What's up friends? Welcome to the What Is Truth podcast. I'm joined by
a friend of the Apollo Detectives. He's Dr. Raza Bihari. We've done several shows.
If you enjoy this content and if you enjoy this conversation, I encourage you to go back
to the back catalog and check out all our conversations. Our last show we did was only
a few weeks ago and you will only find that conversation on Rumble and Odyssey.
As it was a bit too spicy, it was a was Hitler, a Nazi or a Patsy is the title of that show.
For anyone that may have missed it and is interested, definitely go check it out on Rumble and Odyssey.
Today we're going to be doing Smoking Guns Part 2. In the description I put Smoking Guns Part 1.
If you missed it, fully edited by Mr. Bob Williams.
And this should be a banger. How are you, Dr. Raza?
Great. Thanks for having me again. It's been a long time since our first Smoking Guns show.
Yeah. That was the first show you and I did together. That was the very first time we met.
And for those interested, the original show was one, episode number 145. It was about
five hours long and it is my second most downloaded show of all time.
And yeah, that was I want to say a couple of years ago at this point in time. But
since then we've done many shows and every time I get you on, you are a crowd
favorite, a crowd pleaser, if you will.
Great. So is there any, should we just jump into it? I don't have so much.
So much time, so little to do.
Yeah, we can get right into it. So what we are going to be doing, well, maybe you can
give us a description of what you plan on doing tonight with Smoking Guns Part 2.
Yeah, so we just totally annihilated MC Tune just a few days ago. And before I jump into
presenting Smoking Guns, I want to actually show how I actually defeated this MC Tune.
Because MC Tune basically only has two arguments and he keeps recycling these same
arguments again and again. So let me explain again clearly what he's presenting and how it's
a false argument. So let me share screen there.
Wait a minute. It's not. Sorry. Okay. Sorry.
Let me know when you can see that.
Yeah, I got it here. All right. What are we looking at?
So this is the paper which all the NASA apologists used to say the moon landings were real.
And this is a scientific article published, I think it's by University in Colorado.
And they have all the math which explains the parabolic curve which the dust was flying
through the air in the Apollo missions or it's flying through a vacuum supposedly.
So if you just look at the number I have outlined here, you can see all the math
in the article. And then it says here I outline. It's fixed by the frame rate to be
one over 29.97 seconds. In other words, 29.97 seconds, 29.97 frames per second.
So this is how they calculate the dust, the parabolic curve of the desert. This proves
that it was in a vacuum. And if you can follow my, Weezy, you can see my mouse here
on the picture. Yes, sir. All right. So you can see the dust flying off in the back of the rover,
right? Yep. In the Grand Prix. Yeah. So they drew this, it's imaginary blue dotted line here.
And they said the dust is therefore following this parabolic arc which therefore proves this
vacuum and cannot be a host. So you have to take the word for it that the dust is actually
following this arc. But if you actually look here at the lower picture, I just do a red line here,
which shows the actual arc which the dust is taking. So first of all, first of all, they want
you to believe that the dust is somehow following this magic blue line that they drew on the
picture. And then the second point they want you to believe is that the frame rate is 29.97
frames per second. Okay. So this, and they have all their math based on the assumption of
the frame rate, we can calculate the gravity to be one sixth that of earth. And this therefore
is on the moon because the frame rate, the rate at which the dirt falls in the video
with the frame rate at 29.97 frames per second shows the exact gravitational pull of the
moon. This is just based on their, this is just a hearsay. We're telling you that this is the
frame rate and we're telling you the number you need to use to base your math on. Okay.
So this is just totally wrong math. It's math based on an assumption. So that's his point
number one. Okay. His point number one is that this proves it was on the moon because the math
works out. But if that whole math is based on a given frame rate. So then he's accusing me
of trust me bro. He's the one presenting fills with a trust me bro frame rate and then accusing
me of being the one saying the the thing with him he has a
a debate style. And there were a couple of times I felt you could have came in. I thought
someone with MC tune, you can't be respectful. You can't be nice. You have to match his
assholeness. And so when I watched it a couple of times if I'm being honest, Dr. Oz, I'm like,
why don't you go after him harder? You have to you because otherwise you provided substance.
But his theatrics gave it the appearance that he whooped you if we're being honest.
Even though you provided substance and he didn't it's because of how he
he maneuvers himself. So when you deal with someone, this is just my, I mean, the way I viewed it
anyways, you have to match his assholeness. I felt if I debated MC tune, I would match his
assholeness and take it even further and I would make him rage quit. He would try.
You know, he met at one point he also mentioned how the radiation belts
were not that important. They weren't big of a deal. That was a key moment. Dr. Raza, where you
should have put your foot on his neck and you didn't you let it slide. So I felt I felt there
could have been more if I'm being honest, you know, that's just my critique of it.
You just have to match if he's going to continue to call you names and use ad hominem
attacks, you have to give him back his ad hominem attacks. Being respectful doesn't
work with that kind of an asshole of a debater such as MC tune. That's just my little bit anyways, but
there were moments man, there were moments that you could have seized upon him
easily and they I felt they were missed opportunities.
Thanks. Yeah, the way I kind of look at it is
my time, my airtime on their show is extremely limited, you know, they gave me 10 minutes to
present my smoking gun. And then fortunately, they gave me 10 more minutes to present second
smoking gun. So, you know, they, you know, my goal is to maybe allow my goal is that they
might allow me back on their show again in the future, you know, so I'm kind of just being as
nice as I can to them, you know, and sitting there for an hour, sitting listening to them
insult me for an hour, where I get 20 minutes to present.
And the thing is I've listened to modern day debates. I listened to them quite a bit.
That's how they do their format. So you I think next time in 10 minutes,
if you have to rehearse it or practice it, get your best points, condense them and just hit them.
Boom. Here we go. Here we go. I think spending too much time on those particular points right off
the bat is not necessary because later on when you discuss those points, that's when you can get
into the smaller details. You see what I'm saying? So you kind of got to hit them. Here's
boom, smoking gun number one, number two, number three, boom, drop them all.
And then later on, as you discuss them, then you break them down.
That's how they do their show. I listen to them when they talk about religious topics,
political topics. That's how they do it every time. The first person gives
10 minute spiel, boom, on to the next person. And then you hit it off.
I think they were getting a little frustrated because you were hitting your topic one
point at a one point. For right now, this show, this is what we're going to do tonight.
For this particular show, that works out perfect. But for a debate that doesn't work too
well, it's not too conducive is what I'm trying to say, I guess. It's a different style.
Cool. Thanks. Thanks again for that. So let me let me jump into his second point. Okay.
Okay. Let me let me share screen again.
It doesn't work somehow. First time.
Yeah, you just go down to the middle.
Yeah, let me know when you can see that. I got it. Okay, what are we looking at on the screen right
now? So this is the official document, which was released by NASA at the time of the
Apollo missions. And it says here that basically what it's saying is if you're the public and you
want to tune into the Apollo mission, here's the frequencies you need to use to tune in.
And so you see a series of frequencies, a series of numbers, a megahertz. And on the right
is the downlink of the left is uplink. So basically if there's, if the link, if it has both the downlink
and uplink, that's kind of like a decoded line, you won't be able to tap into it. But two of the
lines are non-decoded, these two, which don't have the uplink, right? So this two were available
to the public. So this two are the command module FM and SIVB FM. And what NASA is telling us is the
command module was 2272.5. SIVB was 2277.5. That's what they told the public. But in reality,
they had switched these two numbers. Okay. So what the public, when they were,
when they thought they were turning into 2272, they were actually tuning into the SIVB. So in that
sense, they, the public would have had no idea what they were actually tuning into. So the SIVB
was the unmanned craft, which they sent to go orbit the moon. And the command module was in
low earth orbit all the time. So the public would have tuned in to 2272, thinking that that was the
command module, when actually it was just the SIVB the whole time, command module stayed in low
earth orbit the entire time. So again, it's just trust me, bro, this is the link you should
turn into.
