it lines up. You would say this. They wanted good footage. They couldn't get good footage any other way. They couldn't get through where the camera is and how big the camera is and how small the window is. The amount of space they're working with, they couldn't get real clear footage of the earth in space in the distance. So they decided to film it this way. Film it through that circular window. 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.

You know, there's a film coming out in July and I don't know, I've only seen the trailer. But they talk about shooting a fake moon landing as a backup. Now, they don't care why you believe the moon landings are real as long as you do. If you believe they're communing with aliens with a secret crew or Neil Armstrong does it, they don't care. There's the same thing. If they really went to the moon, they wouldn't have to fake any of it because they showed so little of the mission anyway.

Right? To the moon.

They wouldn't fake. They wouldn't dare fake any of it because there were people at the time already saying it was fake. They wouldn't dare fake any of it if it was real. Even during the landing, they showed computer animation. And then all of a sudden, you see that black and white.

I wouldn't dare fake it if it was real. This is where we disagree, because I think if it's very difficult to go there, it's even more difficult to go there and document it, right? And specifically, when you're talking about camera equipment, if you take camera equipment, the old school film, and you run it through old school radar detectors at the airport, those metal detectors fucks up your camera equipment. Right? Doesn't it fuck up your film? Well, but doesn't it? Isn't that correct?

It wasn't difficult for them to go to the moon. They went six times in. I know, but three years, they blow cars on the moon. That's on the moon.

That's what I'm saying.

And yet, for some reason, today they can only send mannequins to orbit the moon.

We're in agreement on this, this time. What I'm saying. What I'm saying is, what you could say is that the real maybe they went and they faked the footage. And the reason they faked the footage because the footage got all fucked up because they went through radiation.

I'm sure they would love the public to believe that because many filmmakers like myself agree 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. Got leaked into the real footage. They showed so little real footage to begin with. Why didn't they just have a camera on the side of the rocket showing live pictures during the descent instead of a little Atari computer animation? And then suddenly a picture of them stable and coming out of the. Out of the spacecraft because they faked it. As you know from my book, we have an eyewitness who saw them film Apollo eleven at Cannon Air Force Base, June 1, second and third, 1968.

And. Yeah, but I have eyewitnesses that were raped by Bigfoot. You can find those. Well, you know what I'm saying? Like, if it wasn't, the guy wasn't here.

If the guy wasn't here, his son corroborates it. And we have a video that we can show. The point is, and it's not even in my book, okay? The first thing the guy says as he's dying, about to meet his maker, fearing not being on the right side of judgment, is that he's a murderer. He killed somebody. His son, who. You can go to sobrell.com, comma. Watch his son's testimony, who saw his father's deathbed confession. He said, who did you kill? He said, I killed a co worker at Cannon Air Force base, where he was the chief of security. The military police came in, and they interrogated him, as he's dying, wanted to notify the relatives of the person who he killed. Who did you kill? Such and such a person. A fellow employee at Cannon Air Force Base in 1968. Why did you kill him? We both eyewitnessed the filming of the fake moon landing, July. Sorry, June 1, second and third 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. Buzz Aldrin is on the list, and several people I never heard of. We got that list. We publish it in my book. And this is real. His son, after telling me this information and confirming it, his house was broken into a few days later. Everything about his father was confiscated. Days after that, two agents show up from the government. This is less than two years ago. Threatened to kill him and his family if he ever talks to me again about his father's. Participation in the moon landing fraud. The White House was involved in investigating this. The FBI was, and the United States Senate Intelligence Committee investigated this and that man. And those reports are sealed because it's a great embarrassment to the federal government that they did actually fake the moon landing. I was the biggest fan, if I can go from being the biggest fan to having to accept the sad fact that our government is that arrogant.

And not only that, I interviewed the widow of Gus Grissom, who was going to be the first man to walk on the moon.

We should explain one of the things that Gus Grissom did that got people very angry. He hung a lemon.

That's right.

Yeah. Explain that.

Well, basically, he was totally confused how they could possibly think they're going to the moon in two years. He thought it was at least ten years away. And still we can't even go now, right, because of the radiation. And he was preparing reports to give to Congress in 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 4 hours. This is the man who was going to be the first man to walk on the moon. And he was the most beloved of the press corps. And he was so frustrated, he kept complaining up the chain of command they wouldn't fix anything because the higher ups knew they weren't going to go and hadn't committed yet to faking it and therefore hadn't told the astronauts yet, and that's why they weren't fixing it.

This is your belief?

Well, that's her conclusion as well. And in his fury, without permission, he held a press conference. 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 3 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 dry cleaner into the bank.

But not if you kill three guards. Slit their throats, who have wives and children. And the three guards. 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 guests you have on your show. We're true patriots. And patriots have to face facts that when people take an oath to this country, it's to protect it against all enemies, foreign and domestic. They always want misdirection. The boogeyman. To be in some other country where the biggest traitors to our country are Americans and high office. Right? That's what's going on. And the first document of our country isn't the constitution. It's the Declaration of Independence, where it says, when any government becomes destructive of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. Where, according to Betty Grissom, they took away his life, they take a third of our income, they deceive us through a moon landing, and then they use that money to pay the salaries of the cagents who killed Gus Grissom.

Okay, but let's go to Gus Grissom's death. So Gus Grissom died in an accident, right? He died in a fire, correct?

His his wife says that fire was set intentionally.

I understand that.

She says.

I understand and I understand that. Why she would believe that. That makes sense.

Well, if her husband says CIA agents are messing around with the equipment the day before and he's dead the next day from faulty equipment, the CIA killed him. It's a pretty obvious conclusion.

That's. It could possibly be that. Definitely. But also, when you're launching rockets, a lot of people die.

They weren't launching anything. It was just a ground test of pressing buttons. And they found that they pressurized that space capsule with 100% oxygen, where steel will become flammable. They reversed the door the day before so that it opened inwardly instead of outwardly. Took an extra five or ten minutes to open up. And then they found a pile of oily rags under his seat so that they would to a spark. And then I got the Apollo one report. We bought it for $10,000 from Roger Chaffee's widow. From his estate. And there was a dip in power right before the fire because the CIA had something clamped in there to start the fire. They ignited it. It caused a dip in power, and then the fire began.

So where is this evidence that there was a dip in power?

Well, it's in the Apollo one report.

That there was a dip in power.

They had right before the fire because something was tapped into that the CIA rigged the previous day, and that's what killed them.

Is there a logical explanation for why they reversed the doors?

Yeah, so they would make sure not be able to get out. It would take more time to get out. But is that they would kill them.

But is there a logical explanation in terms of an improvement in design?

They were just testing something new. Right. That's their excuse.

Right. And the fire, what was the official explanation for how the fire was started?

Just faulty wiring.

And what was the evidence that the oxygen had been increased in the environment?

Well, that's a fact. They knew not to do that. They had caused fatality.

Where did you hear this fact?

Well, she told me. And it's in the Apollo one report, which.

So in the Apollo one report, it says they increased the oxygen. By how much?

Well, they did 100% oxygen in the cabin.

And did they say why?

They was just testing it. Something to test an experiment. Right.

And so that then a fire ignites.

That's right. They rigged. They rigged it with the oily rags under there, with reversing that. 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 co worker, because his co worker witnessed Apollo eleven 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 the very same reason.

Yeah, I'm. I would love to see the video of that. If there was a video of it, it'd be interesting.

Yeah, there's a video of his son.

But there's also about this. Yeah.

You have it queued up there.

People get old, and when they get old, they say crazy things.

I don't think it's that crazy to say. We verified he was the chief of security.

Right. But I don't know what his mental state was when he was dying. I don't know if he had dementia. I don't know. You know what I'm saying, like, people could, but I'm not saying. Are you sure you didn't work for.

OJ Simpson's defense team?

I'm not saying it didn't happen. I'm saying that some old people, particularly, first of all, memories are terrible. Most people's memories are terrible.

You just said that earlier.

You forgot that memories are terrible. Yeah, yeah.

You just said it a second ago.

Yeah. Most people's memory's not that good. And then if you're really old and you're mentally compromised, and maybe you have full blown dementia, and maybe you imagine things, that's also possible.

I mean, that's an odd thing to session somebody to cover up the moon landing fraud.

I know.

What are the odds of that being dementia?

Not very good, but also possible. When people have dementia, they think they're secret agents. They don't know what the fuck is going on. They don't know their name. They don't know their kids. When people are dying and they're dying, you know, usually there's a lot of stuff going on. It's not just your.

A lot of details.

Fascinating. And could be what we hope it is. Which is deathbed confession. Like, didn't E. Howard Hunt have a deathbed confession about the JFK assassination?

Well, one of the videos, if you 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. He was there. Yeah. And what Bill casing said, I had to look up from my own library. Bill Casing 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 Emanager. Never heard of the guy. A science fiction writer who. Who promotes UFO's, which is another reason to doubt UFO's, because the same guy who says UFO's 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 UFO's are real. And I have a book coming out about this as well. At my website, he says his number one source, that UFO's are real, as the Apollo astronaut said. So you see that?

Which one? Edgar Mitchell.

Well, yeah, Edgar Mitchell, among many others. And let's.

Let's come back to that. I gotta take a leak. Let's come back to that. And this is great. I appreciate you. Thank you for coming here. This has been a lot of fun, and I hope you don't mind me being annoying, but I have to like to cover this and we'll get into more.

You don't have to.

I do, I do.

No, you don't.

This is the right way to do it. Trust me. Trust me. Okay.

Okay.

We'll take a leak. We'll be right back. So we were at. Gus Grisham died in a fire. There's another guy who NASA had hired to make a report. And he had this 500 page report. I think it was like 500 pages about how bad, how badly managed, mismanaged the whole Apollo program was, and that he saw so many flaws and that they thought it was never going to get off the ground. And then.

Thomas Barron.

Yes. Ronald Thomas Barron.

Correct.

And he died on train tracks.

That's right.

That was kind of with his family.

CIA hits kind of go through fads, and there was a big fad period where a lot of people's cars stalled at train crossings. I think back then, this was before DNA evidence, and it would get rid of the forensic evidence.

That's also how they killed those kids in Mena, Arkansas, that found the cocaine. That was a whole part of that Tom Cruise movie, the true story behind the Tom Cruise movie with. What was that guy's name again? That Jamie Barry Seals. Yeah. Who was smuggling drugs and dropping them off into Mena, Arkansas while Bill Clinton was the governor. And they killed these kids and put them on train tracks.

