Latest / UK Column Radio / Probability theory debunks the moon landing — Ferdinand Santos | Jerm Warfare

Transcript

Probability theory debunks the moon landing — Ferdinand Santos | Jerm Warfare · UK Column Radio

• 0:35
  None. Doctor Ferdinand Santos, thank
• 0:40
  you for joining me in the trenches.
• 0:43
  Thank you, Jeremy. Thank you for having.
• 0:45
  Me, the pleasure is all mine. I was just saying to you a
• 0:48
  moment ago, the timing of this recording is impeccable because
• 0:51
  of that NASA launch that's occurring I believe tomorrow
• 0:55
  night US time. Yeah, it's true.
• 0:58
  Yeah. It's interesting how they're
• 1:01
  proceeding with the what's called the narrative and trying
• 1:04
  to convince maybe themselves more than us that space can't be
• 1:08
  conquered. So just a quick run down my
• 1:11
  background. So I did.
• 1:14
  I did view your video with Bart Surreal a couple weeks ago.
• 1:16
  Very interesting. I've been looking at scientism,
• 1:21
  which I've been writing about under various pseudonyms for
• 1:23
  quite a long time. By scientism, I mean the
• 1:27
  corruption and the perversion even of real science.
• 1:30
  And this goes back to the 17th century.
• 1:33
  So my background is science and physics and IT, and currently
• 1:36
  I'm working in AI and I'm building AI models.
• 1:39
  So AI is a very interesting domain and it can be a dangerous
• 1:43
  1. So that's my background.
• 1:45
  That's kind of my framework of thinking.
• 1:47
  And I've been educated in different countries.
• 1:49
  And it's not, it's not that the education is important.
• 1:52
  In fact, I think the education for many of us is a problem
• 1:55
  because you're indoctrinated. Your critical thinking skills
• 1:58
  are chopped out of you at a very young age.
• 2:00
  So it's not that the education is important.
• 2:02
  It's worth. I was telling James Delingpole a
• 2:04
  couple weeks ago, we did a podcast, even though he and I
• 2:07
  have very different views on the shape of the planet and the
• 2:09
  universe. That is the framework of
• 2:12
  thinking. So you can apply critical
• 2:14
  thinking to the narrative. And for me, I take IT, for
• 2:19
  example, I, I build software. So it's zero and one it's yes or
• 2:22
  no, it's works. It doesn't work.
• 2:24
  I tested it to fill. That's what that's my world
• 2:27
  view. So if someone says to me, and I
• 2:30
  wrote a post to my sub stack about Yuri Gagarin and what I
• 2:33
  call the Gagarin gag or fraud in 1961, there's obviously no
• 2:38
  evidence he went anywhere. You can just, you just analyse
• 2:41
  what they give you. And so my argumentation around
• 2:44
  scientism has always been, I'm not going to argue outside your
• 2:47
  framework because I'm trained inside your framework.
• 2:50
  I know what you're saying to me. I understand the mass, I'm going
• 2:53
  to argue inside the framework and use your own data against
• 2:56
  you or I'll use it with you if it's, if it's true.
• 3:00
  So if you go back in history and go back to I, I on my sub stack,
• 3:04
  I take Einstein to the witch shed and there's nothing left of
• 3:06
  them. You know, the entrails are burnt
• 3:09
  because I can go. I understand what they're trying
• 3:11
  to say and do, but I also understand that it's
• 3:13
  philosophically driven. It's not evidence driven.
• 3:17
  And so I think a wake up call for a lot of people in terms of
• 3:21
  scientism was the corona pandemic, which you've, you've
• 3:25
  talked about and, and understand quite well.
• 3:28
  I, I don't believe in viruses because I see no evidence they
• 3:31
  exist. So when someone comes to me and,
• 3:33
  and heard about Corona from a guy in Wall Street in, in
• 3:35
  November 2019, I had no idea what he's talking about.
• 3:38
  He said, go defensive sell there's Corona.
• 3:41
  But I know Corona from the US military intelligence operations
• 3:44
  of the 1960s. the US had a military operation called Corona
• 3:48
  in the 1960s, a spy operation. So I my mind, I link it to this,
• 3:53
  OK, I know it's a fraud. And ask him, what is it?
• 3:56
  He says there's something out of China, some flu.
• 3:58
  So I don't believe in viruses, so I don't buy into the
• 4:00
  narrative. But if you look at what they're
• 4:02
  trying to sell you during the Corona pandemic, there's no
• 4:06
  scientific evidence for their claims.
• 4:07
  In fact, their claims varied by the week, even by the hour.
• 4:11
  Their story changed all the time on the on what what it was, how
• 4:15
  it was transmitted, how it was vectorized or transmitted across
• 4:19
  populations and countries. The story changed almost every
• 4:21
  day. The symptoms went from nothing
• 4:24
  asymptomatic, you're not sick, but you are to death, death by
• 4:28
  you know, in a car accident and everything in between was
• 4:30
  covered by the PCR test, another fraud.
• 4:33
  So I think the corona pandemic, which was which was ACIA
• 4:38
  operation, obviously. So my view of scientism is that
• 4:41
  there's always someone, there's always that power behind the
• 4:43
  throne of the science. And you can go through all the
• 4:46
  experiments in history and all the things we're told to believe
• 4:50
  the speed of light. For instance, I posted my sub
• 4:51
  stack last week that the speed of light experiment upon which
• 4:55
  relative to The Big Bang his base is wrong and you can RIP it
• 4:58
  apart. You don't need a PhD, you don't
• 5:00
  need an ology degree. You need a calculator, common
• 5:02
  sense, understanding what they're doing and how they did
• 5:06
  it. And you, if you understand basic
• 5:08
  maths and understand basic physical sciences, you know that
• 5:11
  the equations are wrong and you can prove the wrong and you can
• 5:14
  prove the right answer which has nothing to do with their answer.
• 5:17
  So this is what I've been doing for a long time.
• 5:19
  And in the context of, of space, I've been looking at space since
• 5:25
  what the 1990s. And this is where I ran into
• 5:27
  Bart Stabriel a long time ago. I read his books, I've seen his
• 5:31
  movies and videos, lots of other material.
• 5:34
  And he knows a lot about the topic, far more than I'll ever
• 5:38
  know about it. And he comes at it from a
• 5:40
  certain domain. So where I might come at it from
• 5:43
  the, the personality or viewpoint of an IT or physical
• 5:46
  science person, he comes at it from the photography and film
• 5:49
  angle. And it's interesting because
• 5:52
  that's where the NASA fanboys get very angry.
• 5:54
  As you know, if you mentioned the, the photographic fraud,
• 5:58
  Apollo 11, which is so obvious. I'm not, I know nothing but
• 6:02
  photography. I'm just a, an average IQ guy.
• 6:04
  I can look at the photo and I know it's a fraud because I can
• 6:07
  see background and I can see the line of the foreground.
• 6:12
  So I don't know anything about photography, but I know there's
• 6:14
  a backdrop there. So this is known 40 years ago
• 6:18
  before Bart started talking about it.
• 6:19
  There's been analysis done around the world in labs,
• 6:22
  universities and at home by professionals and photographic
• 6:27
  labs, by professionals looking at the Apollo photos.
• 6:31
  And 40 years ago, it was a term in their composites.
• 6:34
  If those analogue photos are composites, it's a fraud, full
• 6:38
  stop. You can come up with all the
• 6:40
  arguments against light and shadows and against all the
• 6:44
  other stuff that Bart talks about and you can link to NASA
• 6:47
  and YouTube all day long. If it's proven that those photos
• 6:50
  are composites, those analogue photos, then it's a fraud.
• 6:54
  It's as simple as that. Full stop, end of end of
• 6:56
  argument. And that was known about 40
• 6:58
  years ago, but you don't hear about it.
• 7:01
  So, and Bart mentioned this in the interview two weeks ago and
• 7:04
  you don't hear about this either.
• 7:05
  So three years ago. I'm an I'm an AII know the power
• 7:08
  of neural networks. I know what they can do.
• 7:10
  They they ran, the Russians ran those photos, about 11 photos
• 7:15
  through the neural networks, 9 layers of them and the
• 7:19
  conclusion was they're frauds or composites, end of story.
• 7:22
  I mean that that the argument is over there.
• 7:24
  Now I don't even look at the photos from frauds.
• 7:26
  So I look at it from a different viewpoint.
• 7:27
  So I look at space or locomotion, transport, whatever
• 7:33
  from a physical and IT perspective.
• 7:36
  Is it feasible? Is it possible if I pull up my
• 7:38
  calculator, new probability theory, It doesn't make any
• 7:41
  sense what they're telling me. That's the way I look at it.
• 7:42
  It's a little bit different than the way Bart looks at it.
• 7:44
  And Bart's viewpoint is entirely valid because he is a film
• 7:48
  domain expert. He understands shadows and
• 7:50
  lights and the way he can do with films.
• 7:52
  How he can make composites and other things.
• 7:53
  I have no clue about that, but I believe what he says.
• 7:56
  But he's not the only one. There's thousands of people like
• 7:58
  him who've said the same thing, that it's a film.
• 8:01
  What Bart doesn't say and what other people don't say is what I
• 8:04
  write in my sub stack that there is there there is the CIA in the
• 8:11
  in the 1960s developed it has to be one of the greatest
• 8:16
  engineering simulation sites ever ever created.
• 8:19
  Everything devised or thought about in Langley, Virginia.
• 8:22
  So my thesis is pretty simple. NASA was formed in 58 to take
• 8:28
  all the US agencies contractors in the space programme, put them
• 8:32
  under one umbrella, right? That's I was NASA in 58 and
• 8:35
  coordinate the activities. OK.
• 8:37
  The CIA in Langley, Virginia set up a world class simulation
• 8:43
  centre for NASA. So what does it tell you?
• 8:46
  CIA and NASA are like peas in a pod.
• 8:49
  They're the same. CIA is running.
• 8:51
  NASA always has. NASA is part of the US military,
• 8:54
  always has been. What are the US military say in
• 8:56
  the 1950s? We want a militarised space, we
• 8:59
  want to nuclearize it, and we want to control the weather.
• 9:02
  So people don't understand this. In the Eisenhower
• 9:04
  administration, they're talking about controlling the weather
• 9:07
  and using climate as a weapon. So that goes back to Tesla.