Beautiful. So yeah, let's let's get into detail on on your smoking guns. In smoking guns part one,
we went over 12 images and video footage directly from NASA's own website. So it's not
like we made these images up. Also footage from their sites showing
the hoax in the moon landings. And so you had been working on several other smoking guns. And
this is what we're doing tonight. Going into detail. You know, last when was it? Yesterday
or the day before I was trying to have my own debate with AI chat GBT on on the moon landings.
And it was fun. It was a good little fun exercise because it kept trying to tell me,
yeah, I can see why you don't believe it because the pictures look fake. But here's why it was
possible. And I kept debating it debating it. I finally got AI to concede on the point that,
you know, as far as a reason as to why they would fake it. And it kind of correlates with
the show I did last week with with Ashley. And I think Ashley was in the live chat earlier.
We did a show on Vietnam. Prior to doing the show on Vietnam.
I had heard of Vietnam. Obviously you hear some things about Vietnam. I didn't realize
how fucked up Vietnam was, you know, how it was started over a completely made up event
in the Gulf of Tonkin kind of relates to the moon landings made up events man making it. So
the Gulf of Tonkin was a completely fabricated episode in which the military said they were
attacked by Vietnam. And that's what kicked off the war down there. What we were doing in
Vietnam, rooting out communism, complete and utter horse manure. I'm bringing this up because
that was one of the things that a AI had conceded that that was a good point. Yeah,
there was a lot of shenanigans going on. Also presidential assassinations, JFK, RFK, MLK,
Malcolm X, Fred Hampton, the list goes on and on and on. So
if you fake the moon landings that gave the public a distraction
from the horrors and atrocities that were going on in Vietnam at this moment in time
from the political assassinations that I just mentioned.
A lot of a lot of civil unrest was happening. People were getting uneasy with the government.
So how about we feed them this fairy tale that man is up in the moon playing golf,
jumping around, skipping and hollering. Yay, look, everyone, everything is good. Everything
is happy. Let's forget about these political assassinations that are taking place at home.
Let's forget about the bullshit that we are doing in Vietnam. Yay, look, everyone, we're
in the moon and we made it on our first tries with 1960s era's technology.
And so that right there, Mr. M C tune, if you are listening by chance,
how do you explain that one? Handle that little little tidbit.
But these guys will claim that it is our job to prove the extraordinary claim made by NASA,
not by us that man landed on the moon at that point in time. So we're going to go through some of
the flimsy evidence that NASA has provided and break it down. What tidbit do you want to go
through first, Dr. Raza? Yeah, let me recap a couple of the ones which I had done.
Well, let's just start with this short one. This is something I didn't get to play before,
but let's just start here. Okay. The one that has the audio. Just let me give me one second.
Is it ready? Ready.
Let me make sure I got my volume up. All right.
What's going on, Joe? I need a good lie. Oh, okay. How about the whole man walking on
the moon thing? You can see the strings, people.
So we are looking at an image where you could see the shiny strings on one of the astronauts.
So he's doing a spin near the flags, and you can see the antenna from his
backpack is separate from the string. And the string is going at an angle.
All right. Let me play that again. Okay. I'll try to pause it just before the string comes.
Okay. Yeah. Can you see it now, Weezy? Yeah, I can see it. So on the right is the antenna,
which is sticking straight up. And on the left is the string, which is coming off the corner
of the backpack at an angle. Now, this is, most of the apologists would say that this is like just
a glitch in the, in the, you know, the camera film, you know, but not film, it's not a film
camera, but just in the digital transmission, you know, there could be cosmic rays, which
if you're, and it causes glitches. But if it was a glitch, then it would be completely vertical.
It would be either vertical or completely horizontal. Glitches cannot occur at an angle like that.
Okay. So the fact that this, that they happen to catch this, you can see the strings, people.
The fact that it's, it's coming off at an angle like that. Let me go to the next,
let me go back at the frame or so you can see.
Yeah, you can see it. Can you see it? Yeah, I could see it. Yeah. So, so this is can't be,
it can't be a camera glitch. This is definitely the sun or the studio lighting has hit this,
the string from his backpack in such a way that it actually caught the glare from the string.
All right. So that was just a, you know, I don't know, I don't know if this friends show,
I mean, you know, Hollywood shows, they, I don't know if they would be blowing the whistle
or not, but they certainly wouldn't be able to say a line like that without getting permission
from somebody. What do you think, Weezy? Do you agree with me? The show friends, would they have to
get permission from somebody to put a line like that in one of their episodes? Absolutely. Or,
I mean, it could have been a way to make a joke out of it, you know, like mock people that question
the moon landings. Sometimes people will make jokes like that. So it could have definitely
been that way. Yeah, especially since, you know, it was Thebes was the one who said it,
she supposedly was dumb. Yeah, an airhead. So you see what I'm saying? So it could have been
ingest, but anyway, anyway, yeah, they've been doing that for a long time. They've been putting
out it comes even back to George Carlin. They paid George Carlin to come on that
book reading TV show to make fun of people who question the moon landings, right?
One of my favorite songs that I didn't know existed up until
I want to say a year ago, maybe even recent is a song by a REM man on the moon.
I was going to work and I went to the gasoline station and get me a coffee in the morning.
And I heard it on the on the radio like, whoa, they're man on the moon, they're talking about
the moon landings being fake. This is an awesome jam. And I thought it was like a new song on the radio.
And then I, and no, I'm not an REM fan. So I had no idea. So I googled it. And then I found
out it was it was an older song from REM from for many years ago. And I went down that rabbit
hole trying to figure out what REM meant by that jam. And when you do research,
all you get is the that the song is about this comedian that that passed away.
It has nothing to do about the moonlight. Like, what are you talking about? The damn song is
called man on the moon. And it's talking about faking the moon landings. But all you can dig
out on the information is that, oh, yeah, it's about a comedian. It's it's it's humor.
Oh, shit. It was a it was definitely a dig on the moon landings. But maybe REM was told
you can't go mainstream questioning the moon landing. So you got to change.
You got to change the meaning of the song. That's my speculation of it anyways.
Because it was interesting how little information on it I could find.
Yeah, and also Jim Carrey made made several things because he was, you know, that the comedian who
died. He was Jim Carrey's hero sort of. So Jim Carrey also made that movie about.
I can't remember that comedians name someone in the live chat. Who's the comedian that
man on the moon is talking about? And I, man, I can't remember it off the top of my head.
But yeah. Anyway, so let me jump into the next smoking gun, something which I didn't get to present
the Andy Kaufman. Sorry. Andy Kaufman. Thank you, Pacquie man.
All right, go ahead. What was the smoking gun? All right.
Let me share screen again. Okay, let me know when you see it.
It's up. All right. Can you read that? Can you actually see the bottom of it?
It says the words on it. Yeah, figure two surveyor three television camera as it was
unbagged and bagged at the LRL after it's returned from the moon. Right.
So so this this is this is came from the NASA document that they're saying this is the camera.
Okay, so on Apollo 12, the astronauts supposedly visited the survey or three craft,
and then he had a pair of wire cutters or box cutters, cable cutters. He had a pair of super
sharp cable cutters and he could snap the camera off of the survey or three craft
and bring it back to earth. And then they on the moon, they supposedly put it in a bag
and then they brought it back to earth. And this is the only remaining photo of the camera.
After it was taken out of the bag as soon as getting back to earth.
So and it's just such a crummy photo. Look at how how pixelated it is. Okay,
but this is the this is the only photo you could think, you know, that
bringing a television camera back from the moon, you know, you would have a good quality picture
of it before you actually destroyed the camera. But they don't all they only have one actual
image of the camera after it was immediately taken out of the bag. And it's just this pixelated
garbage. But this little bit of information comes a lot comes off like a lot of trust me, bro.
This was the TV camera that we had. Trust me. Right. And but regardless of what they say,
this is we can we can catch them because if we actually compare it to so on the left is the
image from Apollo 12. Okay. And from that image, this is supposedly the camera just before he
took the wire cutters and clipped the camera off. Okay. And if you look here where this cable
is connected to the top of the camera, there's like aluminum foil wrapped around it. You can see
that we see. Yeah, I can see that. Okay, now look at the look at the aluminum foil, it comes it
starts here. And then it goes over up here at the top is a standoff. And so it starts from the
bottom of the standoff. And then it then it comes down to about right here. But if you
look at the other image, okay, this is the official one, it's totally different. The aluminum foil is
not all the way up to this is the standoff here, the orange, the red one. And you can see the
aluminum foil doesn't start until here. What you can see I blew the through the blue arrow.
