None, yeah. So I have actually quite a very background actually started off in in the music industry. So I have quite a background in music. And then I went into the healthcare industry and I, I really didn't like it. I didn't like the direction that it was going. So I actually did a, if I can say this, I did a career change in my 30s and got into aviation. And initially when I got involved in aviation, it was just because I had a love of flying and I just wanted to get
a private pilot's license. But from there it went, I went even further and I ended up getting a commercial license. And then I added, you know, various ratings like a multi engine rating and instrument rating, all of what you need for the airlines. I knew at that time I wasn't going to get into the airlines because I'd already was at that point was too old to get into the airlines.
They like the airlines. They like to hire people in their mid 20s because they get their investment back over over their career. So because they have to invest a lot of money in training them, but still you need the fundamental trainings before you can get into to aviations. But that didn't mean aviation wasn't close to me. There was lots of other options like Bush flying, cargo flying, commuters. I chose instructing and so I added an instructor rating and I started teaching.
So I did a lot of ground school teaching as well as teaching in the air. And I went from there and I did a little bit of charter flying. Eventually I ended up well, several years and I finally retired, you know, I, I figured I was getting close to retirement age anyway.
So, so it was from there you see the connection to see Paul Moon missions and to aviation for me was always close and I always wanted to be. I was really inspired at the time when Apollo 11 launched and then landed on the moon. I was very young at the time and I remember vividly watching this in class. You know, we were all heard it down to the gymnasium to watch this little black and white snowy TV. We watched the launch and it was that point I actually had a love for aviation.
I knew I was never going to be an astronaut, nor did I want to be, but the next best thing for me was aviation. And so that's just kind of connection there. So that's how I got involved in in aviation. Then of course, from aviation, it LED into a lot of research. It wasn't until about 20 years later after I started flying when I realized that something wasn't right with the Apollo missions. And then I just went from there.
And, and I just want to make it very clear to my audience that I don't pretend to be an expert in any of these subjects. I'm not a, an aerospace engineer, but you don't need to be because a lot of these engineers that started off in the 60s when it came to involving themselves in space missions, they were starting from scratch as well.
I'm not comparing myself to them, but what I'm saying is, is that aviation gave me sort of a leg up on what to expect and, and, and the, the impetus to investigate further. But I, I, I must say that most people can investigate this from themselves and it takes a little bit of common sense. And there's, there's, you know, there's some technical stuff to get involved in, but most people are capable of it if they put their mind to it. So what made you suspicious of
the Apollo missions? Yes, very good question. So that happened back in the mid to late 1990s actually I had I just a routine day for me. I came home one day from work and switched on the TV just happened to switch on A&E for. For those of yous that are that are as old as I am, you realize that in the new back there was. So just just to point out, there was no point. There was no time at which I came home and turned on the TVI wasn't even born.
You didn't even matter. Yeah, no Internet back then, folks. Sorry to depress you all, but it was, it was the dark Ages, let's put it that way. But AME was actually a really good network back then, not like it is now. It actually they had some fairly decent documentaries and they just happened to be running a documentary the night I come home from work on the Apollo 13
mission. Now, for those of you out there, I'm sure most of your audience will be aware that Apollo 13 had experienced, according to an official narrative, they had experienced an incident, a very serious incident on the way to the moon. We can get into that later. But I remember that that really that whole episode was the first time it really got me thinking about something's not right here. Something's not right about
these missions. Because there was a segment in a documentary, they were interviewing all of the three astronauts on board that were on board Apollo 13. And I remember the commander, Apollo 13, Jim Lovell, he was talking about how he had to, what they had to do is they had, I won't get into the technical, technical part of this, but they
had to fire the engines. And while they were firing the engine, they had to keep the, the earth within the grid pattern, you know, so they were doing visual. And that was what really did it for me. And it's really made me question because I was thinking, wait a minute, this person is about 3/4 the distance from, well, they were about 1/4 ways back to Earth when he had swung around
the dark side of the moon part. And they were using the gravity assist to because they didn't have full powerful engines. And again, there's a lot of technical stuff to get involved here, but I'll just give you the basic outline. And I remember him saying that and he was paraphrasing himself. And he said, OK, I turned to so and so. And I said, whatever you do, when I fire the engines, keep the Earth within a grid, a grid pattern on the window.
And he was actually talking about the optics, which is used for star sightings and navigation. And that it really hit me because he was talking about using visual clues, visual clues to navigate from the moon back to the Earth. That's impossible. I know from flying. From my own experience, using visual clues is all right when you're very close to the ground and you have a lot of landmarks to to navigate by. And even then you can be off course.
I mean, you could be a degree off course and an hour later you're 1020 miles off course. I haven't got that exactly correct, but that's basic, that basic outline. And I was thinking, wow, you're using visual to navigate back to the Earth from the moon and you're just like a 0.1° off course. You're going to be thousands of miles off course. You're going to be marooned in elliptical orbit around the Earth and the moon for eternity. So that's what really got my attention.