• 9:11
  Tesla created a DEW weapon, Direct Energy weapon.
• 9:14
  He demonstrated New York in I think 1933.
• 9:17
  He brought down a building with sound vibrations in New York.
• 9:20
  So that's what the US has. the US has that technology.
• 9:22
  They took it from Tesla. His designs, they have DEW
• 9:24
  weapons. DEW weapons could start an
• 9:26
  earthquake, for instance. Maybe weapons today there's
• 9:28
  people online who claim that hurricanes or storms from the
• 9:32
  ocean are, are somehow generated from these types of weapons.
• 9:37
  I don't know. I have no idea.
• 9:38
  But geoengineering is a fact. Climate control is a fact.
• 9:42
  We see it every day. And the second thing they said
• 9:44
  was we want a nuclearized space because in the space race with
• 9:47
  the Soviets, he who controls space is going to control this
• 9:50
  planet, right? So that's what they said in the
• 9:53
  Eisenhower administration. So NASA comes along.
• 9:56
  It's associated with the CIA. The CIA sets up this massive
• 9:59
  facility in Langley, Virginia in the 1960s.
• 10:03
  And what you don't hear a lot about is the use of this
• 10:07
  facility to simulate the entire Apollo missions, end to end, end
• 10:12
  to end. So I have a Substack article.
• 10:15
  I go through the five main modules and you could, you could
• 10:18
  simulate all of the journeys, you could simulate all of the
• 10:22
  events, you could simulate the tracking, you could simulate
• 10:27
  events that will give concern or pause or maybe can't create a
• 10:31
  problem or an issue. There's training programmes for
• 10:33
  everything. The entire journey from getting
• 10:36
  into the atmosphere and going to the moon and landing, coming
• 10:39
  back could be simulated there. It's quite astounding.
• 10:43
  And they've, they've now started to demise that facility and take
• 10:47
  it down. So the, the, the most obvious
• 10:51
  proof that the Americans never landed on the moon for me,
• 10:55
  besides the photos, it would send the fanboys crazy.
• 10:57
  And they were absolutely wild. When you mention the photos,
• 10:59
  it's simply this fact. I looked at the lunar module.
• 11:03
  I was very interested in this. So if you, if you're interested
• 11:06
  in building things or how, how, how, how is the hardware work,
• 11:09
  the software, you know, we'll give it to the Gagarin gag in a
• 11:12
  second. But just I got on this tangent
• 11:15
  with the lunar module, but you take what they're trying to sell
• 11:18
  us. So there's a command module
• 11:20
  orbiting the moon 30 miles above the surface.
• 11:23
  There is a lunar module that detaches itself to ports and
• 11:27
  lands on the on the on the lunar surface.
• 11:30
  OK, so to land, you need to have power.
• 11:34
  So there's no flame, there's no hole, there's no debris, and
• 11:38
  there's no noise. So the fanboys go crazy.
• 11:41
  They start invoking magic words like vacuum.
• 11:44
  There's no vacuum anywhere. There's no vacuum in space.
• 11:46
  There's no vacuum in the moon. Why?
• 11:48
  Because they tell us their own data says that the moon is 1/6
• 11:51
  gravity. What is gravity?
• 11:52
  Gravity is an energy pushing up through the medium.
• 11:55
  It's a it's a physical force forcing its way up through the
• 11:58
  medium. That's why in this planet, in
• 11:59
  your chair, we say 1G. We're at 1G because gravity is
• 12:03
  strong atmosphere is dense. If I go to the ISS, which if you
• 12:06
  believe the narrative is 250 miles in space, the density of
• 12:12
  the atmosphere, even though it's within our atmosphere, our
• 12:14
  atmosphere goes up for about 1000 miles.
• 12:16
  Some people say it even encompasses the moon 250,000
• 12:19
  miles away. So up to 1000 miles.
• 12:20
  We have an atmosphere that's called the ether, it's called
• 12:22
  the medium, the ISS, the diffusion of molecules,
• 12:26
  etcetera, make it far less dense, probably a trillionth or
• 12:30
  something less dense than it is sitting in our chairs.
• 12:33
  But on the moon and they're telling us that there's 1/6
• 12:36
  gravity. So gravity, energy, radiation,
• 12:39
  photons, light, whatever, need something to travel through.
• 12:43
  It's quite obvious. No medium, no exchange.
• 12:48
  So it's, it's, it's clear. That's how, that's how life
• 12:51
  works. If you're looking at photons,
• 12:53
  Starlight coming from space, it has to travel through something.
• 12:56
  It can't be a vacuum because that means nothing.
• 12:58
  You can argue the space is low energy molecular diffusion,
• 13:02
  therefore different sets of properties.
• 13:04
  The electromagnetism will work differently there than on Earth.
• 13:07
  100% agree with that. That's not what they tell us.
• 13:09
  They tell us it's a vacuum. It's not a vacuum.
• 13:12
  The moon, sorry, I have to do my hand wave here with the light
• 13:16
  sensor. So the moon has something that
• 13:19
  transfers gravity. And so this is something that
• 13:21
  they had never explained to us. So the moon faces the sun, it
• 13:25
  doesn't change. The face to the moon never
• 13:26
  changes. So what's generating what they
• 13:29
  say is once it's gravity that that needs to be, that needs to
• 13:31
  be assessed and determined. But whatever it is, if you have
• 13:34
  a structure that's hitting down towards a surface, there's sound
• 13:38
  vibrations coming through the structure.
• 13:40
  That's basic physics. So if there's any medium
• 13:43
  whatsoever or there's any structure whatsoever, you will
• 13:47
  hear and feel the sound. So I asked one of the fanboys
• 13:50
  once the the lunar module, the this the rocket, they had
• 13:55
  £10,000 thruster engine. That's what they say in their
• 13:58
  designs. That's the size of it.
• 14:00
  I asked the fanboy in a podcast how many horsepower lawnmower
• 14:06
  engines do you think that is and he didn't really understand the
• 14:09
  question. I said take the the rocket.
• 14:12
  OK, translate that into lawnmowers on your street.
• 14:15
  The PVC people pushing around 5 horsepower lawnmowers is the
• 14:18
  average. How many lawnmowers do you think
• 14:20
  it is? He had no idea.
• 14:23
  OK, You don't need to have an ology degree or have a PhD to
• 14:26
  figure it out. It's about 18,000.
• 14:29
  So here's the story they're telling us.
• 14:31
  We have two guys, you know, St Buzz of the bottles.
• 14:34
  I call them Aldrin the Drunk and St Neil the Strong arm.
• 14:37
  You know, Apostle St Neil. And they're going down in a
• 14:41
  module. It's it's it's a homeless
• 14:43
  shelter. It's, it's a flimsy thing you
• 14:45
  put your fist through. They're they're 2 feet above the
• 14:48
  flooring. So maybe there's flooring and
• 14:50
  subflooring on cavity. What whatever the construction
• 14:52
  is, they're 2 feet or 18 inches above 18,000 lawn mowers.
• 14:57
  Now, if you did that on Earth, as I said to the fanboy, in any
• 15:01
  structure on this planet in this dense atmosphere, you go deaf
• 15:05
  immediately. You'll be screaming in agony.
• 15:08
  You'll not be talking on your phone to Houston X miles away in
• 15:13
  in a very. Oh, yeah.
• 15:15
  We're at 505 hundred feet, 100 feet.
• 15:18
  Oh, yeah. We landed.
• 15:19
  Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. OK, let's get the shoes on,
• 15:21
  guys. Let's go outside.
• 15:22
  That that was a simulation. You're listening to it.
• 15:25
  It's a joke. You're on 18,000 lawn mowers and
• 15:29
  on this planet you'd probably would die.
• 15:31
  Are you being shocked? For the rest of your life your
• 15:32
  organs would be damaged. So on the moon they say 1-6
• 15:35
  gravity, but there's still a structure and there's still
• 15:37
  something there. So take 18,000 times by .16.
• 15:42
  You're still going to be deaf. You're still going to hear the
• 15:44
  noise in the background and you still won't be able to
• 15:46
  communicate. And if you do communicate, your
• 15:48
  voice modulation is going to be rising and falling like like a
• 15:51
  mountain range and you're terrified to start with because
• 15:54
  you've never been here before. You have no, no idea what you're
• 15:56
  doing. So it's just not real.
• 15:59
  If you listen to the communications and you hear no
• 16:02
  noise in the background, they always evoke the magic word
• 16:05
  vacuum. That's not physics.
• 16:07
  Physics is is a translation of sound vibrations, which are
• 16:11
  waves of energy through a structure.
• 16:14
  Can you imagine sitting on 18,000 lawnmowers?
• 16:16
  Can you imagine that? And, and that's the story.
• 16:21
  The story is that we took 18,000 lawnmowers down to the surface
• 16:23
  and you hear nothing because of magic words insert here.
• 16:26
  It doesn't make sense. So then my second question,
• 16:28
  follow up question to the fanboy was show me on Earth that
• 16:32
  magical routine that you guys perfected up there 30 miles
• 16:36
  above the moon's orbit surface. You're orbiting around that
• 16:40
  Collins is there. You detach the lunar module with
• 16:43
  the 18,000 lawn mowers. You land on the planet surface.
• 16:46
  OK, In violation of any number of physical laws, somehow you do
• 16:50
  it. Where did you do it?
• 16:51
  Do that in this planet. Show me where you trained for
• 16:54
  that on this planet. Show the simulation.
• 16:57
  Show the material. They have nothing.
• 17:00
  They can show you nothing. How did you perfect that hang?
• 17:03
  On. Hang on, hang on.
• 17:03
  Didn't Neil Armstrong apparently test that and break his collar
• 17:08
  bone or something? Yeah, he.
• 17:09
  Went all over the place. It's a homeless shelter.
• 17:11
  Imagine the rocket thrust. He wasn't even on the full
• 17:13
  rocket thrust so he couldn't control it.
• 17:16
  It's like putting 18,000 lawnmowers on top of a little
• 17:20
  canopy structure and then doing one of these and trying to get
• 17:23
  up. You're trying to raise it,
• 17:24
  you're trying to vertically lift it, vertically landed, you're
• 17:26
  trying to manoeuvre it. So this is what they're trying
• 17:28
  to do. So if you leave the, the command
• 17:30
  module is circling, you have to leave and you're going to enter
• 17:33
  the moon at a certain angle. So one of the, the problems with
• 17:36
  the narratives of the 1960s that's never discussed is the
• 17:40
  complicated piloting and manoeuvring of something like a
• 17:44
  lunar module, but also something like a capsule that Gagarin
• 17:48
  supposedly sat in. They're doing all sorts of
• 17:50
  complicated by their own designs with their own information.