Okay, can you see that we see that the aluminum foil is different. You see, let's look back
here. On the Apollo 12 image, the aluminum foil stops starts here at the standoff goes to here
and then it stops. Whereas if you come back here, if there is no aluminum foil up here,
and then it starts below and then it goes much further down. So we can we already busted them
the camera, which they claim to be right out of the bag is a different camera that they
took of it just before they put it into the bag.
I see what you're saying. Yeah. So on the picture that looks like a real object with,
you know, the foiling goes from the top of the camera upwards. And on the diagram on the
picture, the thicker part goes below the head part. Right, right. You can see from you can see from
this line below the okay so this is the lens you can see my mouse right the mouse is moving on the
lens. So just below the lens is this line where the camera can rotate. Yes. So come back to
the other picture. On the other picture, here's the lens. Here's the line below the lens.
And look how far down the aluminum foil goes way below that line. Yes. And over here on the
other image, it stops right at the line right at the line. Yeah, it's totally different. It's a
totally different aluminum foil wrap. And this aluminum foil wrap goes all the way up to the
see that what happened is there's more to this story. They tried to do a damage control.
So they published this image. And I don't know where this image came from. But on this image,
they had they had tried to match it. They had they had manipulated the aluminum foil so that
this one manipulate is matching that one. These two they're matching. But this is a different
image. So they released this image as a damage control. Because if you go back to the
original image, this is the one which came from the bag. And that one has a different different
aluminum foil wrapping. I see. Yeah. Do you have any thoughts? So if there's a movie called
Operation Avalanche. And you can find it on YouTube and you can watch it for free with
the ads. It sucks you have to watch the ads, but you get a free movie on YouTube. So if anyone's
interested, Operation Avalanche, it's a movie based on what would be required to fake the
moon landing. So it's a rather interesting thing. Have you seen that Dr. Rosa that movie?
Yeah, I don't really recommend that movie because it's part of a Psyop. They have many different
Psyops regarding the moon landings. And one of the Psyops they created was, well, we went and we
orbited the moon, but we weren't able to actually land. That's the theme that they're
pushing in that movie, which is a total Psyop that never happened. They could not orbit the moon
at all. So it's like a flat earth thing. They created flat earth in order to discredit
people who really analyzed the moon landings. And in the same way they created that movie
in order to confuse people about the theory about whether they could actually orbit or
not or whether they could only land. That's what that newer movie also with Channing Tatum
proposes as well. Take me to the moon that they made it allegedly, but they had to fake the
footage because they got destroyed or whatever. Yeah, I definitely agree. It's just more
nonsense. And even people like Joe Rogan kind of pushed that these days. He went from
questioning all the moon landings to now, yeah, you know, maybe they did make it,
but they had to fake some of the footage and, you know, it's an excuse and I agree. It's definitely
a Psyop. Cool. Can I share screen again? Yeah, any time. All right.
Okay. So this is the
bounce.
Let me know when you can see that. It's on the screen. Yeah, so this is the
Surveyor 3 bounce landing sequence.
Supposedly the Surveyor 3 came in and it kind of bounced one, two, three.
And it says the first bounce was 15 to 22 meters and the second bounce was 11 to 14 meters.
And then it has some smaller bounces after that. And they can calculate that. I have
no reason to doubt that actually. I mean they can calculate based on the telemetry data
of where it actually hit and where it finally came to resting place.
But the thing is this, if you look at the actual footprints,
this footprint supposedly taken by Apollo 12, if you look at that where it bounced,
it would first bounce here in the middle and then the second bounce came sort of on top of that,
but at a flat angle. And then it finally came to a resting place number three on the left.
So that's not possible according to any laws of physics because if a ship were moving at a slight
momentum in one direction, it's going to keep moving in that direction. It's not going to hop
backwards. And not only that, so this footprint number three being there behind it is totally wrong.
And this other footprint here, which is at an angle, this would be practically impossible
for a footprint at this angle to hit the ground at this angle. This is like,
they just use a stage prop to put this initial footprint in and they put it in at the wrong
angle and then they stepped on top of it with the foot pad again to create this one.
And then they put the final resting place here. So this is totally nonsense, this landing
sequence, first footprint, second footprint, third footprint. This is total nonsense.
Any thoughts on that, Weezy?
Where is this image from, in case anyone wants to look at it?
This is the Apollo 12. Just before, just when the two astronauts came walking up to the
Surveyor 3 craft, they had taken a series of photos as they're getting closer to the
Surveyor 3. And when they finally get up to it, they were close enough to see these footprints.
And he took two images of the footprints that look like that. And then he stuck his boot in there
and he messed up the footprints because maybe he thought they were kind of wrong himself.
So he put his boot there and moved dirt into the Surveyor 3 footprints to kind of hide the
fact that this would have been impossible for this leg to make that angle of an impression.
Yeah, that leg, that limb had apparently a whole, I don't know, a foot. It's weird.
Yeah, it makes no sense. It doesn't look like anything that design would do at all.
So let me present another one, which I haven't presented before,
since we're on the trend of presenting new smoking guns.
Give me a second to share screen, okay?
Yeah, no problem. Just a reminder, everyone, if you missed Smoking Guns Part 1,
it is in the link of this description wherever you may be listening to this.
The wonderful Bob Williams edited it and shortened it to one hour because the original
show was episode number 145 and that was like five hours. So if you want the condensed version
with all the smoking guns, check the link at the bottom of the description here.
And you can watch the entire presentation.
I'm sharing the screen.
Up on the screen.
Yeah, so this is supposedly taken on the moon and they called this the sunstroke picture because
this was supposedly, I think the first image that had been taken when the camera supposedly
had a fresh roll of film put in. And so supposedly when you put in a fresh roll of film,
the first few images might be sun struck. Okay, so, but what happened was he was taking a photo of
this astronaut jumping into the rover, right? So there's three images. Image number one,
image number two, and image number three. So these three images are all in a row
and supposedly like the camera, he could snap these three images really quickly within one jump.
So you can see that the astronaut is in the air here and the astronaut's still kind of in the
air here. And the astronaut lands in the rover here. So this would of course been impossible
with the camera to snap three images in one jump, right? So then the apologist will say,
well, there was two jumps because you can see in his right hand, he's holding this little
scooper thing. And then in the next image, he's got the scooper thing in his left hand.
So that couldn't have been the same jump. He had to have jumped twice, right? So that would be
so that would be the official story is that these are two different jumps.
But now I'm going to play you the audio clip. And the audio clip shows that there was only
one jump. And he says, I got three of them that time. It means he snapped three images
during one jump. There's not enough time elapsed for two different jumps to take place.
So let me try to play that audio audio clip. Give me a second to share screen again.
So here's this.
Let me know on the screen. Yep. So hopefully you can hear this. If you don't,
if you don't hear anything, let me know. Okay, we got that. We'd like to have you climb on.
We'd like to have you climb on. Okay. Get ready to jump on the rover. Let's
jump on the rover because we got to drive to the next. Now we lose a video at this point.
Yeah. So I don't think there is any subfloor in here.
So they're just doing some... It's hard to be sure, but no rock I picked up looks like subfloor.
Get on there one time. Okay. Let me pause it. He said, get on there one time, which means
jump on the rover. And he's going to snap pictures. He says, get on there one time to
make the jump and I'll snap pictures while you jump. And then you have to be careful
how much time relapses from this point. So I'm playing audio again.
Seven, eight. Ready? Ready? Ready. Boom. You could hear, I'm pausing it again. Okay. He says,
ready? And then you hear, boom. That may be the sound of his jump. Okay. Now let's keep
listening. I got three of them that time. I got three of them that time.
He's talking about the images. I got three photos at that, during that one jump. Okay.