And that from there, I kind of let it go at that point. But I I went back and I revisited and I realized by investigating further and researching Apollo 13 that the whole scenario was just absolutely impossible from start to finish. It was absolute impossible scenario. If it actually had happened, the whole service module and command module will have exploded. The astronauts would have been killed instantly. Randy, why do you think then that so many people believe the
story? You know, I believed it for a long time. Like I said, I was, I was in grade school and I saw it live when Apollo 11 launched. It was at that time for me, it was an inspiring moment, as it was for millions of other people. And it wasn't just that, it was the fact that, you know, we're part of a race of explorers. We're very inspired by that kind of thing. As I said earlier, motivated me
to get into aviation. But also there was, there was, it was deeper in that German. It was much deeper than that. It, it, it had to do with you develop an emotional attachment to this, to this historic event. And you, you, you know, as especially as children, you're very, you're very impressionable. So you're going to idolize these people. I idolize these people well into my 20s and 30s. I never dared to question it. And I think it really has to do an answer to your question.
I really do think that you, you can sort of think about it intellectually and say, yeah, I got some problems with it, but but in your heart, you can't let go of it emotionally. And I think that's one of the fundamental problems. Yeah. So what you're saying is that people want to believe it? Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. I have, I have heard people come back and me, I get emails all the time.
Most of the emails I want to say are, are very, are very good and very, very supportive of my work. And, and, but I, I sometimes I'll get an e-mail and it's not nasty, but they'll question me and say, well, yeah, you're right. There's some things that are not on the up and up with this, but I still believe they went and I know exactly where they're coming from. They they actually, I think I've actually had one reader say I need to believe. The only people that know the
truth is NASA. Yeah, NASA has a very interesting history. There was a space agency before NASA. They didn't really. They didn't spend much of any time on activities in space in terms of all man to man missions. And the name of that space agency escapes me at the moment.
It's really not important. What's important is when NASA came into being now NASA was brought into being by Eisenhower in 1958. He started because at that point they were starting to to think it was actually before Kennedy. They're actually starting to think about on man to man missions to the moon, believe it or not. So, and that was really the start of it.
It wasn't until, of course, 1961, after Eisenhower and enacted legislation to bring in NASA, that all the technology from the Air Force and military was moved over under that department, which is still being supervised by the military. But it was, you know, NASA was put forward as a civilian space agency, you know, and that, again, is just to please the public. But it was anything but a
civilian space agency. It was a civilian space based agency on paper, but certainly will not when it came to practice. So that was really the beginning of it. And I think NASA was brought into being for many things. I think it was more of a psyops than anything else. I really, you know, I, I don't want to be too harsh when it comes to on man missions. There seems to be quite a bit of evidence that they've been able
to achieve that. But I really do believe the full purpose of NASA's existence is #1 psyops in terms of manned missions. And when you get down to it, now, what I'm about to say, I just want your viewers to understand. I, I, I, my books hard to talk about this. I have one chapter on it. I get into the technical aspects of why the Apollo missions were impossible, could not have happened. I'm talking about manned missions specifically, not on
manned missions. But I've come to the conclusion now that NASA is the cult agency. And when you look deeper at that, you will see the evidence of a cult symbology all over NASA, all over their symbiology. What they do, how they do it, how they say it, their press conferences, it's there for all to see. You just need to open your eyes and look for it.
It's also quite interesting and we won't get into the the history of World War 2, but the Allies were very big on demonizing the Nazis and guess who became one of their chief scientists? Yeah, so isn't that the irony? So back in 19 for a lot, a lot of your views, you'll probably notice. But for those who don't, after World War 2, both the Americans and Soviet Unions basically infiltrated the scientific establishment in Germany and they both took their share of scientists back to their
respective countries. One of the one of the operations that was involved, it was called Operation Paper Clip. And this was from this was brought into being from the the precursor to the CIAI think it was the OSS. And they brought over several, well actually many, I think a couple of thousand German scientists specifically to work
on their space programme. This is of course before NASA was even brought into being and one of them particularly who became very famous in terms of being involved in the Apollo missions was a a Nazi by the name of Wernen von Braun.
Now for those of you out there, many of again, I'm sure you know this, but those who don't, Wernen von Braun was the architect and the builder and used thousands of PO WS as slaves to build AV2 rocket that terrorized London during World War 2. So here you have the American government working with a Nazi who was notorious for terrorizing London and killed a lot of British citizens with his V2 rocket. He's the one but directly and
was responsible. He was the architect and the builder of the Saturn 5 that was used to land missions on the Moon. So he was, he was the head scientist. He was not the head silences of NASA, but of his department. Yes. He was the architect and a head scientist when it came to developing the Saturn 5, which was necessary to launch the hardware for an Apollo moon landing. Yes. The irony.
Yeah, you. So, OK, so, so then you have you have this, this interesting back story of NASA almost, almost as if it was theatrical to some degree. Yeah. When Who was it that announced the Apollo mission? Was it it? Was it JFK? Yeah. So actually, as I mentioned earlier, it was a couple years before it wasn't really mentioned public, but NASA were talking about that amongst themselves and officials were
talking about that. But it was JFK who in 1961 I believe, in a speech to the United Nations, who declared that the America was going to send a man to the moon and of course safely return him to the Earth by the end of this decade, which would be 1969. And now when he made that announcement, and it's important to realise this, the Soviets already had a orbited the Earth in the manned mission.
They already had a full orbit with Gary, his name, excuse me, but Gagarin, yeah, Gagarin's his last name. But at that time when Kennedy made the announcement, NASA's experience in space in terms of MAD missions was 115 minutes orb sub orbital flight. They didn't even make orbit. So on that basis alone, Kennedy had made that announcement that they were going to go from a 15 minute suborbital flight in 1961 to landing a manned mission in 1969.
