JIM FETZER "The Raw Deal" (7-19-19) The Moon Landing Hoax (Part 1)

Video Transcript:

When you attend the funeral, it is sad to think that sooner or later those you love will do the same for you. And you may have thought it's tragic not to mention other adjectives to think of all the weeping they will do, but don't you worry. No more ashes, no more sackful, and an arm band made of black cloth will someday never more adore the sweet. For it's the bomb that drops on you, guess your friends and neighbors too. There'll be nobody left behind to breathe, and we will all go together when we go. When I come walking back, that is to know. Unifers, so be readmen, that is spiring achievement. Yes, we all will go together when we go. We will all go together when we go. All of you, within it, can't just go. No one will have the endure, too, because I'm not getting sure. Roy's the Blondon will be loaded when they go. We will all cry together when we cry. We'll be French, right? The thing is right, right. There will be no more misery when the world is our own misery. Yes, we all will cry together when we cry. We will all think, come on, when we'll think. There'll be nobody present at the way. Roy, we find dissipation in that rad in. Cineration nearly three billion months of well done state. We will all go together and we'll go. And let there be no more in the bar. Just sing out a tea deal when you see that ICBM and the party will be in the magic. Come as you are indeed with the 50th observance of the moon landing hoax tomorrow. I'm having a two-part program today. All the evidence, all the reasons, all the proof we have that how we know we didn't go to the moon. Then on Sunday, I'm going to invite the opportunity for rebuttals or refutations. It's very important to understand the difference. Rebuttals are simply attempts to show something that has been claimed to be true as actually false. Refutations are successful rebuttals. The most important documentary ever done about the moon landing appeared in 2001. Conspiracy theory that we land on the moon. I was in London with my wife at the time staying at the Morgan Hotel on Bloomsbury Street, and I went to the British Museum. I picked it because Morgan was my wife's maiden name. When I turned on the TV, I saw this splendid documentary with proof after proof after proof that the moon landing had been a hoax. No doubt it was my virtue of my background in the history of science and the philosophy of science that I was impressed. But this is the place to start. It is where we will start today, but first a few preliminaries. There are three kinds of impossibilities. You have to understand logical. These are things that could be fantastic. They could describe anything as long as it's not self-contradictory. Examples might be round squares or some would suggest honest politicians. Physical. We cannot violate the laws of science, the laws of nature. They cannot be violated. They cannot be changed. In those include, it will turn out, melting points, freezing points, causal relation, laws of material science, technical. Things that couldn't happen because of technology was yet to be developed such as airborne flight before the Wright Brothers. Electric flight before Edison. Autos before Ford. It turns out in the case of the moon landing, not only do we have a host of anomalies that show something is terribly, terribly wrong, but it turns out to have been both technically and physically impossible to go. Another film, actually this time, 1977, gave us the clue. This star, James Rowland, the Sam Waters and O.J. Simpson, as astronauts, where the space director, played by Hal Holbrook, intercepts him as they're about to set off on a man mission tomorrow as explaining how they discovered a glitch in the program that upon return to Earth they would have died on descent. So instead they hustle him off to an obscure location in the Mojave Desert, which just happened to have a whole set there for faking where the key to the success was a single grainy TV feed just as we had in the case of the moon landing. Meanwhile, bear in mind then three kinds of responses replies are simply answers to questions not necessarily argumentative rebuttals answers meant to show a claim is false mistaken or wrong. Refutations answers that are successful in showing that a claim is false mistaken or wrong. And I mentioned this because you'll find the NASA spokesman repeatedly making replies they might reviewed as rebuttals, but none of them appear to be refutations. So here we have the masterpiece of 2001 conspiracy theory did we land on the moon. The following program deals with a controversial subject. The theories expressed are not the only possible interpretation. Viewers are invited to make a judgment based on all available information. We investigate the most extraordinary event of the 20th century. And one all throughout the land. Man landing on the moon. But you would have not so people say it never happened. With both and with faith. Decide for yourself. And we have to go to the end. And otherwise the government follows. And my thoughts on the moon whether no atmosphere and the testimony of one former astronaut who's not afraid to see his life. The NASA could have covered it up. The government orchestrated the deception of the century. The NASA pulled off the greatest hopes of all time. You be the judge. On conspiracy theory. Did we land on the moon. Maybe that was right or no. That statistized question. 16 teen 1969. America. All its breath. A hollow 11 last in space, beginning his 250,000 mile journey to... During their eight day footage, the Apollo 11 astronaut's suspect-tacular views of the Earth floated in a weightless environment and supposedly went where no man had gone before. And just out of half, I found the dust and dust, and I'm going to go to the right road. I'm not quite sure. And then we're coming to an angle. There's been a lot of holiday days. The handle and the land is... But did it? Did they really land on the moon? Most of us thinks so. Millions of people watched on television with the lunar land or touchdown. And these unforgettable words were spoken. At one hour of death for man... I have been the man. But even today, there are those who claim that believing in man's one small step requires one giant leap, a fate. Bill Casey was an analyst and engineer at Rocketdyle. The company that designed the Apollo rockets. There were many problems that evolved during the 60s that led people to believe that we were ever going to make it to the moon. Three decades ago, when the world watched Apollo's lunar landings, Bill Casey was watching too. But what he saw on television combined with his experiences at Rocketdyle made him a skeptic. The whole thing then seemed funny to me. I said that it was an intuitive feeling that what was being shown was not real. As he studied the footage more closely, he was shocked to find several inconsistencies. Casey observed that despite the clarity of deep space, the stars were missing from the black lunar sky. He saw the American flag waving, even though there was no air on the moon. He discovered that there was no glass crater. We need to lunar landings. Where it's powerful rocket engine can fire. This evidence convinced Casey that we never sent a man to the moon. But NASA dismisses these charges. There are always going to be people who believe some outlandish theories and the notion that we somehow are able to fake. The lunar missions is pretty outlandish. The land is as it might seem. It has been estimated that as many as 20% of Americans believe we never went to the moon. But how could anyone think that one of the greatest moments in human history is a house? Is it really possible that NASA deceived the world? According to a former astronaut, it's entirely possible. Regarding the Apollo mission, I can't say 100% for sure whether these men walked on the moon. Brian O'Lary was a NASA astronaut in the 1960s, and served as a science advisor during the Apollo moon missions. It's possible that NASA could have covered it up just in order to cut corners and to be the first to allegedly go to the moon. It was getting to the moon