Here's a relevant point about Bill Clinton, two of them. On page 154, 156 of his book. You know this. He says that he doubts, as president, the authenticity of the moon landings.

Well, he said, in a very coy.

Way, what he's saying.

Well, he told an anecdote about a carpenter that he was working with in 1969. He was saying how amazing it is that these guys, these people, they landed on the moon. And the carpenter said, no, those tv fellows can get you to believe anything. I don't believe the 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.

I think that was not paraphrasing. I think that was word for word, Joe. Yeah, good memory. Well, here's the second point.

That's relevant word for word, I'm sure.

Here's the second point about. About President Clinton. When he finally, after denying it 20 times, admitted that he had an affair, a reporter asked him, why did you do it? And you know what he said? Why?

What?

Because I could.

Mmm.

Meaning? Because I could get away with it. That's what people need to see. They did fake the moon landing. And why did they do it? Because they could. And these people are still in power. It's dangerous thing.

Also because they wanted to win this cold war with Russia. They wanted to get this economic and cultural victory. Right.

Well, that could be their excuse.

Okay, so. So here's another question.

You murder Americans to do that?

Allegedly murder Americans. Well, we assume. Yeah, yeah. But we don't really know. The Thomas Ronald Barron one is a wild one. Because that report was buried correct after that.

That's right.

And in the report, do we have details of exactly what was said in the report?

Well, basically he said what Gus Grissom said. They're a decade or more away from going to the moon. And that was after the Apollo one fire the Baron report. And of course, he died right before he was to testify to Congress. Right. What a coincidence about how NASA was so far behind schedule. You know, NASA has never kept a schedule a single time in their entire history, except the most complicated mission of all time. They were ahead of schedule. And do you realize there's never been an aerospace machine airplane, whatever, that ever worked on the first occasion. Not even the Wright brothers plane and a 747, after millions of aircraft had already been built. 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. You see that? Coincidence? How about that?

So humans have accomplished some pretty amazing things, but the leap between that and the moon landings, in terms of getting biological, living human beings to survive this two week journey to land on the moon and come back, how long did it take total all days in space?

Well, from setting the goal to doing it, it took only eight and a half years.

And.

But the actual law since then, they're talking about it being taking 15 years to return to the moon, even though they have 54 years better technology, it's going to take twice the amount of time to return to the moon with five decades better technology.

But again, isn't that you'd also say, because it's not as focused an effort, it's not like, well, it is a.

Focused effort because eight presidents have said they're going to return to the moon in five years. Right?

Yeah, they all say that.

You had Bush senior say it and Reagan said it and Clinton said it, and Obama said, Bush senior, Bush junior, Trump, they've all said we're going to return. Yeah. He said we're going to go to the moon by 2024. Times running out. Tick tock, tick tock.

A couple months left.

Well, they said they were going to have people orbiting the moon. They said in 2014, we will have people orbiting the moon in 2018, 100% behind schedule. My point, and they only have mannequins orbiting them.

So my point was that the leap between what we do now in terms of the difficulty, difficulty of getting into space, getting into 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 was between 1969 and 1972. Seven attempts, six successful.

Allegedly accomplished.

Allegedly accomplished. But let's just say what they're saying. Just what they're saying. It seems very strange that no one else did it. It seems very strange that it stopped right there. And it seems very strange that no other missions.

That's right. It solved. It's the only technological achievement in the entire history of world that no one from any nation could repeat 50 years later.

Now just deal, man their position, 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 refractor 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 there 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. So that doesn't prove anything.

I was going to get to that, but that's. That's the argument.

Well, you're welcome. I did it for you. Thank you.

That is the argument, though, right?

Yeah.

So the argument is the laser reflectors prove another. Like one of the goofiest ones was when they used the reconnaissance imagery and they showed. Look, we could see the landing site. Like, what are you. Well, yeah, I mean, that.

You have to understand, they already faked a full body picture of an astronaut standing on the surface of the moon, which was filmed in Clovis, New Mexico, according to an eyewitness. Okay, so you're asking the fox for further proof that they didn't steal a chicken. You're saying after faking a full body image that was shot in Air force base and pretending it's on the moon?

My client, Mister Fox, is an upstanding citizen, and my client refutes all allegations.

Well, the same fraudulent organization has a little shadow from alleged lunar satellite that says this is, you know, part of the lunar lander.

Yeah, there's a lot of weirdness. Yeah, another bit of weirdness that is fun to watch people do mental gymnastics to explain away is the flag blowing in the breeze.

I was just checking.

So, yeah, the moon landing.

Yeah, this photo was taken by a guy in Ireland or something.

Nice, was it? So he's in.

He's just a guy?

No. What does it show, the image?

The landing sites?

What do you say? I could just tell you any one of those spots is a landing site. And what are you gonna say? I mean, you don't see much.

Do you know?

I'm saying it doesn't prove nor disprove. It's not clear enough to say what that is. Right? It's not clear. I don't see any objects that look like they're definitively a lunar rover. I don't see anything that makes me think that that's what that is. But it could be because it's not that clear. So it's not. It's neither proof nor. It doesn't prove or disprove those images, in my opinion.

Well, here's another interesting proof you have. Neil Armstrong said he personally picked up a particular rock, put it in his pocket and saved it for the prime minister of the Netherlands.

Oh, yeah, that's a good one.

Who he gave to. Right. And they put it in a hermetically sealed box. Yeah, the curator saw my film, says, oh, I wonder about that. He. In the middle of the night, they expected no one would open it up. He opens it up, puts the rock under a microscope and it's petrified wood. Kind of this eerie, out of the world looking.

That's a fact.

So unless they're trees growing on earth, I mean, on the moon. Then it's a fake. In fact, there's a story. It says moon rock proves to be fake, that the alarm strap picked up and personally delivered. But no reporter asks, so if the moon rocks are fake, what about the moon mission?

Okay, to steel, man, that you would say, what was the chain of custody between Neil Armstrong and this prime minister?

Brought it to him. He personally gave it to him. And he said, I picked this up off the surface of the moon. This is the rock. I remember it. Here you go. They put it in a box. That's not much chain of command to get messed up.

The thing is, like, who's got it after that? And is it possible someone stole it, swapped it out with another rock that looked like that was bullshit? Possible. You have to think it's possible.

I don't think it's possible.

Again, I'm with you. I don't think it's possible. I mean, it seems highly likely that they gave him a fake moon rock, but you have to leave the door open to someone who's involved, who's a 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 allegedly go into the moon for the very first time. Somehow with that deadline, von Braun, former Nazi, takes a leisurely vacation in Antarctica. That's a far where he picks up, you know, dozens of pounds of lunar meteorites. I wonder what they use those for.

Let's explain that, too, that Antarctica is one of the best places to find meteors. Meteorites, because the fact that it's completely white, it's all looked frozen snow. And the meteorites will stand out. They'll stand out in the snow.

Yeah. And it hardly ever snows there, so there's not much to cover them up. And maybe the orbit being the south pole, it's more prone to lunar meteorites.

Right. So it's very well known that you can get meteorites in Antarctica, and a lot of them they can conclusively prove, come from the moon. Correct. This is all true. Okay. Werner von Braun maybe needed to know what he was looking at when he got those moon rocks back. And so it's like, well, we have any on Earth? Well, yes, sir, we do. We have some lunar meteorites we can find in Antarctica. Let's take a trip. Didn't he have a broken arm at the time? I believe he did.

There's one picture of him in a cast right after he was captured, where his arm is broken and I was just talking.

Oh, it's right after he was captured, because I thought it was in Antarctica that he.

No, no, no, it was. He's in his nazi uniform. And it's right after he got captured and brought over an operation paperclip. That's how he's wondering how he broke his arm. It's like either he was being sassy during an interrogation, or he got bombed and got pulled out of rubble.

One of the two could have been. He loved Hitler so much he fainted when he found out that.

Or maybe he got carpal tundra syndrome from doing the salute too many times.

So he was a legitimate Nazi. And this is important, too, because this is a thing that I know a lot of people have denied. Operation Paperclip was an operation that took place right after the end of World War Two, where we acquired a bunch of nazi scientists that went on to do the Apollo program. Wernher von Braun was one of them. The Simon Wiesenthal center had said while he was alive that rather, if he was alive, they would prosecute him for crimes against humanity.

That's right.

He was a legitimate Nazi. They hung the five slowest workers, the five slowest jews in their rocket factory in Berlin. So if you walked in, you would see the five slowest workers hanging there. And this is eyewitness accounts from people who were in that rocket factory. This is not disputed stuff that he did that. And, you know, you could say he was just a rocket maker. He had nothing to do with that. But he was a Nazi and in charge of the. Not just one moon faking did not just want.

But why also said before to he died, he was that the government is planning on faking an alien invasion. So the guy who faked the moon landing, he said that. He said that. That the next.

What's the evidence of that? That he said that?

Well, his secretary says so.

Oh, that bitch might be crazy. You know, you never know. She might be doing coke, making stories up. She might be a serious.

She seems sincere to me.

She might be trying out.

He said they're going to be an asteroid threat next, followed by a fake alien invasion.

That's what he said.

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 UFO's are real and so is the key people.

But Edgar Mitchell was one of them.

And Robert Emanator made films, you know, propaganda films to plant the seed that UFO's are real. And he was at Cannon Air Force Base when they faked the moon landing.

Okay, can I assume that then, Bob, what? You're saying that you don't think UFO's are real at all?

No, they are real, but they're not from outer space.

The ones that Kenneth Arnold saw in the 1950s?

I don't know about those.

So this is the first.

I think UFO's are real, but they're not from outer space. According to the top two UFO research. I have a book coming out, hopefully in time, of this podcast, aliens from Planet X, that talks about their origin and future appearance. And they UFO's are real and aliens are real, but they're not from outer space. And that's according to the top two UFO researchers after decades long research. So go to sobrell.com and find out. So where do they stop?

There. Not from outer space.

They're interdimensional and potentially fallen angels disguising themselves because they're liars of something. Like you said, can't be proven or disproven. I'm from this galaxy, 300 light years away.

This is kind of what Tucker Carlson thinks. He thinks there's a spiritual element to it. He thinks they've always been here, and he thinks that this is what's kind of documented in the Bible as like, good and evil.

That's it exactly. That's what's going on. I mean, the top two UFO researchers said UFO's 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 six, and creating a race called nephilim, who were men of renowned world leaders.

