Probability theory debunks the moon landing — Ferdinand Santos | Jerm Warfare

0:30Dr. 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, U.S. time. Yeah, that's true. Yeah, it's interesting how they're proceeding with the, let's call it the narrative and trying to convince maybe themselves more than us that space can't be conquered. So just to quick run down my background, so I did, I did a view your video of Bart's reel 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

1:31back 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 one. So that's my background. That's how my framework of thinking and I've been educated in different countries and it's not that the education's 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's important. It's where I was telling James Dillingpool a couple of weeks ago, we did a podcast even though he and I had very different views on the shape of the planet in the universe. That is the framework of thinking. So you can apply critical thinking to the narrative and for me, I'll take IT for example, I build software. It's zero and one. It's yes or no. It works. It doesn't work. I tested it at Phil. That's what that's my worldview. So if someone says to me and I were opposed to my substock of what Yuri Gagarin and what

2:33I call the Gagarin gag or fraud in 1961, there's absolutely no evidence. He went anywhere. Now you can just you just analyze 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 maths. 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 true. So if you go back in history and go back to, I, on my substock, I take Einstein to the witch shed and there's nothing left to him, 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 talked about and understand quite well. I don't believe in viruses because I see no evidence exists. So when someone comes to me and I heard about corona from a guy in Wall Street in November

3:362019, 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. Okay, I know it's a fraud and ask him what is he says, there's something going to chime up 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 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, on a car accident. Everything in between was covered by the PCR test and other fraud. So I think the corona pandemic, which was, which was a CIA operation, obviously.

4:39So my view of a scientist is that there's always someone, there's always a power behind the throne of the science. 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 relatively big bang his base is wrong. And you could rip it apart, you don't need a PhD, you don't need anology degree, you need a calculator, common sense, understanding what they're doing and how they did it. And if you understand basic mass and understand basic physical sciences, you know that the equations are rock and you can prove the rock and you can prove the right answer, which is nothing to do with their answer. So this is what I've been doing for a long time. And in the context of space, I've been looking at space since what the 1990s. And this is where I ran into Barts to Breel 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 Hollywood, but it, and he comes out

5:40from a certain domain. So I might come at it from the personality or viewpoint of an IT or a 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 photographic fraud, Apollo 11, which is so obvious, I'm not, I don't know, but photography, I'm just 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. I think photography, but I know there's a backdrop there. So this is known 40 years ago before Barts started talking about it. There's been an analysis done around the world and labs, universities and home-based professionals and photographic labs by professionals looking at the Apollo photos. And 40 years ago, it was determined there are composites. If those analog photos are composites, it's a fraud. People stop. You can come up with all the arguments against light and shadows and against all the other

6:44stuff that Barts talks about. And you can link to NASA and YouTube all day long. If it's proven that those photos are composites, those analog photos, then it's a fraud. It's as simple as that, full stop, end of argument. And that was known about 40 years ago, but you don't hear about it. So, and Barts mentioned this in the interview two weeks ago, I didn't hear about this either. So three years ago, I'm in an AI. I know the power of neural networks. I know what they can do. They ran, the Russians ran those photos through the neural networks, nine layers of them. And the conclusion was, they're frauds, they're composites, end of story. I mean, that the argument is over there. Now, I don't even look at the photos in frauds. 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.

7:44The way Barts looks at it. And Barts viewpoints 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 have said the same thing, that it's a film. But Barts doesn't say, and what other people don't say is what I write in my sub-stack, that there is the CIA in the 1960s developed, it has to be one of the greatest engineering simulation sites ever, ever create every device or thought about in Langley, Virginia. So my thesis is pretty simple. NASA was formed in 1958 to take all the US agencies, contractors in the space program, put them under one umbrella, that was NASA in 1958, and coordinate the activities. The CIA in Langley, Virginia set up a world-class simulation center for NASA.

8:45So what does it tell you? CIA, 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. One of the US military say in the 1950s, we want to militarize 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 do-weapon, direct energy weapon. He demonstrated in 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 that he took it from Tesla, his designs, they have do-weapons. New weapons could start in earthquake, for instance. Maybe weapons today, there's people online who claim that hurricanes or storms from the ocean are somehow generated from these types of weapons. I don't know, I have no idea. But geo-engineering is a fact. Climate control is a fact, we see it every day. And the second thing they said was, we want to nuclearize space, because in the space

9:47race 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 sub-stack article, I go through the five main modules. And 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 create a problem or an issue. There's training programs 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 now started to demise that facility and take it down.