Now it doesn't take a leap of faith to understand the technological challenges just in that alone, let alone like just getting to just getting to perfection just in terms of manned missions in low Earth orbital, let alone to the moon landing there and then blasting off in the moon and coming back. So all that based on a 15 minute suborbital flight. And at that time NASA did not have aerospace engineers per SE. They they were not in existence because it wasn't even, it
wasn't really taken seriously. So they had to take engineers from the aviation industry come over and they had to kind of learn all these. They had to delve into the theory, develop the tools and so on and so forth. There was a lot involved here. Why do you think JFK did that? Was it a spur of the moment sort of Cold War type strategic comment or did you Did you think he genuinely believed it?
You know, I, I'm actually researching JFK now for a book and the more I researched JFKII see him, I saw him or some rather, I see that he was a, he was a highly intelligent man. There was no doubt about that. He, he was definitely intelligent, but he was inexperienced. And he had just at that time he was recovering from a disaster when he was involved in the Bay of Pigs in Cuba and he was
trying to recover from that. And I think in part he might have had delusions are grandeur that they actually probably honestly thought because there is some evidence that, you know, there's some there is some recording some conversations between him and NASA administrator time talking about the possibility of a man landing. And they're trying to convince Kennedy that just it's impossible. It's not going to happen. This is NASA saying this, right? And Kennedy said, yeah, it is
going to happen. We're going to make sure it happens. We're going to give you the resources. So I, I think initially he, he might have believed it. I think later on he changed his mind and he realized that he'd gotten himself into something he needed to get himself out of. I have a feeling that probably everybody working on that project at the time realized it was never going to happen by 1969 or ever.
No. And again, and I, as I said at the beginning of this, of this show, you know, you don't need to be an aerospace engineer to make that determination. You just need to look at it. Look at and NASA actually contradicts itself. I've, I've come to many contradictions about NASA in terms of manned space missions, in terms of the elements of space. They're always constantly contradicting themselves.
And then what they do is, is when they send an on man, for example, the Orion program they sent up a couple of years ago, it was on manned and they classified all that information. And I'm asking to myself, why would you classify information that we supposedly have known for the last 50 plus years, right? So there's a lot of this contradiction that comes out. And I, I believe now at the very, yes, at the very beginning, NASA knew this wasn't
going to happen. Take me back to those early days of the attempt to start preparing for it. I mean, that's people love to talk about the actual moon landing itself, but something that you talk a lot about is the preparation process. Yeah, so you're talking I think before you're talking about the pre Apollo missions if I'm not mistaken? Yes. And leading up to it, yes. Yeah, So the pre Apollo missions
were on man missions. They sent out a series of on man missions between I'd say I believe it was between 196162 to 65 and it was, it started off as a disaster. The the on man missions. They just had breakdown after breakdown after breakdown, failure after failure after failure. Then they send out the second set of on man missions. They have more success with
that. By the time they send out the third man missions, they were still had some success, but not as successful as the previous mission. Interesting how their on man missions start off as a disaster, got better and then we're sort of satisfactory. So we're not seeing a lot of progress here compared that to the Apollo missions, man missions. It just seems to be the arrow that the chart seems to go up and you know, not a fly anywhere.
So, and we're talking about more complicated missions, but the the pre Apollo missions were basically, I believe, designed to survey the moon as much as possible to get as much detail as possible to use that to build replicas of where the Apollo missions would supposedly land to build replicas here on Earth. So I believe that was the sole purpose of the the pre Apollo
missions. Now it also they had new Mercury program, man program Mercury which carried one astronaut and they also had a Gemini program which carried 2 astronauts. Really I don't see a lot of contributions from those two programs to towards the Apollo missions. If you study the Mercury and Apollo, the Gemini programs thoroughly, you realise that there wasn't really a lot done in order to prepare for the Paulo missions. So again, I believe it was for show.
I'm going to give NASA at this point the benefit of the doubt that the Mercury and the Gemini missions were real, but I'm now starting to have my doubts on that as well. Why? Because there's a lot of information coming out now, you know, in terms of the photos and film and a lot of the still shots that were taken during the Gemini missions have turned out to be staged. And NASA's excuse for that, This is what we wanted, better quality pictures, photos for the public.
But, you know, we really did go, but we wanted, you know, to to show the public. We just want the public to have quality photos. And that's an expertise that I leave up to others. Marcus Allen, for one, who's a photographic expert, He talks a lot about that. I haven't delved into that a lot, but enough to know that, well, if you're faking photos, what else are you faking? Yeah, but I love it when when you talk to people who who say, oh, you know what? I don't trust the state.
I don't trust the government. All right, well, what about the moon landings? No, no, no. Definitely. I trust what they did there. I mean, I trust what they say. Yeah, yeah, interesting again, isn't it? And I get that a lot. I get that in emails, I get that in comments on my videos that yeah, well, OK, there's this and this and this. But we, and you're right about the government, I don't trust the government, but we went and that's it. But they never present any evidence.