Could you interpret that as when you say interbreeding with humans? Now, imagine if what they are is a form of artificial intelligence, or I should say instead of artificial. Artificial is a word that it's got a lot attached to it already. Maybe digital intelligence or human created intelligence that's not of biological origin, but it is a living thing. It's just living in a different kind of way. Now, if that is something that human beings are eventually going to, we're going to have some symbiotic relationships, 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 that 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 that it will 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 looked 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 it. Does it have a soul? Like, are we creating a thing without a soul that has a mandate and has, like, it has plans for the universe and for life forms and would that kind of be demonic?

It seems like that's demonic. I mean, if you want to be real simple about demons, you think they live in hell and they got pitchforks, but what kind of force would a demonic force be? Something that would overpower the human race and render it non existent. Well, wouldn't it? 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, where everybody is some sort of a hybrid system.

Well, there is a spiritual component, including to the moon landing. I mean, you've seen a funny thing happened on the way to the moon, right? It opens up with a tower of Babel, which was built simply to boast. We have the tallest building, and then we show the Titanic that says, the ship that God himself could not see, and we know what happened there. Tower of Babel never finished. Titanic never made one voyage. And then Richard Nixon, when he knew they were not on the moon. Said putting a man on the moon is the greatest event since creation itself. You see, mankind's greatest accomplishment, you see, and the world leading country is putting a man on the moon. And how ironic, when I popped in that tape of the window shot and realize they really did fake the moon landing.

So that was the first one that really cemented it for me.

Absolutely. It just, I gave them the benefit of the doubt as long as possible.

Okay, I want to go to the flag, because the flag is a piece of contentious debate. The flag waving on the surface of the moon. So the moon has almost no atmosphere, correct?

Right.

Okay. And it has one 6th earth gravity. So when you're watching these people plant this flag on the moon, the moon is supposedly, 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 say, see if you can find a video of the flag itself waving.

Yeah, there's one.

So here we go. So they're planting the flag. Now, you do have to take into consideration that there's very little gravity. So it's one 6th Earth's gravity. So things definitely in a one six gravity environment, they move differently. The problem is when the flag gets ultimately planted and then they back away from it and no one's touching it anymore, then it seems to, like, independently be moving in the breeze.

Well, it's my opinion they had a lot of air conditioning pumped in there because the backpacks had the cooling units removed so they wouldn't fall over backwards. So it was very hot in there and they had lots of air conditioning.

There's better footage, Jamie, where you can just see.

And a funny thing happened on the way to the moon@sabrell.com. Dot there's a clip of the flag blowing in the wind. We showed that a couple of times.

Here's another thing to take into consideration. This, what you're looking at is not a direct feed that was offered to the news organizations. So what this is, is a projector that's projecting on a screen, and then the news organizations then point their camera at that screen, correct?

Well, actually, NASA pointed a camera at the screen there. So they took the footage, they put it on a big screen. You got to understand? 1969 projection technology, very low resolution, looks like this. Then they put a camera on it. They ran that to a monitor, and then they had people film the monitor.

Right.

So it's deliberately fourth generation. So they're intentionally degradating the quality of the signal. The networks wanted a live feed, and they gave him fourth generation instead.

But this is important to know. Like, that wasn't. I mean, if you can get someone on the moon, you can get better footage.

Gilgan's island went to colors of what we know in 1965. Why didn't they have color? Right? I mean, this is natural.

They don't have color. Let's just say it's easier to do it in black and white. Let's just say that if they did it in black and white, there's no reason why they can't get a clear feedback directly to the news organizations and to television. There's no reason to be filming it on a monitor. There's no reason to do that.

Well, there is to cover up the fact that it's done in a tv studio.

But if you can overcome the technological hurdles to get people to the moon, you can overcome the technological hurdles to allowing people to have clear access, clear footage of what this thing is, instead of fourth generation stuff. Right?

Yeah. Like I said, I think if Gilgan's island went from black and white to color in 1965, NASA can afford a color camera on the moon. After all, it is the most technologically advanced event. Why wouldn't they want a high resolution color camera? They didn't because it might show that it's a fake scene, which it was. That's why they degraded the signal by fourth generations.

Do we have better footage of the flag waving around the moon? Because there's some footage of it where you're just like, this is weird.

Yeah, there's some in a funny thing happened on the way to the moon. About halfway through, they filmed in color.

The next one on Apollo twelve.

Okay, let's see that one.

I was trying to find that, but just see.

Just. Just Google flag blowing in the wind on the moon.

Well, if you google it, it may not want to show it, so it's in my movie.

If you put it on YouTube as a YouTube search, it'll show it.

Which one?

There's one. Apollo five. That's me.

This one's pretty good.

Apollo 15. Yeah, click on that one, Jamie. Apollo 15. No, Jamie, back where it says apart. No, I said the one that says Apollo 15. Right there. That's it? Yeah. Okay, so this one. This is color he plants it. It still looks shitty, but he plants it. And let's get a look at when he gets out of the way. You'd see it moving around. So this is it. So this thing is kind of just waving on its own. No one's even touching it, and it looks like he's waving in a breeze. It's. So it stops moving, and then it starts moving again. Now, again, there's one that shows it.

Even more than that, an astronaut walking past it, creating the breeze, and then the flag blows without him touching it.

Yeah, I'd like to see that. So how much further does this go, Jamie? That's four minute video, three minute video, so scoot ahead. I think this is actually the one where the guy walks by it, and then it starts going in the breeze. Here it goes. Does it show it where he walks by it? There it is. It's. It's back there. Because you see his image.

Right there, where something just went.

There he is right there. Okay, watch. There it is. See that?

Yeah.

So watch that again, Jamie. So this is the one he hops by. And as he hops by, the breeze.

Makes the flag blow because he's in an air environment. He's not on the moon.

Right? That is a weird one. Do it again. Look at this. As he hops by, he doesn't touch the flag.

Now, can I do, what do you call it? Steel? What?

Steel, man.

Okay. The reason why it's doing that, and really on the moon, is because there's micrometeorites hitting him, and they're bouncing off of him and hitting the flag.

What is that?

Pretty good one.

Is that real?

No.

I thought they were trying.

I was trying to come up with an excuse as to why the moon landings are real. You like that one?

That is a good one. Micrometeorites will mess.

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 its patriotic duty to expose it. He 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 wing each being ten times the tonnage of the Queen Mary, or some 800,000 tons each in order to go to the moon. And the Saturn V was 2500 tons, not 800,000 tons. We have that in writing.

That was from his book. Right. And what year was that?

I think that came out in 1959. And then he recanted on his math shortly thereafter by 30,000%. And now Elon Musk wants to, quote, return to the moon. And he says, to return to the moon, we need to make nine fuel trips first to ferry the fuel necessary to be able to go to the moon from there. That's exactly what von Braun said in one of my clips@sobrell.com. You have to make multiple fuel trips to go to the moon. First to a space station, and then from there you can go. Elon Musk said the same thing. But how did they do it with a rocket that contained 130 thousandths of a percent of the amount of fuel von Braun said it would take.

One of my favorite films is the film of the lunar module leaving the moon when it leaves, when the camera pans and it looks, let's film, let's show it. Let's show. What year was that, which I think.

That was one of the last missions. And I think you're talking about where the camera perfectly tilt, tilts up with the little model going up.

Yes.

And of course, with the delay, how could you synchronize that? Of course you couldn't.

Well, you could because, you know it's 4 seconds, right? Just like it's radio waves.

Well, but it'd probably be more than that going through all the analog equipment.

Right. But you could, you could time it, you could save, you could have a five second delay. So this is it. This is it. So this is launching off the watch. This we.

And it's perfectly tilting up with it in real time with the remote control from NASA, with the radio delay, that I suspect would be more like 12 seconds. But also because today if you say to someone in Atlanta talking to someone in Iraq, hey, how's it going? One, two, three. Hey, I'm doing fine. That's with, that's just around the world.

You can, 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 6th Earth gravity and fly like that. How, what's it doing? It looks so fucking fake. It looks like it's being pulled by strings. Look, it might be real. I'm certainly not an astronaut. I don't know what I'm talking about. But 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's not. Doesn't save the time, but said somebody in Houston had to anticipate the timing, ignition, lift up, which I guess he could have guessed it was going to be in 5 seconds and just lifted.

The remote control, could he have guessed?

I have no idea what he was using. I have to look that up.

I guess you could guess. If you say, I'm going to launch also in five. And so, you know, then you have, you count ten because he's going to, you know, you got, you got like a five second delay. And so when he gets to like every counts down from ten, if he gets to five, you hit it.

Well, there's a three second delay today. Halfway around the world with modern equipment, talking from like, Atlanta to Iraq, three second delay.

We also would have fucked it up.

Only halfway around the world with modern equipment he has going say it.

So the guy on the moon has to say, I'm launching now, and he has to wait 5 seconds.

It would be at least a twelve second delay, I think, and possibly more than that. The delay itself of the radio light waves there and back, plus all that analog equipment.

But it is not impossible to do a twelve second delay. It's only 12 seconds. If you had a stopwatch and you counted it and you had a far enough vision where you could see the base of the lunar module, you could see it detach and then you kind of got it. As long as you got enough of a field of view in the footage. But boy, it looks fake. It 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.

Well, it looks fake because it is fake.

But most things that look fake are fake. Not all of them, but the vast majority of things that look fake are fake. Now, watch how this pulls up here. It goes, it detaches. It's like, what is that? Now, here's the question. Did they practice this at all on Earth? Did they practice taking off on one of those things? Or could they?

I don't think they could practice landing.

But here's the question. They couldn't, right, because it wouldn't have the same amount of thrust on Earth because the gravity is so much stronger. So that thing wouldn't have been operational on Earth, right?

Well, they had a lunar lander simulator that Neil Armstrong almost got killed in six weeks beforehand. He couldn't fly it on Earth in the safety of a tried and true environment. And that was six weeks.

Right. But also, again, the gravity of Earth is much greater than the gravity of the moon.

Well, they took that into account that it was supposed to be a simulation of it, but.

So it was more powerful to overcome Earth's gravity in comparison. Yeah, but what? So then you're dealing with a totally different machine and you're dealing with totally different factors. Maybe it would be easy with one 6th Earth's gravity. Maybe easy like wee boom, it lands.

And we apparently saw.

Apparently it was but one six, 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 six, 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, how do you do that?