10:48So 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'll absolutely wild when you mention the photos. Yes, simply this fact, I looked at the lunar module, I was very interested in this. So if you're interested in building things or how it was a hardware work in the software, you know, we'll get to the Gagarin Gag in a second, but I've just 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 lunar surface. Okay, 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 then the fanboys go crazy, they start invoking magic words like vacuum. There's no vacuum anywhere, there's no vacuum space, there's no vacuum in the moon. Why?

11:49Because they tell us their own data says that the moon is one sixth gravity. What is gravity? Gravity is an energy pushing up through the medium. It's a physical force forcing it's way up through the medium. That's why in this planet in your chair, we say one G, we're at one G because gravity's strong. Atmosphere is dead. So if we go to the ISS, which if you believe the narrative, it's 250 miles in space, the density of the atmosphere, even though it's within our atmosphere, our atmosphere goes up for 1,000 miles, some people say it even encompasses the moon, 250,000 miles away. So up to 1,000 miles we have an atmosphere. That's called the either, it's called the medium. The ISS, the diffusion molecules, et cetera, make it far less dense, probably a trunient or something less dense than it is sitting in our chairs. It's on the moon. They're telling us that there's one sixth gravity. So gravity, energy, radiation, photons, light, whatever needs something to travel through. That's quite obvious. No medium, no exchange. So it's clear.

12:49That'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 that space is low energy, molecular diffusion, therefore different sets of properties, the electromagnetism, or 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 of 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, the moon, never changes. So what's generating what they say is once ex gravity, 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 lunar module, the rocket they had, 10,000 pound

13:56thrust or engine, that's what they say in their designs, that's the size of it. I asked the fanboy and a podcast, how many horsepower lawnmower engines do you think that is? I need to really understand the question. I said, take the rocket, translate that into lawnmowers on your street, the PVC people pushing around, five horsepower lawnmowers is the average, how many lawnmowers do you think it is? We had no idea. Okay, you don't need to have an all of you degree, you 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 a homeless shelter, it's a flimsy thing and put your fist through. They're two feet above the flooring. So maybe there's flooring and sub-flooring on cavity, whatever the construction is, there are two feet or 18 inches above 18,000 lawnmowers.

14:58Now 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 an agony, you'll not be talking on your phone to Houston X miles away in a very, oh yeah, we're at 500, 500 feet, oh yeah, we landed, yeah, yeah, yeah, okay, let's get the shoes on guys, let's go outside. That was a simulation, you're listening to it, it's a joke. You're on 18,000 lawnmowers, and on this planet, you would probably die, are you being shocked for the rest of your life, your organs will be damaged. So on the moon, they say, one six gravity, but it's still a structure and it's still something there. So take 18,000 times by 0.16, 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 a mountain wrench, and you're terrified to start with, because you've never been here before, you have no idea what you're doing. So it's just not real.

15:59If you listen to the communications, and you hear no noise in the background, you always invoke the magic word vacuum, that's not physics, physics 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 that's your story. The story is that we took 18,000 lawnmowers down to the surface, and you hear nothing, because of magic words and shirt here. But it doesn't make sense. So then my second question, the fault question to the fanboy was, show me on earth that magical routine that you guys perfected up there. Thirty miles above the moon's surface, you're orbiting around, that Collins is there. You detach the lunar module, the 18,000 lawnmowers, you land on the planet surface, okay? 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 train for that on this planet. Show the simulations, show the material. They have nothing.

17:00They can show you nothing. How did you perfect that? Hang on, hang on, hang on. Didn't Neil Armstrong apparently test that and then break his collarbone or something? Yeah, he went all over the place. It's a homeless shelter. You 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 the little canopy structure and then doing one of these and trying to get it up, you're trying to raise it, you're trying to vertically lift it, vertically land it, you're trying to maneuver it. So this is what they're trying to do. So if you leave the command module is circling, you have to leave and you're going to enter the moon at a certain angle. So the problems with the narratives in the 1960s that's never discussed is the complicated piloting and maneuvering of something like a lunar module, but also something like a capsule that Gigeron 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 maneuvers that were never tried on this planet.

18:01So how did it work first time 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 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 lawnmowers on 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 use in the moon. That's the only explanations, the only logical explanation. There's no possibility he sat on 18,000 lawnmowers. I've seen the videos, and it's a small craft, 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 he 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. And there's no flames. This video is so ridiculous.

19:02It's embarrassing, it's so bad. So this is why I go back to Langley. What did Langley have? Black curtains? Everywhere. Langley, black curtains, that was her thing. Back in black. And they had the world's biggest gantry crane, which is a lifting crane. And so you're dealing with multi-ton modules, four or five-ton lunar module simulators. The gantry crane is more than big enough to pick it up and swing it. More than big enough is strong enough to drop it back down. That's why there's no flame. 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 slips it 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. This is logical production theater that NASA and Hollywood are very good at making.