That ruzzle with the video not working and it's all blacked out. That sounds like a trust me,
bro. I got three of them that time. Trust me, bro. Yeah. And so, and so I think what happened was
they, they had made the video and audio recordings at a previous date
and then later they tried to make the Hasselblad images match the previous recordings.
And so when they had made this previous recording, he's talking about, oh, I got three images that
time. So then they had to come back to the Hasselblad images and they had to get three
images in a row for their Hasselblad cameras. All right. So let me, let me share screen one
more time of the Hasselblad images because it's very clear that from the recording, you can hear
that there was one jump. He's like, ready? He said, get on there one time and then ready,
I'm going to jump and then he jumps and then I got three of that time and only a few seconds
it laps between when he says ready jump and when he says I got three of them that time.
There's not enough time for two different jumps but the Hasselblad images are clearly showing,
it has to be two jumps. Let me share screen again. On the screen. Right. So there's,
so if you come back to the Hasselblad image rolls, this is the first image on the roll
and it's like one, two, three. Within just a few seconds he took three images, right?
The audio clearly states I got three of them that time, three images, one, two, three.
One, two, three. It cannot be, there was not enough time for two jumps but the images themselves
show that there's two jumps, right? Is that the scooper thing is in different hands.
Different hands, yeah. Yeah, good catch. Damn good catch. I want to address this
comment real quick. Let's see. Norlman says I wish someone would do a thorough analysis of the
images that were photoshopped in 2009. Comparing the originals with the later versions of the
images, how NASA covered up the hoax. Norlman, Dr. Raza and I did do that in Smoking Guns Part 1,
bro. If you look at the description of this video, I put the link to Smoking Guns Part 1.
We did that there so you may have missed it but there you go. So it has already been done.
But let me comment on that point. Actually what needs to be done is we need to get a court
approved photoshopped forensics analysis software. So in a court of law, they have this forensic
analysis software in case you want to prove that somebody is stealing your image. So in a court of
law they have this forensic analysis to see whether one image is a copy of the other. That
forensic analysis software, it's quite expensive to get a court approved forensic analysis
software but if we had that, we could compare the original images to the modern day photoshop
images and we could prove in a court of law that they actually photoshopped those images.
But I don't have that forensic software and all the free forensic software
you can find on the internet is like garbage. I've been trying to use it, it doesn't work.
But if we had a real forensic software, the kind that cost a lot of money,
then we could prove even in the court of law that they photoshopped the images.
Tenfold.
All right. Okay, give me a second to find out the next point. I'll give you two. How's that?
Hope everyone's enjoying this. Just a reminder that after this show at 10 pm eastern,
we will have a UFC Fight commentary. It'll be myself, Corey Hughes,
Steve Poitkonen and Mr. Drew Treglia. He is the director of Jones Plantation. He's going to be on
and we may have another special guest. So and just a reminder that will only be on Rumble.
So if you listen to this later on and you didn't see the video come up or the
podcast come up, it's only on Rumble. And another reminder, we get wild as hell. So if you can't,
if I'm already too wild for you as it is, and that's just your limit,
you may not want to catch those UFC Fight Nights because I go super wild.
Just when you thought I couldn't go wilder, we do a UFC commentary. So just a reminder
for those interested. All right, we've got a, what else you got for us, my man?
Sharon Screen.
Tempo.
All right, it's up on the, well, there we go. It's on the screen though.
All right. So on the left, again, we're coming back to Apollo 12.
There's an image where there's two images, one, one where they're standing at the ship,
looking towards the survey or three, and the one of when they're standing near the survey or three,
and they're looking back towards the ship. Now this is these, the ship is supposedly
on the opposite side of the crater. And that crater is 200 meters wide around the rim.
So we can give, so the claimed distance between the Apollo craft and the surveyor craft
is around about 200 meters, a little bit less. It might have been slightly closer,
but more or less 200 meters, that's what they claim. Now if you look here
on the picture on the right, it's just, this is showing approximately how far,
there's a picture of a buffalo. There's a woman standing in the field,
and it's giving you, it's giving you advice. You should stay 100 yards, right, 100 yards,
stay away from this buffalo, you know. So 100 yards, 200, so now you come back here to this
this ship is supposedly 200 meters away. Yeah, 200 meters is 218 yards,
but this buffalo is only 100 yards away. Okay. Yeah, so here's another way to look
to people to digest this. A football field is 100 yards long. Now if we're talking about 200
yards, we're talking about two football fields. That's pretty goddamn far. And so we're being
told in the middle image that the surveyor three is 200 yards away from this image.
218 yards, 218 yards. And based on those images, it looks like it's probably 40 yards away, Max.
It doesn't look anywhere near the 200 yards that we are being told.
He's on the, on the photos. That's interesting. Yeah. Now look at the, here's another comparison.
This is a, this is a, if you're standing in the edge of a street and you're looking down the end
to the end of the street, this is 100 yards, right? Right. And that ship, you know, I could say
maybe, you know, you said about 100. Yeah, maybe, but not 200. No way, not 200 at all.
I mean, and you're, if you say 100, that would be like super, you're being super liberal with
the numbers. You know what I mean? Right, right, right. All right. Let's go to the next one.
So again, this, this, this is an elk, I guess, 25 yards, that elk, 100 yards to that elk
way back over there. Yeah. So anyway, let's go to the next one. Let's look at 200 yards.
This is a, this is a firing range, right? So this is what the craft is supposed to be, 200 yards away,
which is nowhere even close to that, right? Let me, let me, right here.
So let me zoom in, let me, let me zoom in on this. Okay. You can see there's a target on the
edge of this cliff, you know, that's 200 yards to that target, right? All right, let's go.
Here's another firing range. You can see the, the hill back here is 200 yards away,
and this is looking through the scope. So that's a 200 yard firing range.
Now, this is supposed to be
three kilometers. This ship is supposed to be three kilometers. That's three,
that's okay. 3,100 meters, more than three kilometers. The official 3,000 yards away.
3,000, 3,100 meters. Okay. This is, this is what NASA claim, this is from the,
so this ship, they're claiming me. This is, I would give that maximum 200 yards.
Yeah, yeah. I was going to say that, that right there looks like 200 yards.
Yeah. This is not three, three point one, you know, kilometers away. No way. If you think that's
three point one kilometers away, I don't know if you must be, and so, so then they, they, you know,
the, okay, so they're saying, you can even read this is directly from the NASA. Well, you can see
from this, from the crosshairs on the lens that, and we know this is distance to be that,
there's a 500 millimeter lens and the LEM is seven meters tall, and we can calculate that
this really is three kilometers away based on the height of the, you know, they have all of this
technical nonsense, but this is like not three kilometers away. This is maximum. See, if you
just look at me zoom, okay, here's the craft I'm zooming in. There it is, right. Let's go back to
200 yards. Let's go back to our 200 yards. You can see the target on the cliff, right?
Yeah. The target on the cliff is approximately the same height as the LEM, you know,
about seven meters. And this to me, this to me is definitely proof of a hoax because why would you
lie about the numbers and distances? Because you may, you have a smaller set and you can't display
something that far away in your small set. So you have to make up numbers that clearly don't,
don't correlate, you know, with the images that we're seeing. So their first set they used
for Apollo 12 was like maximum 100 meters. And the second, the second set they used for
Apollo 17 was maximum 200 meters, you know. Yeah. What digital dust says here, they used a lot of
forced perspective in the shots spot on. Yeah. Yeah. That's, that's, yeah, definitely a smoking
gun right there because if you're trying to tell me those, those first few images were 200
yards when at max they were 40 yards, that's nonsense. Then you're telling me this other shot
was three kilometers away, 3,000 meters away. And that looked like 200 yards. Yeah, it's just
not adding up at all. So let me, should I go to the next point? Any, but any other questions?
No, let's, let's, yeah, let's go to the next one.