first. So what's important that our government would consider begging it to find the answer. We have to go back 40 years to a time when Americans and the Soviets were walked in a struggle for world domination. People assumed that the nation that won the space race would win the Cold War. We defined that as being first to the moon. It was a time of more or less national hysteria. On October 4th, 1957, the Soviets terrified America. On a since-buttonic, the world's first satellites in orbit. The New York Times said the published an article explaining to Americans that it did not carry nuclear bombs that could be dropped on the city from that altitude. The atmosphere of nuclear annihilation intensified as Russia took a lead in the space race. The House of People announced it in Congress that we may be headed for extension. Many feared that the Soviet Union's ultimate goal was to put a missile base on the moon. Meanwhile, America's space program was having difficulty even getting off the ground. It was a time of more or less national hysteria. It was a time of more or less national hysteria. It was a time of more or less national hysteria. It was a time of more or less national hysteria. It was a time of more or less national hysteria. But if the Apollo missions were fake, how was this monumental hoax accomplished? According to Casey, the launch of Apollo's Center by rocket was real. It just never sent astronauts to the moon. The astronauts were launched with the Saturn thought. In order to recover their disappearance, they simply omitted the Earth for eight days. And in the interim, they showed these fake pictures of the astronauts on the moon. But on the eighth day, the command capsule separated from the vehicle and descended to Earth. And so, of course, we shown in the film. This theory inspired the 1978 movie, Capricorn 1, in which the government attempts to pull the world by faking a mission to Mars. We are not planning to plan it in the name of America. We are not planning to plan it in the name of all the people of the planet Earth. The Apollo footage is strikingly similar to the scenes in Capricorn 1. Producer Paul Lazarus suggests that the film's plotline could be more fact than fiction. I believe had they wanted to, that NASA could indeed have pulled off the greatest hoax of all time, never sent anyone to the moon, and recreated in the television studio. And I believe it could have been done at that time. Technology was in place. The Earth was in the morning, so I'm sorry, but it's not the morning. It's making a blitzly with my toes. What we put up on the screen was our own simulated version of whatever we could do within a 4,000,000,000 eight budget. But with NASA's $40 billion budget, casing believes they had the resources to pull off a hoax if they couldn't make it to the moon. The reason I believe that NASA and the government picked them on land was basically it was technically impossible to do it. And they simply had to come up with some sort of alternative that they felt the public would believe. The reason for the lunar landings were actually filmed in Nevada's high desert. At the top secret military base, on this area, 51. 351 is one of the most heavily guarded facilities in the United States. If you land here, you try to get some information, you could be shot and killed without any warning. Russians buy satellite photos of Area 51, reveal not only a series of hangars that resemble movie sound stages, but also Baron Moon-like areas, which coincidentally are covered with craters. Compare this photo of a lunar crater, allegedly taken from the moons forward by Apollo 10, with this satellite photo of a crater in Area 51. He has asked for not to acknowledge the similarity of the terrain. The only thing that's not nearly always known is the light, which is hiding in the moon. And I have to say, the billions of people really have been fooled into thinking that the Nevada desert was the moon, in case he believes it possible. And maybe the real reason Area 51 is so heavily guarded. This is a very secret base, and it was good reason, because undoubtedly the moon sats are still there. And if they are, no one's going to give up at them anytime soon. Up next. If the lunar module landed with 10,000 hours of thrust, why is there no blast crater? Plus, in case this would print really bad on them. That later, 10 astronauts died in the strange circumstances, how far would the conspiracy reach? Find out, what conspiracy theory returns. We've all been led to believe that on July 20, 1969, the lunar excursion module, also known as the LEM, carried American astronauts to the surface of the moon. But could it have simply been a prop lowered by wires onto a movie set? Bill Casing says that this may explain the absence of engine noise on the official NASA footage. The noise level of a rocket engine is up into the 140, 150 decibel range. In other words, enormously loud, how would it be possible to hear astronauts' voices against the background of a running rocket engine? Is this evidence that the footage is actually vague? A sequence shot in a controlled environment here on Earth? Just months before this historic landing, a prototype LEM was quite tested in Elieton Air Force Base. While NASA cameras record the test flight, Neil Armstrong struggles to control the unwill-recraft. Then, at approximately 300 feet, the LEM der flies wildly out of control. At the last second, Armstrong ejects. And floats to safety. If the LEM was soon stable, difficult to fly in the controlled environment of Earth, then how could the LEM plan six times, fallously in the alien environment of the moon? The LEM had a single engine mounted dead center, and then they had little push-gets, extra jets, a couple of them up on top. This was supposed to control their attitude as they came down. Well, I'll tell you a secret. The instrument moved your tail and that cabin, an inch. When you change the load pattern, it would begin to tilt and it would start acting as minute. The arguments that have been arrayed on the side of those who believed that the lunar landings were out, are very elaborate. And they have to be to support a theory like this. In the end, there's one set of evidence that is irrefutable, and that is that there are footprints, boot prints, still on the lunar surface. But conspiracy theorists say that the footprints themselves are suspicious. The theory is that they are very afraid, they should get close to it, fall with a drop of powder. To have a powerful rocket engine blast the surface of the moon, blasting away all of the dust, and then find footprints surrounding the lunar landings, that to me would be an impossibility. Photo after photo reveals that the lunar surface surrounding the LEM is covered with footprints. But casing says there's something even more difficult to explain. The fact that there's no blast crater under the lamp is one of the most confused pieces of evidence that I find supporting the votes. In fact, no sign of a blast crater is visible for any of the six lunar landings. The LEM specialist, Paul Fiel, says he can explain why the lunar module left no crater when landing on the moon. The amount of thrust that you're coming out of the bottom of the decent engines, about 1500, 2000 times the thrust. And all that does is to push dust away. There's no burning or anything like that. Yet NASA's own scientific illustrations clearly depict a blast crater. Then there's one other. If they truly landed on the moon, just just would have been descended on the lunar lander of the footpaths and we find not a trace of dust on the footpaths. When I discovered that alone, I said, no way am I looking at a lunar lander that landed on the moon. Could it be that the LEM was just a prop on a giant lunar movie set? When Armstrong said that one small step from man and one giant leap from mankind, the footpath that he made could have usually been made an area of the two. Case in point south, the LEMs departure, the lunar service is even more suspicious. In the footage of the Assets stayed going up when you don't see is an exhaust soon coming out of a rocket engine nozzle. What do we see? We see the