Rebel Road
Exploring the road less traveled on faith, mystery and the supernatural.
Rebel Road
The Moon, The Landing and the Lies
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
Send us a message! We want to hear from you!
Discover the fascinating and controversial theories surrounding the moon, from alleged hoaxes to ancient legends and scientific anomalies. Haley and Mary delve into the mysteries of lunar formation, the Apollo missions, and the potential hidden truths that NASA and other nations might be concealing.
- The true scale and scope of the Apollo moon landings, including the lesser-known six missions and their scientific findings.
- Theories suggesting the moon is hollow, possibly a spacecraft or an ancient construction, supported by seismic and geological evidence.
- The anomalies in lunar photography, shadows, hot spots, and the absence of star visibility in moon landing images.
- The possibility that the moon was artificially placed or is an alien/ancient structure, with legends from cultures like the Zulu and Sumerians pointing to a pre-moon Earth.
- Scientific debates about moon formation theories, including the giant impact hypothesis and alternative ideas like the moon being a captured object or a hollow shell.
- The significance of moon rocks, some testing to Petrified Wood or other materials, and the presence of rare elements like Helium-3 and metals like titanium and zirconium.
The intriguing stories of NASA astronauts and officials, including Gus Grissom’s suspicious death and statements from other space pioneers.
- The political, technological, and propaganda elements behind the moon landings, including space race rivalries with USSR and China.
- The possibility that humanity’s lunar activities are part of a deeper agenda involving extraterrestrials, secret societies, or advanced technology.
- The critical view of lunar images, shadows, and equipment, suggesting a possible staged event or cover-up.
Remember: Question everything, keep it weird and pull it back to Jesus!
Do you have a crazy or interesting story about a paranormal or supernatural event? Did a cryptid stalk you on a camping trip? Ghost in your childhood home? We want to hear about it! Email us at rebelroadguest@gmail.com
Look into:
Was the Moon Landing Faked? Mythbusters
Thank you for listening!
Rebel Road theme music by: B3yondBeatz Tony Simms
In July nineteen sixty-nine, the world anxiously watched as the first men in history landed on the moon. That is the story we all know. But there is so much more to the Apollo program than that one giant leap. What many people don't know or have forgotten is that NASA accomplished six Apollo moon landings in just three years' time. Twelve men have walked on the regolith of the moon. Six American flags hang motionless on the lunar surface. America won the great space breeze, spent the equivalent of$300 billion, then killed the seemingly successful Apollo program. Decades passed and no other country has walked on the moon. America proved mankind could, not once, not twice, but six times. Yet we have never been back. Why? Apollo 12 was the second Saturn V rocket to bring a three-man crew to the moon, just a few short months after the famous Apollo 11 landing. In November of 1969, astronauts Charles Conrad, Richard Gordon, and Alan Bean made their way back to the Moon. The flight plan for Apollo 12 was similar to that of Apollo 11, except Apollo 12 was to fly a higher inclination to the lunar equator and leave the free return trajectory after the second translunar mid-course correction. This first, non-free return trajectory on an Apollo mission was designed to allow for a daylight launch and a translunar injection above the Pacific Ocean. The mission would last for 10 days, 4 hours, and 36 minutes. Their mission? Extensive lunar exploration and the deployment of the Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments package. This time, the crew brought along a state-of-the-art upgraded colored television camera to broadcast live from the moon, an upgrade from the grainy black and white footage of the Apollo 11 moon landing. The Apollo 12 astronauts took over 2,000 usable images with specially made hassle black cameras. These included 1,438 black and white images and 571 color images plus additional infrared images. During their mission, Apollo 12 was also trying to prove NASA could land a spacecraft on target. You see, Apollo 11 missed their original landing site by four miles. Apollo 12's target on the moon? The Surveyor 3 spacecraft, a robotic lander that had touched down on the lunar surface just three years earlier in 1967. On launch day, Apollo 12 encountered trouble right from the start. The launch happened in the middle of a thunderstorm. Disappearing into the clouds, and at just 30 seconds into their flight, at 6,000 feet, Apollo 12 was struck by lightning, thrusting the spacecraft into chaos. Warning lights lit up across the instrument panels, and the crew lost contact with mission control. The astronauts held their breath, waiting. And 16 seconds later, at 14,000 feet, it was struck by lightning again. A mission control commander saved the day. This switched the signal conditioning equipment to auxiliary mode, which restored power and allowed the mission to continue. Following their near disaster, the mission continued in almost a perfect landing. As the astronauts began to broadcast their moonwalk, just a few minutes in, astronaut Alan Bean accidentally pointed the TV camera directly into the Sun. Due to no atmospheric filtration, the full power of the sun instantly destroyed the fragile vacuum tubes inside the camera, and the broadcast ended. Despite this disappointing setback, the Apollo 12 astronauts made their way to the Surveyor 3 spacecraft and retrieved a few items, which they returned to Earth, the first man-made objects ever to return from a long space stay. Another win for America. The Apollo 12 astronauts also deployed a very important piece of technology, the Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package, or ALCEP, a sophisticated collection of geophysical instruments designed to monitor the lunar environment continuously. This included the lunar seismic experiment, essentially a seismometer to measure moonquakes. To test this new equipment, after the astronauts had lifted off from the surface of the moon, spending a total of seven hours and 45 minutes in two different walks, their lunar spacecraft, Intrepid, was then intentionally crashed into the moon. Once the astronauts made it back to the Apollo command module in orbit, they sent the Intrepid back to crash into the Moon. The impact occurred about 40 miles from the Apollo 12 landing site. The Intrepid hit the surface at over 3,700 miles per hour, equivalent to about one ton of TNT, and the results left scientists like Dr. Gary Latham, the lead researcher, astounded. On Earth, a similar impact would last only a few minutes. Yet on the Moon, the shock waves built and peaked at around 8 minutes, with vibrations continuing for an astounding 55 minutes. The moon rained like a bell. The seismic waves traveled through the entire lunar body, something that baffled geologists. Even the lead scientist, Dr. Latham himself, said the data was so strange they had to recheck their instruments. This single experiment shattered the ideal that the moon was a single, solid rock. It suggested that something was fundamentally different about its structure. Perhaps the moon contained hollow spaces or a fractured dry core that allowed the vibrations to propagate without dampening. That ringing was the first hard data point showing the moon held deeper secrets than we know. With scientific data, actual moon rocks, seemingly photographic evidence, and astronaut testimonies, we've been to the moon. Or did we really?
SPEAKER_05We choose to go to the moon.
SPEAKER_04Tranquility days here.
SPEAKER_01And I'm Haley. Hello, everyone. We are back with another full-length episode. And this is a good one, if I do say so myself. I'm sure from our opening you figured it out. We're talking about the moon. And what is she? And of course, the big question: did we really walk on the moon? Mary, how are you doing today? You feeling good? Are you ready for this one? And do you have your tinfoil hat on?
SPEAKER_00As ready as I can be. And I don't think a tinfoil hat is gonna keep Mike from looking at me the same when we start talking about this. And he's gonna be like, you are crazy.
SPEAKER_01Well, let me just say, I'm gonna put it on the record. I don't think we went to the moon. Now, if you would have talked to about 15 years ago, 20 years ago, me, I probably would have said something different. But, Mary, uh are you gonna change my mind today in this episode?