• 17:54
  What based on what they tell us, they're doing all sorts of
• 17:57
  complicated manoeuvres that were never tried on this planet.
• 18:00
  So how did it work first time in, in, in on the moon.
• 18:04
  It's impossible to even imagine that the probability theory, if
• 18:07
  you apply probability theory, very basic probability theory to
• 18:10
  that is zero. It's, it's less than 5%, it's
• 18:13
  insignificant. Statistically speaking, it means
• 18:16
  it didn't happen. You have to prove first that you
• 18:18
  did it here on this planet. Now you cannot replicate 18,000
• 18:21
  lawn mowers in this planet because you'd kill the person
• 18:23
  inside. So that's what Armstrong was
• 18:25
  playing around with something that was a fraction of the
• 18:27
  horsepower that they supposedly used in the moon.
• 18:30
  That's the only explanation. It's the only logical
• 18:32
  explanation. There's no possibility he sat on
• 18:34
  18,000 lawn mowers. I've seen the videos and it's a
• 18:38
  small craft. It it's almost, it's almost like
• 18:41
  a big drone is what it is. And there's no way that
• 18:44
  replicates what they're telling us they did on the moon.
• 18:47
  Again, no flames, no hole, no dust, a vertical landing.
• 18:52
  Then how do they get off the moon?
• 18:54
  There's no fuel, so there's no flames.
• 18:59
  This video is so ridiculous. It's, it's embarrassing, it's so
• 19:02
  bad, but this, so This is why I go back to Langley.
• 19:05
  What did Langley have? Black curtains everywhere.
• 19:09
  I mean Langley black curtains, I mean that was her thing, you
• 19:12
  know, back in black and they had the world's biggest gantry
• 19:16
  crane, which is a lifting crane. And so you're dealing with a
• 19:19
  multi tonne modules, 4 or five tonne lunar module simulators.
• 19:24
  The gantry crane is more than big enough to pick it up and
• 19:28
  swing it, more than big enough and strong enough to drop it
• 19:31
  back down. That's why there's no flame.
• 19:33
  The easiest, most scientific, logical explanation why there's
• 19:36
  no flame for the LM is that the gantry crane behind against the
• 19:40
  black curtain just dropped it. And that's what you see, and
• 19:43
  that's what you see when it's lifted off and you only see
• 19:45
  about 30 or 40 feet. Why is that?
• 19:47
  Because that's the crane working and then it swings it out of
• 19:50
  sight. That's what they're doing.
• 19:51
  That's the most logical explanation.
• 19:54
  You don't need to go into physical theatrics or into what
• 19:57
  the fanboys talk about. It's this logical production
• 20:00
  theatre that NASA and Hollywood are very good at making,
• 20:04
  excellent at making. They're making this type of
• 20:06
  thing. Back in the 50s, Walt Disney was
• 20:09
  making films with space that I think provide a baseline for for
• 20:13
  Kubrick and friends. Kubrick comes out with 2001
• 20:16
  Space Odyssey. It looks real, doesn't it?
• 20:18
  If you've seen the movie and you can replicate that with AI now
• 20:22
  deep fake AI can replicate 2001 Space Odyssey and you don't know
• 20:27
  you're looking at AI and I could rename it SpaceX.
• 20:31
  Here is Musk and friends on the SpaceX Odyssey 2026.
• 20:35
  You wouldn't have a clue what you're looking at.
• 20:37
  So this is what they're good at. It's image management.
• 20:40
  But the the, the lie is in how they do it.
• 20:43
  If you pay attention, you don't need an ology degree or to have
• 20:46
  advanced education. You just need to have a critical
• 20:48
  thinking skill and understand that it doesn't add up.
• 20:52
  If you're landing something, there has to be a flame and
• 20:55
  that's the dead giveaway there. So you know it's a fraud or you
• 20:58
  or you have questions about it. And then if you're saying I did,
• 21:00
  I did the landing on the moon, a normal person will say that's
• 21:04
  fantastic. Can you show me your test data
• 21:06
  on on this planet? I want to see everything.
• 21:07
  I'm very interested in this. How did you guys get so smart?
• 21:10
  How did you guys deport or decouple that lunar module
• 21:14
  homeless shelter from the from that capsule that 30 miles in
• 21:17
  altitude? That's amazing guys.
• 21:18
  How'd you do that? They can't tell you.
• 21:20
  There's no plans. Like Bart said, they destroyed
• 21:22
  everything. They destroyed even those
• 21:24
  designs. They never had them.
• 21:25
  But if they didn't have them, they destroyed them.
• 21:28
  And that technology is something you would have kept obviously,
• 21:31
  because that's one of their great problems.
• 21:33
  I did a probability analysis on my sub stack looking at Ed Musk
• 21:37
  and it's Mars nonsense. But you have to be, I think you
• 21:41
  have to be cognitively disabled. I mean, I think you have to be
• 21:44
  really mentally disconnected from reality to tell someone
• 21:47
  you're going to Mars. I mean this guy Musk is telling
• 21:49
  people he's going to colonise Mars by 2050 with 1,000,000
• 21:52
  Earthlings. That's what he said and it's a
• 21:54
  public record. He said by between 2030 and
• 21:57
  2050, his Starship, which has never got off the launchpad.
• 22:03
  His Starship is a big shuttle. You remember the shuttle from
• 22:05
  the 80s and 90's? The shuttle was a huge, huge
• 22:09
  creation, a multi. I can't remember the tonnage of
• 22:12
  it. It was massive.
• 22:12
  It was 300 feet or so in height. It was wide.
• 22:16
  And a Starship that Musk has imitates that.
• 22:18
  But it's a vertically taking off and vertically landing concept,
• 22:22
  same as this Falcon 9 SpaceX rockets.
• 22:24
  They go up and they come back down.
• 22:25
  They go up 50 miles and then vertically land back down on
• 22:27
  special paths. So a question to Musk would be,
• 22:31
  if you're going to vertically land on Mars, where are the
• 22:34
  paths? How are you going to land there?
• 22:36
  So they'll come back with some word cell.
• 22:38
  It's about doing Apollo 11. They're going to orbit.
• 22:41
  They're going to. OK, so show me on Earth where
• 22:43
  you've done that. There's no proof of it.
• 22:45
  So that's just common sense. You want to see the evidence for
• 22:48
  their claims because with AI now they can't produce absolutely
• 22:52
  anything and we don't know what we're looking at.
• 22:55
  As I said, the James Delling pool is looking through a very
• 22:57
  dark window. You can't really see inside.
• 22:59
  We're not invited into the ISSI have no idea of the ISS 250
• 23:03
  miles up. I see lots of fraud, lots of
• 23:05
  images, lots of videos. I know they're doing shots from
• 23:08
  the zero gravity vomit comet plane, as they call it, going up
• 23:11
  and and and and doing a parabolic arc to generate the
• 23:15
  weightlessness. We all know that.
• 23:17
  So I don't know what I'm looking at.
• 23:18
  Is it real? The, the, the, the zero gravity
• 23:21
  plane is the same size as the ISS, Exactly the same size.
• 23:24
  The ISS looks like a large Boeing jetliner in terms of its
• 23:27
  size and structure. So what am I looking at?
• 23:29
  Who knows? No idea.
• 23:31
  You see harnesses, you see wires, you see women astronauts
• 23:35
  with stupid hairdos and perms. It's just ridiculous.
• 23:38
  So is IISS real? I don't know.
• 23:41
  But the ISS is part of some logistical system they're going
• 23:45
  to build from the Earth to the moon.
• 23:48
  ISS was part of that. So getting back to logic and
• 23:52
  physical science. So as Bart mentioned, must said
• 23:56
  it takes 9 refuels at least for SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket and
• 24:01
  capsule to go to the moon. That's nine.
• 24:03
  OK, so Apollo didn't have 9, Apollo 11 did not have 9.
• 24:07
  So on my sub stack, I went through von von Braun, the Nazi
• 24:11
  who led the Apollo programme. He said Empire State Building
• 24:13
  size and volume necessary to go to the moon.
• 24:16
  So the Saturn 5 rocket, if you want to be generous about it, if
• 24:19
  you look at the absolute volume in, in, in, in cubic
• 24:22
  measurements, the absolute volume is 1 to 10%.
• 24:25
  So they had maybe 10% of the fuel they're burning 20 tonnes a
• 24:29
  second to get out of the atmosphere and maybe 10%.
• 24:32
  So how do they get back? There's no fuel.
• 24:34
  So if Musk is right, it's 9. NASA says no Musk, it's not 9,
• 24:37
  it's 15. So NASA disagrees with Musk.
• 24:39
  They're arguing with each other. Or how many refuels to the moon?
• 24:42
  So take that and go to Mars. So how many logistical stations
• 24:45
  do you need to get from Earth to the moon?
• 24:48
  And you have to just have to ask yourself, why would I bother?
• 24:51
  That's another argument. I think the moon's a complete,
• 24:53
  complete waste of time. But then between the moon and
• 24:56
  Mars, how can you possibly do a moon to Mars mission without
• 25:00
  logistical supplies, fuel, food, it's 4 to 10 months journey.
• 25:05
  You're going to have sickness. You're going to have all sorts
• 25:07
  of other parameters and variables at work.
• 25:10
  You've never been to space. You don't know what you're
• 25:12
  getting into. So I always go back to when I
• 25:15
  talk to the fanboys, I say, explain to me Ferdinand
• 25:17
  Magellan. And it happened when you PhDs in
• 25:20
  physics. Who's Ferdam and Jolin?
• 25:22
  Who's that guy? Well, he's not taught in schools
• 25:25
  anymore because he, he classified probably as a white
• 25:28
  extremist racist because he was Catholic and pious.
• 25:30
  He was a very difficult personality, but he was a he, he
• 25:34
  was a doer. So he and his men, 250 of them,
• 25:38
  5019 got on three ships in Sevilla, Spain.