Assets stayed suddenly pop up without any exhaust boom once or ever. Is it a jerk felt by a cable? Is this evidence of a conspiracy? Was the government capable of such a massive cover up to propose that this was all faked in the house? They have to say that every piece of evidence that every physical scientific test that one could offer to support the reality of the lunar landings, they have to say that all of those are fake. I would say that my conviction that Apollo was a fake was really not according to one specific piece of evidence, but it was two relatives, this whole thing was a fake. I was just trying to get the whole thing out of the house and coming up or in a picture on a TV. In this little air on the moon, why is this American fly? My age was for these official massive models that they conducted, all of the core of the ships were fake and living. Is it possible for humans to survive the deadly radiation in these space when conspiracy theory continues? If the moon landings were actually filmed on a movie set, then where is the evidence? According to David Tersey, an award winning filmmaker and photographer, the proof is in NASA's own lunar photos and video. The images of the Apollo landings are not a true or a accurate record. In our view of the Apollo pictures, the fake, many of them is a little stupid and consistent in the hominids. In fact, Percy claims that when examined, these images suggest that man never went to the moon at all. This famous scene of man taking his first step in the lunar surface is one of the most recognizable in history. But why are such important images so grainy and hard to see? We're getting a picture on the TV. NASA claims it's the result of 1960s technology. If you go back and look at it, the Apollo 11 mission was some pretty awful video by today's standards. These were ghostly images that just did not look very real at all. And that was a function of the transmitter at the time, the camera at the time that we had available to us to fly upon the web. An investigative journalist, Bart Subrell, believes that NASA intentionally made the images hard to see. NASA orchestrated the hub in a very unique way through television. They had one picture which made completely controlled black and white, brainy, that convinced everybody we were on the moon. We had no reason to doubt it. They had complete brains over the pictures, over the sound. I mean, sad to say, it was easier than people believe. But despite the lack of clarity, conspiracy theorists, the evidence suggesting that these images were staged. Although it appears that the astronauts are moving in the moon's gravity, which is one sixth that of the Earth. Pressy notes that when the speed of the film is double, the astronauts appear to be running as it been Earth's gravity. Also, when the footage of the lunar roll boys doubled in speed, it looks as if it's driving here on Earth. But there's another reason some believe the Apollo missions were shot on Earth. If there's no air or wind on the moon, why is this American flag waving? The fact that the flag flags on the moon, there's no atmosphere, means that there must have been a little blast of wind out in Area 51, where they shot this. Could these questionable images simply be the result of astronauts struggling to plant the flag into the lunar service? Of course, they're forgoing on, then meets the eye. What about the still photography? Some say the design of the bulky spacesuits would have made it extremely difficult for the astronauts to operate their chestnut cameras. The man who designed these cameras is Gyan Lundberg. The cameras on the lunar service, in the dress, in the life of the system, you couldn't see the camera. They couldn't bend their heads, they had far down. They had no viewfinder, they had the aim by moving their body. If the cameras were so difficult to manipulate, how are thousands of photos taken with crystal clarity, precise framing? The images that we see, they allegedly were taken on the moon are absolutely perfect. But with closer examination, the casing says, applause, begin to emerge. Unfortunately, errors were made, which are now being discovered. The conspiracy theorist point out that lighting is a major flaw in the lunar photos. The scientists point on the moon, the astronauts only source of light, is the sun. They had no extra lighting, no flashes, no things like that. Yet in this photograph from Apollo 14, the shadows were cast in different directions, suggesting multiple light sources. The shadows passed by the rocks of the border should have been east-west, like the lemon shadows. In this photo from Apollo 17, again the shadows are pointing in different directions. Outside and sunlight shadows always work parallel with one another. So the shadows will never intersect. The conspiracy theorists say it's not just the shadows that indicate the use of additional lights. But what has been photographed in the shadows? For example, here's an astronaut who descends into a huge shadow cast by the litter module. It's his entire body is still visible. How is it that he is not shrouded in darkness? Here's the same maneuver from another Apollo mission. Again, the astronaut is brightly lit and what is obviously dark shadow. And in this picture, the sun is directly behind the astronaut. His figure should be a silhouette. Yet even the smallest characteristics of his suit are recognized. It seems like he's stabbing in this photo. I can't explain that. And... That's escaped me. And finally, in this picture with the sun behind the litter module, the front of the craft is clearly visible. The words United States are crisp and clear. How could these backlit pictures be so detailed? Because there's more than one light source, which means they're not on the moon. But NASA simply dismisses these arguments. There are a number of claims that the pictures taken by Apollo astronauts were fake. And there are so many, you would be in exercise and fertility to go off and try to answer all of those. But the questions continue. Why does some of these images shudder different times and different places appear to have identical backgrounds? These two photos seem to have the same mountain backdrop. Yet, the lunar module is only present one of them. Seemingly impossible. Since the limb never moved, and its base remained, even after the mission. Some suggest that the moon is not on the moon. Some suggest the same artificial backdrop was used when shooting two entirely separate pictures. Background discrepancies are also apparent in the lunar video. The best evidence are some pictorial anomalies in the photographic record of the trip to the moon. There is one for Apollo 16 where the same shot, the same hill appears in two different days. The first tape was shot in what was reported to be the first of Apollo 16's lunar excursions. And this video was from the next day at a different location. NASA claims the second location was two and a half miles away. But when one video was superimposed over the other, the locations appear identical. And the most embarrassing theorist has seen that as evidence that we didn't go to the moon, but it was staged. And the opposite point of view is that it's a case of bad editing. Conspiracy theorists claim that even closer examination of the photos suggest evidence of doctrine. For reference, crosshairs were permanently etched into the lunar cameras, so they would have to appear on top of every image. But in this photo, a crosshair is behind a part of a lunar rover. The situation is impossible. It has to be the result of a technical manipulation and doctrine of the image. And in this photo from Apollo 11, the equivalent of foreground is covering the crosshair, not behind it. And in another from Apollo 12, the American flag is covering one crosshair, and the astronaut is covering the other. When presented with these questionable photos and videos, NASA refutes the conspiracy theories. Some range from incredibly complicated to incredible goofy. There are arguments that are wrong optically. They're wrong physically. They're wrong scientifically. They're wrong historically. There's a great deal of clap trap that