SPEAKER_00I don't think I will, Haley, but before we get started, I just want to take a moment and thank everyone who takes the time to listen to our podcast. We know there are so many to listen to, and it means a lot that you all just tune in and listen to us week after week. So if you like the podcast, if you enjoy it, then please just take a moment, hit that subscribe button, pause this podcast, hit the subscribe button, and come back to us. And if you're on Apple or Spotify, please, please, please hit that five-star review. It really helps us.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, we love it when we see those come across.
SPEAKER_00Okay, Haley, that's all done. Are you ready? Are you ready to talk about the moon? The moon. Let's do it, Mary. I love the moon. I always have, and I kind of love her even more after working on this episode. These episodes make me dig deeper into things that I may have only had like a surface knowledge of or have read a little thing about, and I just kind of tucked it away. And so after I'm done, I'm always like, What? Do people know this? What am I reading about? And today, the moon, she has made me a verifiable lunatic with all of this information.
SPEAKER_01Well, is it lunatic or moonatic? I we always keep coming up with some kind of great idea for the merch. So I I like that. Lunatic or moonatic.
SPEAKER_00I do love that too. Moonatic, I love that. We gotta get some t-shirts, but Hayley, the moon. Okay, so at night, this beautiful, big, bright, wildly complex and weird moon keeps us company. She's kind of like me, you know. Now, other planets they have moons, but ours, ours is the biggest and is completely unlike anything in the solar system. And she continues to stomp science. They just can't explain how it was formed, it makes no sense, and its density or its composition or its structure, they have no idea still. Our moon is a beautiful weird mystery. Now, our moon is about 25% the size of Earth and behaves more like a planet than a moon. No other planet in our solar system or any other solar system that we have found has a moon as large as ours. Our moon orbits much more closely than it should. And this orbit, again, is a weird mystery. Our moon is the only object that man has observed that has a nearly perfect circular orbit. Even our satellites have an elliptical orbit. And this circular orbit, it's not found, again, anywhere in the solar systems either. Now, this orbit, because of how perfect it is, makes our moon appear to be the same size as our sun. This is why we have eclipses. The Earth is 400 times our distance to the Sun, and the size of our Sun is 400 times the size of the moon. So this is what makes them appear to be the same size in our skies, and why we get those seemingly eclipses where things block out. So is that a coincidence or is it by design?
SPEAKER_01Yeah, the moon is something I think that we really kind of take for granted. And one of the most wonderful things that I love about the moon and her mystery, it's those earliest legends of the moon. And did you know that according to oral traditions and some ancient writings, Earth was once without a moon?
SPEAKER_00Go on. I love these stories.
SPEAKER_01I do too. And every ancient culture has stories about the moon. All of them. But the further we go back in time, there are less and less stories about the moon. And we find accounts that talk about a sky before the moon. Now, the Greeks have stories about the proselynes who lived in Arcadia. And they said that they lived on the earth before there was a moon in the heavens. If you go to the Aboriginal oral traditions, they contain narratives describing a time before the moon existed in the sky. In Bolivia and Tiawanka, they also refer to a time when there was no moon. The Tiawanka claim the moon arrived around 11,500 to 13,000 years ago. Now, this is around the younger driest period or when the ice age happened. Which we're not gonna go down the time frame of Earth here, but it is interesting. You know, it's no moon, but the Zulu, they have a legend that says the moon is hollow. And can you believe that one? But there's more to that. Also, living inside the moon is an intelligent race. Now, wait for this. It's the reptilian extraterrestrials. And so lizard people, and I'm telling you off another on the record, Mary. I swear I've seen lizard people. That's a probably another one. I told everyone to put on their tinfoil mats on. So yes, I swear I've seen a reptilian. But you know, again, we'll get back to that one in a different episode. Now, these people, their belief was the moon was put into orbit by two gods, and that it was stolen and moved into place to observe and control humanity. Now, the Sumerians they also had a legend of two brothers, Inki and Anil, who were called Anunnaki or the Fallen Angels. Now, to make it even crazier, the Zulu legend is not done. They say the climate of the earth was very different before the moon showed up. There were no seasons, and there was a blanket of thick water vapor that covered the entire planet. I do know some people say before the flood it never rained because a mist covered the earth and the atmosphere and contained it. So it was like a pressure chamber.
SPEAKER_00You know, Haley, that is interesting because the moon does stabilize our climate. Without it, the moon and the gravity in our orbit, our axis here on Earth would wobble and we wouldn't have consistent seasons or tides. The presence of the moon is what stabilizes all life on Earth. If you look at Venus, they always say that it has got a terrible, turbulent, violent atmosphere. And that's what it would be like here on Earth without our moon.
SPEAKER_01It really is absolutely fascinating. And we know that there are truths in oral legends and that ancient lore, but back to the Zulu, they say when the moon arrived, the water vapor, it all fell at once. And that's what created a global flood. Now remember the early dryest period and that ice age, science says it was brought on by that global flood. And we also have the flood narratives from all cultures and the Bible. So all the flood narratives are in perfect sync with each other. Now, the Zulu, they do go on to speak of how the moon arrival changed the tides and it gave us seasons and stabilized the weather. Now, science didn't really understand just how important the moon was or that it did do this until probably this past century. But like always, the ancients knew they knew before science told us.
SPEAKER_00Love it. And Haley, just stick with me here. Listeners, stick with me. I'm gonna build a little bit on your ancient legend stories using science. I promise we're gonna get to the moon landings. Allegend. But Haley, you chime in anytime I say something that is a little contradictory to the conspiracy of we did land. Okay, I will. Okay. Now that science can't agree on how the moon was formed. There are some wild ideals out there. And again, why do we need to know how it was made? Why? But let's see what science is theorizing. First, we have this fission hypothesis. Um, this was popular, but it was only popular for like a tiny bit, just tiny. And in this one, the earth was spinning so fast because it didn't have a moon to stabilize it, it was just spinning, that a giant rock from the Pacific Ocean just woof flung out into space and shot right up into our atmosphere and got caught in our gravity. I mean, the earth, she had to have been booking it to do that. But from the study of moon rocks, because we have moon rocks, um, we've learned that moon rock is way older than the bottom of the ocean. So that wild ride is out. And folks, we can get moon rocks they tested with remote. And then we have this is a good one, the capture theory, maybe my favorite. The moon was floating through space, you know, just like traveling through space. She got pulled into Earth's orbit and she just kind of stayed there. She just rolled up on Earth and was like, hey, hey, I live here now. Highly impossible. But another theory that's very popular is the accretion theory. Now, this one to me is bonkers, but the moon and the earth formed at the same time out of dust clouds in the early solar system. So they kind of were made together. It sounds like creation, but is it? Because when systems are formed through accretion, they share similar traits. And our big, beautiful moon and earth are not the same. If the moon was formed this way, they would share the same traits. The moon would have an iron core like the earth, and it would spin on an axis like the earth. But she doesn't. But the most popular explanation, the one that scientists are leaning heavily towards, is the giant impact theory. Don't you just love how they're all just theories? Remember, a theory is not, it is in no way scientific evidence or proof. It is their best guess. And we have talked about that over and over. Scientific theories have been proved wrong, and we love science, but we hate the dogma that can come from science. Now, impact theory says that a large object, and they have called this object Thea. So Thea was about the size of Mars, or and you know, I don't know, it was some sort of a wild asteroid or a falling planet. I'm not really sure what they think it was. Anyway, Thea crashed into proto-Earth or Earth before she was fully formed, and a debris field from the crash shot into space, and then it grew or formed, so it actually melded into what we now call the moon. But those conditions would have to have been so perfect for that to have happened that the odds would not be in its favor.
SPEAKER_07And maybe alms be ever in your favor.