Well, this is one reason why NASA destroyed all the schematics, all the electronics, all the diagrams of the equipment, because you could later prove that the lunar module. See, they claimed that the lunar module was powering air conditioning on a bank of car batteries and competed against 250 degrees outside and got it down to a comfortable 72 for three or four days. I mean, you try that at home, you know, with your car batteries.

Also, batteries of today, like my Tesla, only goes 350 miles if I drive real slow.

And so they're saying they powered air conditioning off much more primitive batteries 24 hours, three or four days in a row against 250 degree outside. So this is an indirect proof. If you really went to the moon and spent $200 billion, 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, said, give me all the originals so I can transfer it to hd and projected at 120ft wide. They said, give us a couple of days. And in those days, they lost every single original videotape from every single Apollo mission. Now, if you really went to the moon and spent $200 billion, the last thing you would do is destroy that technology. But if you perpetrated a fraud, that's exactly what you would do.

So was this, Jimmy, I think, video of them practicing. So is this landing, but landing is that. There's Neil Armstrong. So this is the one that he was practicing on that he almost died in. Look at that thing. Wow. That's crazy.

There's also an article I found about how they filmed. Filmed it. They tried on Apollo 15 and 16 and failed for different reasons. And then they finally got it right on 17.

So it was a timing thing. So several second delay. Here it goes. The cameras were very successful capturing the images of numerous evas. But while they could be controlled from Houston, it was felt that several second delay between Earth and the moon would make capturing the modules ascent impossible. So the plan was to pre program the camera and hope that NASA camera operator in Houston, Ed Fendel, got his timing just right. On Apollo 15, the tilt mechanism malfunctioned, meaning the camera was never panned upwards. And thus the lunar module rapidly accelerated upwards and out of the picture. On Apollo 16 mission, the astronauts actually parked the rover in the wrong place. So while the cameras 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. But what is perhaps most remarkable about looking back on it was that no one realized the significance of the liftoff. At the time, persistent rumors suggest that NASA had to pay the networks to cover Apollo 17 mission at all. And when final liftoff of humanity from the moon took place, it barely raised a mention on that evening's news reports.

That's a really important point, too, because people were really tired of it, like they were mad that it was interrupting. I dream of Jeannie, I love Lucy. Oh, that's what it was. I love Lucy.

Well, that's from Wikipedia that continually defends the fake moon landings. If you type. If you type in moon landing fraud, you don't get anything about the fraud. You get a thousand videos defending, you know, the supposed moon missions. Now, if the moon missions are real, then anyone who says otherwise is an idiot.

Okay, so how did they defend.

If I were going around saying George Washington was not the first president, it was really Mickey Mouse, do you think there'd be a thousand videos to reassure people that George Washington was the first president and not Mickey Mouse? But there's a thousand videos out there that took tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of hours to produce to defend the moon landings. If it's so obvious, they should speak for themselves. It has to be continually supported because it's made out of straw, that's why.

So the lunar module leaving the surface of the moon, how did they practice? That was the first time they ever pulled that off, the first time they ever tried it, I thought.

I think they used a simulation, but.

Did they do that on the moon?

Well, they couldn't practice.

Right.

So for the first time, they did it every single time.

Did they have the ability to land something on the moon and have it take off remotely? Do they have that kind of control back then?

No, I don't think so.

Probably not. Right. So if they did, if Apollo eleven did happen and they did take off from 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. Every time, flawless, with a person in it. With two people in it. Three, they know two. Two people in it. One person in the lunar orbiter ten landed on.

Ten were launched into space. Of those, six landed by humans onto the moon. First two were flown tests in low Earth orbit without a crew. That's Apollo, though.

Let's talk about the AI discovery. You know about that, right?

But hold on, before we get going. So the first two were in America.

Dress rehearsal for the landing was Apollo ten, and then conducted on Apollo eleven.

And so is there footage of them trying that thing?

Apollo ten?

No, just having it launch on Earth. I'd be fascinated to see what it looks like, how that thing gets into the air, because if they were able to make a lunar lander that Neil Armstrong got in that thing that looked very different than the ones that were on the moon, but that thing, if he's doing that to try to overcome the six times gravity that Earth has over the moon, what does that look like when they're testing that thing? Like, how much thrust does it have? And where is the engine? Where 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 130 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'm looking on YouTube for a video of it, but there's some people smarter every day. Recreated the lunar lander and tested it.

Okay.

Successfully.

See what they did? This is one they did on Earth. Yeah, I mean, these guys made it.

I don't know if this worked in space, obviously, because they couldn't get it there, but.

Right.

They made their own. And I'm trying to find out how successful it was.

So you certainly could make something that obviously there's no person in that, right? That's small, that's different.

That's what I think. That video I showed you a second ago of the test footage.

Okay, I'll find it again, but I.

Don'T know, again, I'm trying to find.

The official, let's talk about the AI's latest discovery. That's the latest breaking news.

Okay.

They had an AI conference in November. 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 AI's 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 DNA fake detection program, which has never been wrong. It can tell you in 1 second of video whether a video of Biden or Trump is real or deep fake. It's never been wrong. First they fed it pictures from the moon 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 and that the entire set wasn't even real. It was a miniature of the set so they could show a vast.

Where's this AI conclusion? Where can someone say that?

Go to sobrell.com. I wrote an article about it, and there's a video of it of Putin himself being shown the results that the latest AI says the moon landings are fake. And then when I tried to track down the original article, it warned you, if you click to proceed, all the data on your computer will be stolen and you'll be associated with child pornography.

That says that.

I have gotosabrell.com dot. There's a clip of it. I did a screenshot. It says that that's how desperate they are because the latest AI says the moon landings are fake. You think that story is on RT? Their president was there. It's nowhere to be found.

Does the latest AI look at that Apollo 17 lunar module taken off?

Well, I don't know that they showed it that footage, but they showed it still pictures from the Apollo mission, and they showed it still pictures from the surface of the moon from the unmanned chinese probes. It said the chinese pro pictures are real. The Apollo pictures are fake. The smartest AI in the real in the world with a deep fake detection program that's never been wrong.

How is that not public? How is that not major news?

Exactly right. Why is it that Fox News cancels their number one program if they're in the business to make money? You know, we had the former director of the russian space agency a little over a year ago. He said the moon missions were fake. Fox News calls me up the next day. They said, bart, we want to do an hour long special about whether the moon landings are real or not. And we just want to be honest with you. We haven't read your book. We haven't seen your film, and irregardless of what's in there, we will conclude that the moon missions are real. The point is to reassure the public. And then during that hour long program, which I saw after the fact, they had a quote from one scientist in 1969 that said, congratulations. And therefore, they said, see, the Russians think it's real. And I'm like, well, what about the former director of the russian space program who said six weeks ago that it was fake? They deliberately don't mention that you think RT is fake?

Who said it was fake? Which guy?

Well, the former director of the russian space agency.

Who is he?

His name is Dmitry Rogozin. And he said that the Apollo missions are fake. And Fox News calls me up. They had to put out that fire. You see that? And they said, we will conclude without investigating it, without reading your book. And even if your book and movie prove that it was fake, we're still going to conclude that it was real.

Of course it's Fox.

And then your network. Well, yeah. And then are they really anti corruption? No, they're not. And there it is, right there.

It doesn't say Google, though. This is.

It's. The neural network thinks almost everything in this photo is fake. Meanwhile, it. Back up. Back it up again. It's a neural network thinks almost everything in this photo is fake. And that's the moonlighting thing. So, meanwhile, raises no particular questions about this photo taken by a chinese lunar rover. So this is someone explaining this to Putin, and they're looking at it. It believes this one is fake. He's pointing to the Apollo. Yes. Look at the red. This is what Google's neural network thinks, not ours. So there will be no bias. It's surprising, but it does believe. So the neural network has analyzed a lot of data, including light and dark, contrast, etcetera, and then it believes the photo is synthetic. Very interesting.

He's not surprised. So he knows already that it's fake. Let me tell you something, Joe. I know somebody who works for the chinese space agency, okay? I just did an interview with him for my YouTube channel, and he says everybody there knows that the Apollo missions are fake.

So why don't they, like, publicly broadcast?

Let me tell you exactly why. He says they're blackmailing NASA. NASA is giving them illegally, according to 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. They 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. 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's space agency. He says they know. Everyone knows it's fake. They're blackmailing NASA for technology. So the federal government is violating their own espionage act. You see that? Russia knows. The guy's not surprised at all. In fact, my interpretation of his emotion, he's afraid he looks afraid that the truth is going to come out now, you see? And then RT doesn't cover that story. They don't cover it. And I saw another AI story on Rt.

So I went in the comment section and I've left, I leave about two or three comments a year on there. I've never had one taken down in three or four or five years. I leave a comment, hey, guys, why didn't you cover that? The latest AI where Putin was there says that the moon missions are fake. They took down the comment. They won't let you go to the original link. You see, Fox News is covering up for the federal government. You see, it's a great embarrassment. I showed that footage that we talked about for quite a while to a news director at NBC. He practically fainted. He says it absolutely proves they didn't go to the moon. I said, when are you going to broadcast it? He thought, and he says, I can't. I don't want to go down in history as the man who caused the next civil war. He says, this will outrage the public. Ten years later, a new director at NBC News sees the footage. They say it proves we didn't go to the moon. They fly me to New York. They put me up in the Waldorf Astoria hotel. They pay me thousands of dollars for the exclusive license to that footage.

And they said, bart, I'm sorry to tell you this, you can keep the money, but we're gonna have to cancel the program. I'm like, well, why is that? He says, well, we got a call from someone in the federal government threatening us, and we backed down.

Huh?

You see? So people see that footage. It convinced me, and I was a big moon fan. You know, pride is a thing. Here's something I wanted to say. I talked to a guy who teaches aerospace at a major university, and he said even if he saw Buzz Aldrin confessed on national tv that the moon missions were fake, he would still think they're real. Pride is simply the unwillingness to be wrong, and humility is the willingness to be wrong. I was willing to be wrong. It is what it is. They did fake the moon landing. Our government is that corrupt.

Okay, let's go over some other stuff. One thing I wanted to go over is the photographs and the shadows that are moving at different angles, because this has been disputed and this has been refuted by some people that are photographic experts. They've looked at this and said, this is actually possible. To get these kind of different angles, even with natural sunlight, it's debatable. Though. So let's talk about it.