20:05Excellent at making. They're making this type of thing back in the 50s. Well, Disney was making films about space that I think are provide a baseline for Kubrick and friends. Kubrick comes out with 2001 space Odyssey. It looks real, doesn't it? Maybe 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 space X. Here's musk and friends on the space X 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 lie is in how they do it. If you pay attention, you don't need an allogy 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 what's a fraud or you have questions about it. And then if you're saying I did the landing on the moon, a normal person say, that's fantastic.

21:05Can you show me your test data 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 that capsule? That 30 miles analysis here. That's amazing guys. How did 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 his 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 colonize Mars by 2050 to 1 million earthlings. That's what he said. It's a public record. He said, between 2030 and 2050, his starship, which has never got off the launch pad, his starship is a big shuttle. You remember the shuttle from the 80s and 90s?

22:07The shuttle was a huge, huge creation. I came rid of the tonnage of it. It was massive. It was 300 feet or so in height. It was wide. And the starship that Musk has imitates that. But it's a vertically taking off and vertically landing concept. The game was this Falcon 9 SpaceX rocket. They go up and they come back down. They go up 50 miles and 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 salads about doing Apollo 11. They're going to orbit. They're going to do that. Okay. So show me an earth where you've done that. There's no proof of it. So let's just common sense. You want to see the evidence for their claims because with AI now, they can produce absolutely anything. And we don't know what we're looking at. As I said, the James Dillingpool is looking through a very dark window. We can't really see inside. We're not invited into the ISS. I have no idea if the ISS 250 miles up. I see lots of fraud, lots of images, lots of videos.

23:07I know they're doing the shots from the zero gravity vomit comet plane, as they call it. Going up 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 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 at astronauts with stupid hairdos and perms. It's just ridiculous. So is ISS real? I don't know. But the ISS is part of some logistical system. We're going to build from the earth to the moon. ISS was part of that. So we're getting back to logic and physical science. So as Bart mentioned, Musk said it takes nine refuels, at least for space X, Falcon 9, rocket and capsule to go to the moon. That's nine. Okay. So Apollo didn't have nine. Apollo 11 did not have nine.

24:07So I'm a sub-stack. I went through Von Braun, the Nazi, who led the Apollo program. He said Empire State Building size and volume necessary to go to the moon. So the Saturn V rocket, if you want to be generous about it, if you look at the absolute volume and cubic measurements, the absolute volume is 1 to 10%. So they had maybe 10% of the fuel. They're burning 20 tons a second to get out of the atmosphere. Okay. And maybe 10% is how do they get back? There's no fuel. So if Musk is right, it's nine. NASA says, no, Musk is not nine. It's 15. So NASA disagrees with Musk. They're arguing with each other. How many refills 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 ask yourself, why would I bother? That's another argument. I think the moon is a 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 four to 10 months journey. You're going to have sickness. You're going to have all sorts of other parameters and variables at work.

25:10You'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 Jellin. And happen to you. PhDs and physics. Who's Ferdinand Jellin? Who's that guy? Well, he's not taught schools anymore because he'd be classified probably as a white extremist racist because he was Catholic and pious. He was a very difficult personality, but he was a he was a doer. So he and his man, 250 of them, 50, 19, got on three ships in Serbia, Spain. And they do the Magellan. They do the circumnavigation of the glow. Magellan dies in the Philippines. This also, by the way, just proves a separate concept. I don't know how you can sail around a flat earth, but Magellan circumnavigates, his crew circumnavates go to 12 survived, 12 survived, and make it back to Sadea, including Picafati, who's the journal keeper. We kept the record 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

26:12stopped everywhere. They stopped at the elsewhere, side in the canaries, in the West Africa. They take the winds and the currents over to Brazil and go down the coast. He stops, stops, stops, refuel. They need wood, they need water, et cetera, et cetera, Patagonia, Picafati rates, and they met Patagonas, which is bigfoot, giants, et cetera, around the go, but they're supplying themselves a little time. And how can you go to Mars from planet Earth without an appreciation of basic logistics, basic mass, you don't have the supply tables to get there, and NASA must be arguing what how many do you need between here and the moon. So then how did it, 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 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 kickstarted the whole thing in my view. So my view of scientists, I'm going back to the 17th century and all the fraud that have uncovered all the experiments I demolished, and not just me, I mean, thousands and probably

27:15millions of people are doing the same thing. We don't hear us, we don't hear voices because we don't have the support to go publicly and to claim 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 what Einstein is a Rothschilds. The 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 Dr. Einstein to be the face of our science. And to give Einstein a share in Hebrew university, he's now patented, copyrighted, they make $15 million 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 science, the reason why I got interested in the moon fraud is what

28:19it means. So you asked Bartz to reel 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? It was 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 becomes a game of absolutes. So there could be no co-join winners. So Candy comes to office, and he starts talking about cooperation with the Soviets in space. He doesn't see a need for competition. So he's, of course, as assassinated by the CIA, because he fired dollars and dollars around the CIA, except there's a great book by a guy called the Devil's Chessboard, but a guy called Talbot, which lays out the demonic evil nature of the CIA. And the CIA is the nexus of the deep state, of course.

