1969 - 1972: the only time in which humans are said to have been on the moon.
What really happened?
Neil Armstrong: "I don't remember."
Why have we not returned in the last 50 years?
Bart Sibrel has been researching this topic for decades.
Bart Sibrel: "Now put your hand on the Bible and swear to God that you have been to the moon."
Today he is on Kla.TV to give us an interview.
Neil Armstrong: "...to remove the layers of protection from the truth..."
We are here with Bart Sibrel, investigative journalist and author.
Bart, thank you very much for making yourself available to us for this interview.
Of course. I'm happy to be here, Dan.
Great. I think some of our listeners are probably familiar with the fact that you were beaten by an astronaut.
Which one was it?
Edwin Aldrin Jr.
What other crazy things have happened to you?
What do you particularly remember about your work?
Well, there are a lot of them.
The next thing that comes to mind is that we produced the first movie, "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon".
And it was financed by a millionaire who builds rockets for NASA.
He knows that the moon missions are fake.
And he felt it was his patriotic duty to reveal this.
I produced the movie on the assumption that it could be true that they are fake.
The movie cost almost a million dollars.
It can be seen on the homepage of sibrel.com.
It is called: "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon".
About three and a half years into the seven-year project, we got an audio recording - classified material from a NASA whistleblower
- of the crew of Apollo 11, the alleged first lunar mission, faking part of the moon mission right in front of their eyes.
Said audio recording had a third audio track where the CIA told them how to do it. That convinced me.
It convinced two NBC news executives that NASA had actually faked the moon landing.
And that was a life-changing experience.
After this movie came out, we produced a movie called "Astronauts Gone Wild".
However, this title only came about afterwards, after I was beaten by one astronaut, threatened with punches by another,
kicked by yet another and finally threatened with being shot.
In one case, we had accidentally left a running microphone with an astronaut and the
cameraman had forgotten to stop the recording.
So while the camera was in the back seat of the rental car in the driveway of the astronaut's house - we had previously shown him
the secret footage, which had annoyed him greatly - his private conversation with his son
was recorded in his house with the door closed.
And they discuss whether they should call the CIA to have me killed.
Which wouldn't be necessary if they had really been on the moon.
To lie about having flown to the moon is a satanic lie of gigantic proportions.
Mitchell: I don't hit people, but I'll kill you if you don't get out of my house.
[I'm on my way.
Mitchell: Should we get a gun and shoot you before you drive away?
Well - our video camera is running if you want to do that. That would be great footage for us.
See you later, hopefully in court.
Mitchell's son: Do you want to call the CIA and have them killed?
So those are the two standout moments and if you look at the book that was just published in German by Kopp Verlag (...), I was
literally kidnapped by the CIA and interrogated with a truth serum . because I had found the
footage that proved they weren't on the moon.
Two NBC news executives also agreed that this would prove that the Americans were not on the moon.
NBC, however, was threatened with the shutdown of their channel if they decided to broadcast this.
So they chickened out.
Well, Bart, if you - and I would say our audience is pretty open-minded to new theories, even conspiracy theories - so if you
had to do a turbo summary, would the story where they're faking the video of the Earth
through the window be your best 30-second argument?
How do you convince someone who resists anything that contains even the slightest hint of a conspiracy theory?
Which approach do you choose?
Well, you have to be open to see the truth.
I've talked to college professors who said that if an Apollo astronaut admitted it was a fake,
they would still believe he walked on the moon.
In the 30 seconds in the elevator you can prove with logic that the moon landing was a fraud.
Today, after 55 years with better rockets and computers, NASA can send an astronaut into space no
more than a thousandth of the distance to the moon.
So what they're really claiming is that NASA, at a time when all its computers combined had only one millionth of the
computing power of a cell phone, sent astronauts thousands of times farther into space on the first attempt than it can today.
So it is claimed that for the first time in world history, the technology in the past was better than the
technology in the future. Which is impossible and which means nothing other than that they didn't fly to the moon.
Right, I would like to come back to the old technology later, which has now disappeared.
Before we get to the details, I have this question: Tell us why it is so important to know the truth about the moon landing.
I've talked to people who said, look, I don't want to talk about September 11, that was 24 years ago.