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, 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 shadow is going at 12:00 and a rock 5ft away. The shadow is going at 09:00, a 90 degree intersection, proving that that was taken with an electrical light that's really close, and it's probably behind the astronaut. And if you go to the right of it, it's going to throw the angle off. That proves it in a court of law. Take a jury out, they'll see the picture on the left. Turn out the lights in the courtroom, bring in a spotlight, and you will prove in a court of law that that picture was taken with an electrical light, which proves they are on earth and not on the moon.

Now, what is the conventional explanation as to why these shadows move in different directions when people try to debunk it? I'm sure you've seen them try to debunk it. What is their take on it?

I've never heard it debunked. To tell you the truth, they've ignored it. In fact, the reporter from McNashville, was it mechanical magazine? Popular mechanics interviewed me, and they said, I can't explain this. I talked to the Washington Post about the footage we showed. He was doing a story about. Isn't it interesting? On the 30th anniversary. Some people doubt the moon landing. And I said, well, what about that footage? And he says, well, it looks to me like they didn't go to the moon. And I said, well, why don't you do a story about that? He says, if I did that, I would be fired. That's the Washington Post.

Okay, Jamie, what are your thoughts?

Just out of the gate?

Yeah.

Looking at this photo, I go suns behind them.

Well, what about the one side by side?

This photo is not as interesting. That's one.

Go to the side by side one. What's your opinion of that? Sunlight on the left, electrical lighting on the right?

Well, why does it have to be electrical lighting? There's lots of things that make light?

Sure. Well, let's take a look at the image, Tim.

I'm trying to pull to it back.

Up, but that's my book, which is interactive. Have 17 clips. One of the clips, if you want to find it, is National Geographic did a special just to refute my film. And what they did was. And you can find that clip. It's under sobrell.com moon mind video clips. And they go to a desert at night. They dress up an actor in an astronaut costume. They bring out a spotlight, and they have people stand next to the astronaut, and the. And the shadows intersect. And you know what they say, joe? They say that proves that the moon missions are real. And I said, well, wait a minute. It proves that they were taken by electrical light. Why didn't you go out to a desert during the day, during sunlight? You see, they brought in a spotlight, the shadows diverged. And they said it proves that the moon landings are real.

That's a light. That's a close source, right?

Yeah, but my point is, what they actually did is they proved that the moon missions were taking with an electrical light because they.

It's going to be brighter everywhere.

What's that?

If you take photos in the desert during the day, the entire sky is bright. You have to block out a lot of light.

Well, it doesn't matter. The shadows. The shadows are still going to run parallel. It doesn't matter.

It does matter because that's what. That's what I was trying to get up before I got cut off. Is that from this photo here, which was very similar to the other photo? It looks like the sun is probably behind it. That's probably the brightest source that they have around them. You've already admitted that without adding extra laser reflectors that the moon surface is reflective. So there's going to be reflection off of that. And you're going to probably have the earth, which is also now a second source of light coming from a different angle that the sun is to create potentially without knowing exactly everything. Because I'm not the math scientist, know where the sun is, but. Or the sun and Earth are at this particular time of day, they could create different shadows.

Well, not really, because the sun. Why not? Well, I'll tell you why. Because the sun is a million times bigger in volume than the earth. And that would be like on a bright, sunny day at noon, shining a flashlight on the ground. Do you think you're gonna see?

You can take pictures and hear multiple light sources, though, and they're gonna look different, right?

Wait a minute.

Wait a minute difference in the amount of light that gets emitted by the earth and the amount of light that gets emitted by the sun is substantial.

Right. That would be like shining a flashlight on the ground at high noon on a cloud to stay. You're not going to see the beam of the sunlight.

The thing is, though, Jamie, surface.

And the surface, take it from a filmmaker, that's called reflective light. It's gonna. It's not gonna cast a distinctive shadow.

Yes, but here's my point. It's still that rock on the upper right hand corner. Even if it was getting light from the earth that made that shadow, that underneath it to the left, that goes in the wrong direction, you would still get the same kind of shadow that you get off the astronaut behind the rock. There's no reason why that would blast out that shadow. That shadow would be significantly stronger. All right.

That's why. This is the reason I wanted to go with the different photo, because that's the one he sent and has other stuff on it. I wanted to try a different photo.

Well, this one is not nearly as convincing.

It just has.

It has shadows going in different directions all over the place.

Well, that's because it's taken with an electrical light.

Well, it does seem. It does seem that they're going in different directions from Apollo eleven, right? Well, Apollo eleven, they're saying, was taken with electrical light. Jamie, what are you saying?

No, no.

He's saying it's from electrical light. My point here, right now, look. The sunlight behind the guy's head right over here on the left. Shadow coming to the right. Over here on the right.

Who says it's sunlight?

Right, but, Jamie. But, Jamie, if you had electrical light.

If it were sunlight, the shadows would be parallel. That you're actually proving it's an electrical light because sunlight is parallel.

Yeah, it's. But no, stop. But, no, but hold on, Jamie. Don't stop.

But you guys are fighting against the things that I'm saying as a photographer, as a filmmaker.

And, like, we're not assuming.

You're assuming it's sunlight.

I said it could be four different lights. It also could be the reflector of the actual lunar lander. That thing is made of giant, shiny metal that has also light reflecting in multiple ways.

Where's the. Where's the lunar lander? Maybe. We don't. We don't know. But that's part of the problem where.

All the light sources are. I wasn't there.

Right. That's part of the problem with analyzing each individual short, little photograph like this. But if I'm looking at this, I see one very distinct shadow that's coming.

From the person one in the bottom right there, that shows shadows at two different angles.

That's kind of crazy.

That means an electrical light. That's what I mean. Well, because I just showed you what a picture looked like to be an electrical light.

There's lots of light sources.

That's true. Well, it's true, but there's also a hotspot.

They either filmed it on the moon or they filmed it on Earth.

And that's where I'm.

If it's. If it's. If it's on the moon, the shadows are parallel in sunlight. If the shadows intersect, it's an electrical light, which means they're actually on Earth, as they'll try to fix it.

So what you're saying is that if. If it's electrical light, it's more than one source of light that they have, like, suspended. And so these are 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.

Yeah. If there's two light sources, like two electrical lights, they'd run in different directions. Or if there's one light, because it's close, the sun is 93 million mile away. That electrical light is probably like 10ft away. So if you're behind it, it's going to cast a shadow, or in front of it, it's going to cast a shadow straight ahead. And if you're to the side of it, it's going to cast an angle in an. The light in a different angle and the shadow in a inch different angle.

Okay. And so this one is just normal.

I mean, look at this picture on the right. This is the most famous picture. Get the original off of eBay. They've color corrected this, the soil. And the original picture around his feet is caramel brown. Look at the pictures from the chinese probes that the AI said was real. It was a caramel brown color and they had the background grayish blue. And they said, oops, we can see the fake background too easily. So they color corrected them. Go to eBay, go to your library, find a publication from 1970, and you'll see. And all them lunar pictures, the originals from. There's one there, there's the brown one there. Go back there. There was one picture of the original print of the soil being brown right there. That's the color. All that set of pictures that I had, those 20 pictures I got from my dad. All of them had the soil that color, including the famous one of buzz Aldrin. Right. They all had a caramel brown. And in the chinese probes, the soil is caramel brown because that's the color it really is.

Right. But if you landed them. But if you landed a probe in, you know, the desert in California versus. You landed a probe in the middle of Austin and rainy season, you're gonna get different ground. Different color ground. Right. Wouldn't we assume that the moon, when we look at the moon, there's a bunch of different shades of the moon, right? That's the man in the moon. There's like, you could.

Well, and all the NASA pictures and the original prints, they're all the same shade.

Right. Because they're in that spot where it's.

You have to see. There's a before and after of that same picture.

Okay, that. I want to see the original picture.

Well, you have to find it on eBay or whatever.

The original picture, don't you think it's online?

Could be, but you'd have to go to eBay and type in Apollo eleven photos.

EBay is the most trusted source of information. There's no way.

What we need is the original prints that came out in 1969.

If it exists, Jamie will find it.

And those. The soil is brown. And yet in this most recent picture, they've color corrected it.

Now, why do you think they did that?

Why do you think that? Because the soil was brown and the background was grayish blue and they didn't match. And you could see the fake backdrop so much easier.

Now, there's another point of contention, that the same background was used in different photographs that were supposed to be nowhere near each other.

That's true. That is true.

Okay, and what are the. What's the instances of that that you could show?

Well, I don't have them queued up, but that proves that they're.

How do you not have them? You must know what they are, though, right?

Well, I've seen. I've seen them before. 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.

So, yeah, it's. It's supposedly many miles apart, but yet the backgrounds look the same.

Yeah. The AI said the picture they had of an astronaut on this vast background was a miniature. It wasn't even a real astronaut.

Yeah, I want to see more of that. And that was. Was it actually Google's AI that did it?

Was it was Google's neural network.

Hmm. And that.

So either Google spent billions of dollars and ten years or more developing this AI that ended up being a piece of junk, or the moon landings were fake. You see? Which do you think is true?

Well. Or the photographs are fake. This brings me back to the thing that I was saying earlier, that if they did look, the Hasselbad cameras that they use to photograph things in the moon, one of the things that people would always say is, oh, they were special cameras. They were different. They protected against radiation. They did a bunch of things. They could operate under the incredible temperature of the moon. But they were the same cameras. Right? They weren't really special cameras.

Right. Someone sent me a link recently. They have, according to Eugene Cernan, he left a picture, a family picture, there on the surface of the moon. And he took a picture of the photograph that he left on the surface of the moon. And then someone said, okay, at what temperature does photographic print paper, kodak paper, from that time, you know, what temperature is it destroyed? It was something like 145 degrees. Well, that's. It's a hundred degrees hotter than that on the moon. And the picture looks perfectly fine.

But how long does it take before the image?

Oh, it's to be immediate. Immediately.

Immediately, yeah.

And so the AI said that, and then it says, okay, well, is this a picture of Kodak film on the moon? You know, it says, yes, it's supposed to be. But how can it be there just leisurely laying around when it's 100 degrees hotter than what it would cause it to destroy it?

What was different about the cameras that were used in the moon and what protection was in place supposedly to protect them from radiation and terrorism?

Nothing. When my film came out, and that's about the time that you and I met for the first time.