29:21So people like Candy 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 in both sides. So I write this on my subs, I go through the Gagarin antecedents, what goes on in the Soviet space program. So as James Dillingpull said correctly, there's a tendency now when we view the West, we know the West is corrupt, we know our governments are in some way demonic and evil, the institutions 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 handurize 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 are 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, it's absolutely no way you can defend it.

30:25They're launching cosmonauts, probably 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 extent of their rocket program, how advanced it was. So after World War II, the Soviets, Americans kind of divided up the Nazi scientists, so to speak, including rocket tree engineers, including people like Vaughan Braun. But the Soviets apparently got their dirty hands on actual functioning models. I don't think the Americans did. The Americans had the people on designs, but not the actual functioning hardware. The Soviets got some functioning hardware, gave them a head start. You can see this in the 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 tell you this. The Soviets tell you the opposite, and they're propaganda. Oh, we did this, we did that. Oh, we set a probe to the moon and brought back some. Oh, we set up the dog and it came back, and everything was happy. Oh, frauds, of course, and very evil.

31:27So before 1961, there's nothing but failure in both sides. NASA, in 1958, disformed NASA and Americans can't even get a payload off the deck. They can't get an unmanned probe into the right orbit. The rocket tree is far behind that of the Soviets. They're light years, literally, if you want to forget, 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 rocket tree technology, it's not possible, but unless something magical happened. But in 1961, I think what happened was that the Cold War becomes very political. The Americans get involved with Vietnam. Kennedy is getting involved with NASA, the CIA is involved. And Kennedy's tool, in early 1961, that the Americans can be the first in space. Now space is completely ill-defined. So the official declaration of space is above 62 miles, something called a Karm Online.

32:27Above that, the atmosphere changes and it comes last dance. And you can get, you go past that level and you get head towards orbit, which is 200 miles. The state of narrative says 62 miles above is declared to be space. I don't know why it is because the atmosphere is 1,000 miles. And altitude is supposed to be so wide 62 miles. So it's very arbitrary. And even the 200 mile demarcation into orbit is also pretty arbitrary. And you look at the evidence of what the Garen-Setti did, which he didn't do, but also the ISS. So anyway, so the Soviets probably heard that the Americans were going to do a Capricorn 1, which is a great movie that everyone should watch. Capricorn 1 goes through how a journey to Mars could be faked. So it might be appropriate, since Musk said that last year, then, in 2026, he's going to work with a starship, which has never gotten off the pad. It's blown up five times and has never had any success whatsoever.

33:27So he said this year, he'd go to Mars. So let's see what happens with Musk. But they could easily fake it with deep fake AI as well. So what the Soviets find out in early 61 is, I think, the Americans are going to do a Capricorn 1. And so the Americans had three top guns studs. And these guys were Navy pilots, and they were intelligent, physically fit, and extraordinarily experienced. So they had Shepard. They had Gristleman. They had John Glatt. Gristleman was the most senior. These guys all had five, six, seven, eight thousand hours of jet pilot experience. I mean, they knew what they were doing. And why is that important? You cannot possibly satisfy a 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, et cetera, at high speeds. They could maneuver it.

34:28They could take it. They could manipulate it, articulate the plane, et cetera. And they understood G-forces. They understood going from one G in our chair to 5, 6, 7, G, which is 5, 6, 7 times your body weight, which is like adding something down on you like a ton of bricks. 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 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 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 they had this guy get garrered. They call him the peasant who fought the fascists. But nobody can tell you what he did against an ass, he's not no clue. So he arrives almost out of nowhere in late 1966, so he arrives in the scene, nobody knows who the heck he is. So and suddenly in April 1961, he's the center of attention. So I went through and I researched, I tried to find out, even using Soviet information

35:30sources, could find it almost nothing about the sky, okay? He was somewhat handsome, I called him a fat face 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 are going to do a Capricorn one sometime in the spring of 1961 and say they're the first men in space, whatever space means. And it's all nonsense anyways, but that's what that, but in the context of Cold War, context of national prestige, technological excellence, our system is better than nurses system, we're going to win this guys, camaraderie enthusiasm for the cause, people waving their flags, the space race was extremely important. So the Soviets, in their failing economy, their failing state, that they were bankrupt in 1965, 1966. 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 at a nowhere, so I went through and I found maybe, I can maybe claim