Okay, give me one second. Okay, while you set that up. Also, reminder tomorrow, Sunday, 2 p.m. Eastern
and 7 o'clock UK time. I got John Brism coming on and we're going to be discussing the
Trump Epstein stuff. A lot of juicy stuff came out the last few days. If you follow me on X,
I've been, been making quite a few jokes. Some of you may have understood and that's all from the
emails that came out. So John Brism will join me tomorrow, Sunday, 2 p.m. Eastern, 7 p.m. UK on
rumble and Odyssey. And I may do that on YouTube as well. We'll see. But just thought I'd throw
it in while Dr. Raza gets up the next share screen. Also, you want to stay on top of the
shows? Join our telegram group. It's a telegram forward slash wit wheezy W I T W E E Z Y. And
you will stay abreast of the next show. And times and you can also share some memes if you
are so inclined. Right. I'm ready when you are. Dr. Raza.
Give me one more second. I kind of lost I lost one of my folders here. It's kind of set
back. No worries.
What is that? A doorbell? That's no, it's a school bill. Oh, school bill. Okay.
It almost sounds like, oh, say, can you see Dr. Raza is getting patriotic over there.
So I'm just gonna, I'm just gonna recap on the
some of the things I presented in the debate there with MC tune.
Did you have any other or more smoking guns, Dr. Raza?
Yeah, okay. Okay, I got you. It's on the screen. What are we looking at?
Yeah, so this is the footpad of the Surveyor three craft. And so the official story, this is
this I have no reason to doubt. I think that they could send unmanned crafts to the moon.
And this is actual photos of that actual unmanned craft.
And they had scooped up some dirt with their scooper and then dropped that dirt onto the footpad.
And the camera there could take photos of that dirt. So you can see the first
scoop here. I'll say scoop full of dirt. This first scoop full of dirt landed here
just near the hinge. And then they then they went ahead and dumped many scoopfuls of dirt.
And they covered basically half of the footpad. You can see from the tip of the footpad all the
way down here, they put many scoopfuls of dirt here. And then they came in with their little
scooper. And they took the tip of the scooper and they put it down to the tip of the
footpad and they scraped away some of the dirt and it left a white spot here. So you can see
it had they had scraped away all the dirt on that certain part of the footpad.
Okay, so this is the reference source material. It came from this document.
And this is coming back to the footprint. Excuse me. Coming back to the footprint,
you know, this this is the footprint that doesn't match at all. And if you look here,
zooming in on the where they had pushed the dirt away, so the scraper had
pushed away this area here. Okay. And it's white where they pushed away all the dirt.
And coming back, this is another image of it
where you can see where they had pushed away the dirt. Here's some third image.
You can see where the scraper was approximately this big, the tip of it when it scraped away.
And finally, the fourth, the last image,
you can see where the scraper had pushed away. So so and there's like kind of a little mound
around it. So this is a there's four we're very fortunate to find these four images.
There's only four images one, two, three, four of the final resting place. So this is what it
should have looked like when the Apollo 12 astronauts walked there and visited this survey three.
All right. So let's come back here to the Apollo images. You can see it's totally different.
It's totally different. They had tried to emulate it a little bit, but like that's not the way it
should have been. It should have been white down in here and then dirt over here just
way out on the edge. But that's not what we're seeing here. So let's share a few more of these.
You can see they kind of moving around it. You can see the dirt is here in the middle of this
like kind of semicircle. They had kind of like scooped it off and then put some other little
clots here, dirt clots in the middle of the semicircle. It's totally different
from the actual. Again, you can see it's like a little circle they had made and then they put a
couple little clots of dirt in here to fill it in. It's totally different from the survey three.
Yeah, here's from the other side. It's even more obvious, you know,
but they purposely left the camera out of focus here. But you can see it's not even
there would have been more dirt. They had covered half of it. So there would have been more dirt over
here and there would have been more dirt up here and then there would have been dirt kind of along
the rim there. So it doesn't match at all. You see, it doesn't even have the rim back here.
So anyway, usually you can explore these on your own in higher resolution.
But this is I'm just showing you like this is the way it should have been because this is the actual
survey three crap. And there was kind of the dirt on all four sides around where the scooper had
pushed off the dirt. And you can see the white spot how wide the little scoop mark was.
And then coming back here to the polymissions, it doesn't look anything like that at all. It
I kind of looked a little bit like, but it's like there should have been dirt here on the rim.
And then this white part in the middle here should have been white. So it's totally different.
You got any, what do you think we see? Yeah, the whole crater things is something that
intrigues me and cracks me up quite a bit. Because NASA apologist will make every excuse
in the book for it. Yeah, that that looks like a real crater. I'm not a scientist. I'm not
educated. I'm just a garbage man. But I look at some of these images and they try to tell me,
yeah, that's a crater that should have been done by an engine with X amount of thrust,
you know, thousands of pounds of thrust, you know, to lift off and you see a tiny little,
you know, mound dust or dirt uninterrupted. And they say with a straight face, yeah,
a huge rocket engine did, you know, was able to lift off and it didn't move anything about.
It makes no sense. I don't use any mathematics. I just look at it. It doesn't it doesn't add up.
And even those images that you that you showed me, yeah, they clearly look like they've
been tampered with. And it just looks so fake, so cheesy and fake.
Yeah, can I show that image? Yeah, here we go. It's on the screen right now.
So this is the Chinese Mars lander. And you can see there's a big hole under the ship,
the blast crater. Can you see that we see? Yep.
Because when the ship is coming in for landing, there's a there's the main engine is on the same
as in the Apollo missions. So the main if the Apollo missions really would be so much bigger
because the Apollo mission was so much bigger than this tiny little Chinese craft.
Yeah, what was the Apollo mission engines? How many how many thousands of pounds of
thrust? It was like 10,000. Yeah, no, 1,080 pounds of thrust after they had throttled it down.
Yeah, 10,000 had full thrust and 1,080 after throttle, they could only throttle it down to
10%. So 10% is 1,080 pounds of thrust. So it would have left a huge crater and especially
just just feet above the surface. And in some of it, you can go in point by point,
how many mission by mission, how many feet above the surface they were when they when the engine
shut down, the engine was shut to zero. And it was just each mission was different. Some of them
were just a few feet above the surface. And some of them, I think one of them, they even
shut it down after touchdown. And then another mission they had shut it down early. So it's
supposedly landed harder. But anyway, if it was just a few feet above the surface, it would have
left a huge crater much bigger than this, you know, because it's just blasting straight into
the rock. And this is just not a fraction, a tiny fraction of that. And even NASA document
itself, this is the NASA Mars mission. And you can see that this had a multiple engines.
And each engine left its own blast crater, right? And this is just a tiny little craft.
It had multiple engines. So even with multiple engines, the thrust is not concentrated into
one point. So on the Apollo missions, there was just one engine. So all the thrust was
concentrated on one point, like the Chinese one, it would have dug way down to the surface.
And even on the Mars missions, they had multiple engines, it left this huge blast
crater under each engine, you know, and we see nothing like that on the Apollo missions.
Yeah. Missy with a great comment, my dog digs bigger holes.
Yeah, not impressed. But
if we view it that way, if we're not impressed, then we are the crazy ones, we are the conspiracy
theorist, and we should be locked up in a loony bin because we don't believe the official stories.
Yeah, it's pretty, pretty comical.
Let me try to share screen again. Yeah.
It's kind of weird when I try to share screen. Your browser has blocked your screen.
So weird. It's telling me my browser has blocked me from screen scaring.
Just close it down and try it again. Close what?
There's nothing to close.
Okay. Great. Okay. And I can also do audio here. All right.
All right. Let me know when you can see that. I got it. It's up on the screen.
All right. So this is the, just to be clear, this is the,
this is the coming from the spacecraft films DVD.
And the space, if you watch American Moon movie, they make a big deal out of this.
You can only trust spacecraft films DVD because that is the original unedited version.
Right. And then you can even prove that NASA edited it because if you go to their YouTube
page today, the net, the official NASA YouTube page, you know, follow surface journal,
you could, you can download the clip. So they had actually, you can see that it's been clipped
that where the part on the right hand side of the screen where you can see the flag
waving very clearly and clipped on the new and improved Apollo web page. So anyway,
I'm going to play the spacecraft films DVD because that's the original unclipped version.