Here it goes. Hasselblad engineers gave it a coat of heat resistant aluminum paint and removed the mirror and focus green to save weight and allow the camera to be operated close to the head as opposed to the waist. To aid in the photo composition, they attached a bracket used for mounting camera accessories called a cold shoe to the side. It also held the astronauts checklist while they were on the lunar surface. Inside the camera, highly precise motors allowed astronauts to scroll through a roll of film without using a hard crank. Rise knew that recreating the perfect replica of the Apollo eleven Hasselblad camera was going to be more difficult simply because there wasn't much accurate information available about it.

So that's getting more into this recreation of the camera.

Right.

Okay. Well, the most significant part about this, when my film came out, Fox was going to air it as is. And right beforehand, their lawyers freaked out and said, well, we didn't show the other side of the story. It's my argument with you during the break. We've heard their side of the story for decades. We don't need equal time. Give us equal time.

Yeah, but my point.

Wait a minute, let me say. So they made a special where they interviewed me. It was conspiracy theory. Did we go to the moon? Aired three times by popular demand. One of them, one of the most convincing parts is they interviewed the representative from Hasselblad cameras. They show him a picture of allegedly a guy on the surface of the moon in sunlight. And he's embarrassed. He says, I don't know why it looks like that. Looks like he's standing under an electrical spotlight to me.

And it's also because the hot spot, right, that's created by the spotlight.

So the guy who made the camera says that pretty much that the pictures are fake. He doesn't know why it looks like an electrical light is light, not the sun.

And again, that could be because it was almost impossible to recreate those photos, to create those photos.

Well, they showed simulations so many times during the 1969 television pictures. You know, they didn't have that much actual footage. I don't think they would have a problem saying, well, we just, you know, destroyed the pictures. All we have is a tv image. I'm sorry.

It is really, really crazy. If they destroyed all the original footage.

If I really went to the moon, or I was in charge of a mission that really went to the moon, and someone said, well, we gotta put in fake pictures. Like, no way. Because people are already saying the moon missions are fake. I would never allow fake footage to be shown in a real mission. If they really went, it would jeopardize the credibility of it.

They would never do it if you had a say. But also, you have to take into consideration that people, that back then there was no VCR's, they would air this once. And in their mind, that would be it. No one anticipated VCR's. No one anticipated DVD's. And certainly no one anticipated the Internet. No one anticipated a podcast. No one anticipated YouTube videos. No one anticipated someone being able to analyze and look at these things. No one anticipated AI being able to look at the images and determine that they were fake.

I haven't heard your devil's advocate excuse yet, Joe, for why they intentionally destroyed a $200 billion investment.

That doesn't make any sense to me. It doesn't make any sense to me why they would destroy the footage. It doesn't make any sense to me why they would not have the telemetry data. It doesn't make any sense to me. I can't think of a reason why, other than gross incompetence, which.

No, they said they intentionally destroyed it. Not accidentally. I mean, if there was any technology you might intentionally destroy, maybe the atomic bomb after world War two, we used it to end the war. Now let's just destroy it all.

Yeah. We can't, because then other people can have it.

Well, the point is.

I see what you're saying. Yeah, I see what you're saying.

Ten years later, it's a thousand times more powerful.

Right.

So why would they destroy that technology? Unless they're covering their tracks of a fraud?

Now, one of the things about this is that this subject is connected instantaneously with idiocy. If you believe that moon landings are fake, you are a moron. And it's something that is pushed heavily, especially by people that only have a cursory understanding of the moon landing itself. And their argument is it would actually be more difficult to fake the moon landing than it would be to actually go.

Well, that's not true. Was the film the Martian shot on location in Mars?

Well, that was much later.

Well, but the point of. The point is.

You know what I'm saying. When? 1969.

Technology that saying, oxum's razor, that the simplest Occam's razor is the simplest explanation. Is true. Is true. But they've got it backwards. The film the Martian wasn't shot on location on Mars. It was done in a tv studio. It's easier to fake a moon mission than it is to go to the moon. Obviously. And yet they're so desperate to say that the moon landings are real they say it upside down. They say it's easier to go than to fake.

Well, they say it's easier to go than to fake it and keep it secret all these years.

But they did. Only a handful of people knew the truth. Right. The guy in the command center can't tell the difference between the real flight and a fake one. Right. There's only three eyewitnesses and no independent press coverage. They have complete control.

Everything's compartmentalized.

Yeah, so they did fake it. We have the fact that you can't have a thousand times greater technology in the past than in the future. Right. We have the footage of them faking being halfway to the moon. We have shadows intersecting at 90 degrees, which can only be done with an electrical light. And we have an eyewitness of Cyrus Eugene 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 guys 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?

They're talking about me. 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 see?

Let's hear that. You have that recording?

Yeah, I gave him the time code there.

Okay.

And then, so my book goes into all these things that are not in the film.

So here's you climbing into the car.

And there it is.

So that's the son son saying that.

That's right.

Okay. How old is his son at the time?

Well, he was about, I guess, 23 years old.

Okay, but 23 year olds are retarded. Well, 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 CIA, have him whacked?

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. 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 casing. 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 can't hear him. He can't hear me. I go to church that night to get advice from the elders what to do. They say, drive like a 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 3 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. He meets up with another year.

Is this.

This is 1999.

What kind of car do you have?

At the time, I had a Toyota van. And he meets up with another car on the other side. They start literally looping around as I'm running from side to side being chased by these people. I flag down a cab who takes me to CNN in Atlanta, where I have a friend who works there. And I'm literally trying to give them the tape through the back door. This is all in my book. Maybe it'll make a great movie someday. And I'm abducted by government agents in an unmarked white van who handcuffed me. And I can hear them behind me say, well, where's the thing? I thought you had the thing. Oh, he's got the thing. They're all wearing rubber gloves. They put something on my wrist that looks like something you get when you go into a hospital. And within 1 minute, I feel like I'm on LSD to the point where I'm throwing up. That's what the thing was, you see. They put me in a van. They start interrogating me. I escaped their custody.

How'd you do that?

Well, you got to read the book. It's a long story. I make my way back to Nashville. I pee in a cup. I say, I got him. I'm going to show my news director at NBC that I've been drugged by this exotic true serum. Because I told them everything they wanted to know. You don't have to waterboard anybody, okay? And I take it to a lab, I give it to a friend to put in the lab in his name, right? Because I don't. Trying to outwit the CIA, right?

Right.

I checked back with him a few days later, says, bart, well, there was a problem at the lab. And I'm like, well, what problem? He says, well, they had a break in over the weekend. And I'm like, yes. So what? He says, well, funny thing. The only thing stolen was a urine sample. And the people at the lab are like, we don't know who you are, but take your business elsewhere. And so all of this is in my book. Never talked about it before, because I'm already trying to convince people of this very difficult truth. They really did fake the moon landing.

And how do you know these folks that abducted you were government agents?

Well, they're the ones who monitored my phones, who followed me from church, who followed me to CNN, who stopped me from getting the tape there, who drugged me with something so severe, I'm throwing up and hallucinating. And then they're so afraid that I'm gonna 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.

Again. What year was this?

That was 1999.

I'm a sneeze. Sorry.

Allergies?

Yeah.

Truth. You're allergic to truth?

No, I'm allergic to whatever's in the air. In Austin, we were talking about it before the show that I made fun of people that have allergies.

Alfalfa tablets help me out a lot. Got to take, like, four or five a day.

Okay, so this is 1999?

Yeah.

And this is when you first get ahold of that footage that we watched earlier. And did they ask you where you got it? What do you remember? Anything that they asked?

I remember, like, the first two questions. I was really concerned about the safety of my son. I always think, what would I do if I were them?

Right?

And so I was concerned they would kidnap him and say, you know, we'll. We'll give you him if you give us the date.

Right?

So, very first question out of their mouth. I remember, where's your son? Very first question. Can you imagine that? And then the next question, something about copies of the tape. And I don't even remember. It's a blur. And, you know, I'm literally in the middle of the night running away from these people, X files type of things that, you know, make a movie someday about. And just unreal what I went through. And they really did go. They're still keeping up with it. You got to remember, what's his name? Ralph Nader. He wrote that book. What was it? Deadly at any speed. And all. All it was is GM simply didn't want to spend dollar 200 per car to put in an airbag. So you know what they did when Ralph Nader was trying to get them to put they sick FBI agents on him, to hound him, to entrap him with prostitutes and drugs, to discredit him, only to not put dollar 200 airbags in car. Imagine the harassment to a reporter who has proof that they faked the moon landing. And now in my book that just came out, we have an eyewitness who says he saw them faked the moon landing at Cannon Air Force Base and even admitted to killing a coworker to cover it up.

Okay, let's go over some of the things that people would say to try to debunk some of these claims. Let's go over specifically the Van Allen radiation belts. So what is the explanation, the official explanation, as to how the astronauts were able to get through the Van Allen radiation belt safely, because I know that people have disputed this, and it is something that people talk about all the time, because it's the number one thing.

That people say, 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.

Could have meant the shielding for the instruments.

They don't know. He said people.

No, no, no.

Must develop this technology before he said people.

I was agreeing with that. But, like, so the instruments don't break, so that ship doesn't. Well, that, too, which will then harm the people.

Right, but that was what we were talking about earlier, that.

Regardless, he says, the technology to do that has not been invented yet.

We found that out that in the full quote, he said that they had it.

No, he says, we must first solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space. So the challenges have not been solved as of 2014.

Right.

But how could they have been solved in 1969?

Well, the idea is that they. They did solve them, and then that technology was lost and they have to recreate it, and they haven't done that yet.

Really. They invented the automobile and threw it in the ocean, and now they're having to reinvent the automobile.

I'm just. Like I said, I'm just devil's advocate.

But the point is that doesn't make any sense.

Doesn't make a lot of sense. No, no, it doesn't make a lot of sense that they said you were.

Gonna share your opinion about what you think about it. What do you think?

Well, there's no way. I know, right? We're all speculating. There's no way. I know, but all this shit looks very suspicious. Like, mostly suspicious. Like, not a lot of it makes sense. Just logically, if you look at the timeline between 1969 and 2024 and the amount of progress that has taken place in actual, outside of Earth's orbit, space travel, it's non existent by human beings. Another question is, did they ever manage to get anything alive through the Van Allen radiation belts and have it come back to Earth before they tried it out with people? Did they do it with a monkey? Did they do it with a chicken? Did they send anything into space and have it come back alive?

Not officially. They may have done it unofficially and not reported it because the outcome was not good.

Right. When they did Operation Starfish prime and they blew that thing up, didn't it make the van Allen aviation belts worse in that spot?