Let's move on to today, the moon landing was in 1969.
With all that's going on in Ukraine and Gaza, with the national debt and the immigration problem, with all the things
we need to focus on, why is the moon landing so important?
Well, let's say Dan, you and I lived in a residential neighborhood and once a month for the last 50 years, a child disappears.
Then we say: "Oh, it just happens". Or whatever.
No. These people are at large. And they didn't just fake the moon landing, they murdered people to cover it up.
That's not my opinion, that's the opinion of the widows and relatives of the dead astronauts who told me that.
That the man who was supposed to be the first man to walk on the moon was murdered by the CIA
because he did not cooperate with NASA's scam.
So these people aren't just faking the moon landings we're paying for.
We are also paying for our own deception.
We also pay for the salaries of the CIA agents who killed our brothers for trying to
expose the crimes of the corrupt government.
Our country was founded because King George became a tyrant, and it is said that the people have the right to
alter or abolish a government if it interferes with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Well, the first is life.
They murder their own people to carry out these particular scams.
And the real reason why it's important - only one of the two is true:
Either they managed to fly to the moon, put a flag on the nearest rock and came back and didn't
perish, along the lines of "Oh man, that was close".
Even if 50 years later they can only cover a thousandth of the distance.
Or the most powerful nation in the world has falsified humanity's greatest achievement and murdered people from
its own people to cover it up while hypocritically claiming to represent truth and justice.
If the second is true, and I assure you it is, you can see all the evidence for free on sibrel.com.
So if this is true, then the falsification of the moon landing is so much more profound than if it had actually taken place.
Do you understand that?
It is so monumentally important and if the public does not learn the truth that these criminals are
lying to this extent then it will be our own ruin.
What do you think would happen if the truth about the moon landing became public knowledge and the majority of
Americans, a large majority of Americans knew what was going on?
Well, I was in Berlin twice when the Wall was still up, and it was a pretty scary experience.
I even helped someone from the KGB to defect to the West.
And when the Wall came down, it was one of the most beautiful moments of the 20th century.
You can just imagine our phones ringing and the producer saying, "Drop everything, turn on the
TV, one of the Apollo astronauts is confessing!"
The world would be dead silent, we would pause and say, "Oh my God, is it really that bad? How far have we fallen?"
Not only did they fake the moon landing, they murdered many people to cover it up.
We even have an eyewitness who saw them filming at the airbase in 1968 and who confessed that he killed
another worker at Cannon airbase to keep it all a secret.
This is so much more profound than if they had actually flown to the moon.
And the difference is that whoever assassinated JFK, you can always find someone to hang your hat
on who did it with a motive - it's still tragic.
The same applies to September 11; you can change the perpetrator and the reasons for it. It remains tragic.
This is a positive lie in comparison! Do you see?
And I come along and want to take this sweet candy away from them and tell them the bitter truth.
Now the public and even podcast producers who claim to be against corruption are defending the perpetrators of all these crimes.
Trump can tell the truth about JFK and RFK and MLK (Martin Luther King), but if he doesn't admit the truth about the moon
landing scam, then the Deep State has won and he is complicit.
So if he wants to gain the public's support for reforming the government, if he wants to clean house, the NBC News
chief says there's no better way to show the public how bad things have gotten by exposing the moon landing scam.
Afterward, Republicans and Democrats would say, "We didn't know it was this bad."
The fact is that Robert Kennedy Jr, who has more access to the JFK files than Oliver Stone , has said with one hundred percent
certainty that the CIA killed his uncle, the President of the United States, because he wanted
to remove the bad elements from the government.
Then we have Robert McNamara, the Secretary of Defense, who said before he died that the Vietnam War, which
the public was against, was only started because Congress had passed a law based on a lie.
He said the attack in the Gulf of Tonkin never took place.
My point is, Dan, if the CIA is willing to kill its own president, is willing to needlessly kill 58,220 of its own
people, then they will have no problem faking a video image.
And there is four times as much evidence as needed to prove in court that they faked the moon landing!
But that's a truth that people don't want to hear, they'd rather believe a lie.
It's literally like Santa Claus for adults!
Telling the truth would temporarily embarrass the United States.
But if this is not done, it is all the worse when students and primary school pupils
and the history books institutionalize a lie.