is sort of woven in to these arguments. But despite what NASA says, conspiracy theorists still insist that Apollo was a host. When I looked at all the pictures and all the footage, I'm absolutely convinced I've met my life on it. And we didn't go to the moon. I know for a fact that we didn't. Coming up next, tragedy strikes the Apollo program. The code continues to be known as the test. We asked when NASA died in a pre-launch simulation. When one wasn't an accident, it was granted all the whistle on the whole project. And later, because the astronauts have survived the trip into deep space. And before they got one half way to the moon, they would have picked up a deck of those radiation. Next, theorists say is true. I'm getting NASA perpetrated to widespread hoax without someone from the inside calling the whistle. Virgil Gus Grissom was selected as one of the original seven astronauts. The family man, the veteran of several space flights, he was a national hero. And was likely to be the first man to walk. But Grissom was also an outspoken critic of the space program. And was quoted as saying someone's going to get killed. Unfortunately, Grissom's worst fears were soon realizing. On January 27, 1967, two years before the first moon landing, Grissom and his crew boarded the Apollo one capsule for a full-scale simulation. The problems began almost immediately. First, the capsule's communications system failed. Subnated capsule burst in the flames of the astronauts sealed inside. GUS GRISSOM Tragically, Gus Grissom dead white. And Roger Jeffrey lost their lives before ever leaving the launch back. Gus Grissom's family believes the Apollo one fire was no accident. I think it was intentionally sabotaged by someone. It's been a question of my mind. What was found in the accident investigation and how was that? What was the CIA involved with it? It was done intentionally. Grissom's family doesn't know who was responsible for his death or why it happened. But they say NASA knows the truth. I feel like it is up to NASA to come forward and give us a direct answer. We're Gus Grissom and the Apollo one astronauts, victims of a tragic accident, or were the intentionally silenced because they knew too much. We may never know. The cause of the fire is still a mystery. And the capsule remains locked away at a military base. But Grissom wasn't the only Apollo critic to meet with a suspicious and untimely death. Thomas Ronald Barron was a safety inspector during Apollo one's construction. After the fire, Barron testified before Congress. The Apollo program was in such disarray that the United States would never make it to the moon. They claimed his opinions made him a target. And we're going to be friends around you by now, though. Not many people are going to want to ask about what the emergency program is going to be. I'm not going to ask. That's not what I'm going to ask. As part of his testimony, Barron submitted a 500-page report detailing his findings. It was a little bit that the program could be stopped then in his trial. And then, exactly one week after he testified, Barron's car was struck by a train. Barron, his wife, his stepdaughter, were killed instantly. I believe that Thomas Ronald Barron was murdered because he had the truth to tell about the Apollo program. Barron's report mysteriously disappeared. And to this day, it has never been found. But the Apollo program continued. And so did the strain of untimely deaths. Between 1964 and 1967, a total of 10 astronauts lost their lives in Greek accidents. These deaths accounted for an astonishing 15% of NASA's astronaut corps. To keep something that's a law, grabbed up, covered over, you've got to eliminate all the people that can talk about. Could the government have gone this part of Polox, such an elaborate hoax? NASA says it's impossible. There were probably a quarter of a million people who were directly involved in the Apollo program. And another half a million people beyond that. There were fours of a million people who can't keep a secret like that. That's just not going to happen. But Barron says that most NASA employees knew nothing of the deception. There are a few people at NASA knew. I think it's some of the part metalized. We got the person building the pulps and Houston are doing this in Seattle. We're doing this in Florida. No one knows the whole picture. So, you know, you had no one seeing the full picture of anything. There is a theorist or right. And only a few people knew the whole story. And the truth may remain buried forever. When we return, could the astronauts have survived the deadly radiation of space? Getting the past the radiation felt would have been impossible. And a Russian cosmonaut breaks his silence. When could the virus be returned? Suspicious deaths. Evidence of doctored photos. And flags waving in the airless vacuum of space. Are not the only reasons to doubt that we ever went to the moon. Some say the astronauts could never even have survived. The reason why they couldn't go to the moon is because of an ominor that few people know about. Called the Man Allen radiation belts. 500 miles above the earth. These bands of intense radiation surround our planet and our thousands of miles thick. And the one being traveling through the Van Allen belt would have been rendered either extremely ill or actually killed by the radiation within the short time thereafter. Other than the Apollo missions, no other man's space flight has attempted to pass through this deadly radiation. Every man's mission in history, Gemini Mercury's Skylapse National has been below the radiation belt. And we all accept going to the moon. To protect the astronauts, the capsule would have needed six feet of lead shielding according to physicist Ralph Renee. That is the only shielding they had but was the literally paper thing out of all of them. And there's soups consisting of fast fiber, some aluminum fibers, and so we can rub it. And the Sun is turning radiation. That the astronauts were protected by a thin film of aluminum. And you're on Earth to put a lead shield on us when they take a dental extra. Some theorized that if the Van Allen belts didn't kill the astronauts, even deadlier doses of radiation deeper in space would have. Violin explosions in the Sun called magnetic storms flood space with intense radioactivity. The magnetic storm will come along and that can increase the intensity of the radiation belts by maybe a thousand times above what it was before. According to Renee, the Apollo 16 mission coincided with one of the Sun's most intense storms that are recorded. Around the rotating Sun came this immense where the biggest one of the 20th century went out for a three or four days. Or while it's slowly rotating around. Although the effects of radiation are horrific ranging from hair loss to cancer to death, the solar flares had no adverse effects on the Apollo 16 group. NASA had another problem and one is that the moon surface is totally inhospitable to the band. You do it in the car. And then for any point of the shadow of the space path itself, the temperatures go down to 250 degrees below zero. In the Sun, the temperatures go up to 250 degrees above zero. Renee also theorized that the astronauts liquid pooled spaces could not have provided sufficient protection in the intense heat radiation. But NASA maintains that this hypothesis is wrong. The claim that the radiation on the lunar surface would have incapacitated or hurt the astronauts as equal parts, bad science and bad understanding of how we went about designing the equipment. The spaces that they wore were incredibly tough and very resilient to lots of different things. If those students do what NASA says they can do, then I want to see them suit up a guy or two, put them into three mile island, and hit there that's still hot and have them clean up the mess, but they can't. They know. The fact remains that Noah Pollo astronaut has never suffered a serious illness from a trip to the moon. To this be because they never left the safety of Earth's atmosphere in the first place. This is the main reason why the Russian never really intended to send a man to the