That's that's the thing, right? It's very difficult though, because we only have NASA's information to go by, isn't it? Yeah, well, we have NASA's information to go by. But again, like I asked people, you know, that NASA is involved
in the occult. Why would you believe any agency that that that delves so deeply into the occult And and that in and of itself should raise a red flag, But every but with many people, and I think it is now, to be fair, there's a lot of people that are genuinely starting to question it. But you know that just that fact alone. I mean, why? And that's the biggest question and nobody seems to have an answer for me on that. I always ask why are they so involved in the occult?
And they're there. We just saw the latest mission from Jeff Bezos. I mean, if that wasn't. That one with Katy, they're one of Katy Perry. Oh my goodness. I mean, the, the, the thing that came to my mind was Bezos harem. That's what I thought about, right? I mean, that's exactly what I thought about. And and the whole thing was a sex ritual, A cult sex ritual. All right, that's what that was.
And it it, it had absolutely. Even the mainstream media was forced to admit it had no benefit whatsoever in terms of contributing to the Manspace program. Randy, you're just a cynical Katy Perry would never lie about something like that. She is very genuine. She definitely went up there and came back and kissed the. Ground. I know, I know. And my apologies to Katy Perry. I'll buy your next album. I actually. Almost missed a joke right
there. She kissed the ground, and she liked it. Yeah, well, it's not what the, it's not what the Pope does. I mean, isn't it a couple of things, a ritual? I mean, if you, if you, if you really want to get into it and not now, but for, for the, for the viewer out there, just look into NASA, the occult, the Vatican, you'll the Illuminati. You'll see the connections. It's there. It's there. They do exactly what the Vatican does.
It's all a ritual. OK, let's go back to the Apollo missions, Randy. Apollo 11. Why 11? What happened up until that point? So you mean it in terms of why did they launch the first mission on the to land on moon, Apollo 11? Is that what you're asking? Yeah. I mean like what happened between 1:00 and and and 10 including 10. Yeah. So that's a very interesting and deeply disturbing topic because so one in 10 doesn't one in two and three and four, I believe don't even exist.
NASA came up with this numerology and that was all brought into into being because of the disaster of Apollo 1. Now Apollo 1 was supposed to be the the crew rather of Apollo 1 was supposed to be the first mission to land on the moon that
ended in tragedy. Apollo 1 was the commander of Apollo 1 was Gus Grissom. Now, Gus Grissom was a very outspoken opponent of the Apollo missions, and this is really interesting because he was talking out against the Apollo missions while he was actually in the Apollo program, and he was doing that off script. So there was one incident during a live press conference where Gus Grissom from the Apollo, Apollo 1 commander, Gus Grissom had hung a lemon on the Apollo
command module. I don't know if it was a similar or not, but it was matters and symbolic of what he was doing. And the message was, is that the Apollo command module is a lemon and we're not going anywhere. And it was two weeks after that a tragedy struck while Gus Grissom and his crew were doing a simulated launch on Apollo 1. And this, by the way, wasn't the Saturn 5 launch. It was supposed to be a Saturn 1B launch, which is far less powerful rocket.
They had sealed the capsule and they were doing a full launch simulation and that cabin at that time was pressurized to 100% pure oxygen. All right. And that's toxic. That's toxic, Yeah. And a spark occurred and disaster struck. And the astronauts that inside was, was caught fire and they were basically incinerated alive. Apparently they claimed they couldn't get the astronauts out
in time. This is where it gets even more disturbing because now you've got the Apollo 1 disaster, Gus Grissom and his his, his crew were killed. And now you have the aviation, the quality control for, for the corporation that built the command module, the quality control inspector, North American aviation quality control Inspector Thomas Baron had come forward to Congress and he had submitted, actually, he actually submitted 2 reports.
He submitted A50 page report, a preliminary report on the disaster of the Apollo 1 fire. And then he submitted A500 page report. He testified for Congress for a couple of hours and he was talking about everything that he'd been trying to warn NASA about in terms of its, you know, its launch capabilities and the safety aspect of sending astronauts through and especially in the Apollo command modules. Bottom line was that this thing
is not, is not flight worthy. It's just not flight worthy. And he talked about a lot of the things that led up to the disaster. But what's disturbing is, is that a lot of what he was saying was ignored up until the disaster happened. And then two weeks after he testified before Congress, he was killed. I think it was a week later he was killed along with his wife and child in a railroad crossing, you know, and his 500 page report to Congress disappeared.
So it wasn't an accident. You know, I, I when, when I say it wasn't an accident, people accuse me of calling NASA murders. But what other conclusion can you come to? How convenient is it? Just a lot of averages? How convenient it was. Is it a coincidence that three astronauts are killed in Apollo 1 because Gus Grissom was speaking out? By the way, Gus Grissom's son is a 747 captain. He himself believes his father was killed. It's not just me saying this right to shut him up.
And Thomas Byrne 2 weeks later after that disaster and his wife and child are killed in a railroad crossing. Are you kidding me? You know, so you have to. You people are free to draw their own conclusions. But that's pretty strong evidence, I mean, to say the least. And what happened after that? I mean with the with the following Apollo numbers. Yeah, Oh, it gets crazy. So then they come up with. So they designated that Apollo one in honour of the fallen
crew, right, The fallen crew. And then they come up with 2-3 and four, which made no sense to me. And then they come up with a course I LED into sorry, two and three, which really wasn't a mission to say the least. It was actually Apollo 4 which was the real the first on launch on manned mission of the Saturn 5 S 45678910 up to 11. Using what did you say, the Saturn 5? Yeah, so the first launch of Saturn 5 was Apollo 4. So Apollo 4 was to test out the vehicle.