We need to know that.
Our eyewitness said that President Johnson was personally at Cannon Air Force Base on June 1, 1968 to witness the moon landing
being filmed and that Nixon approved it about a year later.
So there are both Republican and Democratic presidents who support this appalling and arrogant lie.
It really is a blasphemous lie.
You know the Tower of Babel, which was never completed, it was supposed to reach heaven.
What does it mean to put a man on the moon?
To reach the sky?
A famous writer said of the Tower of Babel: "The monument to their pride became a memorial to their folly.
It was unfinished."
The Messiah said: "To build a tower and not complete it is to make a fool of yourself."
And then my movie, also on the homepage sibrel.com.
We show the Titanic there and Dan, they wrote, "the ship that God himself could not sink."
And then Richard Nixon, even though he knew they weren't on the moon, still said: "Putting a man on the moon
is the second greatest achievement after God created the universe. This is an important truth.
It is something absolutely profound that mankind faked the moon landing.
If we do not tell the truth, we will never be cured of this cancer.
Now to move from Trump to Nixon: You are of the opinion that Nixon definitely knew?
Of course he knew! He wasn't present at the launch of the first moon mission!
We have the Japanese president there, we have the German chancellor there, we have all the world leaders there, except the
president of the United States, who was afraid to show up - and then be in a photo shaking hands with Neil Armstrong because
they might get caught and then it would look all the worse.
After they got away with it, it showed up six months later on the second launch, when people were
already convinced that we could put a man on the moon.
Did he have an official excuse for his absence at the first start?
I think he said he had to take his dog for a walk.
Oh come on!
That was a little joke. But there's really no reason why the president shouldn't be there.
They would postpone the appointment so that he could be there.
They would do that.
Yes, right.
Recently you were on Joe Rogan for three hours. And half an hour.
Do you think his interview was fair?
Fair?
Well, the thing about fairness is that people think we have to hear the official side of the story to be fair.
That is the opposite of the truth.
We have heard the official story for 55 years.
If we were to tell our side of the story for 55 years now, we would only be on a par.
We already know what they think, we already know what they will say.
Joe Rogan told me privately that he felt he had to do this because new people were seeing it for the first time.
I didn't agree with that, but maybe he was right anyway, because on the Sibrel.com homepage there is
this quote from someone who reviewed my book on Amazon.
He said basically he thought the moon missions were real and never questioned it until he saw Bart Sibrel
on Joe Rogan and it became so obvious that it was fake.
He had read the book and now it was even clearer.
It is absurd to believe that they made the first attempt with one millionth of the computing power of a cell
phone when 50 years later they are still unable to travel one thousandth of the distance.
Do you understand that? It's like saying Lindbergh flew five thousand kilometers across the Atlantic in 1927, but 50
years later, in 1977, an airplane can only fly 5 kilometers.
Do you realize that after the first atomic bomb was detonated in 1945, 10 years later the
atomic bombs were 1,000 times more powerful?
So if we could have flown to the moon in the first attempt with one millionth of the computing power of a cell phone, we
would be on Mars 10 years later, we would be in a different solar system now and there would be bases all over the moon.
Eight presidents have said that we will return to the moon in 5 years, starting with Reagan, then it was
Bush Senior, then Clinton, then George Bush Junior said it twice, then Obama, then Trump.
They all said we're going to the moon in 5 years and they can't.
In 2014 they said, "By 2018 we will have humans in orbit around the moon," and they were two years behind
schedule and only put test dummies in orbit around the moon.
In the 1960s they could drive cars and play golf on the moon, but today the best they
can do is send test dummies into lunar orbit.
The truth is right in front of your eyes!
I don't know why people can't see that?
Yes, that's one of the most obvious things I've noticed.
We're talking about the technology of 1969 and we haven't improved it to the point where we can do it again?
And it's not just us, there are other countries that are now quite rich, you could say
China, Russia, Japan, India, the European Union.
Surely they have the money and the technology to do this.
Rogan picked up on this point right at the beginning, saying, "Yes, but the scale of the operation that involved 400,000 people
and the willingness to go that far to do it again is not there."
Well, that's just not true.
The government does what it wants, regardless of whether the people are for or against it.