moon. Was it the fear of lethal radiation because the Russians took man and their plans to go to the moon? According to one of their chief cosmonauts, it was certainly a factor. He'll go to the moon and I'll get a statement, please. Of course, we were wanted to go out into the unknown of space. Of course, we were fearful. We had no idea how human would be affected by the radiation. We suspected it possibly the radiation could even penetrate through the craft itself. Are the deadly pearls of space proof that NASA faked the Apollo missions? To this day, the Russians have never sent a man to the moon. And we have no plans to reach Earth. A final word what can Earth continue to happen? There is an explanation. It's possible for our government to perpetrate such an incredible hoax. Is it conceivable that with its $40 billion price tag, the Apollo program was nothing more than the most expensive movie ever made? I think about personally, and I totally believed this after all years of research at that illness. NASA never knew the pinion. I would say that anybody who believes that we did not go to the moon is an absolute nut. Anyone who wants to call me a poop or a nut or a crack caught, they're welcome to do that. It's also welcome to go examine the evidence, which is everywhere. The United States went to the moon in the 1960s and 1970s. End of story. Is there any way to put this controversy to rest once and for all? The only thing the experts agree upon is that the answer is a quarter of a million miles away. If NASA truly landed on the moon, remnants of the six successful Apollo missions would have been left behind. The base structures of the lambs, abandoned lunar robers, even the American flags would still be standing at Eastlandings. I would like to invite NASA and all of their supporters to simply take the most powerful telescope on Earth and see if there's a lunar lander there. If there's a lunar lander there, I'll never say another word about an Apollo. If there's no lunar lander there, I'll rest my case. No telescope exists that can examine the moon in such detail. Do objects from the Apollo missions remain on the moon, Excilent Testimonious? Or is the conspiracy very true? In two years, Japan will send an orbiter to take close-up photos of the moon's surface. What will they find? Until then, the question remains. Did we land on the moon? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. We'll be right back after our break with more including interviews with the astronauts where their demeanor is oddly depressed. Unenthusiastic, which I regard is extremely telling. We'll be right back. The following program deals with a contraver. I don't know. I'm watching here on the backside, Jim. I don't see any break start and then it should have already started. If you want to start in and let you know if you're something happens. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. We're still alive. One of the most extraordinary to me in telling events that confirmed we didn't go as a demeanor of the astronauts during a press conference when they ought to have been. I wasn't. We ought to have been ecstatic. They ought to have been bubbling over with enthusiasm. Mitchell, are we on the break? No, we're good. Jim. We're good. Go ahead. Okay. Okay. Okay. But instead we find very somber, rehearsed answers. Lessened to this. Does any of this sound you authentic? I think it's not. The astronauts. We lost. Michael problems. It was our pleasure to have participated in one great adventure. To adventure that took place not just in the month of July. But rather one that took place a nine second. We all hear and the people listening in today had the opportunity to share that adventure over its developing and then rolling in the past months and years. We've had a lot of problems today. To share with you. Some of the details of that. Final month of July. That was. Certainly the highlight for the tree of us. Of that. We're going to divert a little bit from the format of past press conferences. And talk about the things that interested us most. In particular, the. The things that occurred. On and about the moon. We will use. The number of. Films and. In slides which most of you have already seen. In. With the intent of pointing out some of the things that we observed on the spot, which we not. And so we're going to take a look at the. And then we're going to take a look at the. The. The. The. The. The flight as you started. Roundly. And I think that was characteristic of. The. That's one magnificent drive. Both. Into earth orbit. And on a. Project rate to the moon. Our. Our memory. Of that. Actually differs little. And so we're going to take a look at the. And then we're going to take a look at the. From. From those. Previous center and five flights. And. And those. The previous flight served as well. In preparation for this flight. In the boost as well as the subsequent phases. Well. We would like to skip directly to. The trans. And then we're going to take a look at the. And then we're going to take a look at the. That was embarrassingly bad. Shameful. If I. Had been to the moon. You couldn't get me to. Shut up. I'd be talking about it wildly. Enthusiasmacically describing every aspect of a phenomenon. Here and a four unknown demand. But obviously. From there to mean remains unknown demand. Because we didn't go. I mean, just look at that. It's ridiculous. Totally scripted. Afraid of. I mean, this is really so. I mean, we're going to. Absolutely. I mean, this is. I mean, this is. Yes. Totally controlled. Subdude. Unintusiasmacically no reality about it. Very, very shocking. Now, let me tell you how the American media wants to continue to cover this up. A few days ago, I received an invitation from Yahoo. Asking me to participate in a program talking about how. I'm Gary and I'm a producer with Yahoo in New York City. I'm producing a video for the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 mission. And I'm looking to interview someone on camera, VS.Kide, about the theory that the moon landing didn't happen. I'm reaching out to see if you'd be interested in chatting about it. Happy to answer any questions you may have. Well, I was completely enthusiastic, absolutely wrote back, told him if he were interested. I also had some visuals. I, he said that would be terrific. I said in the set of slides, you'll see here during the second hour of the show. And that was enough. He wrote back and said, Hi, Mr. Fatser, unfortunately, the story just got shall for budget reasons. Shouldn't come back, I'll reach out. Thanks for your time. Was anybody believe that? A little interview with me for five minutes or 10 about the moon landing had to be shall for budget reasons by Yahoo. Obviously, what they heard, what they got for me, had them crapping in their pants. I mean, it's embarrassingly bad now. Some of what I was explaining to him, as you will see now, overlaps with what you heard in the documentary conspiracy theory that we land on the moon. Because virtually every aspect reported there is spot on completely right. Here's a description, further description of the Van Allen radiation belts, a torus donut shape of energetic charge particles circling Earth around its magnetic equator and held in place by Earth's magnetic field. The main belts extend from an altitude of about 1,000 to 60,000 kilometers above the surface in which region radiation levels vary. Most of the particles that form the belts are thought to govern solar wind and other particles by cosmic rays. In order for the Apollo or any lunar mission to be successful, therefore, the equipment and crew aboard the safe gap would have to be adequately shield from exposure from the intense radiation surrounding planet Earth. You heard the estimate six feet of lead. Six feet of lead. Unbelievable. Now, this is a fascinating revelation where NASA itself blew it back in 2012. Moon landing hopes. NASA and Whittily reveals Van Allen radiation belts prohibit human space flight. Since Neil Armstrong, the first man on the moon passed away a few days ago, I thought I'd post the following NASA article, which was released, about 10 hours ago. The