36:32that he had 250 hours of pilot experience, 250 hours in total, something like you and me, Jeremy going to the local airfield somewhere in South England or South Africa and saying, okay, I'm going to sign up to be a pilot, let's start the training boys, you don't go from zero to two, you know, and 250 hours flying a jet plane, do you, no, no chance. So I don't know how many hours they had in a jet plane, you can't find it, I'm guessing a couple of dozen, maybe they maybe they 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 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 those stuck one, April 12th flight, which comes almost out of nowhere as well. So before Gagarin, there's failures in the Soviet program, there's mislaunches, there's capsules blowing up, same problems the Americans are having, there's no one man flights to speak of that are credible, say up to 200 miles.

37:35So a normal person would say, okay, 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, this is called a drone flight, a remote controlled capsule flight unmanned to that 200 miles, can you show it to me, of course, there isn't any, can you show me that 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 analog systems work please, the communications, and what people here don't understand in today's world is the different mass of their analog, it's not even computing, it's analog hard wired circus versus what we take for granted to be computer operating systems and real-time software and real-time data analysis, it's like comparing the Lada to a Mauserati, I mean, it's just there's no comparison. So you want to know what the analog, so analog communications, how would that work in reality?

38:37So there's all sorts of questions you have. So you want to know how did you prepare this guy, show me all the proofs that he was ready to go in April 1961. Of course, he wasn't. So their top gun equivalent of Shepard is a guy called the illusion 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 to Gagarin, he even knew how the capsule worked. So the illusion's a serious guy. So he goes up on April 7th, five days before, crashes in China. So where are they taking it off from, what Kazakhstan, let's pull out a map and have a look. Oh, Kazakhstan here, China here, so he did one of these, he did the problem up and down,

39:40he went wrong, he crashed landed, and who knows how high he went off, nobody knows, but only through his skills as a pilot was able to survive, an amateur like Gagarin would have died, he would likely have died, the probability of his dying would have been great. So this is the best they have, he can't even get, he can't even really go more than two or three hundred miles, you look at a distance, threshold, distance. So there's something wrong, he did the same capsule, the illusion, same technology, five days later, Gagarin goes up, leaves Kazakhstan, goes over Soviet Russia, Kamchaka, he goes past Alaska, down the Pacific, does the left hand turn at the bottom of South America, up to the Atlantic, Africa, over the Middle East, back to Saratov, where he was training as a parachutist. So he went back to where he trained, so 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

40:43at two hundred because of the complexity of what they're doing, the complexity of maneuvering these craft going up 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 bottom first with the heat shield going through the atmosphere, I have it into orbit, then he spins it around again, fat bottom down in, the fat bottom when he comes down over the Soviet Union, the fat bottom has to be the heat shield coming down, these are very, very difficult maneuvers for an amateur. So on my sub-stack, I go through all the maneuvers they have to make, there's a 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 a G-force that will 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 the 200 mile altitude, there's no simulation

41:45before 61 of any human with standing that speed at all anywhere, but yet the first time it's tried, it's okay, we did it, fat bottom first, they're through 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 biasing theory, so I take the events before the event I'm actually assessing for probability, so I say okay, it's sub-happened, that's related to my probability theory assessment before, so that's called biasing theory, I'm going to add those events, so the Soviets before to Garen had a 90% failure rate, 90% 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 parachute trained, is that even, so that's the canary, right, you can start with that, so three factors to put into

42:45your 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 Saratov, at a circumnavigating year, 24,900 miles, at 70,500 miles an hour, 200, 200 miles an hour to do with the most complicated possible maneuvering, which I list myself stuck, I try to describe it in simple terms, but if you just go through the landing, it's quite, it's amazing that he 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 three factors, the probability theory, so you don't need a PhD, you don't need double physics or rocket tree 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 analog 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 his suppose a circumnavigation, everything has to be perfect, the only way you go to Mars from Earth or to the Moon from Earth

43:46or do the Gagarin is of every single part of milestone component is 99.99% resilience, and that is not happening because I can go, yeah, go ahead. But 30 nand, we all know it does real because Nixon phone called them on the moon. Oh, yeah, with the magic analog communication, that's a, that's a beautiful, so magic green phone, and I don't know if it's Photoshop 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. Well, apparently, apparently that photograph came from prior missions. Okay, so maybe it's after, but the Apollo 11 landing, there's communications there, right? So, so maybe who knows what that, what that picture is about, but the analog communications is impossible, because the analog signal will never carry that far. So if you look at Gagarin, that then take his flight, so the Nassau fanboys and the Gagarin

44:48fanboys 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 people, you know, what radar is. So in this country, 1961 in the UK, that example in the UK, there's 50 or 60 radar stations. Why so many? Well, they're limited, trust your late to 90, maybe of a 1960 night. World War II is 90 miles, trust your limit by 1961, depending on the upgrades. So when 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. Okay, I'm calling, I'm doing a setting out a radio beam at a frequency in the sky. I'm just setting it out and it hits something comes back. It's very weak and this is the red dot. So that's my antenna. I do some translation in 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 cap. You don't know what it is. So there's no real time communications here.