• 25:42
  And they do the Magellan, they do the circumnavigation of the
• 25:44
  globe. Magellan dies in the
• 25:46
  Philippines. This also, by the way, disproves
• 25:48
  a Flat Earth concept. I don't know how you can sail
• 25:50
  around a Flat Earth, but Magellan's circumnavigate, his
• 25:53
  crew circumnavigates globe, 12 survive, 12 survive and make it
• 25:57
  back to Sidia, including Picofetti, who's the journal
• 26:00
  keeper who kept the record of the of the trip.
• 26:03
  So absolutely fascinating. But what's really interesting
• 26:07
  about Magellan's trip, besides the fact they're guessing a lot,
• 26:10
  they didn't really know what they're doing was that they
• 26:12
  stopped everywhere. They stopped at the Azovers side
• 26:14
  in the Canaries in West Africa. They take the winds and the
• 26:17
  currents over to Brazil and go down the coast.
• 26:19
  They stop, stop, stop, refuel. They need wood, they need water,
• 26:22
  etcetera, etcetera. Patagonia, Pigafatty, right?
• 26:25
  So they met Patagones, which is Bigfoot, giants, etcetera.
• 26:29
  Around they go. And so, but they're resupplying
• 26:31
  themselves all the time. And, and how can you go to Mars
• 26:35
  from from planet Earth without an appreciation of basic
• 26:38
  logistics, basic maths? You know, you don't have the
• 26:41
  supply depots to get there. And now some Musk arguing about
• 26:45
  how many do you need between here and the moon.
• 26:47
  So then how did so applying logic back to Apollo 11, how do
• 26:50
  they do it? How do they do it without fuel?
• 26:53
  How do they do it without a landing module, with, with no
• 26:56
  flying? How do they do all this?
• 26:57
  So forget the photos. I don't even look at the photos.
• 27:00
  And then with the Gagarin fraud, we can talk about that if you
• 27:03
  like, because that really kick starts the whole thing in my
• 27:06
  view. So my view of scientism going
• 27:07
  back to the 17th century and all the fraud that I've uncovered,
• 27:10
  all the experiments I've demolished, and not just me, I
• 27:13
  mean, thousands and probably millions of people have done the
• 27:15
  same thing. We don't hear us.
• 27:17
  You don't hear our voices because we don't have it.
• 27:18
  We, we don't have the support to go publicly and declaim what we
• 27:23
  think we might know or at least get the conversation started.
• 27:26
  So if you look at a fraud like Einstein, the only reason you
• 27:29
  know about Einstein is the Rothschilds.
• 27:31
  Rothschilds promoted that guy. He was demolished by 1920.
• 27:34
  His theories were utter rubbish by 1920.
• 27:36
  Every single public debate was only a few of them he ever went
• 27:39
  into. He got absolutely eviscerated.
• 27:41
  But the Rothschilds got the game.
• 27:43
  Why is that Einstein's Jewish? We want to set up a Hebrew
• 27:47
  university in Jerusalem. We need an icon.
• 27:49
  We're going to create an icon. We're going to create Doctor
• 27:53
  Einstein to be the face of our science.
• 27:56
  And they gave Einstein to share in Hebrew University.
• 27:59
  He's now patented, copyrighted. They make 15,000,000 U.S.
• 28:02
  dollars a year in royalties just in his name.
• 28:04
  So This is why he's in your face.
• 28:06
  So none of us have that platform.
• 28:07
  We're not the Rothschilds. And the narrative is never going
• 28:10
  to publish anything that's against the narrative.
• 28:12
  But in the history of scientism, the reason why I got interested
• 28:15
  in the moon fraud is what it means.
• 28:19
  So you asked Bart's real in the interview, he said Bart, who
• 28:22
  cares? I mean, it wasn't me, Bart.
• 28:24
  So for me, it's very simple. It's US hegemony or hegemony
• 28:28
  depending on anyone else's word. It's the new world order.
• 28:31
  It's the context of the Cold War Space was viewed as part of that
• 28:35
  war, right or wrong. And who controlled space is
• 28:38
  going to control the planet. That's what the US military said
• 28:40
  in the 1950s. That's also what the Soviets
• 28:42
  said. We need to control space to
• 28:44
  control and win this war, the so called Cold War.
• 28:48
  So it becomes almost it it becomes a game of absolutes.
• 28:53
  So there there could be no Co join winners.
• 28:56
  So candy comes into office and he starts talking about
• 28:58
  cooperation with with the Soviets in space.
• 29:00
  He doesn't see a need for competition.
• 29:02
  So he's of course as assassinated by the CIA and
• 29:06
  because he fired Dulles and Dulles are in the CIA.
• 29:08
  Except there's, there's a great book by a guy called The Devil's
• 29:12
  Chess Board, but a guy called Talbot, which lays out the the
• 29:15
  after the demonic evil nature of the CIA.
• 29:18
  And the CIA is the Nexus of the deep state, of course.
• 29:20
  So people at Kennedy said, well, we just cooperate.
• 29:24
  The military didn't want to cooperate.
• 29:25
  So the Gagarin fraud in 1961 comes after about a decade of
• 29:31
  miserable failures on both sides.
• 29:33
  So I write this on my sub stack. I go through the Gagarin
• 29:37
  antecedents, what goes on with the Soviet space programme.
• 29:40
  So as James Delingpole said correctly, there's a tendency
• 29:43
  now when we view the West, we know the West is corrupt.
• 29:46
  We know our governments are are in some way demonic and evil.
• 29:50
  The institutions are are perverse and they're trying to
• 29:53
  undermine our culture and our heritage and our traditions.
• 29:56
  So this is all true. But as he said, and he's quite
• 29:59
  right, you don't then hannigerize the Soviets but say,
• 30:04
  well, they're the good guys now the Soviets are not good guys.
• 30:06
  So I go through the murders. So the Soviets were launching
• 30:10
  cosmonauts, dogs and cats and monkeys in the space.
• 30:13
  I think they're who knows what they're doing.
• 30:15
  They don't provide any information.
• 30:17
  But the Soviets were not very good at sharing information.
• 30:19
  They were not transparent. This was a totalitarian, very
• 30:21
  evil regime. There's absolutely no way you
• 30:23
  can defend it. They're launching cosmonauts
• 30:26
  probably without even their own knowledge, including females
• 30:29
  caught by ham operators in Europe in the early 1960s and
• 30:31
  late 1950s launched them probably into 400 miles or so,
• 30:35
  which tells you the the extent of their rocket programme, how
• 30:38
  advanced it was. So after World War 2, the Soviet
• 30:41
  Americans kind of divided up the Nazi scientists, so to speak,
• 30:45
  and including rocketry engineers, including people like
• 30:48
  von Braun. But the the the Soviets
• 30:50
  apparently got the got their dirty hands on actual
• 30:53
  functioning models. I don't think the Americans did.
• 30:56
  The Americans had the people and designs, but not the actual
• 30:58
  functioning hardware. The Soviets got some functioning
• 31:00
  hardware, gave them a head start.
• 31:02
  You can see this in the 50s, late 50s and early 60s.
• 31:05
  They're launching people testing the atmosphere and they're
• 31:09
  dying. They're launching cats and dogs.
• 31:12
  But they don't, they don't tell you this.
• 31:14
  The Soviets tell you the opposite.
• 31:15
  And their propaganda. Oh, we did this, we did that.
• 31:17
  Oh, we sent a probe to the moon and brought back some oh, we, we
• 31:20
  set up, you know, the dog and it came back and everything was
• 31:22
  happy. All frauds, of course, and very
• 31:25
  evil. So before 1961, there's nothing
• 31:30
  but failure in both sides. NASA, NASA in 1958 was formed
• 31:34
  NASA and, and the Americans can't even get a payload off the
• 31:37
  deck. They can't get an unmanned probe
• 31:40
  into into the right orbit. The rocketry is far behind that
• 31:44
  of the Soviets. They're light years.
• 31:47
  Literally, if you want to look at in terms of The Big Bang
• 31:49
  theory, they're light years behind the Soviets.
• 31:51
  So there's no possibility that they close the gap between 61
• 31:55
  and 69. You just look at rocketry and
• 31:57
  technology. There's no possibility unless
• 31:59
  something magical happened. But in in in 1961, I think what
• 32:04
  happened was that the Cold War becomes very political.
• 32:07
  The Americans get involved in Vietnam.
• 32:09
  Kennedy is is getting involved with with NASA, the CIA is
• 32:12
  involved and Kennedy's told in early 1961 that the Americans
• 32:16
  can be the first in space. Now space is is completely I'll
• 32:20
  defined. So the official declaration of
• 32:23
  space is above 62 miles, something called a karma online.
• 32:26
  And above that the atmosphere changes and becomes less dense.
• 32:30
  And you can get it, you can you can go past that level and you
• 32:34
  can head towards or group which is 200 miles.
• 32:36
  So the state of narrative says 62 miles above is declared to be
• 32:39
  space. I don't know why it is because
• 32:42
  the the atmosphere is 1000 miles and and also he's supposedly so
• 32:46
  why is 62 miles? So it's very arbitrary.
• 32:49
  And even the 200 mile dimmercation into orbit is also
• 32:53
  pretty, pretty arbitrary when you look at the evidence of of
• 32:56
  what Daguerrein said he did, which he didn't do, but also the
• 32:59
  ISS. So anyway, so the, the Soviets
• 33:04
  probably heard that the Americans were going to do a
• 33:05
  Capricorn 1, which is a great movie that everyone should
• 33:08
  should watch. Capricorn one goes through how a
• 33:13
  journey to Mars could be faked. So it might be appropriate since
• 33:17
  Musk said that last year that in 2026 he's going to Mars with,
• 33:21
  with a Starship, which has never gotten off the off the pad.
• 33:24
  It's blown up five times and has never had any success
• 33:26
  whatsoever. So that he said this year he'd
• 33:28
  go to Mars. So let's see what happens with,
• 33:30
  with, with Musk. But they could, they could
• 33:32
  easily fake it with deep fake AI as well.
• 33:34
  So what, what the Soviets find out in in early 61 is I think
• 33:39
  the Americans are going to do a Capricorn 1.
• 33:42
  And so the Americans had three Top Gun studs.
• 33:45
  And these guys were Navy pilots and they were, they were
• 33:48
  intelligent, physically fit and extraordinarily experienced.
• 33:52
  So they had Shepherd, they had Grissom and they had John Glenn.