So they were testing out an unmanned launch of the Saturn 5. So that was the first launch. Apollo 5 was a Saturn 1B launch. It wasn't a Saturn 5 launch, right, But the next Apollo 6 was the second launch of an unmanned Saturn five. It was on that basis alone that they went straight. And then of course, Apollo 7 was another Apollo 1B launch, was not a Saturn 5 launch, and that was for low Earth orbit flight
only. And then Apollo 8 was the 1st manned launch of the Saturn 5. And I'm going to go back because I want to talk about this a little further, but I just want to get this out. Apollo 8 was the first on manned launch of a Saturn 5 and it was also, sorry, the first manned launch of a Saturn 5. And it was also the first manned mission to leave low Earth orbit and circumnavigate the moon and
back. So that was the significance of Apollo 8. So I want to hold it there for a second because we go into 9/10/11, we're going to get a little tongue tied here, so let's go back. So I said that they went straight from Apollo 6 to Apollo 8. So you have Apollo 4 and Apollo 6, which are two on men launches of the Saturn 5 straight through to Apollo 8, which was the third launch, but this time a manned launch of a Saturn five. OK.
What's significant about this is, is that Apollo 4, the Apollo 4 unmanned launch, which shows that they had the ability to launch a rocket without a crew on board. OK, so it was automated. So they had Apollo 4 was supposed to be a flawless launch, so the mission was supposed to be flawless, so they they get that full part. But Apollo 6 was a near disaster.
So they had major problems with the F1 engines in the second launch of the Saturn 5. And what was happening is that the F1 engines were misfiring and that misfiring and that uneven thrust was creating what is called a Pogo effect, and that was sending a serious vibration wave through the longitudinal axis of the rocket. If there had been a crew on board that rocket, they would have either had to abort or they would have been killed. NASA claims. This is not me saying this, this is NASA.
NASA claims that they fixed that problem with the F1 engines. They sorted out all of the problems with the second launch of the Saturn 5 and went straight to the third launch of the Saturn Five with a crew on board without any further testing, static or in flight testing of those engines after disaster near disaster for Apollo 6. That seems reckless. Very reckless. I mean, would you get on an airplane from an aviation company that did that? No, of course not.
I wouldn't even get in a car that did that from a manufacturer that that did that. So they basically and by the way, the timeline was about 7 or 8 months later. So from Apollo 6, the near disaster on man mission, the Apollo 6, you would have thought they would send up another on manned mission of the Saturn 5 to test the systems. Now people have come back and argue with me that while those engines are are are not reusable, of course they're not
reusable. What I'm talking about is consistency in data and they had no consistency in data and they put they flagrantly they were flagrant with in terms of their safety protocols. They're all safety protocols and put a crew on board a Saturn V rocket which was Apollo 8-8 months after the near disaster of Apollo 6, the second unmanned launch of a Saturn V without any further testing. And just to be clear, this was all headed up by Werner von Braun. Yes, it was.
It headed up by Vernon von Braun, and there's some evidence now that is trickling out there. Vernon von Braun wasn't happy. What was going on with the program? He was, you know, there was, there's many, several different methods that they were working on at that time in terms of Earth rendezvous, lunar rendezvous, so on and so forth. It's a lot of technical stuff to get into.
But, and I describe it thoroughly in my book, I mean, we'll have the time to get into it here, but Vernon Braun, Braun at that point was not, yes, he was not happy with where the program, but that by that time Vernon Braun knew they weren't going anywhere anyway. Yeah. I mean, I just want to pause there for a second, Randy, and just think about the human element. All right. So you have this government agency, which is NASA pushing ahead with what was obviously a
non a non profit type project. I mean, this doesn't make any money. This is just burning cash for what for what to to to to beat the Soviets at at at the space race effectively. I don't I don't know. I mean, I don't know what what the end goal was and you have all this disaster and catastrophe happening along the way. Do you think that there were a lot of people within the program looking at this and just going this is not happening? Yes, yes, I do. And I've read reports about that.
I know that there has. There were some early reports. In fact, I think there was a poll done right after the Apollo moon landing, Apollo 11, the first landing. And quite a percentage of Americans at that time did not believe that NASA had landed men on the moon. So, and it's interesting that those poll, those, those poll numbers have gone down in action. In actuality, they've actually gone up, right?
So there was a lot of people. I mean, I think the thing to remember too is, is that NASA, by that time, the American government was mired in a lot of problems. I mean, they were still recovering from the JFK assassination. They had a Vietnam War ongoing at the same time they had, you know, the Cold War. Yeah. And the Cold War is a bit of a
ruse. I, I, I think it's a red herring because the Cold War is not really what it was made out to be. I really strongly believe now that NASA and the Russian space agency at that time were working very closely together behind the scenes. A lot of it was just theatre for the public. That's interesting. Tell me more. Well, that gets into Apollo 13. So a very interesting incident happened on Apollo 13. It's not just the explosion that supposedly happened on the way to space.