Just look at all the wars we've been involved in where the public was against it, but they did it anyway.
And that's one of the reasons why people say it has to be real, because you can't hide a
secret from hundreds of thousands of people.
Well, that's not true at all either.
The atomic bomb was the biggest secret of the Second World War.
It involved 129,500 people, and only eight knew what they were building.
That's like saying Bank of America has 500,000 counter staff.
But do you really believe that what these employees know about corruption in their bank is the same as what their CEO knows?
Do you really think the CIA is stupid enough to tell the guy who makes the glove or the door handle or the boot,
"Hey, we're not really going to the moon, don't tell anyone".
The fact is that Eugene Krantz, the flight director I spoke to personally, said that no one in the command center
during a launch could even tell the difference between a simulated flight and a - and I quote - "real flight".
It's just a bunch of numbers scrolling by on a screen.
So how should we be able to recognize this, whether as four-year-olds in our living
room or when we see it 20 years later on video?
Well, there are so many aspects to this topic.
When I look at the arguments of people on YouTube or the Wikipedia page trying to invalidate everything you and other
moon landing deniers have discovered, there's a lot in there.
But above all: Are there any arguments that deny the moon landing, but which Wikipedia and NASA do not even try to refute?
They are simply so irrefutable that they don't even bother to go into it.
Well, my footage that I discovered that shows them pretending to be halfway to the moon before our eyes.
It's incredibly convincing.
In this segment, which would later be edited and played for worldwide television audiences, Neil
Armstrong condemns himself when he states that he is 130,000 miles away, halfway to the moon.
As also stated in the NASA flight log on that day.
In reality, it is in a low Earth orbit of a few hundred miles.
Armstrong: "Roger, Houston. Apollo 11 is calling from about 130,000 miles away."
In another segment, also to be aired after the review, Neil Armstrong incorrectly explains to viewers how the recording
was made by holding the camera lens up to the window pane, as it should be if they were at the stated distance from Earth.
Armstrong: "And we only have one window that offers a view of the earth.
And it's filled with the TV camera."
If, as he said, the window was completely filled with the television camera, an astronaut's arm could not get between the
camera and the window, as is obviously the case in this clip.
Armstrong: "Half of America becomes invisible and disappears into the shadows beyond the Terminator."
You can also see how the astronaut operating the camera reacts to the error by trying to pan away.
This is a segment they didn't even think was recorded.
It was much less suitable for broadcast as the lens zooms out and the scene switches to the interior
of the spaceship where the astronauts are at work.
And apparently the stop button on the video recorder jumped up again without warning.
Here is the diffused work light they used to see the controls without casting light on the wall of the spacecraft.
Here they have removed part of the crescent-shaped insert.
Finally, the aperture is opened and you can see the actual location of the camera and the
very bright and close earth through the window.
Two NBC news executives agreed that this proves they weren't on the moon.
They flew me to New York, put me up at the Waldorf Astoria and paid me thousands of dollars for the exclusive license
to spread the story nationwide: The moon landings are fake.
They received a threatening phone call from the government and then withdrew the matter.
Even my critics agreed - that this is the crew of Apollo 11 pretending to be halfway to the moon.
For what other reason would they pretend to be halfway to the moon if they couldn't even cover half
the distance, couldn't even leave the earth's orbit?
And what a surprise: 55 years later, they still can't leave the Earth's orbit, so mannequins are orbiting the moon.
There are a number of reasons for this.
The rocket did not have enough fuel.
We have the original publications by Wernher von Braun in which he says that it is impossible to fly to the moon with a rocket.
You would need at least three rockets, each taller than the Empire State Building and each weighing 800,000 tons.
The Saturn V weighed only 2,500 tons instead of 800,000 tons - a difference of 30,000 percent times three.
Elon Musk has a rocket that is about three or four stories higher than the Saturn V, and with this
rocket, he said, you can only get into Earth orbit.
You have to fill up with fuel at least eight times to fly to the moon.
But they didn't do that.
And then my book "Moon Man" contains 17 interactive video clips, which you can now see on sibrel.com.
In one, a NASA engineer says there is a radiation belt between the Earth and the Moon
that you have to pass through to reach the Moon.
All orbital flights are far below this.