• 33:56
  Grissom was the most senior. These guys all had 567-8000
• 34:00
  hours of jet pilot experience. I mean they they they, they knew
• 34:05
  what they were doing and why is that important?
• 34:08
  You cannot possibly satisfy mission in a capsule unless you
• 34:13
  understand G forces, how to act under G forces, how to act under
• 34:17
  extraordinary speed and stress. And that's what these guys,
• 34:20
  three guys demonstrated. They could fly jets at Mach
• 34:24
  speed, Mach 5, etcetera, at high speeds.
• 34:26
  They could manoeuvre it, they could, they could take it, they
• 34:28
  could manipulate it, articulate the plane, etcetera.
• 34:31
  And they understood G force. They understood going from 1G in
• 34:34
  our chair TO567-G, which is 567 times your body weight, which is
• 34:39
  like having something coming down on you like a tonne of
• 34:41
  bricks. It, it, it must be frightening.
• 34:43
  It must be terrifying. You need thousands of hours of
• 34:45
  training for that. So you can do the simulator
• 34:47
  training, which they did, but you, you need real experience.
• 34:50
  So these guys were serious. Now, I don't think the three of
• 34:53
  them went up and did their flights.
• 34:55
  I don't, I don't believe there's no evidence for that, but at
• 34:57
  least you could imagine that these are the right types of
• 35:00
  pilots right now. Let's go to the Soviets.
• 35:03
  So, so they have this guy Gagarin, OK, they call him, you
• 35:06
  know, the peasant who fought the fascists, but nobody can tell
• 35:09
  you what he did against the Nazis.
• 35:10
  No, no clue. So he, he arrives almost out of
• 35:14
  nowhere in, in late 1960 or so. He arrives on the scene.
• 35:19
  Nobody knows who the heck he is. So and, and suddenly in April
• 35:23
  1961, he's the centre of attention.
• 35:25
  So I went through and I researched, I tried to find out,
• 35:28
  even using Soviet information sources could find out almost
• 35:31
  nothing about this guy. OK, He was somewhat handsome.
• 35:35
  I call him a fat faced peasant because that's what I think he
• 35:37
  reminds me of. But he was a useful prop and he
• 35:41
  was put there for a reason. Because the Soviets knew that
• 35:43
  the Americans were going to do a Capricorn one sometime in the
• 35:46
  spring of 1961 and say they're the first men in space, whatever
• 35:49
  space needs. And it's all nonsense anyways.
• 35:52
  But that's what that. But in the context of the Cold
• 35:54
  War context of national prestige, technological
• 35:57
  excellence, we are our system is better than their system.
• 36:00
  We're going to win this guys. Camaraderie, enthusiasm for the
• 36:04
  cause of people waving their flags.
• 36:06
  The space race was extremely important.
• 36:09
  So the Soviets in their failing economy, their failing state,
• 36:13
  their bankrupt in 196566. So before that, five years
• 36:18
  before that, you can see the writing on the wall.
• 36:20
  So they need to do something to generate enthusiasm and a
• 36:24
  commitment to the Soviet cause. So Gagarin shows up out of
• 36:28
  nowhere. So I can, I went through and I,
• 36:30
  I found maybe I could maybe claim that he had 250 hours of
• 36:34
  pilot experience, 250 hours in total.
• 36:37
  Somebody like you and me, Jeremy, going to the local
• 36:39
  airfield somewhere in South of England or South Africa and
• 36:43
  saying, OK, I want to sign up to be a pilot.
• 36:45
  Let's start the training, boys. You, you don't go from zero to
• 36:48
  two, you know, in 250 hours flying a jet plane, do you?
• 36:51
  No, no chance. So I don't know how many hours
• 36:54
  he had in a jet plane. You can't find it.
• 36:55
  I'm guessing a couple of dozen, maybe they maybe maybe he was so
• 36:59
  smart and so clever that he had 100 hours.
• 37:01
  He danced very quickly. There's no evidence he was
• 37:03
  smart. In fact, he's quite stupid, as
• 37:05
  we'll talk about in a second. But I don't know where this guy
• 37:09
  comes. He's in the Soviet Red Air Force
• 37:12
  and he he's chosen for Vostok 1, the April 12th flight, which
• 37:17
  comes almost out of nowhere as well.
• 37:18
  So before Gagarin, there's failures in the Soviet
• 37:23
  programme, there's miss launches, there's capsules
• 37:26
  blowing up, same problems the Americans are having.
• 37:28
  There's no unmanned flights to speak of that are credible, say
• 37:33
  up to 200 miles. So a normal person would say,
• 37:35
  OK, you're putting a guy up there.
• 37:37
  Can you show me the telemetric and physical proofs that you did
• 37:41
  an unmanned flight? You know you did a it's called a
• 37:45
  drone flight, remote controlled capsule flight unmanned to that
• 37:50
  2200 miles. Can you show it to me?
• 37:51
  Of course there isn't any. Can you show me the telemetry
• 37:54
  and the simulations you guys did for X number of years or months
• 37:58
  to get him ready in April 1961 to do this feat?
• 38:02
  Can you show it to me please? Of course there's nothing.
• 38:04
  Can you show me how the analogue systems work, please?
• 38:07
  The communications and what people here don't understand in
• 38:10
  today's world is the difference, massive difference in analogue.
• 38:13
  It's not even computing. It's analogue hard wired circus
• 38:16
  versus what we take take for granted to be computer operating
• 38:20
  systems and real time software and real time data analysis that
• 38:23
  that it's like, it's like comparing the Lada to a
• 38:27
  Maserati. I mean, it's just there's no
• 38:29
  comparison. So you want to know about the
• 38:31
  analogue. So analogue communications, how
• 38:34
  would that work in reality? So there's all sorts of
• 38:38
  questions you have. So you want to know how did you
• 38:40
  prepare this guy? Show me all the proof that he
• 38:42
  was ready to go in April 1961. Of course he wasn't.
• 38:46
  So that their, their Top Gun equivalent of Shepherd is a guy
• 38:48
  called Aleutian. And he had thousands of hours of
• 38:53
  experience. He was a jet fighter pilot and
• 38:55
  he was credible. He's smart.
• 38:57
  He was well versed in the technology, understood the
• 39:00
  technology, understood his plane.
• 39:02
  Pilots probably have a relationship to the plane, much
• 39:05
  like, you know, a tradesman has a relationship with his tools,
• 39:08
  right? You get to know, you feel, you
• 39:09
  feel the plane, you feel the tools.
• 39:11
  That's why you're good with the tools.
• 39:13
  So they had some symbiotic relationship.
• 39:14
  Usually Gagarin didn't have any of that.
• 39:16
  There's no evidence whatsoever Gagarin even knew how the
• 39:18
  capsule worked. So illusion's a serious guy.
• 39:22
  So he goes up on April 7th, 5 days before crashes in China.
• 39:29
  So where are they? Where are they taking off from?
• 39:31
  Kazakhstan. Let's pull out a map and have a
• 39:32
  look. Oh, Kazakhstan here.
• 39:34
  China here. So he did one of these.
• 39:37
  He did. He did the parabola up and down.
• 39:39
  Something went wrong, he crash landed, and who knows how high
• 39:42
  he went up? Nobody knows.
• 39:43
  But only through his skills as a pilot was he able to survive.
• 39:47
  An amateur like Gagarin would have died, would likely have
• 39:50
  died. The probability of his dying
• 39:52
  would have been great. So this is the best they have.
• 39:56
  You can't even get better. You can't even really go more
• 39:58
  than two or 300 miles. You look at it a distance,
• 40:01
  threshold, distance. So there's something wrong.
• 40:04
  He's in the same capsule evolution, same technology.
• 40:08
  Five days later, Gagarin goes up.
• 40:11
  Leaves Kazakhstan, goes over Soviet Russia, Kamchatka, he
• 40:16
  goes past Alaska, down the Pacific, does the left hand turn
• 40:19
  at the bottom of South America, up to the Atlantic, Africa and
• 40:22
  over the Middle East back to Saratov where he was trained as
• 40:27
  a parachutist. So he went back to where he
• 40:30
  trained so that that that's their story, that's their flight
• 40:34
  path. So it's impossible.
• 40:37
  So mathematically it's impossible.
• 40:38
  So you can just do probability theory, right?
• 40:41
  You can look at three things. You could look at 200 because of
• 40:44
  the complexity of what they're doing, the complexity of
• 40:46
  manoeuvring these craft going up at, at the G force, they have
• 40:50
  to, they have to angle the craft.
• 40:52
  They're constantly doing something on the angling and
• 40:55
  they have to then spin at a certain height above 60 miles,
• 40:58
  they spin the craft around. So it's fat bottomed first with
• 41:01
  the heat shield going through the atmosphere out into orbit.
• 41:05
  Then he spins it around again, fat bottom down in the fat
• 41:08
  bottom, when he comes down over over the Soviet Union, the fat
• 41:12
  bottom has to be the heat shield coming down.
• 41:15
  These are very, very difficult manoeuvres for an amateur.
• 41:18
  So on my sub stack I go through all the manoeuvres they have to
• 41:21
  make. There's no possibility in
• 41:22
  amateurs making these. You have to worry about so much.
• 41:25
  You have retro rockets, parachutes, you have telemetry
• 41:28
  communications, you have warning signals, you have stuff flashing
• 41:30
  in the capsule. You have to react.
• 41:32
  You're going at AG force that would crush the average person.
• 41:35
  You're going at a phenomenal speed.
• 41:36
  Never before. Never before simulated.
• 41:39
  He's going at 17,500 miles an hour.
• 41:41
  When he hits a 200 mile altitude, there's no simulation
• 41:44
  before 61 of any human withstanding that speed at all
• 41:48
  anywhere. But yet the first time it's
• 41:50
  tried, it's OK. Yeah, we did it.
• 41:53
  Fat bottom first. I threw into orbit.
• 41:54
  No problems, guys. 17,000 miles an hour.
• 41:57
  An amateur. So if you look at probability
• 42:00
  theory, you look at who the guy was, you look at the failures.
• 42:04
  So it's called Bayesian theory. So I take the events before the
• 42:07
  event I'm actually assessing for probability.
• 42:10
  So I say, OK, something happened that's related to my probability
• 42:13
  theory assessment before. So that's called Bayesian
• 42:15
  theory. I'm going to add those events.