And you can see it just, I'm playing it now. So if you watch the right hand top corner,
you see the flag that blowing on to the set, right?
You can see it moving. Yes. Yeah.
And then it just blows off, it blew off the stage. You know,
it's going to blow on again. You can see it comes back. Yeah. And it's kind of waving there.
Still there, still there.
Yeah. It's going to get ready to blow off.
Okay. Thank you.
So they say this is outgassing where the ship somehow outgasses and that gas can pass
there goes, it blows off. They say that the ship somehow outgassed and that gas
would blow it off, but then it wouldn't come back down again like it's doing, you know.
Sounds like Donald Trump and Bill Clinton. And then it blows finally one more time.
So it's kind of a play that again, you know, it kind of it's there and blows off and it blows back
on big time and then it blows back really quickly, you know. So this is definitely not the official
excuse. So yeah, what's the what's the official excuse for that?
The official excuse is that is that the ship would outgas and that would blow the flag away
and gravity would pull the flag back down. But that cannot be true because when it comes
because that would mean the original resting place is down, then it gets blown away and then
gravity pulls it down, gets blown away and gravity pulls it down. That would mean the
original resting place is down, but it's not because there's because there's 16 minutes of
video where it's not in the original resting place. So that whole excuses
is debunked, they debunked themselves, but presenting such a lame excuse, there is no excuse.
There's no way that this could just blow onto the stage without some external source of wind.
It's impossible, there's no other way. And MC Tune was less speechless. He's like,
well, you can't put a fan on the studio stage.
Yeah, he zoomed in on that little thing, like prove it, prove it that they had a fan on the
studio. What studio does it? Like that's his style, he zooms in. And so that's where I would
have, I suppose, would have hammered it. Give me a plausible excuse for that. Why does the
flag disappear? And you got to stay firm on it because he'll distract you with all this
other bullshit. There's a fan in the studio. What studio uses a fan? Blah, blah, blah.
They wouldn't have done that. He zooms in to distract you because he has no evidence.
He has no answer at all. He can only just attack. Who are you to say blah, blah, blah.
But see that? That's what I mean, like, you know, as a note for next time, you got to bring it back.
He'll he'll try to derail the conversation using that sleazy little tactic. You got to bring him
back. Wait a minute, hold up, hold up. Come back. You tell me, give me a plausible reason why this
goddamn flag disappears and comes back. Because the reason you have given me does not make
any goddamn sense, Mr. Toon. And that's the approach that I would have taken. You know what
I'm saying? You got to bring him back. Bring him back. He'll try to take it in a whole million
different directions. You got to bring his ass back. But he's given no reason at all. He's
given no reason at all. You got to showcase it. You see what I'm saying? Sometimes you got to
showcase it and put his ass on blast right there, right there and then in front of his
audience in front of everyone else, you have this is what I was telling you at the very beginning.
You got to you got to fight fire with fire and he's going to he's using these dirty tactics.
He's he's been an asshole. He's using that homonyms. You got to play the same game.
Otherwise, his little theatrics will appear to have won the day, even though this point
that you presented is a completely valid point. They have no good reason for this flag
waving. It's completely valid, but he'll distract you with his little antics and theatrics. That's
all I'm trying to say. Right. My kind of my point of it is like this, you know, there's a saying
in English, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink, right? So so for the
people who are watching the videos, these debates, if they if they're if they're persuaded by
MC Tunes antics, then then that's just the horses refusing to drink. You know, all I'm doing is just
providing evidence and I could actually care less who who gives, you know, who's whoever does the
backup research. You know, I'm giving you the reference numbers. Go look it up yourself. You
know, I've already led the horse to the water, you know, so that's the way I look at it. I'm
not going to waste one minute of time trying to force a horse to drink who's refusing to drink.
Yeah. Yeah. And I suppose at the end of the day, everyone has their own style and
I wish I was better, you know, at at throwing in these ad hominins and stuff, but you know,
I think I would make him rage quit. I would I'll try to ask you if there is a next time,
if they ever allow me back on the show, I'll try to say if I can ask my friend, we see the
come. I would make him rage quit. I've thought about reaching out to him. I'll bring him onto
my show and see if he'll do it. You got you just got to match someone's energy, man,
especially those type of debaters. He's not he's not an honest agent. He he does little
sneak things. But once you study someone once you see their antics, it's really not that
hard. But yeah, he did that with you. He did that with Marcus Allen as well. Marcus Allen did
reprimand him and said, hey, cut that shit out. You know, but yeah, I mean, I want to stress
and this is something that I feel doesn't get hammered by people like us that question the
moon landings enough, you know, I brought it up a couple times on the Apollo detectives and
it was my own little thought my own little thinking. But I don't want to I don't want to
trademark it or have it be mine. I want people to take it and use it with their friends and
use it with everyone else. And this is my own little quote that I want to keep saying it.
So that others can use it and use it with their, you know, when they engage with people that believe
in the moon landings. NASA is the one that made the extraordinary claim that man landed on the moon.
The evidence to support this extraordinary claim is flimsier than the lunar lander itself.
And that's my little original quote. That's my little thing. But the point is, it's not up to us
to prove that the moon landings were fake. We're simply asking for them to prove a positive.
Because the evidence that they have presented, whether it's the photos, which can be faked,
whether it's the moon rocks, which can be collected in Antarctica. And actually,
some of the moon rocks have been found out to be petrified wood. So that's not good evidence.
Then the telemetry data, oh, they lost it. They lost the original telemetry data.
So the evidence that they have provided is far from extraordinary. But the claim
that man landed on the moon with 1960s errors tech is 100% an extraordinary claim.
And you can't let them try to wiggle the way out of that. We got to keep hammering that. I think
that's the line we got to take. And we got to be hardcore. It's not up to us to prove that their
fantasy that their NASA myth is fake. It's not our goddamn job. It's your job to prove
that we made it to the moon, because the evidence presented is far from extraordinary. And so that's
just my little spiel, man. And that's the spiel I would give the MC tune. The only the only
the only thing I can say in MC to his credit is that he's avoiding the two main subjects,
the two main excuses, which most apologists like to say is that one, if it was a hoax,
the Russians would have blown the whistle. And two, it couldn't have been a hoax because there
was 400,000 employees at NASA and somebody would have blown the whistle by it. So those are
both garbage. Yeah, but those those reasons are garbage. And they can easily be thrown away.
The as far as the the the amount of people working on it.
That's a cartoonish way to look at a conspiracy. A lot of these conspiracies cover ups are come
part compartmentalized, meaning someone could be working actively working on a cover up or
a conspiracy and not even realize it. For example, making the suits, making the astronaut
boots, you're making real boots. So you think you're actually hoping astronauts make it to the moon,
but it's all the rules. It's all bullshit. It's not real. And then as far as the Russians would
have talked, my favorite go to answer to that or rebuttal to that is Dimitri Rogozov,
the Russian cosmonaut that has called out the NASA moon landings in which when you when
you Google Dimitri Rogozin, all you'll find out are ad hominem attacks on him. Oh, well,
he's a quack. Oh, well, he's a loon. Who cares what he said? That, ladies and gentlemen, is called
moving the goalpost because you said that the Russians would have talked. Here we have
a Russian a top Russian cosmonaut that has indeed talked. But now you're throwing ad
hominems. Oh, well, his his opinion doesn't matter. That is called moving the goddamn
goalposts. So those two arguments are easily debunkable. And then as far as the amount of
people working on it, people forget that the Manhattan Project had 130,000 people working
on it. And people kept that under wraps. So there is presidents for large scale
operations to be kept quiet. And so, yeah, both of those arguments would be
completely destroyed, in my opinion, if you try to engage with them.