That's what I heard, that it added to the radiation there.

Here it says, some people believe that the Apollo moon missions were a hoax because astronauts would have been instantly killed in the radiation belts. According to the US Occupational Safety and Health Agency, OSHA, a lethal radiation dosage is 300 rads in 1 hour. What is your answer to the moon landing hoax, believers? Okay. Total dosage for the trip is only 16 rad in 68.1 minutes. Because 68.1 minutes is equal to 1.13 hours. His is equal to a dosage of 16 rad in 1.13 hours equals 14 rad in 1 hour, which is below the 300 rads in 1 hour. That is considered to be lethal. Also, this radiation exposure would be for an astronaut outside the spacecraft during the transit through the belts. The radiation shielding inside the spacecraft cuts down the 14 rads per hour exposure so that it's completely harmless.

Well, I have a clip@sobrel.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. So where, again, again, these numbers of the amount of radiation in the Van Allen radiation belts are from the people who faked the moon landing.

Mm hmm.

So what kind of proof is that?

So this is, they're saying that the total dosage for the trip was only 16 rat.

That's correct.

Okay.

How do we know that? Because that, because the people who faked the moon landing said, so what is.

The source of this? NASA? NASA.

I'd find another source, if you'd like. Of what?

Yeah, but let's do that. Let's find out. Source. That's like, how would you. Yeah, that's a good question.

There's no one else.

How, why don't you google how lethal.

Are, there's a clip. There's a clip from my book.

Another one. Try another article. Deadly. Van Allen Belts is the only one.

Who'S been there, really?

Right.

Right.

There's a clip from my book@sobrell.com. That has a scientist showing the radiation levels and talking about how it's a barrier between deep space travel.

What is causing that radiation?

Well, this magnetic field of the earth causes this magnetic area, which collects over, however old the earth is, all those years, radiation that goes nowhere. So it keeps getting bigger and bigger and bigger. It also shields us from cosmic and solar and galactic radiation and from people not getting cancer. So you have to have it to have life on Earth, but paradoxically, it also prevents you from leaving the Earth.

So it says the numbers along the horizontal axis give the distance from Earth in multiples of the Earth's radius. The inner van Allen ratio, Van Allen belt is located at about 1.6 re. The outer Van Allen belt is located at 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 says the International Space Station and Space shuttle, on this scale, orbit very near the edge of the blue Earth disk in the figure. So are well below the Van Allen radiation belts. So most of the space stations, space shuttle travel, all that stuff is in that area.

Well, it's below. They're at 250 miles. The radiation begins at 1000 miles.

Right.

I think in 1996, the space shuttle went up to 365 miles, one of its highest altitudes. CNN reported this word for word. The radiation belt surrounding the Earth is more dangerous than previously believed. So how is it that astronauts 600 miles away from us, it know more about it than astronauts that allegedly went through it to the moon and back? You see that that's not possible. We have article after article that says that the radiation belts are an obstacle to going to the moon. We have George Bush Junior saying we're going to return to the moon in ten years. Of course, he said that 20 years ago. And he says, but first we need to learn how to protect the astronauts from radiation. Why not do it the way that worked so well on the Apollo missions?

So what kind of protection would. How thick was the aluminum shielding?

One eight of an inch.

One 8th of an inch. And was there anything, a coating on the inside of it that protected them further?

No, just one 8th of an inch of aluminum.

And how much protection would one 8th of an inch of aluminum provide?

Well, a half as much as a dental x ray, you know, lead vest or less than that.

But they would experience much more radiation than that.

That's right.

Now, if this is saying that it's well below the lethal threshold, is there anything that disputes that? Is there anything that you can point to that shows that the van island radiation belts are significantly more powerful than what they're saying? Like this article that you said was from CNN from the 365 miles trip. Let's find that.

That's in the film. A funny thing happened on the way to the moon.

I've read that.

Just look, just look for that part in the film that shows the animation of the Van Allen radiation belt. And then those book clips that I said, my book has 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 fifties 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 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. Is that fair to say?

Yeah.

Yeah. And it's one of those things like. Like I talk about with the UFO's, it's like Lucy with Charlie Brown and the football, like, you always think you're gonna get that football, but nope, they pull it away from you. It's like this. If they do want to actually go to the moon and go to Mars, and if we have the technology, they're gonna have to publicly address what precautions that they're going through in order to shield people from the radiation, if they're being accurate and honest about it.

Well, yeah, Kelly Smith made an attempt to do that. I don't know if it's intentional or unintentional, but he said the technology necessary to protect astronauts from the radiation to the moon has not been invented yet. So if it's not been invented yet as of 2014, and it's not been invented yet as of today, it certainly wasn't around in 1969. And this explains that footage of why they're faking being halfway to the moon, because they can't even go halfway. They can't leave Earth orbit. And what a surprise. 54 years later, they still cannot leave Earth orbit. That's why there's mannequins orbiting the moon, because of the deadly radiation. That's why.

Well, also because it's cheaper to send mannequins. You have to keep them alive.

Well, they said they were going to send people in 2018, and now, 100% behind schedule, they can only send mannequins. So if they could send people, they would. The fact that they didn't means they can't, which means it's lethal radiation. That's what it means.

Well, that seems to be the most logical impediment. Right. That in micrometeor.

Well, and the fuel.

And the fuel.

Because Elon Musk, he's a smart guy. He says it's going to take nine fuel trips in order to have.

See if you can find him saying that, Jamie.

Oh, I'm sorry. Eight. Eight fuel trips.

Pull up him saying that.

I think he's made it more efficient. Now he's made bigger containers.

So what are people that are confronted by this information that wanted to refute it? What do they say?

Well, the college professor I talked to said even a confession from Buzz Aldrin that the moon missions were fake wouldn't dissuade him from the glorious moon landings. He would still think they were. They would reel.

Elon Musk says it would take eight starship launches to fuel up a single moon trip. Elon Musk isn't entirely sure how many starships it will take.

I would just say that's without creating a new rocket, to create a new payload, to create the amount of fuel.

They have to take.

That's what they already have.

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. I would probably do the same thing.

Yeah. Yeah, that makes sense. This again, this is one of those subjects, and this is why so many people are reluctant to take it on. But if you even talk about the moon landing being fake or entertain a person like yourself that says this, you're automatically put in the category of being a fool.

Isn't that interesting? If you believe the lie, you're intelligent. And if you believe, believe the truth, you're a fool.

Not just that itself policed, and it's policed by a large percentage of the population that will certainly attack you after this video and say, why did I have you on? This guy's a crack. A crank, rather. What would. Has anyone ever tried to sit down and debunk you? Because I'm inviting someone to do that if they want to do that with you. Because once this comes out, I know there's going to be a lot of people that are outraged. The best way to stop it would be to someone, for someone to sit down and go over in every detail why you're wrong. And has anybody ever done that?

I've never debated anybody about whether it was real or not.

Nobody ever wanted to.

No one ever asked me to debate them. I know that they were fake. I used to not only believe they were real, I worshiped them. And if I came from you, child, right. Well, through a teenager, and I admitted that I was wrong. And still, when I had all this evidence indicating the fraud I still gave him the benefit of the doubt that that million dollar film that was financed by someone who builds rockets for NASA, who knows the moon missions, are fake. Okay, that took seven years just to edit that movie. That's 45 minutes long. Took me 4000 hours.

What is this?

And debate from 2002 on MSNBC with him and someone.

Oh, yeah, that's Phil Plate.

Yeah. I mean, that's not a real debate. It's like a 1 minute interview. But he. That film took seven years to produce. Three and a half years into it, I pop in the tape, it says, don't show to the public. I hit fast forward. It's the same shot over and over again. The blue earth allegedly bouncing around. I'm like, well, let me, let me listen to that from the top. We never played the talk, by the way. I hear a third track of audio prompting them to fake a four second radio delay. And I'm like, that's not the window, is it? That's not the window. The lights come up. And then it dawned on me. They really did fake the moon landing.

So before that you were on the fence?

Well, originally I thought they went and thought it was the greatest thing. I worshiped it by having pictures in my room for many years.

And it was just bill casing.

Bill casing coming out that and looking at the pictures. As a filmmaker, I'd become a filmmaker whose job is to make fake scenes look real. And I could tell that they were 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 director agreed. It proves they didn't go to the moon. And the weird thing is, Joe, this is the linchpin. This is the finger out of the dike. You know the JFK witness list? They say it's 200 people they knocked off to keep that a secret. 911, 3000. 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 him medals of honor. They printed it on stamps and coins, and they taught it in school. The glorious moon landing. If the public. This is what the NBC news director tried to get me to understand, which I didn't understand until recently. If the truth comes out, it will bring down the corruption. It's the linchpin. The moon landing fraud coming out has to happen, or we will never have honest government ever again.

Let's look at the Apollo eleven post flight press conference, because this is a weird one, because these guys just return from the moon and they look like they're in a hostage video.

Well, they look like they're at the funeral of their mother.

It does not seem like these are happy guys who just returned from the moon. Scoot your head a little bit. Here we go. So look how nervous they look. Look at Michael Collins fidgeting. And obviously you would be nervous. You're addressing all these people, but it's the tone in which Neil Armstrong takes. And then after this, we're going to show the 25th anniversary speech, which is one of the most bizarre. Yeah, go to him talking over.

It's developing and unfolding.

Go back a little bit. Go back a little bit so you can hear from adventure. Here we go.

It was our pleasure to have participated in one great adventure. It's an adventure that took place not just in the month of July, but rather one that took place in the last decade. We all here, and the people listening in today had the opportunity to share that adventure over its developing and unfolding in the past months and years. It's our privilege today to share with you some of the details of that final month of July. That was certainly the highlight for the three of us of that decade. We're going to divert a little bit from the format of past press conferences and talk about the things that interested us most, in particular the things that occurred on and about the moon. We will use a number of films and slides which most of you have already seen, and with the intent of pointing out some of the things that we observed on the spot, which may not be obvious to those of you who are looking at them here from the surface of earth. The flight, as you know, started promptly, and I think that was characteristic of all the events of the flight. The Saturn gave us one magnificent ride, both into Earth orbit and on a trajectory to the moon.

Our memory of that actually differs little from the reports that you have all heard from those previous Saturn V flights and the previous flight served us well. In preparation for this flight. In the boost, as well as the subsequent phases, we would like to skip directly to the translunar coast phase and remind ourselves of the chain of events, that long chain of events that actually permitted a landing, starting with the undockings, the transposition and docking sequence.