• 42:18
  So the Soviets before Gagarin had a 90% failure rate, 90
• 42:22
  percent failure. So I look at the guy, I look at
• 42:25
  the failure rate, and then the Canary in the coal mine.
• 42:28
  Sorry, the Canary in the coal mine is the landing.
• 42:36
  Do you think it's possible they're going to land right next
• 42:38
  to where you parachuted trained? Is that Even so that's the
• 42:41
  Canary, right? You can start with that.
• 42:43
  So three factors that put into your probability analysis.
• 42:47
  What's the probability of his experience being enough?
• 42:49
  What's the probability impact of the 90% failure rate?
• 42:52
  What's the probability that he would land near his landing zone
• 42:55
  in Ceratov at, at circumnavigating the Earth
• 42:59
  24,900 miles at 17,500 miles an hour, 220 miles in altitude with
• 43:04
  the most complicated possible manoeuvring, which I listed
• 43:06
  myself Stack I, I try to describe it in simple terms.
• 43:08
  But if you just go through the landing, it's quite, it's, it's
• 43:10
  amazing that they could land at anything.
• 43:12
  So the probability theory when you go through it is one in 10
• 43:15
  million. So you can play the numbers all
• 43:18
  day long. This is 3 factors probability
• 43:20
  theories. You don't.
• 43:21
  You don't need a PhD. You don't need to open physics
• 43:22
  or rocketry or any of that stuff.
• 43:24
  You pull out your calculator, you can go through the entire
• 43:27
  flight. Now, I've not included the
• 43:29
  Rockets, the fuel, the technology, the analogue
• 43:31
  communications, the all the other factors involved in
• 43:34
  hardware and software in that analysis.
• 43:36
  If you were to add up all the components and all the
• 43:38
  milestones on a supposed circumnavigation, everything has
• 43:42
  to be perfect. The only way you go to Mars from
• 43:44
  Earth or to the Moon from Earth or do the Gagarin is if every
• 43:48
  single part of milestone component is 99.99% resilience.
• 43:53
  And that is not happening because I can go, yeah, go
• 43:56
  ahead. But.
• 43:57
  Ferdinand We all know it was real because Nixon phone called
• 44:02
  them on the moon. Oh yeah, yeah, It was the magic
• 44:05
  analogue. So analogue communication.
• 44:06
  That's a that's a beautiful 1, So magic green phone.
• 44:10
  And I don't know if it's photoshopped or not, but I've
• 44:11
  seen Nixon talking on the phone like this very casually with no
• 44:14
  delays and latency. And on the background there's a
• 44:17
  picture of the moon. Now I don't know if that's been
• 44:19
  photoshopped in or if some if some conspiracy theorist has
• 44:23
  added that apparently. Apparently that photograph came
• 44:26
  from prior missions. OK, so maybe it's after, but the
• 44:31
  Apollo 11 landing there, there's communications there, right?
• 44:34
  So, so maybe who knows what that what that pictures about, But
• 44:38
  the analogue communications is impossible because the analogue
• 44:41
  signal will never carry that far.
• 44:43
  So if you look at Gagarin, then take his flight, so the Nassau
• 44:46
  fanboys and the Gagarin fanboys will say he was trapped.
• 44:50
  He was trapped. He was trapped.
• 44:52
  You're not tracking anything. Let's go back to what radar is.
• 44:56
  So the people, you know what radar is.
• 44:57
  So in this country in 1961 in the UK as an example, in the UK
• 45:02
  there's 50 or 60 radar stations. Why so many?
• 45:05
  Well, they're limited terrestrially to 90.
• 45:08
  Maybe the 1969 World War 2 was 90 miles terrestrial limit.
• 45:11
  By 1961, depending on the upgrades and so on, you might
• 45:15
  get out to 150. So what does it mean?
• 45:17
  I have a spoke but no hub. I'm a radar station on the East
• 45:22
  Coast of England. I'm looking towards Holland.
• 45:24
  OK, I'm all I'm doing is sending out a radio beam at a frequency
• 45:28
  in the sky. I'm just sending it out and it
• 45:30
  hits. Something comes back, It's very
• 45:32
  weak and this is the red dot. So it hits my antenna.
• 45:35
  I do some translation and the processing logic, it pops up on
• 45:38
  my screen. It's a red dot.
• 45:39
  I have no idea what it is. It could be a Soviet bomber, It
• 45:42
  could be a miniature badger flying a suit camp.
• 45:45
  They don't know what it is, so there's no real time
• 45:48
  communications here. And so I keep setting up the
• 45:50
  beam and then I track it. So I have to phone somebody.
• 45:54
  I tell Central Command I got something on my radar.
• 45:57
  I have no idea what it is. We need to send up some planes,
• 45:59
  guys, and find out. That's the reality of 1961.
• 46:02
  There's a limit trust related to radar.
• 46:04
  There's a limit 12 to 15 miles in altitude.
• 46:07
  The Soviet bombers flew at 15 miles or so in altitude trying
• 46:10
  to avoid the radar. So look at an analogue signal.
• 46:13
  It's casting a radio beam from 200 miles in the atmosphere.
• 46:16
  You have to go through the the atmosphere, the medium.
• 46:18
  There's going to be distortions, refractions.
• 46:20
  By the time it gets down to 100 miles to the Earth, there's
• 46:22
  nothing left. You would not be able to
• 46:24
  recognise that signal from radio static in the background.
• 46:27
  That's just a simple analogue fact.
• 46:29
  So you're not doing anything with analogue.
• 46:31
  And if you look at Guerin's flight path, Kazakhstan, you
• 46:34
  know, doing the Pacific, the left turn and all that stuff
• 46:36
  over the Atlantic, which would never happened, that would take
• 46:40
  skills that this guy did not possess.
• 46:44
  There's no radar stations there. There's no way to track it.
• 46:47
  There's no way to track what he where he went.
• 46:48
  So when the fanboys say tracking what did, what are they talking
• 46:51
  about? They're talking about the 10
• 46:53
  minutes of communication in the middle of the flight that's
• 46:56
  prerecorded and broadcast from the terrestrial tower near
• 46:59
  Moscow. And that's picked up by whoever
• 47:03
  the US military, perhaps NATO, perhaps whatever.
• 47:06
  Somebody picks it up and they they don't know what it is.
• 47:10
  They're just assuming it's a valid that's coming from a
• 47:13
  capsule 200 miles up with an analogue signal which will never
• 47:17
  reach down to Earth. And that they accepted at face
• 47:19
  value. Now, they could do that for many
• 47:21
  reasons, but there's no proof on A that there's A.
• 47:24
  There's no proof whatsoever that that signal can be independently
• 47:27
  verified. There never was.
• 47:29
  And there's just no logical proof that he was tracked
• 47:32
  anywhere, because there's no way.
• 47:33
  There's no global tracking system.
• 47:35
  There's no Eye of Sauron in 1961, fixated on Gagarin's
• 47:40
  capsule and doing one of the, you know, wherever he went, the
• 47:42
  Eye of Sauron was falling. It doesn't exist.
• 47:44
  There's no way the central location near Moscow can
• 47:47
  possibly receive analogue beams or communications from something
• 47:51
  200 miles in the atmosphere. In 1961, the analogue circuits
• 47:56
  were not powerful enough. The analogue signals aren't
• 47:59
  powerful enough. The the chance of that
• 48:00
  happening, I did a probability is, is I think it was 5, 110
• 48:05
  thousand or something at 1%. I mean it, it, it's irrelevant.
• 48:09
  And that's also true of the communications.
• 48:11
  There's no such thing as analogue communications to the
• 48:13
  moon or analogue communications from a terrestrial site to
• 48:16
  something like a Gagarin capsule.
• 48:18
  It doesn't work with analogue. You need digital.
• 48:22
  So now, yes, I would believe if they're doing it now.
• 48:24
  But yeah, digital, of course, we have real time operating
• 48:26
  systems, we have real time software.
• 48:28
  We do have rudimentary global tracking systems.
• 48:32
  I mean, there's gaps in them, but we do have them.
• 48:34
  We do have ballistic and optical radar, which can go out 20,000
• 48:39
  miles into space. So yeah, I can buy it, guys, but
• 48:42
  not 196115 miles was the limit. And they're using analogue who
• 48:47
  believes this. So it was. 9 Hold on, hold on.
• 48:50
  But it was 1969 though, wasn't it?
• 48:52
  Yeah, 60. 9's the same thing. So there there's there's some
• 48:55
  improvements in radar and analogue communication.
• 48:57
  But in 61, what I'm saying is Nassau claims that in 61 they
• 49:02
  tracked Garen, but they didn't because it's a 10 minute
• 49:05
  broadcast from a terrestrial tower in in Moscow 1969.
• 49:09
  There's no possibility that the green analogue phone in
• 49:11
  Washington can't possibly process sound communications or
• 49:14
  signals to the moon. It's impositors.
• 49:17
  There's actually no way of doing it.
• 49:18
  You have to have an analogue to wireless trans translation and
• 49:21
  communication, which didn't exist.
• 49:23
  So the NASA and the fanboys come back with the S transponder, the
• 49:28
  magic device that made it all possible.
• 49:30
  OK, I'll show it to me. I like to use it.
• 49:32
  Oh, no, no, no, no. It's at the Smithsonian.
• 49:35
  OK, You go there and have a look at it.
• 49:36
  It's on display. So you want to use it yourself
• 49:39
  to prove it. I would love to do that.
• 49:40
  Who wouldn't? But they won't let you have it
• 49:42
  because it didn't exist. It was in their minds,
• 49:44
  imagination. You cannot have analogue
• 49:47
  communications with a wireless transmitter on the moon.
• 49:50
  There's no proof that it happened.
• 49:52
  You'd have to again, simulate that on this planet.
• 49:55
  Where's the proof that anyone could call a remote landing, say
• 50:01
  in the desert somewhere from a wireless transmitter or from an
• 50:04
  analogue phone to a wireless transmitter and prove that it
• 50:06
  works? That's what they would have
• 50:07
  done. You would have asked for the
• 50:09
  test cases, given the test cases.
• 50:10
  Guys, show it to me on this planet.
• 50:11
  How'd you do it? Fascinating.
• 50:13
  Oh, the S device. That's fascinating stuff.