45:50And 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 plans guys and find it. 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 analog signal. It's casting a radio beam from 200 miles in the atmosphere. You have to go through the atmosphere, the medium. There's going to be distortions, refractions. But time it gets down 200 miles to the earth. There's nothing left. You would not be able to recognize that signal from radio static in the background. That's just a simple analog fact. So you're not doing anything with analog. If you look at Garen's flight path, Kazakhstan, you'll do the Pacific, the left turn and all that stuff over the Atlantic, which would never happen. It would take skills that the sky did not possess. There's no radar stations there. There's no way to track it. There's no way to track where he went. So when the fanboys say tracking, what are they talking about?

46:52They're talking about the 10 minutes of communication in the middle of the flight that's pre-recorded and broadcast from a Tressuel tower near Moscow. And that's picked up by whoever, the US military, perhaps NATO, perhaps whatever. Somebody picks it up and they don't know what it is. They're just assuming it's valid. That's coming from a capsule 200 miles up with an analog signal, which will never reach down to earth. And they accepted it face value. Now they could do that for many reasons. But there's no proof that there's no proof whatsoever that that signal can be independently verified or 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 ISOR on in 1961. Fixated on Gagarinis capsule and doing one of the, wherever he went, the ISOR was falling. It doesn't exist. There's no way the central location near Moscow can possibly receive analog beams or communications from something 200 miles in the atmosphere in 1961.

47:55The analog circuits, we're not powerful enough. The analog signal is not powerful enough. The chance of it happening, I did a probability analysis, is I think it was 5,000 or something of 1%. I mean, it's irrelevant. And that's also true of the communications. There's no such thing as analog communications to the moon or analog communications from a trustable site to something like a Gagarin capsule. It doesn't work with analog. 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 radars, which can go out 20,000 miles into space. Well, yeah, I can buy it, guys. But not in 1961. 15 miles was the limit. And they're using analog. Who believes this? So it was 1960s. All done, hold on. But it was 1969, though, wasn't it? Yes, that's exactly the same thing. So there's some improvements in radar and analog communication.

48:58But in 1961, what I'm saying is NASA claims that in 1961, they tracked Gagarin. But they didn't, because it's a 10-minute broadcast from a trustable tower in Moscow. 1969, there's no possibility that a green analog phone in Washington can't possibly process sound communications or signals to the moon. It's in podders. There's absolutely no way of doing it. You have to have an analog to wireless 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, it was showed to me. I like to use it. Oh, no, no, no, no. It's not 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's in the Reminds imagination. You cannot have analog 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,

50:01saying the desert somewhere, from a wireless transmitter or from an analog phone to a wireless transmitter, improve that it works. That's what they would have done. They would have asked for the test cases. Give them the test cases, guys. Show it to me on this planet. How'd you do it? Fascinating. Asked all the S device. That's fascinating stuff. Well done. Then you could at least prove it and convince yourself and have it, but there's no proof of it. And as Bart said, there's no latency. It's almost as if they're talking from room to room. 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 reality to it. And I think the body, he talked with Bart about it. There's a body language after the 69 of Pablo and Flight. Armstrong is totally confused. He's looking at teleproper and I don't know if he's not the maybe the brightest guy in the world. He can't get his answer straight. So he's not a very simple question. And did you see stars? So if I went to the moon, I'd be talking for an hour about it. I saw exactly this and this. And this time we did that telemetry

51:01and that radiation reading over here. I saw the, even the other shut me out. This guy says, no, he says, I don't recall. I know in the moon, I was taking pictures of the solar corona. Now NASA's own data says that if you took the Emulsion Film analog, again, back to analog, in the problem of analog in terms of communications, based on a vacuum, a steel vacuum, you can't track real-time signals with a vacuum. It doesn't work between you digital. So with an analog camera, a motion-based film, carbon-based film. NASA says, if you point that at the sun and take a picture, it destroys a camera. That's what they said. So here we have Armstrong, St. Neil, the strong arm, saying that he pointed at the sun, was taking pictures. Well, there's no pictures of the solar corona. Not are available. So yeah, that's what you're doing. But also apparently they use some sort of hustle-blood camera or whatever. But how the hell did they actually hold the camera and take photos with those gloves? Well, it's a chest. It's not on the chest. So this is the other fraud. This is why it dries a fanboy is crazy.