Right. So that's why that's why they he was specifically avoiding those arguments with me
because he knows I would just chew him up and spit him out in no time. And he wouldn't even
want to get me started on the whole Russia issue, because then I would I would love to
get an opportunity to talk about how the entire from Vietnam to, you know, the whole thing
was so if they tried to play the Russians would have blown the whistle card on me. I would have
loved for them to try to play that card on me. Yeah. And then that that all, you know,
this is the thing that I brought up to the AI when I was having my little mini debate,
because the AI was trying to say, oh, well, are you are you saying that there was a global
conspiracy of the Russians were involved? I'm like, well, kind of, yeah, look at the Cold
War, look at the lend lease program. The Russians were allegedly the big bad wolf. And yet we were
engaged in the lend lease program with them. And then we in modern times look at COVID.
We're on YouTube so I can't get too much into the COVID stuff. But
most of us have a certain way about how we feel about COVID, especially maybe you fell for it
at the very beginning. And I think a lot of people now realize what was going on. I'm being
cautious with my words because I'm on YouTube. But then you see how all these governments handled
COVID that are supposedly our enemies, whether it's China, whether it's Russia,
they handled it in very similar terms. So that to me is
well, let me let me jump in here. The reason why they're afraid to play that card now is because
it ties in directly with the Russian Ukraine war. The Russia Ukraine war going on now is completely
a hoax as well, because it's the same Freemasons in Ukraine and the same Freemasons in Russia.
And they're playing enemies right now. This is this is just a puppet show.
Yeah. Yeah, everything is a that's why I kind of focused, you know, at the very beginning on the
Gulf of Tonkin incident, because a lot of people that follow me know that I cover a lot of stuff
and I deem a lot of things fake and theatrics, the Trump assassination attempt, all these other
things. I don't believe in them at all. They're fake. And we have plenty of reasons why we should
be questioning these things. Like I stated at the very beginning, the Gulf of Tonkin incident
completely fake and manufactured. It has been admitted. So this is in a conspiracy theory.
They admitted that they made everything up. And as a result of this lie,
over 50,000 American troops died in Vietnam. Three million Vietnamese died in a completely
manufactured event known as the Gulf of Tonkin. So anyone having issues? Well, why would they fake
this? Why would they fake that they fake things all the time? Push agendas?
Also, I want to say, you know, what once the government admits to something, it no longer
becomes conspiracy theory, but it becomes conspiracy fact, right? Once they admit, well,
we did kind of say some little lies there about the Gulf of Tonkin, then it could
become conspiracy fact, right? And there's been four times where, well, more than four,
but the four major ones are the Gulf of Tonkin, the weapons of mass destruction of Iraq,
the Levan affair, and the King David Hotel bombing, right?
We're on YouTube, so I don't want to get too deep in there. I know where you're going with that.
But I would even argue that the U.S.-Mexican war is another one that even mainline historians
will agree, that it was a completely staged aggression to make it look like Mexico attacked the
U.S. That way the U.S. could get in and take, still, let's just put it the way it is,
still half of Mexican land, that's what happened. They staged, they made Mexico the aggressor
when there was no need for it. The American public did not want a war, so they had to
stage the event in order to make that happen. And that one, even mainline historians will get
behind. So these staged events, staged narratives happened all the damn time, over and over again.
Can I share screen again? I got one more just thing to talk about here.
Yeah.
It's on the screen right now.
So this is probably just a fake image, but it's just like a light. You could stick on your wall
which has a transparency of the earth. So it would be kind of like a globe-looking light bulb,
I guess you could say, right? So this globe-looking light bulb has a transparency over that has
some cloud patterns over a certain part of earth. And that transparency can be changed.
So at the beginning of the debate, the first thing I said, I made one
recantation where I said that there was some Apollo images of the earth taken
from the moon. And you have to, you know, if you compare the time stamp, so what they had done was
in the studio set where they were filming this thing, they had tried to calculate the angle of
the earth and the angle of the moon at that particular time so that it would look like
you actually seeing the earth up there. And they had even calculated down to the point
where like this would be the continent you could see at that time. And they had even
different transparencies where the cloud patterns would be different. And they could say even the
clouds are changing over time, but it's so simple as that. All you have to do is just
change the transparency and you can have different cloud patterns, different continents,
you can have whatever you want, you know? So the theory that this couldn't have been
faked because you could see the earth and the earth is rotated, this is totally raw,
it's just different transparencies being moved over on a light source that looks like the earth.
Yeah. Good, good point. Oh, I think Dr. Raza will join us, rejoin us. I think it was
almost time for him to leave though. He's in China and it is evening here on a Saturday night
in Florida and it is Sunday morning for him. So I know he was busy, but
he boned out to be a give him a second to see if he comes back. Maybe his internet cut out.
Maybe he was dropping too much goddamn truth bombs.
Again, 10 p.m. There we go. Here's Dr. Raza.
There you are, Dr. Raza. Sorry about that. You're good, man. I thought you had a run and
you didn't even say bye. I was ready to cry, man.
Yeah, but I do kind of need to get going. That was just accident. I actually closed it.
No, I got you, man. So there is one other, I had another smoking gun, but somehow my
folder got deleted. So we might have to save that one for the next time.
Yeah, we could do a part three. Yeah, for sure. Yeah. There's one other thing I wanted to share
regarding my own personal story. Yeah. I would have liked to have brought this. This is something
that we this is something we talked about before. But okay, there was a
there was a clip from the Chang'e 6 mission. We talked about this before. So here in China,
just we launched this Chang'e 6, which was the first robotic craft to bring moon rocks
from the far side of the moon.
Right. And during during that liftoff, during the day of the of the Chang'e 6 liftoff,
there was a Chinese administrator who made the quote that the Apollo, there's many people who
doubt whether the Apollo missions were real. So why would a Chinese Chinese official
be saying that many people doubt the Apollo missions were real?
And his name is Yang Yu Guang. And he's the administrator from the International Astronautical
Federation, IAF. So I need to, so I know Yang Yu Guang, you know, because China is the, you know,
once you meet people in space agencies, you meet all of them, you know. So I've met
Yang Yu Guang before and I asked him, so how can you get away with saying this
on public TV, saying that many people doubt the Apollo missions? And it's kind of a, it's a way
to step up political pressure on NASA, because NASA agreed to admit they fake the Apollo mission
and China is just waiting for them. So they're stepping up pressure now.
Now, the NASA apologists, ever since I pointed this out, the NASA apologists came for a rebuttal to me.
They said, oh, Dr. Russell is wrong. He's, Yang Yu Guang, later part of the interview,
said that the moon landings were real. So I need to, I need to respond to this rebuttal.
Okay. Do I need to play this clip again? I think maybe I should, because many people maybe don't
know what I'm talking about. Yeah, let's refresh, let's jog our memories. All right, let me share
screen. Let me know when you got it. It's on the screen right now. Okay, I'm gonna play it.
You can just listen. All right, now let's hear some more analysis from my guest here in the studio,
Professor Yang Yu Guang from the Space Transportation Committee at the IAS. You know, that's,
you asked which is the most dangerous or risky part from my view of a technician.
Wait a minute. Let me, let me kind of translate what he's saying, because his English is not
very good. What the hell is he talking about right now? He's, you know, he's,
well, he's one of the few people who can actually speak English. So, you know, they chose him
specifically for that, because he's one of the people that has good English. You know,
anyway, what he's saying, what he's saying is that the most risky part of this mission
will be the lunar orbit rendezvous. Okay, the most risky. So what it means to say is,
when you have two ships meeting in the lunar orbit, and they're going to transfer the rocks from
one ship to another ship, it's very difficult to align the ships so they can dock properly.
And it's, it's, like, if anything can go wrong, the two ships crash or whatever,
it's the most risky part of the whole mission, right? So that's what he's talking about. Let's
keep playing. The most important or the most risky part will be the lunar orbit rendezvous,
which means that the two spacecraft rendezvous and dock together in the second lunar orbit.
You know that many people doubt about whether the Apollo program is true or not.
Okay, that was the one, that was the line. Many people doubt about whether the Apollo program
is true or not. The exact words, okay? Why would he be saying that on the launch
of China's first mission to do something which NASA has never done?
NASA has never brought moon rocks back from the far side of the moon. So this was China's
first chance to do better, to do one up on NASA. During the launch of the mission,
he announced that many people have doubts about whether the Apollo missions were true or not.