SPEAKER_00There's also the Taurus theory where dust and rocks spun around and just form the moon. Taurus is like a donut shape. But once again, no one can agree. Scientists don't know, and they just don't even entertain the ideal of creation. But would you think going to the moon, allegedly, going to the moon, allegedly, you know, we went and collected moon rocks that by going there that would have solved some of these questions. But when moon rocks were studied, they literally only created more questions.
SPEAKER_01I just want to point out that other countries also have their own moon rocks, and they've never sent a man to the moon. So these rocks have come back by remote missions like China and the Soviet Union. So to those who say we went to the moon because we have moon rocks, uh, I say to you, uh, so does China and Russia. So what's next?
SPEAKER_00Let's get back into some moon geology. Now remember, I'm gonna spin it back around to your ancient tale. Now on Earth, the newest rocks are at the surface, and as we dig, we get to the older rocks, right? That makes sense. But on our beautiful moon, the surface soil that that top layer is older than the rocks underneath. And the rocks underneath those rocks are even. Younger, so it's literally backwards. Now, on Earth, this does happen, but it only happens when we are mining or drilling. So we bring up that older material to the surface. But on the moon, it's all over that way. Now, here's even more wild than weird. If the moon was hollowed out, so hold on to those tinfoil hats, the older rocks would be on top. Most planet structures like Earth have denser cores and are lighter towards the surface. But do you remember in our opening story, the moon rained like a bell? Well, Apollo 13 crashed their rocket booster into the moon, just like Apollo 12. And this time, because it was a heavier and bigger impact, it caused a three-hour vibration. And that measured down to like 20 miles into the surface of the moon. And this doesn't happen on Earth because of its density. Those vibrations, they just get muted and they slow as they approach the center of the Earth because of how dense we are. But on the moon, the vibrations they got faster and they moved toward the center. And so that suggested that the moon was definitely far less dense and it indeed contained large hollow cavities. Now, NASA says it's not hollow. They claim that the moon is definitely not hollow, it's just full of holes. Big, large holes. Now, to me, that's kind of the same thing.
SPEAKER_01That makes me think of the old saying, the moon is made of cheese because of the case. Yes, that's exactly the moon.
SPEAKER_00That's exactly what I was thinking. And that's an old fable about a gullible wolf being tricked by a reflection of the moon thinking it was cheese. I I love cheese. You know, so do I. Give me a cheese shop that has tastings, and I am walking out of there with hundreds of dollars of fancy cheese.
SPEAKER_01We just wouldn't be able to help ourselves. So, any of our listeners, if you got a cheese shop, uh, we would definitely love to have you sponsor the show and uh maybe we could submerge just that.
SPEAKER_00I think we could come up with an excellent cheese commercial, but let's get back to the moon, which is sadly not made of cheese. But you know, the surface of the moon is riddled with asteroid impacts. We can see them from here on Earth. And they say that these have been happening for billions of years. So you would expect that those rocks around those craters would be younger because remember, it's backwards there on the moon. So older rocks in the craters, and then the younger rocks that got pushed up out of the surface of the moon would be, you know, younger. But all the samples that they've taken from these craters on the mounds and in the craters and around the craters, they're all weirdly the same age. Like it was made to look like that. And from a distance, they all appear to be the same depth. Now, they aren't, but does that screen camouflage or what? Now, the lunar dust or the regolith, and that's a fun name, regolith. It's supposedly made up as a result of billions of years of impacts. Things, you know, were just pounding away at the surface. Why does it not match? Why is that regolith not match the chemical makeup of the rocks all around it? The ones that are getting pulverized by these asteroids. How weird and absolutely wild is our moon. Nothing matches up there. But wait, there's a little more. The moon, contrary to what I thought, does not have its own magnetic field. I thought the moon did, but they think it once did. And now, oddly, it's starting to spike. A magnetic field is showing up, and they can't explain it. So there's no magnetic atmosphere, but moon rocks are strongly magnetized. And these rocks, in some places on the moon, mess with the satellites and landers that we have sent to the moon, making sensors blind and disabling them even sometimes so that they can't see. The unexpected magnetic intensity in certain areas of the moon require future lunar missions like Artemis to have specialized equipment designed to handle varied local magnetic fields.
SPEAKER_01But let's think about this. The boys in the 60s, they made it without any issues, Mary. Not once, but six times. It's just, it's the new missions that we have to worry about.
SPEAKER_00So yes, they did. They made it, you know, and I couldn't find a record of any issues caused by the magnetic intensity in the Apollo missions. So if anyone knows of any, let us know. I could have missed something. Absolutely possible. But NASA was so surprised that they found these magnetic fields that they thought the lunar laners had somehow created the fields. But when they ran tests and they tested with their data, they were like, nope, they're just that way on their own. And while dating those moon rocks, science has found that they're crazy old, older than the earth. So definitely not made at the same time. And some say their rocks are even older than the solar system. Now, how do you gauge that? Best guesses, I guess. I have no idea. But we aren't done with our weird moon and her geology. Let's keep going. Radioactive elements that do not, do not occur in nature are found on the moon. And the only way we get these here on earth is if we create them. So how did those get there? And then let's chat a little bit about the titanium and zirconium. Those are two very scarce metals found here on Earth. But on the moon, plentiful. They're everywhere. And those two metals, they are some of the strongest materials and highly resistant to corrosion that we have here on Earth. So again, with those tinfoil hats, if you wanted to reinforce a structure and maybe camouflage it, you would use these metals. They would make a perfect base for a structure. The moon is about 1% of the Earth's density. So if the moon was hollow, if it was a hollow shell, this would explain why it's so much lighter than the Earth. Now in the 70s, when people loved the moon, I mean, in the 70s, the world loved the moon. They they looked at it and they were like, we're going there. I mean, they just loved it. There were two Soviet scientists, Michael Vassin and Alexander Sherbakov. I'm sorry if I said your name wrong, but they came to the only logical conclusion about the moon's origins that fit all of the scientific data. And they were very vocal that their theory sounded crazy. But um, you know, when you eliminate all other possibilities, no matter how ridiculous it sounds, it must be the truth.
SPEAKER_07Eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
SPEAKER_00But they said not only is the moon hollow, but it was also a spacecraft that landed here from the distant past.
SPEAKER_08That's no moment. It's a space station.
SPEAKER_01Okay, Mary, you are saying scientists theorized on their own from scientific research and data that the Earth didn't originally have a moon. It just rolled into orbit one day and that she was this a hollow lady, just like those legends that I shared a bit ago. So who built the moon? The Bible says God made the moon.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, I mean, it says that several times in the Bible. It says he made the moon and set it into place. We assume though, I mean, at least for me, I just kind of assumed it materialized out of, you know, like cosmic dust. But do we know that? Have you ever thought about it? I mean, have you ever thought, how did God make the moon? I never did. Um, you know, just poof, there was a moon. But we've said this before: God is a creator God. You know, look at Jesus. He was a carpenter, he built things. And so we've also said that fallen angels could be so-called aliens using angel tech or tech, we don't know. So maybe, just maybe, the moon was actually made and rolled into place by God. And that explains that perfection of its distance and the way it unexplainably controls our weather, creates seasons, balances life, and cause the waters to fall. And it could be a connection to fallen angels since the Zulu said the moon was stolen. Maybe it got hijacked after it was placed. We, you know, also briefly mentioned that the Bible speaks of two creation accounts. There were people on earth before Adam, a pre-edemic people. And we get this one way from Cain in Genesis 4.14. He was worried that whoever finds me will kill me. Now, Cain had killed his brother Abel and was afraid to be cast out into the world without the safety of his, you know, his people, his family. Why? Where did the other people come from? What was he afraid of? Any family that was there with Adam and Eve and their siblings or descendants of Adam and Eve worship God, and they certainly wouldn't kill Cain. They were witnessing what Cain had done in real time and what his punishment was. They were watching it unfold before them. So he's not afraid of them. It was the other people on earth that he was afraid of. And God put a mark on Cain so he would not be harmed. So it makes you think, again, we don't know our entire Earth's history. Timothy Alberino teaches this second creation event in his book, Birthright. So if this little nugget of strange biblical theology sounds fascinating to you, go find it. We love some good, different theology here, especially when it makes you rethink that cookie-cutter biblical narrative that we've all been taught in Sunday schools. So that's just a long route, but it got us there to tying in to those legends you just told us about, Haley.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, the second creation account also allows for the megalithic structures and things that we can't really explain today. It could have all been here even before Adam and Eve, and you know, and then something happened.