52:01So there's that idiot photo of Aldrin doing this, but so there's the lunar module, US flag and Aldrin, doing one of these, saluting it. Very famous photo, the iconic Apollo 11 photo. Taking away Armstrong, the camera is on his chest. Okay, if you look at the photo, the camera is not situated on his chest, and it's perfectly framed. This is it was taken in a studio. Now, you can imagine you're on the moon. You've got the fat gloves, you've got the motion camera, you're terrified, right? You've been traveling 24,000 miles an hour for at least 10, 12 hours. Okay, you've done the impossible. You somehow got yourself the lunar module deported and decamped from 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 a ride on steady like you and I take. I'd be like, it's not gonna be perfectly well framed picture with everything nicely symmetrical and arranged. It's impossible. And if you look at the reverse photo they have, that same shot, again, going back to lights and shadows

53:02and the waiting flag, it's different. So they've taken two shots of Aldrin doing this with the waiting flag from two different angles. 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. Would you look at what they say they did? They took a couple of snaps and these snaps were done within a certain period of time. That's not what you see. You see framed photos that are very carefully staged managed and they made a mistake doing that. The waiting flag is obviously from 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 studio. And in this case, Canon Air Force Base. So what Bard mentioned to you is correct. There's lots of evidence that in June of 68, they shot the Canon Air Force Base with a period of week or two. They had going to be Johnson and other dignitaries there

54:02visiting, looking at the film production. And there's lots of evidence you did that. But what people don't say, what they don't marry that to, is the Langley Virginia simulation data. So Bard told you that the control room would just get data and know what it was. It's very easy to do an IT. When we do it all the time, do it every day, every week. We hook two 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, the NASA and European Space Agency have made for the ISS, but also for training and space. These simulations are incredibly. I mean, you don't know what you're looking at. You could be a part of the simulation, actually, think you're going to the ISS, for instance, or you're going to the moon. There's that good. So if I feed you data, whether it's a tracking signal, or whether it's some telemetric information

55:04on flight progress, everything from heart rates to 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'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. They had $250 billion in budget, $250 billion. And so you assume that because it's a CIA and NASA, half of it's money laundered. So they have $100 billion or so left. You can do a lot of the $100 billion. Since 1961, they've had 1.5 trillion pumped into the space programs in the United States. They got in the Russian, Chinese, Canadian, European, Japanese, Indian, whatever. You're probably looking at it in the Soviets as well. You're probably looking at a total investment since 1960. I don't know, $4 trillion US 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 don't understand radar. They don't understand analog communications. This means the tracking was impossible in 1969 and in 1961. They don't understand that NASA admitted in 1969

56:05that they cloked the signals because the Soviets might be up to something. The Soviets have never claimed the track Apollo. That's simply a lie. They've never done that. They've always denied tracking Apollo. They were paid billions of dollars. This is the other thing that people don't understand. The Cold War race was actually in some ways cooperation. The Soviets were given billions by the Americans in the 1960s to say solvent because by 1965, they were bankrupt. 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 program. And the Soviets were able to stagger on the survive for a little bit longer. It's good for business because NASA now is fully funded. And NASA, 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.

57:05SpaceX 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 it's a Tesla. That's a classic. So that boys also get wound up about that, don't they? So they sent this convertible. And there's, I don't know, it's just bizarre. But apparently, they have cameras attached to the chassis and the frame from different angles and they prove that there is space. And there's some background. There's one shot put in my sub-stack where it must be the world's longest selfie. I mean, it's a camera. I don't know, 50 feet or something, looking back on the car with the earth in the background. There's all sorts of problems with it. The earth in the background looks different than other shots you see from SpaceX or from the ISS. And this is the problem with, and again, the fanboys go crazy, right? But the images don't add up.

58:08If you go back to John Glenn in 62, his iconic shot of the earth from supposedly 1807 miles and I don't think Glenn went there. I think it was a Capricorn one. It looks totally different what you see today. The SpaceX stuff. Sometimes when they land or when they dock rather the ISS, they open up the portals and the port holes 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, we can explain it this way. But if space is mockingly diffuse and you're telling me that the starlight is blocked, the starlight's blocked out by the solar radiation, which is permeating everything. 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 spacewalks, it's all dark. But if I was to pull up in the porthole of the SpaceX and do a spacewalk, what would I see? Or is he light or does he darkness? So when you talk about this, they get very upset, very angry.