following is a comment with a username, UN4G1B3M. NASA is still seeking to develop technology to safeguard humans for space flight into radiation-laden space within and beyond the Van Allen radiation belts, and the protection provided by our magnetosphere until that technology is available. Until that technology is available. Our exploits into space will continue to be well below the beginning of radiation belts. So intense. And Allen called them a sea of deadly radiation. What we know from the effects of radiation on Earth teaches us that Apollo was nothing more than a fantasy. According to the YouTube vid, every spaceship whether Russian or American with humans aboard, beginning in 1961 to the present, have all maintained altitudes of 1,000 miles well below the Van Allen radiation belts. The only spacecraft to go through the 25,000 miles of those belts was the Apollo. And obviously that's a contrived claim. That's a fantasy. We didn't do it. We didn't go. Here's another rather fascinating line of argument, too. Temperature changes with altitude. The atmosphere is divided into different layers, depending on how temperature changes. Take a look at the graph below to see how temperature changes with altitude. And you got an altitude on the left. And then you got the temperatures bearing in the graph with higher temperatures to the right lower to the left. The troposphere, the stratosphere, the massosphere, the thermosphere, which is the interesting aspect or level for our purposes. The thermosphere is typically about 200 degrees Celsius, 360 degrees Fahrenheit, hotter in the daytime than at night. In roughly 500 degrees Celsius, 900 degrees Fahrenheit hotter when the sun is very active than at other times. Get this. Temperatures in the upper thermosphere can range from about 500 degrees Celsius, 932 degrees Fahrenheit to 2,000 degrees Celsius, 3,632 degrees Fahrenheit or higher. That's the number to bear in mind. 3,632 degrees Fahrenheit. The latest proof that we didn't go comes from the temperatures the spacecraft would have had to endure had we gone to the moon. In NASA admits we never went to the moon on forbiddenknowledgetv.net 27th September 2017. We learned that the melting points of the materials of which it was made, aluminum alloy, stainless steel, titanium, nickel steel alloy, and heat resistance glass, would have been exceeded in passing through this thermosphere and route to the moon. A spacecraft made of these materials would have melted in flight. Temperatures in the thermosphere up to 400 miles above Earth's surface can reach from 932 degrees Fahrenheit to 3,632 degrees Fahrenheit, for example, which exceeds the melting points of the materials of which the spacecraft is made. Aluminum alloy, melting point 671 degrees Fahrenheit. Stainless steel, melting point 2750 degrees Fahrenheit. Titanium, melting point 334 degrees Fahrenheit. Nickel steel alloy, melting point 2647 degrees Fahrenheit. Heat resistant glass, 1400 degrees Fahrenheit. Supposed you scratched a couple of the, with a higher melting point, which are still well below the 3632 aluminum alloy at 671. Heat resistant glass at 1400 degrees Fahrenheit. Obviously we have been blamed. A spacecraft made of these materials would have melted in flight. You heard Collins saying the Saturn gave him a great ride. Well, that's also fraudulent. We have a Soviet physicist who did a study of the thrust produced by Saturn five rockets and discovered that it was insufficient to escape low Earth orbit. Just part of the abstract. A frame-by-frame examination of the motion picture of film footage of the first-age separation of the Apollo 11 Saturn five rocket was made. The velocity achieved at the separation point was found to be significantly 800 to 1100 miles per second lower than that required to satisfy the stated flight plan. It's finding implies that the declared payload needed for return lunar mission could not have been propelled to the moon. Doubts about the veracity of the Apollo lunar missions arose immediately after the 1968 through 72 flights. To a large extent, this was due to the release of a considerable amount of photographic stills film video material by NASA. Detailed analysis of the material led some to conclude that the imagery was not taken on the surface of the moon, but the sheer volume of material involved is so great that it is technically impossible to come to a definitive conclusion regarding the reality of the Apollo mission. By analysis of the photographic material alone, consequently it was decided to study the underline rocket engineering. Well, if the Saturn five didn't have sufficient thrust to escape low-vers orbit, then we did not escape low-worth orbit, and obviously we did not go to the moon. This was not the only technical limitation that was encountered here during my interview with Dennis Camino, and we've done several. Where Dennis was the top electronics troubleshutor for the Navy, before he left the Navy and went to work to Raytheon, we studied the computer that was allegedly maintaining the course and flight instructions for this mission. It was not only inadequate to the task, it was non-functional. It couldn't have computed a simple sum of two plus two. What was that meant? Your typical iPod or laptop as more computing power today than was available in 1969 and 1970 for these Apollo spaceflights. Moreover, as an interesting aside, when Huffington Post put up a very childish tweet that it claimed debunked all the moon landing skeptics, where it read roughly as follows, anyone who thinks we didn't go to the moon needs to have their brain examine. I mean, it was that insignificant in child life. I used it as an occasion to begin posting proof that we hadn't gone. The most interesting independent comment came from a man, a professional who said he had been in communications in that era, 6970. In order to communicate broadcast, a distant really, he wasn't talking on the order of 250,000 miles, would have required a van the size of a bread truck. Well, to my knowledge, none of us noticed a van the size of a bread truck on the moon. And I would mention more over that we've all from time to time notice time lags when there's a great distance between two parties who are in communication. Well, this would be a greater distance by, you know, at least 10 or 100 times and has ever been transmitted before by human beings between one another and yet you'll recall when we're doing that watching this footage, there's virtually no time lag whatsoever between Houston and the moon on the moon. Which of course implies once again, that's because they weren't on the moon. I take it back to Capricorn one where they were faking the moon landing from a set that was located in an obscure region of the Mojave Desert. It now would appear that it may have been done in this obscure region on as area 51. But the upshot is the same. If there was no time lag in the conversation because changes that occurred here, it wasn't from a distance of approximately 250,000 miles and therefore does not support that we went to the moon. Now, not only is there no atmosphere on the moon but there is no moisture on the moon. And for that reason, I do not believe that moon dust would be able to retain imprints from the boots of astronauts. Here I'm looking at a photograph however, that shows astronaut boot prints in what is alleged to be moon dust. My opinion is the lack of atmosphere would have meant that moon dust could no more retain boot imprints than could the sands of the Sahara. Try to get an impression of a boot in a Sahara environment. It can't happen. It's absurd. Yet here we have these impressions. Interestingly, circle, there's an extra add on here because we have an impression of a sneaker in moon dust. Now, need I observe, none of the astronauts were wearing sneakers on the moon. But it appears some of those on the set of the moon landing staging inadvertently got there sneaker print into the moon photograph, which of course once again refutes the very idea that we went to the moon. Now, if indeed a moon dust will retain tracks then we have or imprints, that we have the additional counter example of