So Apollo 13 was launched on April 11th. And now we're going to get into some dates and some very interesting numbers here too. So, but let me just give you the gist of it here. So Apollo 13 was launched on April 11th, but the day before Apollo, April 10th, there was the Russian, a Soviet nuclear class submarine lurking off the coast of South Africa. Sorry North Africa.
And the reason why it was lurking off the coast of North Africa is because when an Apollo mission launched from Cape Canaveral in Florida, it's flight path is would generally take it over the Atlantic Ocean from Florida, Cape Canaveral to roughly around the coast of North Africa. And that's also the Atlantic Ocean where it would be their
abort. And what's interesting is, is that so you have this Russian nuclear power submarine lurking off the coast of North Africa. Why was that happening #2 Now you have the Apollo 11. Sorry. The Apollo 13 launched on April 11th number October 12th. A lot of people don't know this, sorry. The next day, April 12th, the Russians picked up a command module out of the Atlantic Ocean. Yes, interesting. And this is all on record and this is all proven. There's no conspiracy theory,
folks. You can actually look this up and and search for yourself. NASA admits to this, right? And then of course, on the same day, on April 12th, the US military and U.S. media announced that the Russian sub sank on the 12th. And then the 13th you had the so-called Apollo 13 accident on the way to the moon. So the question is what was a Russian sub doing there?
And there's evidence now that the Russians were there to to track the abort of Apollo 13, which splashed down in the Atlantic Ocean of the North Coast of Africa. And then a Soviet trawler came to pick it up and brought it back. Now for those of you right now who are listening to this and saying no, you can't be right
about this. Yes, I am right about this because the US S Wind picked up a command module from the Russian military port of Mansk five months later in September of 1970. And there's photos of that. You can search it online, you can Google it. The USS S Wind Coast Guard cutter picked up an Apollo that was officially handed over from the Soviets to the Americans and it was brought back on that ship. And there's lots of photos. I put the photos in my book.
You can go on Google and photos and you can check the photos for yourself. So the question is why did that happen? So we're told that Apollo 13 went to the moon and back a near disaster, and they miraculously made it back and splashed down. They lived happily ever after, that's what we're told. But where did the other Apollo
man come module come from? Well, NASA claims now that the Apollo command module that they found the next day in the Atlantic Ocean after the launch of Apollo 13 was a boilerplate, a boilerplate designation 1227. And a boilerplate for you, all of you out there, is just the dummy command module that was used to practice on, right? But the markings of the boilerplate don't match the markings of other boilerplate command modules. The markings were changed.
There they were. They were hastily changed to make it look like a boilerplate. So this now gets into a little bit of speculation, OK? Everything else up until this point I've told you is absolutely true. All right, You can check that out for yourselves. But now gets into speculation why while I believe and there's a couple of theories out there, but one of the theories is, is that NASA purposely aborted Apollo 13. There was no crew on board purpose purposely Apollo 13.
So as the Russians would pick it up, so they would have physical, physical apparatus to work with because they were planning for their Apollo Soyuz mission several years later in 1975. At that time, the the Russians and the Americans were exchanging officials back and forth because they were talking about a joint Soviet American mission in 1975, which turned out to be the the Apollo Soyuz program. But they couldn't, they, they weren't able to get their hands on it. It could not.
Americans could not be seen handing over one of their, you know, prized possessions, their brand new technology, the Apollo command module to the Russians. So they had to find a way to deliver that Apollo command module to the Russians so as they can work out the docking apparatus that would be necessary for their joint venture in 1975, which is
another occult mission, right? Where you have famously, you have the Russians and the Americans docking in low Earth orbit and then they're shaking hands, right? So I believe that that is, that's one scenario. That's what I believe. The other scenario is that the Apollo crew had to make. There wasn't a crew on board for whatever reason that they had to make. They had to abort. And it was the Atlantic Ocean, by the way, was designated ABCDNE so that there was an
abort sequence there. So they had to abort and were picked up by a Russian trawler. I don't believe that. I I think the first scenario is the most probable. Why did the Soviets just suddenly stop the entire program when the US won? I mean, they were leading. They were leading every step of the way, supposedly. Yeah. And I mean, others have done some really good work on this. Some of my community have done
some work on this. And one of them had pointed out the fact that the Russians were, there was an agreement between the Russians and the Americans between from the very beginning, like around 19601961, maybe even further back. And they had agreed that the Russians would be the first in space. So they would be the first at everything. So they had the first satellite, they had the first manned mission, they had the first two manned mission. They had the first 3 manned
mission. They put the first woman in space. They, they, they, they were the first to dock 2 spacecraft in low Earth orbit in space, so on and so forth. And then after that they were to stand down and to the Americans would take over and excel and become number one in 1969 by landing a man mission on the moon. Now the last pro, the last Soviet mission to the moon was an on man mission that can carry, I believe it can carry 2 astronauts.
It was their ZON mission, and they put a lot of mammals on board, a few mammals on board, and they sent that to the moon and back. And what they did was they recorded the data to see how radiation would affect the mammals on board. And they said the mammals all survived. Well, if people just do a little bit of biology research, you'll find that tortoises can stand thousands of times more radiation than humans. So I mean, that kind of just blows their their.