SPEAKER_00And this is us just speaking amongst ourselves. It's all conjecture, there's no real proof, like the hollow moon. We don't know. But I mean, if you are a flat earther, to you, space is a lie. If you're a person who believes in the firmament, space is not happening. The sun and the moon are the same size, and they're trapped under this firmament. So here we go, Haley. Let's look at Earth's atmosphere. Let's just take a look. We have the we have the troposphere where airplanes fly, and then we have the ozone layer, and then we have the stratosphere where specialized military airplanes fly. It's a high altitude plane, and then we have the mesosphere. This is where most asteroids burn up when they come into our atmosphere, the mesosphere. And interestingly, the mesosphere is the coldest place in our atmosphere. It's a negative 130 to a negative 148 degrees there. And then above the mesosphere, we have the thermosphere, which is super hot, and that's like 2,000 degrees. But the air is too thin to feel the heat. And this is where our space stations orbit 250 miles above the surface of the earth and some satellites. Now, there's still gravity there, but it's slightly weaker. So the astronauts on the space station they seem weightless, not because there's no gravity, but because they are in a constant state of free fall. And I don't understand that. I don't understand that at all. So the earth is always trying to pull them down, I suppose, but wouldn't they just be stuck to the floors? Somebody help me out here with a scientific brain. Explain this to us, or at least to me. And then we're still not done with our atmosphere. We still have the exosphere where it gradually fades out into space, and a few satellites hang out up there. And then we have on the edge of the exosphere, whose boundary is not quite known, science can't quite figure out where that boundary is. Just 120,000 miles, just a you know, just a short distance away from our exosphere is the moon. So for perspective, the moon is 238,855 miles from the Earth's surface. And sometimes the moon enters the outer edge of our exosphere. So sometimes it is in our atmosphere. So for our firmament people, could the firmament be more than what you think? Basically, some say the firmament is the boundary of the second heaven. The Bible is silent on how far up the firmament layers are. So to our firmament people, I say the moon does lay within the firmament.
SPEAKER_01And for anyone who doesn't know, the firmament is mentioned in the Bible in Genesis. And it is the expanse created by God to separate waters above from waters below. And it's often described as a vast solid dome. And just a little side note, Mary, they have found waters below the ocean. There are deep oceans trapped under our known oceans. So again, waters below. But back to our atmosphere, in case it didn't sink in while you were uh speaking on this, the space station is not even out of our atmosphere, and it's not really in space. But again, we went to the moon, uh it was just another roughly 130,000 miles further. So, I mean, easy stuff. Also, how much fuel does it even take to go to the moon?
SPEAKER_00I know I I looked this up. The Saturn V rockets, which were used on all the Apollo missions, used each time 950,000 gallons of fuel. So I was like, how big of that does that have to be? So you would need something 74 by 3 feet in diameter and 31.111 feet high, or which the two to hold that much fuel. Now, our Saturn V rockets, they were 33 feet in diameter and over 360 feet tall. So big enough to hold all that fuel. Now the weight, now we get into some tricky math. That much fuel would weigh over 6 million pounds or 373 tons. But we're told the total lift-off weight of those Saturn V rockets, so that's the total weight, was just 6.2 million pounds. So they only had 200,000 pounds of additional load from the fuel. Does that make sense? And the empty rocket itself was said to weigh 300,000 pounds alone. So if we just factor in the fuel and the weight of the rocket itself, we're over what we're told the rocket weighed.
SPEAKER_01Yeah. So technically it's too heavy. I mean, that is not including the lunar landers, the moon buggies, astronauts, and the supplies, you know, that they have to have. I know Elon and his SpaceX program, they even say to make it to the moon, we have to bank fuel at least eight times. They need a fuel depot. But again, our boys in the 60s and the 70s, they just cowboyed up and did it in one go. But it makes zero sense to me how technologically we have gone backwards. And they could do it then, but we can't now. Our phones, our cell phones, they have more computing power than computers they use to get to the moon.
SPEAKER_00Just Google. How did Saturn V rocket get to the moon? It literally says it did it through brute force. Those thrusters, they were hardcore on those Saturn rockets. They were a 67 Chevy Impala to, I don't know what's the weird little car, a Prius. No offense to our Prius drivers. Fuel costs are insane today. So props to you. But you you get the idea of what I'm trying to say. This brute force, it just sidestepped that issue of the weight. It was like, eh, it doesn't matter, a few extra pounds. We're gonna get up there anyway. And I'm certain there is math that you could do that says if the rocket is this heavy and the force of gravity and the atmosphere on the earth is this much, then you need this much thrust to escape the Earth's atmosphere for liftoff. But I don't have that kind of brain. But you know who does? Elon. And you're right, Haley. Elon Musk has stated that rocket fuel is too heavy to get a fully fueled starship to the moon directly from Earth. So he is absolutely insisting that you need to have orbital refueling. And to come to this conclusion on yourself, you have to look up the weights separately and add them up. Because if you ask Google in one go, it'd tell you something that's neat and tidy and fits the narrative. But if you break it into pieces, it's completely different and it doesn't fit the narrative. But our 70s boys, our Space Cowboys, they got there with brute force. America. They just got up there.
SPEAKER_01Brute force and a lie. Uh, you know, they did. We mentioned how other countries have obtained moon rocks with those remote landers. And I maintain we we could uh have done and did the same, but in that same boat as big evidence to refute the hoax, there are lasers set up on the moon, and we can bounce lasers from the surface of Earth to the moon and study that distance of the moon to the earth, Russia and India, China, and Japan, as well as other private companies, they've all placed these reflectors on the moon. And in fact, Russia placed theirs just after us in 1970 and in 1973. So again, humans weren't necessary. So again, next what's the next step?
SPEAKER_00All right, let's let's think about this logically. We're we I'm keeping trying to bring some logic into this. If we faked the moon landing, and we did, we didn't go just once, we didn't fake it just once, but six times. And so at that point, wouldn't it have been easier to just go to the moon? Would it? JFK had set out the call.
SPEAKER_05So it is not surprising that some would have us stay where we are a little longer to rest, to wait, if this capsule history about progress teaches us anything, it is that man is personal. It cannot be determined.
SPEAKER_01Greatest adventure of which man has ever He set out to put a man on the moon by the end of that decade. Nineteen sixty-nine, the Soviets were way further along than us. Q again, the Great Space Race. And the Great Space Race was between the USSR and the United States. And the USSR was the first to actually reach the moon. They landed their Luna 2 on the moon back in 1959. And that's almost a decade before we allegedly landed. And not only was the USSR the first to land something on the moon, but they were also the first to put a man into something. Space and animals, though not all of the animals came to be RIP to that poor little puppy.