moon rovers that no tracks in front, no tracks behind, no tracks in between their wheels, which of course would be impossible if moon dust does retain imprints. Unless in this instance, for example, it'd been lowered by a crane. We therefore confront a dilemma. Either a moon dust retains imprints or it does not. If moon dust retains imprints and the moon rovers leaving no tracks in the moon dust refute that we were on the moon. On the other hand, if moon dust does not retain imprints then the photographs we have of the astronaut, moon imprints plus the sneaker shows that we were not on the moon again. Therefore, it follows that either moon dust will retain imprints or will not. We were not on the moon or we were not on the moon, which means we were not on the moon. Many of the other photographs, which were also discussed in conspiracy theory, suggest problems with shadows. Here's one where the flag, the flag itself is not cast in a shadow. You have the astronaut near the flag, the astronaut's cast in a shadow, the flag is not. Here's another. There's only supposed to be one source of light in relation to the moon, namely the sun. Where the sun is such an immense distance that it would be, all the shadows cast would be virtually exactly parallel to one another. You'd have none diverging and headed or cast in divergent directions. And yet here we have a very clear photograph from Apollo 14. This indicates that there were multiple sources of light in his Marks of Brawl was so clearly observing. That means once again, they were not taken on the moon. Jack White had a brilliant approach to this, which was purely quantitative. He wanna add up how many photographs were taken during the various missions, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 16, 17, not 13, scratch 13, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17. How many photographs were taken and how much time was there to take them? Okay? It turns out when you add up the total number of photos, on Apollo 11, there were 121 photos in 31 minutes. On Apollo 12, 504 photos in 230 minutes, Apollo 14, 374 photos in 385 minutes. Apollo 15, 1,021 photos in 750 minutes. Apollo 16, 1765 photos in 854 minutes. Apollo 17, 186 photos in 844 minutes. So to put it more simply, on Apollo 11, one photo every 15 seconds. Apollo 12, one photo every 27 seconds. Apollo 14, one photo every 62 seconds. Apollo 15, one photo every 44 seconds. Apollo 16, one photo every 29 seconds. Apollo 17, one photo every 26 seconds. I mean, it's completely absurd. The simplicity of his argument has great force because it doesn't presuppose any special knowledge of photographic anomalies or defects. The agency wants the world to believe that 1771 photographs were taken in 4834 minutes. If nothing but photography had been done, such a feat is clearly impossible, made even more so by all the documented activities of the astronauts. Imagine 1.19 photos every minute, and we're on the moon, that's a picture of every 50 seconds. A picture of every 50 seconds. It's not merely the staggering number of photographs that undermines this evidence, but the existence of any photographs in all cosmic rays, ISIS back, would have contaminated the photographic plates and made moon photography impossible. But bear in mind, too, the point made. Every one of these photographs is perfectly focused and framed, and yet the cameras were mounted external to the spacesuits. The astronauts were unable to focus or to frame any of those photographs. Hence, how could they possibly have all been perfectly photographed and framed? The only possible explanation is because none of it was legitimate, they were all fake. Meanwhile, when you examine the moon lander, it's a ridiculously flimsy piece of contraption. I mean, more sturdy than a tinker toy contraption, perhaps, but not much more. Students, with whom I've collaborated, gone to the Space Museum in Washington, DC, and reported how they were completely appalled by the fact that this appeared to be made out of different colored aluminum foil. It's utterly insubstantial. It could not possibly have performed the feats attributed to it in relation to the moon missions. Not only that, but you heard the report about how there was no crater, no blast crater, there was no moon dust on the landing pads. And also how the cameras had two crosses, two axes and scribed in the lands. Well, here you see another example where the moon lander leg is blocking the X when the X had to be on top of the moon lander leg. I mean, it's embarrassingly bad. In addition, another photograph, which has now been removed from the project Apollo image gallery, it was number AS 1246, 6765, which was supposed to be the sun, was subjected to commuter analysis and it turned out to be a giant light bulb instead, a giant light bulb instead. Here's one of Jack's brilliant pieces where he's comparing two different photographs of Buzz Aldrin. On the left, Buzz has big helmet, short legs, long arms, and chest area with set of controls on the right. But on the another photograph above, Buzz has short arms, longer legs, smaller helmet, different chest controls at the left, judging from the ribs, but they were taken in approximately the same location. This whole moon landing business was a hoax, a joke. Meanwhile, and this was reported in 2017, why did NASA just destroy Apollo tape recordings found in a basement? The nation's base agency may or may not be trying to hide something, but it just did something extremely suspicious, as reported by the UK's Daily Mail. NASA officials recently discovered a trove of historical tapes from the Apollo era with a space agency was sending astronauts to the moon and then destroyed them after they turned up in a basement in Pittsburgh. Get that. If this had all been legit, if this had been real, this would be the most priceless footage ever taken by the hand of man. NASA undoubtedly destroyed them because modern technology would have revealed they were fake. Here's my favorite. Here's my absolute favorite. This is reported in 2016. Help NASA solve its space problem and win $30,000. NASA wants your help to solve a rather complicated issue affecting the comfort and safety of its astronauts. After all, when you got to go, you got to go. And someday, sometimes you got to go into total vacuum. Astronauts have previously relied on adult nappies. That's adult diapers while wearing their launch and entry suits, a temporary solution that is only good for a rounded day or 24 hours. NASA is now sponsoring the Space Boop Challenge through which it is seeking the public's help to devise an in-suit waste management system for astronauts to use for up to 144 hours in a time. There's a $30,000 prize up for grabs for whoever comes up with a solution that NASA judges to be the most promising for implementation and use on missions in the next three or four years. Well, bear in mind only good for a rounded day, the space missions that were alleged to have taken place in 1969, 1970 lasted seven or eight days, which in my opinion is conclusive proof that the whole Apollo moon landing claims or nothing but a gigantic pile of space poop, it's that bad. So here's a summary overview. You want to commit yourself to understanding. Did we go to the moon? We lack the propulsion power. We lack the computing power. We lack the communication ability. Photographic anomalies all at Jack White. Conspiracy theory, did we land on the moon? One of my interviews with Dennis Camino, the great moon landing hoax, another with Dennis Camino. The real, well, conspiracy theory, do we land on the moon? You've seen it here. That is the classic, the right place to begin. Then mine, the great moon landing hoax with Dennis Camino and the real deal, the moon landing hoax with Dennis Camino. NASA admits a problem going to Mars as the Van Allen radiation bell. Found hundreds of hours of moon landing footage and NASA destroyed it. Help NASA with its space poop problem only 24 hours versus eight days. Materials used have melting points to loot, to load to make it into outer space. Now the National Geographic has actually featured the space program on several of its cover and issues