• 50:15
  Well done. You could at least prove it and
• 50:17
  convince yourself what happened. There's no proof of it.
• 50:19
  And as Bart said, there's no latency.
• 50:21
  It's almost as if they're talking, you know, from room to
• 50:25
  room. And, and, and again, it's a
• 50:27
  simulation because you can tell by the voices.
• 50:29
  You can tell by the way they act that they're just acting.
• 50:31
  It's a simulation. So there's no, there's no
• 50:34
  reality to it. And I think the, the, the body,
• 50:37
  he talked with Bart about this, the body language after the,
• 50:40
  after the 69 Apollo flight. You know, Armstrong is totally
• 50:44
  confused. He's looking at teleprompter and
• 50:46
  I don't know, he's, he's not the maybe the brightest guy in the
• 50:48
  world. He can't get his answer
• 50:49
  straight. So he's asked a very simple
• 50:50
  question. And did you see stars?
• 50:53
  So if I went to the moon, I'd be I, I'd be talking for an hour
• 50:56
  about it. I saw exactly this and this and
• 50:59
  this time we did that. We did that telemetry and that
• 51:01
  radiation reading and over here I saw the even you always shut
• 51:04
  me out. This guy says no.
• 51:05
  He says, I don't recall. I know on the moon I was taking
• 51:08
  pictures of the solar corona. Now NASA's own data says that if
• 51:12
  you took the the emulsion film analogue again, back to
• 51:17
  analogue. And the problem with analogue in
• 51:18
  terms of communications, it's based on based on a vacuum, a
• 51:21
  sealed vacuum. You can't track real time
• 51:23
  signals with a vacuum. It doesn't work.
• 51:25
  That's what we need digital. So with an analogue camera,
• 51:27
  emulsion based film, carbon based film, NASA says if you
• 51:31
  point that at the sun and take a picture, it destroys the camera.
• 51:33
  That's what they said. So here we have Armstrong St
• 51:37
  Neil, the strong arm, saying that he pointed that the son was
• 51:40
  taking pictures. Well, there's no pictures of the
• 51:42
  solar corona. None are available.
• 51:44
  So yeah, that's what he said he was doing.
• 51:46
  But also apparently they used some sort of hassle blood camera
• 51:49
  or whatever, but how the hell did they actually hold the
• 51:51
  camera and take photos with those gloves?
• 51:54
  No, it's, it's a chest. It's not on the chest.
• 51:57
  So this is the other fraud. This is why.
• 51:59
  And it drives the fanboys crazy. So there's that idiot photo of,
• 52:02
  of, of Oliver doing this, but it so there's the lunar module, US
• 52:06
  flag and Aldrin doing one of these, saluting it.
• 52:08
  Very famous photo, the iconic Apollo 11 photo taken by
• 52:11
  Armstrong. The camera's on his chest.
• 52:13
  OK, if you look at the photo, the camera is not situated on
• 52:16
  his chest and it's perfectly framed.
• 52:19
  Decibel's taken in a studio. Now you can imagine you're on
• 52:21
  the moon, you got the fat gloves, you got the motion
• 52:24
  camera. You're terrified, right?
• 52:26
  You've been travelling 24,000 miles an hour for at least 1012
• 52:30
  hours. Okay, you've you've done the
• 52:32
  impossible. You somehow got yourself the
• 52:34
  lunar module deported and decamped from the the main
• 52:37
  capsule. You've done the impossible.
• 52:38
  You've landed somehow with this this homeless shelter and you're
• 52:42
  taking a picture. I would have believed it more if
• 52:44
  the picture was awry and unsteady like you and I take
• 52:47
  like, I'd be like, you know, it's not going to be a perfectly
• 52:50
  well framed picture with everything nicely symmetrical
• 52:53
  and arranged. It's impossible.
• 52:55
  And if you look at the reverse photo they have of that same
• 52:57
  shot again, going back to lights and shadows and the waving flag,
• 53:03
  it's different. So they, they've taken two shots
• 53:07
  of Aldrin doing this with the waving flag from two different
• 53:09
  angles. They're, they're mirror opposite
• 53:12
  to each other. But if you look at the shadows
• 53:14
  and lighting and the arrangement, they're not mirror
• 53:17
  opposites. They're different.
• 53:19
  So they've taken them at different times and it doesn't
• 53:22
  make any sense when you look at what what they say they did.
• 53:24
  They took a couple of snaps and and these snaps were were done
• 53:28
  within a certain period of time. That's not what you see.
• 53:31
  You see framed photos that are very carefully stage managed and
• 53:35
  they made a mistake doing that. The waving flag is obviously
• 53:39
  from the the simulator, which is what it was with a fan.
• 53:44
  The simulators would have had fans to cool off the engines or
• 53:46
  it's from a fan in the in the studio.
• 53:48
  And in this case, Cannon Air Force Base.
• 53:50
  So what Bart mentioned to you is is correct.
• 53:52
  There's lots of evidence that in June of 68, they shot the Cannon
• 53:56
  Air Force Base over a period of a week or two.
• 53:59
  They had Lyndon B Johnson and other dignitaries there visiting
• 54:02
  looking at the film production. And there's lots of evidence he
• 54:06
  did that. But what what people don't say,
• 54:08
  well, they don't marry, marry. That too is the Langley,
• 54:11
  Virginia simulation data. So Bart told you that the
• 54:15
  control room would just get data.
• 54:16
  We know what it was. It's very easy to do in IT.
• 54:19
  We do it all the time, do it every day, every week.
• 54:21
  We hook 2 networks together. I control the data source, I
• 54:24
  control the data. I send it over the network
• 54:26
  connection I made. I control.
• 54:28
  You're the front end, you're the control room.
• 54:30
  I'll send you the data. You don't know what I'm sending
• 54:33
  you. You don't have a clue.
• 54:34
  And you can see that in the simulations that NASA and
• 54:39
  European Space Agency have made for the ISS, but also for
• 54:44
  training in space. These simulations are are
• 54:47
  incredible. I mean, you don't know what
• 54:49
  you're looking at. You could be a part of the
• 54:51
  simulation and actually think you're going to the ISS, for
• 54:53
  instance, or you're going to the moon.
• 54:54
  They're that good. So if I feed you data, whether
• 54:58
  it's a tracking signal or whether it's some telemetric
• 55:02
  information on flight progress, everything from heart rates to
• 55:07
  to, you know, what the speed, whatever it is we're doing, the
• 55:10
  telemetry, you don't know what you're looking at.
• 55:12
  And then you marry that to the film.
• 55:14
  It does. It's not that difficult to see
• 55:16
  how they did it. And it wouldn't take that much
• 55:18
  time and money to be honest with you.
• 55:19
  You had 250 billion budget, 250 billion.
• 55:23
  So you assume that because it's the CIA in NASA, half of its
• 55:26
  money laundered. So they have 100 billion or so
• 55:28
  left. You can do a lot with 100
• 55:29
  billion. Since 1961, they've had 1.5
• 55:33
  trillion pumped into the space programmes in the United States.
• 55:36
  He had in the Russian, Chinese, Canadian, European, Japanese,
• 55:40
  Indian, whatever. You're probably looking at in
• 55:42
  the Soviets as well. You're probably looking at a
• 55:44
  total investment since 1960. I don't know, 4 trillion U.S.
• 55:47
  dollars, What can you do with 4 trillion?
• 55:49
  So the simulations they have are phenomenal and the data points
• 55:53
  are being fed to you so that the tracking fanboys, they, they
• 55:56
  don't understand radar, they don't understand analogue
• 55:58
  communications, which means the tracking was impossible in 69
• 56:01
  and in 61. They don't understand that NASA
• 56:03
  admitted in 69 that they cloaked the signals because of the
• 56:06
  Soviets. Might, might be up to something.
• 56:08
  The Soviets have never claimed to track Apollo.
• 56:10
  That's simply a lie. They've never done that.
• 56:11
  They've always denied tracking Apollo.
• 56:13
  They they were paid billions of dollars.
• 56:15
  That's the other thing that people don't understand.
• 56:17
  The Cold War race was actually in some ways of cooperation.
• 56:21
  The Soviets were given billions by the Americans in the 1960s to
• 56:24
  say solvent because right in 65 they're, they're bankrupt.
• 56:28
  And so they got ransom money from France and West Germany
• 56:31
  paid by the US. the US gave them some money probably to be quiet
• 56:33
  about the Apollo programme. And the Soviets were able to
• 56:36
  stagger on and survive for a little bit longer.
• 56:38
  It's good for business because Nassau now is fully funded and
• 56:41
  Nassau, you know, 1.5 trillion since the 1960s.
• 56:44
  It's a lot of money and you can imagine all the vested
• 56:47
  interests, the military complex, the contractors, the senators,
• 56:50
  the politicians, the fake news media, the fake science
• 56:53
  journals, they're all a part of it.
• 56:54
  They're all getting paid off, Elon.
• 56:58
  Oh, SpaceX. So I've not spent that much time
• 57:01
  looking at SpaceX. I did do some posts on my sub
• 57:04
  stack. SpaceX is a real company.
• 57:07
  There's a lot of problems with what they're showing us and
• 57:08
  telling us. Again, you're into video and
• 57:11
  image fraud. A lot of the imagery in space,
• 57:14
  from space. He sent a car, do you remember
• 57:16
  that? Sorry, he sent a.
• 57:19
  Car to space, do you remember that?
• 57:23
  Oh yeah, so the Tesla, that's a classic.
• 57:25
  So fanboys also get wound up about that, don't they?
• 57:27
  So they said this court convertible and, and there's, I
• 57:31
  don't know, it's, it's just bizarre.
• 57:33
  But apparently they have cameras attached to the chassis in the
• 57:37
  frame from different angles and they proved that there is space
• 57:41
  and the difference in the background.
• 57:43
  The there, there's one shot that I put in my sub stack where it
• 57:47
  must be the world's longest selfie.
• 57:48
  I mean, it's, it's a camera, I don't know, 50 feet or something
• 57:52
  looking back on the car. But the earth in the background,
• 57:55
  there's all sorts of problems with the earth in the background
• 57:57
  looks different than other shots you see from SpaceX or from the
• 58:00
  ISS. And this is the problem.
• 58:03
  And again, the fanboys go crazy right with with the but the
• 58:06
  images don't add up. If you go back to John Glenn in
• 58:08
  62, his his iconic shot of of the Earth from supposedly 187
• 58:14
  miles in L2, I don't think Glen went there.