SPEAKER_00Right, that poor dog. Let's have a moment of silence for sweet Leica. How terrified she must have been. Poor baby.
SPEAKER_01The Soviets had more time and more experience with space. They were definitely winning. And I think it's something like for every 20 hours in space that they had, we only had one hour. They were the space experts. And they had the first satellite, Sputnik, and the first animal that we mentioned, and the first human in orbit. They all of it, the first spacewalk, the first robotic lunar landings, all of this before 1966. And to top it off, they had the first space station, and that was launched into orbit in 1971. And then we shut down the Apollo missions in December of 1972. And with all the Soviet seemingly better tech, you know, why didn't they go to the moon? Was it because they thought, uh, the Americans, they already got there? Or was it because they couldn't get there? And really, neither could we.
SPEAKER_00And how do you keep that under wrap in the hoax narrative? Also, we have images from other countries that show our leftover lunar landers and flags and other stuff. And by the way, we left a lot of junk up there. We left human waste. I mean, we literally went to the moon and crapped it up with 96 bags of waste, if you think, if you follow the NASA narrative.
SPEAKER_01Well, that's some information. Yeah, I didn't need to hear. And it is alleged waste, Mary. Alleged. Uh, you have you seen those images from the other countries? There's photos. There's uh these photos are from like five miles above the lunar surface, and they are grainy uh AF, okay? But anyone can Google Earth something, and you can zoom in on a dime. But if we did, and uh if you are right, you know, can you just imagine those reptilians in the moon and they're watching us land on the moon? And no wonder they don't like us. It's they're probably just standing there like, oh my gosh, it's it's these guys again.
SPEAKER_00They're just leaving their their poop on the moon. Humans are terrible. We crap up our Earth, and it looks like we may be crapping up the atmosphere with our junk, and we're literally just allegedly crapping up the moon too with all of our stuff. But so they've faked six moon landings. So, how do they keep this elaborate hoax quiet with so many people working out of NASA? That would be very hard to do. And so that is a point in the we really went to the moon column. So I'm curious, Haley, how do you think they would have done this?
SPEAKER_01Well, first, everything was, and and this is just my humble opinion, uh, everything was compartmentalized. Uh, engineers, companies, contractors, not one group of people knew the whole picture. You know, think about that. They may have all thought we're doing something great, we're going to the moon, right? Then with mission control, simulated flights, it looked the same as real flights. There was no distinction between them. Both showed calculations on the screen, so there was no difference there. And they could have, all of these people working together, they could have thought that they were watching the Apollo missions in real time when they were actually watching simulations. I mean, look at the government. Thousands and hundreds of thousands of employees. So, do they all know all the government intelligence? I mean, absolutely not. Again, compartmentalized. It's a need-to-know basis, clearance, different departments, compartmentalized information. That's how you keep secrets. Uh I say it's highly plausible that they didn't realize it was a stage. Most of these people, they were thinking, this is so great. This is historical. We're gonna go to the moon. Because in that era, trust was more common and deception was and still is easier when people are trusting.
SPEAKER_00I do agree that there was a lot of need-to-know basis only in the NASA programs, and I could totally see that you could keep this theoretically a secret. But okay, how about the Soviets? They would have been watching and tracking. Remember, they had Sputnik up there.
SPEAKER_01Okay, without knowing our exact flight pass, I would imagine uh looking for a spaceship in space would be like looking for a specific shell on the beach. And if you've ever walked the beach hoping to find the one, it's it doesn't happen very often. It's pretty hard. But you are right, Miri, with the more advanced tech, why aren't other countries calling the US out for not really going? You know, I don't know. I don't have a good reason, but why did we all sign that Antarctic treaty? Why were we all suddenly interested in the moon after UFO sightings exploded in the 50s and 60s? You know, think about that. Are the two connected? We might want to consider that maybe, you know, just maybe. And the secrets been kept contained, you know, maybe for the sake of humanity, or more likely because of blackmail. I I've heard in the past whispers that China discovered it was a hoax and that they are actively blackmailing NASA for tech and secrets. And China is wildly all about the moon lately. If you get away with something once, doing it again and again, it becomes easier and easier, but you have to know when to call it quits. NASA did just that. In just a few years' time, film in 1972 became vastly superior to film in 1969, and in terms of uh thematic depth, technical, gritty realism, and that really marked the transition from the end of the old studio system in the height of what we would call new Hollywood. So things previously hidden with clever camera angles or purposely hidden, uh, that bad grainy film, it would be harder to pull off. Now, remember, NASA scrapped the remaining Apollo missions in 1972, and they cited it was because of money and the public interest really declined. But the cost to shut down those projects, it actually costed more than if they would have kept them. And some of those last missions, they actually had amazing things that they wanted to test for. So maybe they couldn't get the data from a remote lander, or maybe hoaxing another landing became harder. I don't know. I'm just saying the footage from our first landing Apollo 11, it was filmed not from a direct live feed, but TV stations had to film from a projected image. So let's think about that. They projected the live feed onto a screen, and then the TV station cameras had to film that screen. Now, if you have to take a video of a TV video with an old phone, we know the quality is not going to be there. You know, why not just let the live feed go directly to the stations? And also color TV. It was a thing in 1954. We landed on the moon in 1969. So why did we take only black and white at TV, you know, and camera? The the black and white is easy to conceal, and color is hard to pull off. So grain shows up more in black and white, and grain hides things. Mary, you're a professional photographer. So what is your take?