And then let's listen to his second quote. One thing is that, you know, that in 1960,
it's almost unbelievable that the human being can conduct a docking in this lunar orbit.
So he says that, he says that one thing is for sure, it's almost unbelievable.
He's giving his own personal opinion here. Okay, his own personal opinion is that it's
almost unbelievable to me that these two ships could have docked in the 1960s.
So first he makes a statement, many people doubt, he's pointing at other people.
Many people doubt it was true or not. Personally, I think it's almost unbelievable
that those two ships could have docked. So it's pretty clear here that China is
putting pressure on NASA to hurry up and admit. And I just want to...
Well, someone had a question for you. Is it true that the CM pilot couldn't
communicate with the two astronauts before redocking? I need clarification.
Well, the official story is that they could. But, you know, there was no docking anyway.
Nothing. What really happened the entire time was that they went up, the command module
remained in low Earth orbit the entire time. And the rest, this SIVB went and orbited the moon.
So there was no dockings or anything like that. They just remained in orbit for the entire
period where they claimed to be going to the moon. And then they just came back to Earth.
So let me just share one last little thing about coming back to the Chinese issue.
If I can, is...
Okay. This is... Let me know when you...
All right. Slip on the screen.
Okay. So the debunkers, the apologists who think I'm lying here, and they say that
the official debunk for my claim that China just blew the whistle on the Apollo missions,
they say, well, in the later part of the video, he says the moon landings were real.
So let me address that claim is that... So what happened was in the year 2014,
astronauts met in Beijing. I'm presenting the news article here. So there was a big
conference in Beijing where there was 93 astronauts from 18 countries. And three of them
were Buzz Aldrin, Alexei Leonov, and Valentina Tereskova.
All right. So let me just... In case you don't know, Buzz Aldrin, everybody knows Buzz Aldrin.
And Alexei Leonov was the Russian who supposedly made the first spacewalk.
He was supposedly in low earth orbit, and he opened the door, and he climbed out the door of the ship.
And Valentina Tereskova was supposedly the first woman ever in space. Now, the thing is this,
these three astronauts, Buzz Aldrin, Alexei Leonov, and Valentina Tereskova came to Beijing
in the year 2014. And when they came to Beijing, they told us here at the Chinese space mission
that all three of them are going to admit that they faked their mission.
It means not only were the Apollo missions faked, but Alexei Leonov's first human spacewalk was
also faked, and Valentina Tereskova, the first woman to go to space, was also faked.
So this comes directly back to the question of would the Russians have blown the whistle.
That whole debate is going to be dead soon, because NASA themselves are going to admit it,
and the Russia will admit it well, that they were both colluding to fake these things.
And so when the Chinese, the scientist, said on the launch of Chang'e 6, that he's in the
interview, his exact words were saying, Buzz Aldrin, I know him. He was the first,
he was the second man to walk on the moon. So now the reason why he said he was,
because he's just quoting this article, you know, this article says Alexei Leonov,
the first person to walk in space, Valentina Tereskova, the first female astronaut,
and Buzz Aldrin, the second person to land on the moon. So he's just quoting this article.
So this is the official Chinese story, is that China is willing to say Buzz Aldrin was the second
man on the moon, even though they know it's a false statement, and they're willing to make that
kind of a lie for them, because of the exchange of technology.
But China's tactics here is making friends with the enemy, so keeping friends with America,
keeping friends with NASA, keeping the technology exchange going, but at the same time,
kind of blowing the whistle on them, because he said on the interview, many people doubt whether
the politicians were true or not, you know, so he's kind of blowing the whistle on them,
because he knows it's a hoax, and the Buzz Aldrin himself came here and told us that he's going to
admit it was a hoax in the future. So this is just, this is the whole thing is going to get
exposed very soon, and the fact that NASA and the Russians were colluding to hoax together
is also going to be exposed very soon. Will, you're more optimistic than I am.
Well, you know, I'm the type, I'll see when it happens, I'll believe it when it happens.
I don't trust any government, I don't care if it's the Americans, the Chinese, the Russians,
they all lie, we are their subjects, and we are their slaves, monetized slaves.
I'm certainly not telling you to hold your breath for this event, because who knows
when it will ever happen. But all I can say is that NASA did agree to confess.
And now, and I want to tell you exactly, clarify the story here, okay.
What happened was, in September of 1982, China launched their own rocket called the Long
March 2C. The Long March 2C was a rocket completely built by China. They had no help from anybody.
And they launched their second of this on August 1983. So the second of this Long March
2C rocket was launched, and it was a successful mission. So what happened was, at that time,
NASA looked at China and said, wow, you guys did a really good job on your own. You launched
successfully this Long March 2C, which is the most powerful rocket you guys have ever built.
So what happened after that in 1983, NASA said, we are going to start sharing technology
with you, because you did such a good job on your own, we're going to start sharing
technology with you. So what happened was, on December of 1983, China was allowed to join
the Outer Space Treaty. So if you go to Wikipedia and you look at Outer Space Treaty,
you can see that China joined on December of 1983. So this was when NASA agreed to start
sharing technology with China. So NASA helped China upgrade their rocket, and China produced the
first of the Long March 3 series. And the Long March 3 series was the first Chinese market
made with the help from America. And that first Long March 3 was launched on April of 1984.
So the plans had been in place between 1983 and 1984 for America to start transferring technology to
China. And at that exact time, that was the meeting where NASA told China, says, look, we are going to
start sharing technology with you. But we want you to keep a lid on the Apollo missions for now.
We promise to come clean in the future. But for now, will you please keep clean about the fact
that we fake the Apollo missions? And the exact date of this event, NASA telling this to China,
was in the year 1983, just before they started getting permission to join the Outer Space
Treaty of the UN. So I just had to set the record straight because I've told parts of this story
before, but now I'm telling you the full details of it. I gotcha, I gotcha. All right. So Dr.
Roz, I do have your YouTube link for the Moon landing hoax, as well as your Zero Point
Institute. Is there any other place you want people to check you out?
You know, I just got a super interesting message today on Facebook. And one of the members of
our Facebook group said he had somehow contacted the people who had hijacked our old Facebook group.
So our old Facebook group had 42,000 members and like somebody hijacked it away from us.
I could explain that story, how they hijacked it, but basically they took over role of admin
and they kicked out all the other admins. You had to start from scratch, essentially.
One of the members of our new group somehow got in contact with one of the guys who
hijacked our old group away. And he actually admitted to the fact that he paid money
for that group to be hijacked and passed to his command. He admitted that he actually paid for
them. And it might even be possible he's trying to blackmail us. He's giving us a price,
saying you might be able to get your group back if you pay us.
So I just got this news today, just before this interview. I was like, wow, that would be interesting.
Yeah, so I don't know. I'm kind of, but you know, everything we do, our Facebook groups,
our YouTube pages, they're all blacklisted, you know, so I don't really.
Yeah, getting shadow banned and it's just, it's tough. Yeah, for sure.
Yeah, you did start another one though, right? It's the Apollo moon hoax, right?
Right. So we, yeah, I have a YouTube channel and I have a Facebook group, but you know,
it's hardly anybody knows about it. It's hard to find it, you know.
Yeah. Well, I do have those two links that I've always put on. So if anyone
is interested, check them out. And then I also have our smoking guns part one as well
for anyone interested. That was a lot of fun. And Mr. Bob Williams did a killer job on that
video edit as well. So Dr. Ross, that was awesome. Yeah, let's see if we can get a few more
and then we'll do a smoking guns three if need be. And we also need to do our part two of the cold war
hoax. Yeah, so we'll have to get together and figure that one out for sure. Thanks so much,
Dr. Raza. That was a lot of fun. And until next time, and I want to remind everyone,
if you want to watch more show, we'll be doing UFC 10 p.m. tonight Eastern sometime early morning in the
UK. And then tomorrow Sunday, John Brissum on the Trump Epstein emails. So that should be a
banger of the show as well. Thank you, everyone for coming out. Much love hugs and kisses.
All due respect with you because you usually are pretty good at coming at it from an angle that
you have no political, you know, leaning one way or the other. So you're a little bit more
able to come at this from different angles.