in December 1969, for example. Apollo 11 moon landing Neil Armstrong, famous photo of Edwin Buzz Aldrin, walking across the surface of the moon lands on the cover of National Geographic. Five months after the astronauts' historic voyage, like John Glenn before him, as Armstrong carried a small National Geographic flag to the moon and back, which he presented as society president Melvin Bain, when the Apollo 11 crew was awarded the Hubbard Medal in 1970. But years later, National Graphic would have a very different cover about the war on science. So in a moon landing sitting on a stage, the prop for a movie in a guarantee of the later cover is more accurate than the farmer. What most worldwide observers have found most convincing, however, is the moon rocks that were reduced. What they do not know is that Warner von Braun had led an expedition to the Antarctic in 1967 to gather moon rocks that had been dislodged from the surface of the moon by the impact of small asteroids caught in Earth's gravitational field and brought down to Earth in the Antarctic. So he had them available to be presented as moon rocks. And they were genuine, modified moon rocks. Only they had arrived on Earth by a different mode of transportation than that of leds by NASA and the government. Here is an interview I did, by the way, with the largest most popular radio show in Cleveland. Now, it turned out I only had 14 or 15 minutes. And it's top to pack everything that you'd like to explain in that very time. But it certainly worth listening to this. I'm not taking calls today. Here we go. It's like the radio was stuck in caps lock the lights were bizarre. It was 50 years ago this Saturday when the world heard the words, that's one small step from an one giant leaf from mankind. Let me start again. I get the call from from astronaut Neil Armstrong. I'm trending Australia. Apollo 11 lunar. But I'm not taking calls. Or it landed on the moon. Armstrong and fellow astronauts Buzz Aldrin and Michael Callan were launched in the space from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida before touching down on the moon four days later. Armstrong and Aldrin spent two hours on the moon collecting more than 47 pounds of material to bring back to Earth. 50 years ago Saturday. And I'm not lying. What is right now? We have Dr. James Fetzer, Professor Emeritus of the University of Minnesota, Duluth. And Dr. Fetzer is of the belief that we never approached the moon. We never landed on the moon. And we never walked on the moon. And a little emphasis to a few points of most people. Dr. and bring them up. Dr. how you doing today? I'm just doing great. Mike, I'm delighted to be with you. They're in sleep on its terrific. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. So you believe we did not land on the moon? Well, it's provable. Mike, we didn't have that technical capability. And it was a physical impossibility as well. I want to get into it. The brits of the obstacle is the Van Allen radiation valve. It turns out that in fact the NASA spokesman back in 2012 admitted that the major obstacle to a manned mission to Mars was the Van Allen radiation valve, which is an chemical to human beings and other living things. If we could have do it in 2012, we certainly couldn't do it in 1969, 1970. That Van Allen radiation valve has been there about as long as Earth or 4 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 It's over. Go ahead and book some this right, Dr. I do. I have a book and I suppose we didn't go to the moon either, which was a sequel to my first nobody died at Sandy Hook, which my series editor suggested might be the appropriate response to hearing that title. And I suppose we didn't go to the moon either. But we didn't go to the moon. Mike, it was impossible. Here's another reason. It turns out the temperature changes with altitude. So if you go from the troposphere to the stratosphere to the mesosphere to the thermosphere, the temperature increases. It turns out in the thermosphere that the temperature can range from 500 degrees Celsius, which is 930 degrees Fahrenheit to 2,000 degrees Celsius, 3,632 degrees Fahrenheit or higher. Now that's crucial because the spaceship was supposed to be made out of aluminum alloy stainless steel, titanium, nickel and steel alloy heat resistant glass. Well, aluminum alloy has a melting point of 671 degrees Fahrenheit, stainless steel, 2750, titanium, 3,034. Nickel steel alloy, 2,647 heat resistant glass, 1,400. So they would have melted. The spaceship would have come apart in the thermosphere. Mike, it wasn't even physically possible to go to the moon. Now, when you bring all this stuff up, does anybody ever call you that I want to say government related or NASS or something like that and go Dr. Fester, you're completely out of your mind. Does that ever happen? No, no. Generally, they don't want to mess with me, Mike, because I do my homework. I have 35 years of higher education offering courses in logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning. I published at this point in time more than 36 books, including 2,000 academic scholarly works on the nature of scientific knowledge on the foundations that computer science are. Your science artificial intelligence cognitive science evolution and mentality. But since my retirement in 2006, I've been devoting myself to the study of these controversial cases to sort them out because a public deserves to know the truth. I bring together the best experts. And I have published multiple volumes on JFK, 2 on 9, 11, Sandy Hook, the Boston Bobby, Orlando Dallas, Parkland, Charlottesville. Because today we're approaching the 50th mic. And I think 50 years of a moon landing hopes is 50 years too many. And point out a couple of other features. Before you do anything else, there's the thousands of people supposedly that worked on us going to the moon. How could all of them people have kept us alive? See, that's the one thing that I wonder. What's their jobs, Mike? I mean, we had 100,000 involved in the Manhattan Project, the Wilking, the Atomic Wapet, and they didn't talk either. I mean, when your paycheck depends on keeping your mouse shut, it becomes a lot easier for people to keep their mouse shut. I mean, the amount of truth we have here is simply overwhelming. For example, if so, the at-fisesis, published an article a long time ago demonstrating the standard five rockets didn't have sufficient for us to escape low-Earth orbit. And in fact, there's no good reason to believe that we have ever put anyone out beyond low-Earth orbit. Many of the photographs that come from the moon provide further confirmation. For example, I'm looking right now at a photograph where you see book prints in the moon dust. Now, frankly, because there's no atmosphere on the moon, Mike, I don't believe the moon dust could retain in prints any more than the sands of the Sahara. But if it does, we not only have book prints, but one of the members of the staff got a sneaker in there. So we've even got a sneaker print that should have been present. We also have photos of the moon rovers where there are no tracks before, in Trotter, in the middle, suggesting they were put down by a crane. So either the moon dust retains imprint or it doesn't, if it retains imprint, then we have these moon rovers photographs with no tracks that disprove it. If it does it retain in prints, we have the astronauts' book prints, but also the sneaker from someone on the crew who inadvertently got captured in one of the photographs. Very, very embarrassing, but either way, it's a disprove that we went to the moon, Mike. How about the flag on the moon? Well, that's great. In fact, the I first got hooked on this in 2001 when my wife and I went to London and we stayed at the Morgan Hotel on Bloomsbury Street. I picked it because her mate name was Morgan. It backs onto the British Museum. And I turned on one of the BBC channels to see they were playing conspiracy theory that we land on the moon. They gave one scientific proof after another. It was very, very impressive, I can because my PhD, my background is in the history of science and the philosophy of sc