SPEAKER_00Yeah, I agree with you, Haley, on the live feeds and even some of the photographic proof taken on the missions. Better TV cameras were available. Color was available. Why was it black and white? And film and cameras today, they would not function at the vastly swinging temperatures the cameras would have been exposed to on the surface of the moon. So negative nine to a whopping 220 degrees Fahrenheit is the temperature swings that the astronauts encountered on the surface of the moon, allegedly. So those are the wild temperature swings that those cameras would have been subjected to. And at those temperatures, you would have condensation issues, the lenses would fog up, and the internal components, they would go haywire. And not only that, these were film cameras, and film would degrade or be damaged. So I looked into it. I thought there's no way. So these astronauts, they all used the same cameras, they were mounted onto their spacesuits because they couldn't carry them. Hasselblad EL5s were what they had. And I'm only talking about the cameras that were fitted onto the astronaut's chest. So they were hassleblad EL5s with a 60 millimeter prime lens and a 5.6 F-stop. So they all had the same lenses. So that's important to think about. And evidently, these were specially made hassleblods, and they were made for the astronauts so that they could withstand these crazy temperature swings. But they look like regular hassleblods. They don't look any different, but you know, whatever. And the film they also thought about, and so the film evidently had a special coating on it that would protect it from these wildly crazy temperatures. Okay, um, that tech doesn't exist today, and even more sus, they left the cameras on the moon. And you know, I read somewhere that they were auction off. Either way, we don't have those cameras to prove that they could do what they claimed, which was operate and function in those temperatures. But another thing that I found odd when I started looking into this is the astronauts they couldn't look down. So their helmets prevented them from being able to tilt their heads down. They could only look straight away and to the side a little bit. They had limited range of view. So the cameras that Hasselblod built for them had no viewfinders. They were just kind of had these cameras strapped to their chest and just kind of were trying to take pictures based on where they thought the camera was in line with with their with their chest. So they were shooting blind, basically. Not only that, why they're snapping this, you know, these cameras. They couldn't hear the click of the camera, so they didn't really know if they were taking photos. You know, they had these thick gloves on. So how could they even push a little tiny shutter button? How would they feel that they had pushed this button? Well, NASA had a solution. Those special cameras had a big shutter button. They were made with a big shutter button. It was modified. Okay. So a hassle blod with a prime lens, you would have to adjust the focus and the aperture and all of that technical stuff, especially that focus, to get a beautiful photo. Now, autofocus, which is what most of our digital cameras have today, or AI assist focus, they didn't have that back then. You had to turn that lens to get it to focus. But they didn't have a viewfinder to make sure it was in focus. They couldn't see if it was in focus, and on top of that, you have a fine motor issue. But NASA had a nice workaround. The cameras that were strapped to their chest, they said were equipped with little levers that the astronauts could move the lens easier with those big gloves. They had also notches on the lens that noted things like this is going to take a far shot, this is gonna take a near shot, etc. But they couldn't look down to see those notches. So how are they doing that? Again, I researched all of this. The astronauts were said to have been given their cameras to use and practice before their missions. They were taught photography even by Richard Underwood. Now, okay, maybe. You know, they did a lot of things. They were taught geology, so now they're being taught photography on top of everything else. But I watched a video of someone who had a replica moon landing space glove. Now, these are big and bulky. You've seen them, I've seen them, everybody's seen a giant space glove. And have you ever tried to do something delicate with a thick winter glove on? Just one winter glove? It's super hard. Now imagine like five of those big, thick winter gloves on your fingers and on your hands. You're getting there. It's getting harder and harder. So this guy had this glove. And when he put his hand in the glove, he could move the fingers. He could do a few things, he could pick up some big things, but he couldn't do any fine motor things. But this glove that he had, he had it in um like a vacuum chamber. And when he turned the vacuum chamber on that mimic the atmosphere on the moon, his hand, you know, that limited dexterity that he had instantly became non-existent. Any fine motor movement was impossible. It just wasn't happening. So again, how did the astronauts push buttons and turn levers? Those levers were still small. They weren't like big levers on their chest. You can go and find pictures of these cameras that are strapped to their chests. How did they do those with those big giant gloves and not mess up those shots or pick up nuts and things off the surface of the moon? You can find videos of them picking up tiny things off of the moon. There's no way. And of all the moon landing hoax things, actually the photography is what makes me go, I don't know, because I know photography. I understand lights, I understand working with a camera, I understand that working with a camera with thick gloves and in tricky light and not being able to see your shots, that would be a literal nightmare for the most seasoned photographer.
SPEAKER_01Nice. That is a uh great perspective from a professional photographer. I don't know about you, Miri, but if you're someplace cool, you take a photo of you with the cool thing behind you. Talk about a missed opportunity and shot. They didn't think about pointing the camera up to the sky and maybe taking a picture of a galaxy. I mean, it's right there. And what about all the images and the shadows in the images and hot spots? It's proof as well. And then you have the absence of the stars in the sky. I mean, I could just keep going on.
SPEAKER_00Well, first I'll say that the images that they came back with, they were beautiful. For shooting them kind of willy-nilly from their chest and basically guessing at focus and stuff, those guys did phenomenal work. And I agree, there's a lot of missed shots that they should have taken. And as for the stars, with the bright light of the sun on the moon, the stars would have been hard to show up in photos. But they could have focused on the stars to get galaxy shots. They could have just pointed it up at the sky and they would have been able to get those stars. But if it was a hoax, it would be almost impossible to place the stars in the correct position where they were on the moon. You can chart stars. You know where stars were in the sky at the exact horizon or place that you are and that exact date that you are. So somebody could have found the error. So if you just erase the stars completely and say, oh, we don't remember looking at the stars, we don't remember seeing stars in the sky.
SPEAKER_02We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the moon by eye without looking through the optics. Uh, I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the sonar what uh what stars we could see.
SPEAKER_00And just, you know, saying that, oh, you you you wouldn't have been able to take photos of the stars. You sidestep that issue that they could have run into. But you mentioned the shadows. And the shadows in nature, if you go outside on a very sunny day and you hold a stick up and you hold up like three sticks, the shadows all run parallel. That's just in nature, they all run in the same direction. Absolutely never will they intersect. So in these photos, going different directions, uh you know, is chaotic. And in some of the images that they have released, the shadows are very wrong. These shadows can only come from a different light source. So, like they say, a studio camera, 100%. Some of the shadows are wrong. And even if you want to argue that it was a wide angle lens distortion or the soil was higher here, or this rock was blocking that. Um their suits, those cameras, they all used a 60 millimeter lens. Now, this lens is not a wide angle lens. So coming back with the wide angle distortion, that's not gonna work. And let's say if, if for some reason if the shadow was warped, something else in that image would be warped and nothing else is. I looked at a lot of photos, and in some of the photos, I can see the hot spots that people are talking about. And I looked and I did, I read the rebuttals to them. And so hot spots, those are caused by intense light, actually, too much light. Something has too much light shining on it, and you get this halo of extra light around it. It's too bright. And the moon, it's literally reflecting the sun. So it's crazy bright. I mean, their helmets, they had two sun shields on them. So they say, NASA's claims, that the hot spots are only in images where the astronauts are close to the lunar lander and that the lander reflected even more light onto the scene, causing the hot spots. Okay, then why is the astronaut not whited out as well? So if he's standing in a hot spot of light, you wouldn't be able to see the fine detail, the fine detail of his patches on his suit. I mean, you'd be able to see the astronaut, you'd be able to see his helmet, but you wouldn't be able to see those fine details. Okay. And then on the opposite side of that, we have images of astronauts that are in full shadow. They're behind the lander doing something, and they're backlit. Like if the astronaut's standing in full shadow, the astronaut should be in shadow as well. He should be in shadow, but he's not. The astronaut's very lit up, and you can see like a light's focusing on just the suit. So if light was reflecting off his white suit, it wouldn't just be on him. You'd have something like a light bounce. Oh, a light bounce would be going around, and the area around the astronaut would be lit up in shadow as well, not just the astronaut. Photography is all about light and manipulating light and shadow and knowing how light works. I mean, honestly, if the moon is as bright as they say, and the regolith they say also bounces light up, it would be super hard to get any image with details when you couldn't adjust. Everything would be blown out, especially without that viewfinder. I have shot in super bright high sun and shadows are hearse and details disappear. And if you're not perfect with your camera adjustments, and these are older cameras, they're not like digital cameras that people are used to today, where the tech inside the camera does it for you. Um, if I wasn't able to just sit there and play with it and adjust, get all the conditions just right. I wouldn't have any images, you know. But then again, I haven't been to the moon. I haven't been there. Maybe the sun isn't as bright. Maybe it's just like shooting in a beautiful giant light box where everything is flawless. And that makes sense if because all the images shot are beautiful, like we see. And the only way to get that is light box conditions. And that would be a studio condition. So you're a little back and forth. I do lean more towards the entire thing is suspect. And to add a little more fuel, and I'm gonna go just a little off in a different direction away from the photos. Let's talk about the Apollo 1 mission. Have you heard of Gus Grissom?
SPEAKER_01No, I haven't.