But if it's interesting though, a very interesting thing happened there when and the guy can't substantiate this part. So, and this is just this is rumour, but I put it in the book because I thought it was fascinating. Apparently when the Russians descend their zoned their zoned manned spacecraft to the moon and back when they opened the Hatch, what they saw horrified them and there was supposed to be an astronaut on board. There wasn't an astronaut on board when they opened the Hatch.
This is the rumour and it was at that, but whatever the rumour is, that's when they stopped their man program in 1968. They stopped their Man Mission man program and he had a road they got. They basically passed the baton on to the Americans, which I think was all planned anyway. We often just focus on the rocket launch, but there were other things going on, like they were supposedly preparing the
moon landing sequence. And that's what I meant earlier when I was talking about where the Montbram, because there was different methods that they were looking at. Did you know, did you know that NASA actually considered, before they decided on the Apollo program, NASA all actually considered landing one man on the moon. They, they, they, they had determined at that point in 1962 or three that they knew how to get him there, but they didn't
know how to get him back. So what they plan on doing is, is sending him to the moon. And he had to stay there until they built, come up with the technology to build a rocket to go and pick him up. And while he was there, they would just send supplies that would keep him alive. Is anybody laughing about this? I mean, that was the most bizarre idea I have ever heard. Then they decided that they were going to build. Well, OK, we'll do a direct
mission, right? But in order to do a direct mission, that meant launching a rocket from the moon, that same rocket traveling through moon and landing. Or sorry, launching from Earth and landing on the moon. That rocket would have to be at least what, 3 or 4 times the size of the Saturn 5, maybe twice the size of the Empire State Building. So you're looking at a lot of bizarre ideas that NASA was coming up with.
And this was really upsetting Wernher von Braun because he really was a proponent of what is called a direct mission. He wanted to build a huge spaceship in lower Earth orbit. He said the only way to get there is to is to build an apparatus in lower Earth orbit and then launch the ship from lower Earth orbit. It'd be a lot more practical and feasible. And he was right. But in order to do that, you were probably looking at
equivalent in today's money. NASA spent about $300 billion in today's equivalency on their Apollo program. You probably have to just to build the apparatus alone in lower Earth orbit to fulfill an actual moon mission. Probably about $2 trillion in today's value just to get the apparatus that you need to put the rocket to put the spaceship together in lower Earth orbit, which is what Vernon von Braum is advocating. And then you remotely became.
If if you just think about it for 10 seconds, it's ridiculous. I'm I'm reminded of when Elon Musk supposedly launched a car into space. You remember that? Yeah, I mean just the just the, it's just the whole aerodynamics don't make sense. Yeah, no, none of it makes sense. And it's interesting how clear that photo is and you barely get a clear photo than anything else they send up there. Like I find it was really interesting they never point the camera on a rocket in a forward
direction. You always notice it's pointed backwards. Yes. And have you noticed too, with the ISS that it's constantly orbiting, of course, the Earth? That's what it does. But the cameras always pointed towards and then they never do a 360° panoramic view with the camera. I find that very interesting too. And I found that, well, CGI works wonders and Elon Musk has the resources. Right. So, Randy, we don't do conspiratorial thinking here, please. Yeah, yeah, I, I'm sorry, I, I
tend to regress sometimes. But look, I want to go quickly just back to what I was asking you about when I spoke about the moon landing process. Like for example, the actual, that actual pod, whatever you call it, what is it? The moon Lander, that thing? Yeah, they had to. The lunar Lander. Yeah, the lunar Lander, they had to test that thing on Earth, and I heard that people nearly died. Yeah. So they had built a version of that called the Lunar Lander Training Vehicle.
There was actually two types and they, they finally progressed to the, the second one, it was supposed to be a lot more closer in design in terms of the, the lunar Lander that was going to lunar module, which was going to be used to land on the moon. What's interesting about that lunar training vehicle on Earth is, is that the astronauts spent 90% of their time just trying to keep it in the air instead, as opposed to simulating, you know,
lunar gravity and landing. And, and actually Neil Armstrong has, I think he had combined a total of about two hours and 40 minutes. But when you consider that 90% of their time was spent just keeping it in the air and not practicing lunar procedures, that works out to about 20 minutes, Right. And interestingly enough, Buzz Aldrin, the second man to walk in the moon along with Neil Armstrong, he never even had any training on the lunar landing
training vehicle. What if in the scenario at a very crucial moment when the, let's say there are three, four, 500 feet from the lunar surface and for whatever reason Neil Armstrong becomes incapacitated. Neil Armstrong would sorry, Buzz Aldrin would have to have taken control and fly that lunar module down to, you know, a safe landing.
Now, people will argue that he had simulator training, but there's nothing the simulator training back then does not translate into what simulator training is today. You needed hands on experience as well as the limited simulator trainings that they had back in 1969. It just wasn't advanced enough to be proficient in terms of landing a vehicle not only anywhere on Earth, but on another planet, and they just didn't have that capability so. And you're going to get push back.