• 58:16
  I think it was a Capricorn one. It looks totally different than
• 58:18
  what you see today. The SpaceX stuff, sometimes when
• 58:22
  they land or when they dock rather the ISS, they open up the
• 58:26
  portals from the portholes and light streams in.
• 58:30
  Well, I'm told that space is dark.
• 58:32
  Then the fanboys have a whole bunch of stuff where they say,
• 58:34
  well, you know that we we can explain it this way.
• 58:36
  But if space is mockly diffuse and you're telling me that the
• 58:41
  Starlight is blocked, the Starlight is blocked out by the
• 58:44
  solar radiation which is permeating everything and and
• 58:47
  therefore at some distance it gives blackness.
• 58:49
  I should see the blackness anyways, regardless of whether I
• 58:52
  have a camera or not. But you don't.
• 58:53
  You see a lot of light at times, but other times you see
• 58:56
  darkness. So the space walks, it's all
• 58:58
  dark. But if I was to pull open the
• 59:01
  porthole of the SpaceX and do a spacewalk, what would I see?
• 59:05
  Would I see light or would I see darkness?
• 59:06
  So when you talked about this, they get very upset, very angry.
• 59:09
  So there's, there's discontinuities in the
• 59:11
  narrative. It does.
• 59:12
  I don't know what they're up to, but the image is there's,
• 59:14
  there's a, a video of a SpaceX launch where there's a, a mouse
• 59:18
  running around in the fuselage and that same, different
• 59:21
  launches. You see, you have two cameras
• 59:23
  mounted on, on fuselage taking pictures of the earth, but the
• 59:26
  earth looks different and very strange.
• 59:28
  And at some point in time they become switched.
• 59:31
  So the image is kind of reversed.
• 59:33
  You don't know what's going on. Did did something happen with,
• 59:35
  with, with the, with the rocket? Did the rocket kind of flip
• 59:37
  around or it's it's very strange.
• 59:40
  So they're doing something SpaceX, but there's no chance of
• 59:43
  going to Mars. As Muscat said, there's no
• 59:45
  chance of even going to the moon.
• 59:46
  So I don't know about the Artemis programme.
• 59:48
  Go ahead. So.
• 59:49
  Yeah. So we we kind of coming in for a
• 59:52
  landing, if you'll excuse the pun, but what do you think
• 59:55
  happened on the day in 1969? I mean, there was a rocket that
• 1:00:00
  went up. I think so Barton on his his
• 1:00:05
  website, he's mentioned this as well.
• 1:00:06
  He's got the window, the earth and window trick.
• 1:00:09
  So and they do it today. So you see with Blue Origins
• 1:00:11
  flights, which are the last Blue Origin flight in April is
• 1:00:14
  fraudulent as well last year. So yes, the rocket goes up, but
• 1:00:18
  there's AI don't know how long the countdown was exactly was
• 1:00:22
  over 3 hours. So I know what Alan Shepard in
• 1:00:24
  61 had three hours and 50 minutes between supposedly going
• 1:00:28
  into the capsule and, and, you know, on the rocket and then
• 1:00:31
  taking off. It's I, I don't know why it's
• 1:00:33
  such a long countdown. I have no idea.
• 1:00:34
  But OK, there's the fact the fanboys will be able to discuss
• 1:00:37
  in detail, but there's a three hour or so window.
• 1:00:40
  So yeah, the, the rocket goes up, the capsule's there.
• 1:00:43
  You might have seen them go in plus Capricorn 1.
• 1:00:45
  The movie says they also might have gone back out.
• 1:00:48
  And so how difficult would it be to fake that?
• 1:00:50
  So if you look at where Shepherd land, teen land in the Bahamas,
• 1:00:52
  300 miles away, he could be there in 45 minutes.
• 1:00:56
  The sea, sea, sea, military sea plant.
• 1:00:59
  So what happened to the boys in the Apollo?
• 1:01:01
  Well, they have all sorts of time because they're not coming
• 1:01:03
  back for, you know, a couple of days, right, the Apollo 11.
• 1:01:06
  So lots of time to get them over to the Pacific.
• 1:01:08
  They're over to Hawaii and you could drop them from another
• 1:01:12
  military sea plant, which. So more specifically, could that
• 1:01:17
  rocket then simply have just gone into orbit and that's that
• 1:01:20
  or do you think that actually? You've crashed land in the
• 1:01:24
  ocean. So if all 13 they found, they
• 1:01:27
  found the the Soviets found debris in the Bay of Biscay.
• 1:01:30
  So you can definitely find the rocket.
• 1:01:31
  You can crash it somewhere. You can you can send it into
• 1:01:33
  space, whatever. And then the the key is Langley.
• 1:01:36
  So the key is Langley married to the film that can't Air Force.
• 1:01:39
  The Langley simulates everything.
• 1:01:41
  I I mean everything so that the he could do everything in
• 1:01:45
  Langley. So you don't they they just
• 1:01:48
  prerecorded everything so before.
• 1:01:51
  So. So what about the Artemis that's
• 1:01:53
  about to launch? I haven't even looked at the the
• 1:01:56
  Artemis, the the technology is different.
• 1:01:58
  The technology is is far different than the 1960s.
• 1:02:01
  I've not even looked at it. Yeah.
• 1:02:03
  Well, well, well, the the claim is that they're going to go to
• 1:02:06
  the moon, go around the moon and come back.
• 1:02:09
  That's a claim. Who knows?
• 1:02:10
  I can't have a deep fake AI have no idea.
• 1:02:12
  So the the the question I would ask is show me where you've
• 1:02:15
  tested beyond 400 miles in altitude.
• 1:02:18
  Show me where So Polaris in 2024 supposedly went 870 miles.
• 1:02:21
  It's fraud. SpaceX that's it's a complete
• 1:02:23
  fraud to joke that one. So they they can't prove they've
• 1:02:26
  got about 400. So you want the telemetry.
• 1:02:28
  So if you're going to the moon 250,000 miles, you're doing the
• 1:02:30
  Magellan. Where did you go incrementally?
• 1:02:33
  That's what they have to prove. They have to prove they went
• 1:02:35
  incrementally. Did all the testing, all the
• 1:02:37
  radiation through the Van Allen radiation belts, which nobody
• 1:02:40
  even knows really because we've never been through there. 30,000
• 1:02:43
  miles in, in width, 60,000 miles in width.
• 1:02:46
  Radiation levels are 10,000 times what they are on this
• 1:02:49
  planet. Nobody knows you've never been
• 1:02:50
  there. So they they're trying to do
• 1:02:52
  telemetry on that. So you want to have all this
• 1:02:54
  information before you can claim you went to, did a fly by in the
• 1:02:58
  mood. I want to know all the steps
• 1:02:59
  that prepared you for that journey and and before you went
• 1:03:02
  into production for you went live.
• 1:03:05
  Show me your testing. Show me your test environments.
• 1:03:07
  That's what they have to prove and they never do it.
• 1:03:10
  If you ask for this information, you don't have any.
• 1:03:12
  They say it's top secret. So Trump very conveniently
• 1:03:16
  classified NASA as a spy agency last year.
• 1:03:19
  So if you're to ask NASA for this information, they'll say,
• 1:03:21
  well, we're a spy agency here. It's a national security Chung,
• 1:03:24
  they can't share it with you. Isn't that convenient?
• 1:03:27
  See, we don't know. So.
• 1:03:30
  Basically no evidence. You have.
• 1:03:32
  To just trust what they tell you.
• 1:03:34
  That's that. And this, this goes back to
• 1:03:36
  philosophy and scientism. People who believe in the moon
• 1:03:38
  landings trust government. People who put a diaper on their
• 1:03:41
  face and stabbed their arms, shoulders of poisons from a
• 1:03:44
  criminal industry trusted the science trust government.
• 1:03:48
  They're just indoctrinated. So people who look at the
• 1:03:50
  Artemis programme and whatever imagery they produce, it'll take
• 1:03:55
  a long time to digest it, right? It's going to take a long time
• 1:03:57
  to look at it and analyse it. Could take it will take years.
• 1:04:01
  So they'll immediately trust it. They'll be on the fake news,
• 1:04:03
  they'll be broadcast everywhere. The back to the moon will be the
• 1:04:07
  headlines and all that stuff. We'll soon be walking.
• 1:04:10
  And so Musk in 2017 promised that by 2018 there'd be a moon
• 1:04:14
  bus, but the Walmart, the US class wearing the Walmart jeans
• 1:04:18
  would be wandering around the moon doing some tourism.
• 1:04:20
  He said that would happen in 2018.
• 1:04:21
  You're going to hear the same thing again, moon tourism.
• 1:04:25
  You'd be playing golf and driving Jeeps around like they
• 1:04:27
  did during the Apollo programme and maybe the Trump Tower and
• 1:04:31
  Tranquilly Bay, you know, having a having weekend out with your,
• 1:04:34
  with your better half. This is what they're going to
• 1:04:36
  promote now. But we don't know what we're
• 1:04:38
  looking at here. We have no clue.
• 1:04:40
  Ferdinand, how can my audience follow your work?
• 1:04:44
  So I'm on top stack. So I have that it's it's
• 1:04:48
  unstabinated, so UNSTABBINATED unstabinated dot subsac.com.
• 1:04:57
  It tells you that I didn't take the corona stabs unstabenated.
• 1:05:01
  I'm still alive. I was promised a winter of
• 1:05:02
  death. Apparently didn't you know it
• 1:05:04
  didn't happen still waiting for it.
• 1:05:05
  By the way, I was told not to go out and exercise and ran almost
• 1:05:09
  every day. So you know still healthy, still
• 1:05:11
  doing well. Unstabenated is really almost a
• 1:05:13
  philosophical point with me, and that tells me everything I need
• 1:05:16
  to know about a person really does.
• 1:05:17
  If you if you believe in the Chronoscam demic, then you and I
• 1:05:21
  are probably not going to be pressed because you have a
• 1:05:23
  different world view than I do. And it's just not.
• 1:05:26
  The twain will never meet. Doctor Ferdinand Santos, thank
• 1:05:30
  you for joining me in the trenches.
• 1:05:32
  Thanks, Jeremy. I really appreciate it and it
• 1:05:33
  was fun. Thank you very much.