SPEAKER_00Well, Gus was one of the original seven astronauts in the space program, the second American to fly in space. He completed two space missions during his NASA career, one during Mercury, and he was the commander of the first Gemini mission. Those were the missions that prepared the Apollo missions to the moon. So those were the first two NASA space missions, Mercury and Gemini. Now, Gus, he was an American favorite. Again, this was a time when America loved their heroes and America loved him. I mean, they adored him. And he was expected to be the first man to walk on the moon. But that dream died when he did. Gus was popular. He was smart. He was confident. He watched everything that NASA was doing. He cared about America and his fellow astronauts, and Gus didn't like how NASA was skirting his reports and concerns about safety and the tech of the Apollo mission. And he became very vocal. He was so vocal that he held an unauthorized press conference where he hun a lemon from the Apollo 1 rocket and said NASA was at least a decade away from putting a man on the moon. And that was in 1967, he said that. And he was sternly reprimanded by NASA. But he was undaunted. He kept being vocal. And four days after he did this press stunt, he told his wife that the CIA was at NASA inspecting all the equipment and all the capsules, and they were just crawling all over. And that was something he had never seen in all his years. And he was kind of like, wonder what they were doing. But that very next day, Gus and his crew, astronauts White and Shaffy, they tragically died when the oxygen in their capsule burst into flame when a spark ignited it. This test wasn't even a dangerous test, it was just an instrument test. And his wife claims that they murdered him because he wouldn't go along with the NASA lies. And his son also says that there was clear evidence of tampering in that module that created that spark that caused the fire and lit the oxygen in their tank. And that was later confirmed by a forensic fire inspector that his son brought with him to look at this capsule. With the death of Grissom, you know, the silencing of Grissom, Buzz Aldrin slid into his place and became the first man to walk on the moon.
SPEAKER_01It's a wild story and sad. And I say interesting when you start thinking about how we have some scientists being murdered and disappearing. If we also pause a moment on Buzz, he has said in several different instances how they never went to the moon. And at one point, had mentioned they were only passengers. Let's play those clips for our listeners.
SPEAKER_06Why has nobody been to the moon in such a long time?
SPEAKER_07That's not an eight-year-old question. It's my question.
SPEAKER_03Anybody who was alive at the time does. I remember my parents waking me up and we went down and we watched You Guys Land on the Moon, which was what?
SPEAKER_06Because um there wasn't any television. There wasn't anybody taking a picture. You watched animation. So you associated what you saw with the.
SPEAKER_03I have very hazy memories. No, no, but what we saw was we all gathered around the old radio.
SPEAKER_06And we're talking about uh you know how many feet we're going to the left and right, and then I said, contact light, engine stop. There's a few other things, and then Neil said, Houston, tranquility based. The Eagle has landed. How about that? That was very exciting. Not a bad line.
SPEAKER_00Those are some wild clips, right? Covering the moon landing and all the offshoots, including the moon theories, cover-ups, and just dissecting the landing itself. It's not an easy topic and it's not a quick topic, Haley. And we have Jack Parsons, who we didn't really talk about, who was responsible essentially for rocket fuel. And he has alleged ties to ritual sacrifice where he summoned a demon for the tech. And he has ties to the Alistair Crawley. Yes, the Alistair Crawley. So NASA itself is kind of rooted in a strange demonic origin. And it's not cut and dry. We don't have definitive proof that the moon landing is a hoax. And we don't really have tangible hard evidence that we did either. We just have those 12 men who walked on the moon, and only four of them are still alive today. And one of them has stated we never went. So we also have a few whistleblowers and deathbed confessions made by people who worked at NASA who say it was a hoax. So at least to me, again, this is just me, when we look at the most tangible evidence, and I'm going to say those are going to be the photos, because those were photos before AI. I do see issues with the camera and film and conditions and with the photos themselves. Negatives can be doctored and glass plates can be doctored. And especially those original ones, if they got them back and if they fixed them before they showed the world, it never happened. You know, it became a fact. The special late 60s cameras that they claimed that they had on their suits, no camera today can function at those temps. No lens today can deal with those temperature swings and not get that fog and condensation. There would be all sorts of issues. So again, we have tech that exceeded 50 something years ago and was vastly superior than what we have today. But we can't look at those cameras. They were left behind. I know there are a lot more things people point out in the videos that prove we were there. And we can't dispute or confirm them all. This would be like a five-hour-long episode or maybe even like a week long. But I think it is literally, we kind of have to draw the line in the regolith and say, did we go or no? And clever people can do very clever things, especially with money, secrecy, photography, agendas, and video. And especially if that video is grainy. Fool them once. Let's do it again, but better. Remember, the second time, that live feed was cut very short. They pointed the camera at the sun and it fried the TV camera. That proved those cameras were still very sensitive equipment.
SPEAKER_01You're you're right, Mary. We can get hung up on all of those different details. So here's one that really drives me crazy, and that's the phone call. I I always get hung up on that. You cannot tell me that the president was just casually hanging out and had a conversation with these guys on the phone. I mean, just come on. To me, that is laughable. It was said to be a special green phone. I don't know what that means, but it was actually a rerouted call from mission control to the White House, where it was converted into a radio signal and beamed to the lunar surface via a network of large tracking dishes. The delay alone, what they said it was like a four-second delay from mission control to the moon and back. And that's 250,000 miles away, and you only have a four-second delay. Again, seems suspicious. I think about that in our day jobs when we're sitting on Zoom calls and team calls, and you're talking to somebody in a different country, or honestly, even on the other side of the state, the delays can be much longer than that. And we have so much better tech. We we do have glitches and freezing, but it was just done flawlessly for the Apollo mission. Again, that seems suspicious. And where did the cameras come from that actually captured the lander landing on the moon? I know they've spoken to this, but seems still seems suspicious to me that that camera stayed on the outside.
SPEAKER_00I know. I looked into that, and the only answer I could find was that they were deployed before they landed, allegedly. Allegedly. That's the answer for everything. They really do. They have an answer. It's not really lost. They have the data and they have the blueprints for the Saturn V rockets. They have the specs. They say they just can't recreate it. So you mean to tell me our fellas in the 70s could build something that we can't today with our computers and our computing power and advanced tech that works a million times faster and better refinement of metals, and we can't get that data worked out. We can't build a better rocket.
SPEAKER_01Yeah. I I don't know about any of that. The entire we never went back is so strange. I mean, let's look at Mount Everest. People still climb it, even though they're not the first ones there, right? It's still a great achievement. So why no other nation after us? We went there, right? The first to go with an untested rocket, and it didn't blow up. And the odds of success were like one in 10,000. Then we did it not just once, but six times and very smoothly, according to NASA. Uh, there was the Apollo 13 hiccup, uh, but no one died. So why did they stop? I think was it the United States just showing some supremacy? To me, that is the$300 billion question. And today, decades later, we suddenly have a new interest in walking on the moon again, making a station on the moon with the Artemis missions. And we have to ask why. And have you seen some of those CGI fails from the Artemis missions? I mean, that's a whole different talking point. Uh, but they're already out there. People, the conspiracy community, they're already ripping those apart. So, our listeners, if you haven't checked into those, they're all over the internet already. But originally, back in the 60s, I do feel that this was some kind of morale booster during the Cold War. It's really to rally the country and show the world how amazing America is. You know, we spoke to it earlier. JFK made that call. And the people were absolutely behind it. And everyone was, yes, let's go to the moon. Plus, I think they really thought or hoped that the moon would hold this rich supply of resources. It was kind of like the unknown. And America, we're the home of the cowboys and the pioneers. And I mean, that might be why we have so many moon rocks. We were exploring and searching, allegedly on the moon with man, and we evidently have 842 pounds of moon rocks from those six Apollo missions. And this may be some hidden human thing, but I kind of like fun rocks too.
SPEAKER_00I would kind of crush hard on an actual moon rock. I dig it.