You're going to get push back. Moon is the moon is not a planet, or is it? Oh, yeah, sorry, folks out there, I don't get all the details right, but you know who does, right? One other thing I want to bring up about the lunar Lander, and this is very interesting. This is a very important part. The lunar Lander was never practised. Now when they went up with Apollo, they, they had, they practised near lunar Lander with Apollo 9 and that was a Saturn 5 launch, but that only was in low
Earth orbit. And then they supposedly with Apollo 10 put a crew on board the lunar Lander and it supposedly went to the moon and it descended to within 50,000 feet of the lunar surface and then aborted and came back. That was a practice run. So it was really two practice runs before the Apollo 11 landing. There was no, there was absolutely no attempt to land an on man lunar landing vehicle on the moon, which should have been
done. I mean, it, it, it just it boggles my mind that they had the technology that could have easily sent an on man mission to the moon because it sent an on man lunar module use that to land on the moon to test it out. That was never done. They just went straight to a manned mission that landed perfectly. Now one more point I want to add here. The lunar Lander itself was so fragile that it could not withstand its own weight in Earth's gravity.
They would collapse, right? So if there is any kind of mishap when they landed on the lunar surface, on the moon's surface, you're going to have a total destruction of the vehicle. To give you an example, the outer shell that covered the lunar module where the astronauts stood, they didn't even sit. They were standing the the walls of the lunar module had equivalent to three inches of kitchen foil.
A lunch box. Yeah, if you're sleeping, you can easily put your foot through it and then you're finished. That's a whole, that's a whole different episode. Yeah. Yeah, let's, let's stay on Earth. You've spoken, you've spoken or you've, you've mentioned the Saturn 5A lot and you've mentioned the F1 boosters a lot. Why are they significant? Yeah. So let's talk about the F1
engines again, just briefly. The F1 engines, for those who out there don't know, Saturn 5 rocket was a 3000 ton rocket that's equivalent to basically a military destroyer at at at sea. OK, that's a heavy rocket fully loaded with propellant. You needed the powerful F1 engines which were found in the first stage of the Saturn 5. You needed those powerful F1 engines. They are. They're according to NASA, they are the most powerful liquid
fueled engines ever built. You need that enormous power and there's never been anything like it since. And they work perfectly while they were in the missions, but they couldn't get them working afterwards. Sorry. Sorry, sorry, not even SpaceX.
SpaceX doesn't use anywhere near the equivalent of the of the no, it doesn't use anywhere near the power that was used in the F1 engines, nowhere near it. So SpaceX, I don't have all the specifications on SpaceX, but their engines will produce about 200 pounds, 200,000 lbs of thrust compared to 1F1 engine which would be £1.5 million of thrust. OK. And you have five of those engines for a total of £7.5 million of thrust.
You know, for those of you who watch, you could do the the metric conversion and you needed that to lift the 46 metric tons of Apollo hardware that was necessary to land a mission on the moon. So you needed that power. If you didn't have that full power capability, if one of those engines was the falter, just one, you're not going to get that payload into low Earth orbit, hence you don't have a moon landing. So it all starts with the F1 engines. But why is it significant?
Yeah. So Bill Casing was the first one to come out of that. For those of you out there, I'm sure you know, a lot of you watching this know that Bill Casing was the Pioneer. Bill Casing was, he worked for the for Rocketdyne, the corporation Rocketdyne who built the F1 engines for NASA back in 1958. That's when they were getting, that's when they were developing the F1 engines. Bill Casing was hired to record
data. People often countered that he was not an engineer, but he didn't need to be. He he read the data. If he was hired by Rocketdyne Corporation, he was obviously qualified to read the data. That's what they hired him for. And he noticed in over the several years that he was there that they were falsifying the data output for the F1 engines. They were not getting the power output they needed. And by that time he knew that they needed the F1 engines to launch an Apollo mission to the
moon. He resigned in 1962 or three in disgust of what he saw and then wasn't back. And then later on in 1977, he wrote his book about this. He was the first one. He was the pioneer, the first one to write a book about that, exposing what was really going on with the F1 engines. Now here's what's interesting about the F1 engines, and I want to emphasise this point. I said earlier that they produced each engine produced
£1.5 million of thrust. The military is on record of being able to produce 1,000,000 lbs of thrust, but they were only able to maintain it for a millisecond. They were not able to maintain it beyond that. And then in 1960 when they start launching the Apollo missions, you cannot verify the data that the Apollo missions are now that that NASA claims is true because NASA destroyed all the telemetry from the Saturn 5 rockets. So you can't verify any of that
data. Randy, I could go on for hours now with you, but I think this is just a taste of what's in your what's in your books, plural, I might add. OK, let's come in for, excuse the pun, let's come in for a landing. Where can I, where can I get your books and follow you for that matter? Yeah, so people can follow me on, have my own YouTube channel. Don't put a lot of work into it, but I do. I do occasionally put videos up on that. Randy Walsh Just put in Randy Walsh.
You can find me on Instagram as well and on Twitter. Randy Walsh. So I'm very easy to find. You can find all of my books. I have three of them actually, the Apollo missions, Hiding a hoax in Plain sight Part 1 and Part 2 is on Amazon. Now. Those two books I want to emphasize are nonfiction, reason for saying that, and they're written by me, nonfiction.
And I go into the technical aspect and why technically NASA could not ascend and with the technology and we have today, they cannot send a man mission to the moon. The third book is Apollo, the real mission and it's Co written by Robin Landry. So Robin Landry myself wrote a fiction book on the account because fishing gave us a chance to pull all our knowledge that we we have and we speculated on why. In the book we speculate why and
how they fake the missions. So that's all available on Amazon.com. Randy Walsh, thank you for joining me in the trenches. It was a pleasure term, I really enjoyed it. Thank you.