This is going to go on for a long time.

Yeah. One interesting thing to note there. You see the two teleprompters there in the desk. These are the only guys on earth who know what it was like to walk on the moon, and yet they're being prompted on how to answer the questions.

They just look very odd. It looks very odd. Another odd thing was that Michael Collins said that he couldn't see stars, but yet he wrote in his 1994 book about how magnificent the stars looked. And also he never left the lunar orbiter.

That's right. And also, when he's asked about stars, Neil Armstrong says, I don't recall. And then Michael Collins, to fill in for him, to help him out, says, I don't remember seeing any, which he wasn't there. They were all three orbiting the earth. So they had the same experience, but he forgot. So if you get the written transcript of that, the. I don't remember seeing any. They changed it. It to Buzz saying it. You see, lightning strikes twice in the same place. What a coincidence. First, a type o that says Buzz said it instead of Michael Collins. And then in the video, Michael Collins answering a question he should know nothing about having not been on the moon.

And it gets attributed to Buzz Aldrin because it's not convenient. But if you.

Well, because they didn't have YouTube videos back then, people got the transcript. They said, we need to correct that.

Right?

Michael Collins wasn't there. So they said, Buzz said it. They're covering for it.

Let's pay the 25th, play the 25th anniversary speech, because here's one of the craziest things near Armstrong. First man on the moon, doesn't give interviews, doesn't want to talk about it, doesn't want to appear publicly, becomes kind of a recluse. And you would imagine that a guy who didn't want fame and all of a sudden he's thrust into the public light. Like that would be a real problem. He probably didn't like it, didn't enjoy it, did enjoy being the center of attention and said, you know what? I was on the moon, but I'm just going to just lay back. You can look at it that way, or you could look at it like, if you have a guy from a public relations perspective. He's one of the most valuable people to interview of all time. He's the first man to walk on another planet. He walked on the moon. The first man. We sent him to another planet. He landed on our moon and he walked around and we got video footage of it. That guy would be a hero. He would be everywhere. They would interview him constantly. Just from a pr standpoint, you would kind of force that guy to do some interviews and talk about it because it's the most incredible accomplishment in human history as far as what human beings have been able to do.

It's the most significant technological breakthrough ever. We put a person on another fucking planet, right? But he doesn't do that. He doesn't talk to anybody. And then he gives a speech. So this is a speech at the 25th anniversary of NASA, and he's giving this speech to, like, is it american valedictorians, high school valedictorians, like some of.

The best, brightest high school kids when Clinton was president.

Yeah. And so this speech is so bizarre. I've never seen anybody give a rational explanation as to what the hell he is saying, other than he's trying to tell you that something is bullshit. So listen to the speech.

In 1994, Neil Armstrong made a rare public appearance and held back tears as he spoke these brief, cryptic remarks before the next generation of taxpayers as they toured the White House.

Today we have with us a group of students among America's best. To you we say, we have only completed a beginning. We leave you much that is undone. There are great ideas, undiscovered breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truth's protective layers.

What does that mean? Mean? What does that mean?

I think he's trying to say something. You know, that is one of the.

Most cryptic things I've ever heard anybody say publicly.

You can also notice that he was looking down, except that part he had memorized. Perhaps someday you'll be able to remove one of truth's protective layers about the moon landing. How about that? Bizarre as he's holding back tears, in my opinion, him. You know how many pictures there are of him on the surface of the moon? You know, posing as the first man on the moon? A still picture. Zero. I went to the archives personally. A vault. I had the employees. I said, find me a picture of Neil Armstrong on the surface of the moon. A still picture. They went in and out, in and out, scratching their heads. He refused to have his picture taken. He refuses to give interviews unless the president asks him to. You see, not a single picture, because he didn't want to have anything to do with it. It disgusted him. I believe they asked him to participate in the fraud. And at that point, he was a noble man. He said, no, thank you. Then they said, you don't want to end up like Apollo one crew, do you? The guy's a test pilot. I don't think threatening his life.

Or you could say, if you do this, it's for national security. There's a reason to do this. Were involved in a cold war. It's a very important thing that we achieve military superiority over the Soviet Union.

I think he would have resigned and they wouldn't allow that. That would bring suspicion. So I think they had to threaten. I think they would have had to threaten.

This is all speculation, though.

That's right. It's my speculation. But then years of research.

This video is not speculation.

That's right.

I think most people, again, are not aware of that video.

I think they threatened his family's life to get him to participate.

Perhaps, but we're just speculating. Right, but the video, again, that's not speculation. Has anybody ever gone over that video and go, it's real simple? Anybody ever nailed a grass ties in it? Like, that's simple. This is very simple. It's like we went. Another thing was that you could track the trip the entire way and that people were tracking it from earth.

Well, that's not true. The only people who had the capability of tracking it were the american government and the Soviets, who were blackmailing us for knowing that it was fraudulent.

So that's just speculation too, though, right? It's like, how were they blackmailing people? Is there any evidence that they were blackmailing people?

Well, they obviously know that the moon missions are fake. Putin was not surprised. It was around that time that we sold grain to the Soviet Union before cost, even though they're supposed to be our enemy. And around the same time, after Richard Nixon said communist China is an enemy, that. That he went to China, which is generally the inferior person visits the superior person, you see? And so he went, because I think they know. I think they found out and blackmailed him, too. And we know they are blackmailing NASA for technology in exchange for not blowing the whistle.

You know that for a fact?

Yeah. I interviewed a guy who works for the chinese space agency. It's on my YouTube channel.

Right, but that's just him saying that. That's not.

That's his eyewitness testimony stand. I was talking to people who work there.

Well, I understand what you're saying, but it's still like. It's a guy saying, it works in.

The chinese space agency, but if you're.

Gonna like me, he might not be telling the truth. Like, we don't have proof. You know what I'm saying?

Well, you have to judge. I mean, people are convicted and sent to death row based on the testimony of people all the time.

Right? But this is one guy saying something extraordinary. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

It's not that extraordinary that China would find out about the moon landing fraud and instead of blowing the whistle, would blackmail as a more valuable tool of the information. I think that's what the Soviets are doing. We're being black. 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? 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.

Well, if the truth came out acknowledged by the government, it would be a beautiful, beautiful, beautiful moment in history, because the faking of the moon landing is so much more significant than if they had actually gone. It shows the sad, fallen state of mankind. It would be like throwing a glass of water and the public's face. They wake up, they realize they've been sleepwalking, and they look down, and they're 1ft away from a cliff. It would be dead silence. Oh, my gosh. That's who we are. Not just as a nation, but as a species. We can't even tell the truth about such a thing.

But wouldn't the problem then be we would have to revamp the entirety of government? If that's the case, the intelligence agencies have done this. 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.

That's right. And maybe that'll happen, and so be it. You know, the stock market could crash, the dollar could crash. It could ruin the reputation of the United States of America. But we have a gangrene limb. William Benny, you know, worked for the NSA for 30 years. He says the CIA, the NSA, they're spying on the private cell phone conversations of Supreme Court justices to get dirt on them, to blackmail them into voting the way the CIA and NSA tell them that's a dangerous situation for a country to be in. There needs to be a major, major house cleaning. I'm not even sure what would happen if, let's say, 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 unplugged 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. It's wrong. What they're doing is morally wrong. Our leaders are gangsters.

What are we missing? Like, what have we not covered? We've basically done this. Right now we're at like 3 hours. Plus we've been talking about this. What have we left out? Anything?

Well, I think we've covered most of it. We have the fact that shadows can't intersect unless it's electrical light. We have footage of them faking being halfway to the moon. We have the deathbed testimony of an eyewitness who saw them filming Apollo eleven at Canon 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 1 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 wouldn't, don't want to give up, people would see the truth for what it is.

That's an interesting thing too, that you said it's a positive lie.

It is. Yeah.

It's not. A lie like that got us into a war that wind up killing innocent civilians that we know happens.

JFK is dead and all the people in nine or eleven are dead. Who, regardless of who did it and why. This is different. This is taking candy away from people and giving them manure. They're defending the candy.

Okay. Would you be willing to debate somebody if I get someone to come on here and prepare and talk to you and refute all this stuff?

Sure.

Okay. So we'll put that out there because I would like to see that. I would like to see how someone describes that a way.

Okay.

And what they think about this. Because I'm sure there's eyeballs rolling and fingers hitting keyboards. Right now, people are getting to get very outraged at this conversation. But I don't think. I don't think the right way to handle this is to not talk about or to silence someone. I think if you're wrong, the right way is to let you lay out your best argument and have someone refute that best argument. So I hope that at least is attempted.

Okay.

And you've been at this a long time, Bart. You look tired of talking about the moon landing. Well, how long you been at this for?

It's historic importance because the faking of the moon landing for mankind is more significant than if they'd actually gone. That they lied to the world, embezzled money, murdered their own people that covered up. And to not know that truth is like having cancer and not knowing. We have to know. We can have a great awakening about everything else. But if we still are deceived about the greatest accomplishment of mankind, you see, then there is no great awakening. It's a spiritual issue. It's a spiritual battle between truth. It's ironic, you know, there was a famous writer who said about the Tower of Babel, the monument to their pride became a memorial to their folly. And if the truth comes out, that will happen.

Do you think that this is a subject that even intelligent people that get this information of a resonance, it resonates with them that they're going to try to ignore 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. But they can't critically think. And universities are universal thinking. I was forbidden by the University of Pittsburgh after having a contract to speak to a student body group about the moon landing fraud. They forbid it. And the free speech. Free expression United States of America. You see, this is a major problem. People are emotional about this. They have to be willing to be wrong. And people are so arrogant. I mean, a college professor teaching aerospace who says if Buzz Aldrin confessed on national tv that it was fake, filmed at Cannon Air Force Base, just like Bart said, he would still think he walked on the moon anyway. That's what we're up against. This is a God to them. The God of science is putting a man on the moon when it's really just propaganda.

All right, Bart, I think you've eloquently stated your case, and I think you've been at this, like I said, for a long time. So I'm really hoping that someone will sit down and talk to you about this and we can get further to the bottom of it, because the arguments are very compelling. The actual raw facts are very puzzling. The whole thing is very odd.

Well, all this odd case, all this stuff, people can investigate for themselves. Just go to sabrell.com. There's 17 clips they can watch for free and then decide for themselves.

Okay, thank you, Bart. Appreciate you, man.

No problem.

Bye, everybody.