59:10So there's discontinuities in the narrative. It does, I don't know what they're up to. But the image is, there's a video of a SpaceX launch where there's a mouse running around in the fuselage and that same or different launches. You see, they have two cameras mounted on the fuselage, taking pictures of the earth. But the earth looks different and very strange. At some point in time, they become switched. So the image is kind of reversed. You don't know what's going on. Did something happen with the rocket? Did the rocket kind of slip around? Or it's very strange. So they're doing something SpaceX. But there's no chance they're going to Mars. As Musk said, there's no chance they're even going to the moon. So I don't know about the Artemis program. Go ahead. So yeah, so we're kind of coming in for a landing if you'll excuse the pun. And what do you think happened on the day in 1969? I mean, there was a rocket that went up. Well, I think so Bart, as we have said, he's much in this as well. He's got the Earth on a window trick. So, and he do it today.

1:00:11So you see with Blue Origin's flights, which are the last bluerge of flight in April's fraudulent as well last year. So, yes, the rocket goes up. But there's a, I don't know how long the countdown was. Exactly, it was over three hours. So I know what Alan Shepard in 61 had three hours and 50 minutes between supposedly going into the capsule and on the rocket and then taking off. I don't know why it's still on countdown. I have no idea, but 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 rocket goes out, the capsule's there. You might have seen them go in, but as Capricorn won, 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 Shepard lands, he landed the Bahamas, 300 miles away. He could be there in 45 minutes. Let's see, see a military C plant. So what happened to the boys in the Apollo? Well, they have all sorts of time because they're not coming back for a couple of days, right? They call it 11. So lots of time to get them over to the Pacific, they're over to Hawaii, and you could drop them

1:01:12from another military C plant. What happened all of a sudden? So most specifically, could that rocket then simply have just gone into orbit? And that's that. Oh, do you think about it initially? Well, you could crash line in the ocean. So get by 13, you found the Soviets found debris in the Bay of Biscay. So you can definitely find the rocket, you can crash it somewhere, you can turn it up into space, whatever. But then the key is Langley. So the key is Langley married to the film that can't air for a week. The Langley simulates everything. I mean, everything. So that you could do everything in Langley. So you don't eat, they just pre-record everything. So before, so what about the Automus? That's about to launch. I haven't even re-looked at the Artemis. The technology is different. The technology is far different than 1960s. I've not even looked at it. Yeah, well, 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? Again, a deep fake AI had no idea.

1:02:12So the question I would ask is, show me where you've tested beyond 400 miles in altitude. Show me where, so Polaris in 2024, suppose you went 870 miles, it's fraud, SpaceX. That's a complete fraud to joke that one. So they can't prove they've got above 400. So you want the telemetry. So if you're going to the moon, 250,000 miles, you're doing them a challenge. 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, could have never been through there. 30,000 miles 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're trying to do telemetry on that. So you want to have all this information. Before you can claim you went to eat, did it fly by the moon? I want to know all the steps that prepared you for that journey. And before you went into production, before 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 it.

1:03:13They 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. It's a natural security. Trump can't share it with you. It's not convenient. See, we don't know. So basically, you have to just trust what they tell you. That's that. And this goes back to philosophy and scientism. People who believe in the moon landing's trust government, people who put a diaper on their face and stab their arms, shoulders and poisons from a criminal industry, trust of the science, trust government, the disindocrinated. So people who look at the Artemis program 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 analyze it. It could take, it will take years. So they'll immediately trust it. It'll be on the fake news. They'll be broadcast everywhere. The back to the moon will be the headlines and all that stuff. They'll soon be a walk in. And so Musk in 2017 promised that like 2018,

1:04:14there'd be a moon bus. But the Walmart, the US class, wearing the Walmart jeans will be wandering around the moon and doing some tourism. He said that would happen in 2018. You're going to hear the same thing again. The moon tourism, you'd be on golf and driving jeeps around like it did during the Apollo program. Or maybe the Trump Tower and Tranquilée Bay, having a weekend out with your better half. This is what they're going to promote now. But we don't know what we're looking at yet. They have no clue. 39, how can my audience follow your work? So I'm on top stack. So I have that it's it's un-stabinated. So UN, S-T-A-B-B-I-N-A-T-E-D, un-stabinated.substac.com. It tells you that it didn't take the coronavirus stabs un-stabinated. Still alive. I was promised a winter of death. Apparently it didn't happen. Still waiting for it, by the way. I was told not to go out in exercise and ran almost every day. So still healthy, still doing well. Un-stabinated is really almost a philosophical point with me.

1:05:15And that tells me everything I need to know about a person really does. If you believe in the coronavirus epidemic, then you and I are probably not going to be stressed. Because you have a different world view than I do. And it's just not the twain we'll never meet. Dr. Ferdinand sent us. Thank you for joining me in the trenches. Thanks, Jeremy. I really appreciate it. And it was fun. Thank you very much.