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