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