SPEAKER_01I know. But then again, we do have stories of gifted moon rocks being tested decades later and found to be heterophied wood. And this was the case of the Dutch prime minister who was gifted a moon rock by a US ambassador. And some were not even from the moon. And let me point this out: you can get moon rocks in Antarctica. Uh, perhaps this is another reason that that continent is off limits. You can just pick them up off the ice and snow and meteorites are all over there. And all of our listeners, if you haven't listened to our episode on Antarctica, definitely go and check that one out. It's a good one. But if you're ever lucky enough to visit, just know you are forbidden to take any soil or rocks. But back to the moon, why are we suddenly interested in the moon again? I think the new interest is coming from either gearing us up for uh the alien disclosure, or maybe it's what other countries are searching for on the moon, and specifically China. China is the only nation to land and return samples from the dark side of the moon. Back in June of 2024, I think these findings on the dark side of the moon is what is driving the US back to the moon with this Artemis mission. Japan and China, they are ramping up.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, and just to back up to that alien thing, there was a NASA employee who said he worked in the film lab and saw structures that look like cities with intersecting roads or tubes or something that connected the cities on images that were filmed on the dark side of the moon. And he wasn't worried about that. He was actually really excited to hear what NASA was gonna say that they were, but instead, the photos disappeared and NASA never spoke about them ever again. Again, we have a non-verifiable statement versus a government agency, but as far as other countries' growing interests, I agree. The moon just became a new opportunity, and I think the fascination of the moon never left. We just didn't have the tech until recently. Let's explain though, helium-3. You said they were ramping up to mine that. Helium-3 is rare on Earth, it mostly escapes into space immediately because it's so light, so it's really hard to get. But on the moon, it accumulates in large quantities, and some suggest its concentration is much larger on the dark side of the moon. So helium-3, it's suspected to be able to be used for clean and sustainable energy, a new energy source through nuclear fission. Now, most of the helium-3 we use in labs or for security comes from dismantling or maintaining nuclear weapons. Again, there's some weird thing going on there at the moon. So helium-3 is the holy grail of those working with nuclear fission. And at CERN, we just did that episode on CERN, they love helium-3. They say that it's the key to understanding dark matter. And if you haven't listened to our CERN episode, go back. Um, dark matter and antimatter are wild stuff, and I just don't think we should be messing with it. But then again, that goes to show that helium-3 probably is gonna be very important to our near futures, right?
SPEAKER_01Helium-3 was discovered back in 1939, but it has taken decades for researchers to connect the scientific curiosity of lunar helium to the world's energy crisis. Because the moon lacks an atmosphere and magnetic field, helium-3 particles from the sun burrow directly into the grains of lunar dust. So as we advance in science and tech, what they have found with those first moon rocks gathered from remote landers, not people on the moon, the moon has suddenly become desirable to reach again. Money, resources, dominance, and energy control is that new motivator. As for China, yeah, they are doing some crazy things with their space program. And I think China even leads in tech development at this point. It's pretty obvious. They've been sitting quietly over there behind the crate wall, plotting and working. The CNSA, which is China's NASA, aims to be one of the top three global space powers by the end of this decade. And already they have their own space station. Now, think about that. We share ours with other countries. And China that wants to land on the moon by 2030. So suddenly there is a new space race. And this time, it is a new interest in our moon by many nations, like the Artemis Accord, which is the US and a whopping 63 other nations. The U.S. isn't going alone. It's not like the first time. And why? We have Japan and Canada, and then there is the China-Russia team. And wait, Mary, there's also India. India is a rising space power as well as the private sector.
SPEAKER_00Yeah. So, Haley, it sounds like you kind of don't dispute that we went to the moon like something went to the moon. You just dispute humans walked on the moon.
SPEAKER_01I think I could agree with that. You know, sometimes less is more. So, you know, maybe they could have just said, hey, uh, we're flying up there. We're gonna see what we fought, what we can see, uh, and then come on back. Uh, I think they just probably were doing a little too much with the matrix.
SPEAKER_00I can agree with you on that. You know, whatever did happen, I personally do think we remotely just went to the moon, saw some stuff, and thought, eh, let's not mess with that right now. So they faked it for the people back home, go America with the movies and the images just to save face, and they quietly tried to process what they found. We have data, we have rocks, we have scientific evidence with the data. So who would question that they ever went? Maybe we even slipped some of our information to other nations like we did with Antarctica, and that's why everybody just kind of holds the narrative.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, I fully believe man has never sat foot on the moon and just up there walking around. I just can't see it. Uh again, years ago, I was definitely a believer, but the more that I see and research and hear and you know share in the conspiracy community, I just can't see it. All of the science from the moon that can be found with remote landings, uh, the rocks, the data, we see that over and over again, really from other countries. I mean, we haven't even gotten into other areas of suspicion, uh, like the deadly radiation in the Van Allen belt, and really just some of the footage of the astronauts on the moon. In one clip, an astronaut stumbles and it literally looks like strings just pick them back up. I mean, humans don't move like that. Even in gravity, one sixth of the Earth's uh an equipment, it was that it was just conveniently just left on the moon. And also including those special cameras and the boots that they use to walk on the moon, it just doesn't add up for me. They had to leave everything behind so they could lift off into the atmosphere. And the weight needed to be lighter, even though gravity is a sixth of the Earth. It's just it's wild to imagine all the computations you needed uh to think about, down to how many bags of poo would weigh. It's such good luck.
SPEAKER_00They had great luck back then, our cowboys did. Like I said in the beginning, Haley, the moon is wild and weird, and she is surrounded by some crazy conspiracies from being hollow. You know, some don't even think it's real, they just think that it's some hologram. That we didn't even go into that direction because that's even a little too wild for me. But some think it's a spaceship or it's a home to alien bunkers and cities where they live on the dark side and they just kind of watch us. I mean, the moon, she's wild. And I hope everyone who's taken the time to listen to our podcast does take some time and they go and they watch every moon landing video from all the missions and they slow it down or they speed it up, and that's really helpful. Slow it down or speed it up. And when you do that, or play it in reverse, if you're able to do that, play it in reverse. You see, you begin to see how these could have been faked. I just do some research on yourself. We don't have access to all the images that they took. NASA says that they took thousands and thousands of images on each mission, but we only have a few that they show to the public. And they say that all those images were usable. They don't even say like they took 2,000 pictures, but only of them were usable. To me, that would make more sense because, again, they're not being able to adjust for focus. They're just kind of shooting into the lights and all over the place. That would make sense. But NASA says that all the images were usable. Are they? I know it's hard to think that we didn't go to the moon. Going to the moon is a part of this proud heritage that we have as Americans. It's the greatest achievement of mankind. Walking on the moon. But if it was a lie and we all choose to just believe in that lie, doesn't it make us kind of a prisoner?
SPEAKER_01Mary, I am starting to wonder if the Truman Show is actually a documentary. But with anything, the truth sets us free. The moon, it's a lot to think about. I I've really enjoyed this episode, and I hope our listeners have loved it too. So, friends, uh, if you did, please hit the subscribe button, share this episode with another favorite moon conspiracy friend, and like Mary and I, keep your tin foil hats from handy because we're always questioning the narratives. Remember to keep it weird. And no matter if the moon was a stolen spacecraft full of reptilians or fallen angels, if that gets to be too much, uh, with all the disclosure coming our way, remember we pull it back to Jesus. You let him be your anchor. And that's really it for this week. We'll be back next week with another fun road snack. Bye. Bye, I don't know.