He said it was dangerous or deadly and the technology needed to get through it and survive the
journey to the moon hadn't been invented yet, you know?
"My name is Kelly Smith and I work on navigation and control for Orion.
Our goal is to reach an altitude of 3,600 miles above the earth.
15 times higher than the International Space Station.
As we move further away from Earth, we will fly through the Van Allen belt: an area with dangerous radiation.
Radiation of this type can damage the guidance systems and on-board computers or other electronics on the Orion.
Of course, we have to cross this dangerous zone twice: once on the way there and once on the way back.
We need to solve these challenges before we send people into this region of space.
We won't have any astronauts on board."
Then you could prove with a single photo that the moon landings were faked.
On the homepage of sibrel.com we show sunlight - you can check it yourself, go to a parking lot in front of
your front yard on a cloudless day and look at two people, two trees, two telephone poles:
the shadows always run parallel to each other.
It is mathematically and scientifically impossible that
Shadows cast by the sun overlap.
If you go to the website, you can see two objects: an astronaut whose shadow is at 12 o'clock and a
rock about one meter away whose shadow is at 9 o'clock.
90 degree divergence of objects that are one meter apart.
So there is an electric light source involved that is very close.
We have just proved with a single picture that the moon landings were faked.
Then we have the film recording in which half of the way to the moon has been faked.
Moreover, we have the logic that in 1969 you couldn't have a thousand times better space technology than today.
And we have an eyewitness, Cyrus Eugene Akers, the head of security at Cannon Air Force Base, who
shortly before he died confessed to murdering a coworker to cover up the moon landing fraud.
So there we have it. You have not been to the moon.
What can be done? And if the truth doesn't come to light, I don't know what to say, but
humanity is doomed if they don't bring it to light.
And the president is not serious about the revelation.
Telling the truth will strengthen trust in the government rather than destroy it.
Yes. And now this counter-theory, which I didn't understand very well.
I heard them on the way here today.
The answer to the Von Braun hypothesis or the statement that we need these gigantic rockets that are
higher than the Empire State Building is the lunar module.
It is said that von Braun's statement referred to how much it would take to send a rocket up, land it on
the moon, bring it back, i.e. shoot it off the moon.
But we wouldn't have to land on the moon because it would be so much easier to fly with the lunar module.
Have you heard that before?
No, he's the rocket designer.
He said that these mathematical figures are irrefutable and unchangeable.
That's what he said, they are irrefutable and unchangeable.
Musk says you have to make 8 refueling trips with the larger rocket first.
In a TED talk it was said that you could even need 24 fuel trips for the ferry.
Von Braun said on camera that the largest rocket a human being can build can only reach Earth orbit
and that fuel must be transported to a space station.
Werner von Braun: "A journey around the moon must take place in two phases.
A spaceship that takes off from the Earth's surface will consume almost all the fuel it carries just to
reach a speed high enough to balance the pull of gravity.
Without propulsion, it will then continue to circle the Earth in an orbit outside the atmosphere.
This is the first phase.
However, if we can refuel the spaceship in this orbit with fuel brought up by cargo spaceships, it can set off on
the second phase: the journey around the moon and back.
To facilitate this refueling process, we will establish an advanced base in orbit, 1,000 miles above Earth.
This advanced base or space station will be the headquarters for the final ascent to the moon."
Elon Musk says exactly the same thing, right?
You have to carry out 8 fuel transports.
But the fact is that these things become more efficient rather than less efficient over time.
Yeah ok, how about this: part of the reason America had to push for the moon landing was
because we were in a space race with the Soviets.
So why wouldn't the Soviet protagonists, of all people, have suspected what was going on, and why didn't they shout: "Foul!"
Yes, so those are the two arguments why they have to be real:
That a lot of people were involved. And I told you that even someone in the command center can't tell the
difference between a simulation and an actual flight, according to the flight director I spoke to.
The other argument is: wouldn't the Chinese or the Russians rat them out?
That is not true at all.
For example, let's say I have a picture of a head of state with a prostitute.
I could upload it to the internet and ruin his career and then the photo is worth nothing.
Or I could blackmail them, year after year.
I know someone who personally works in the command center of the Chinese space agency.
And he told me that everyone there knows it's a fake.
In return for the transfer of secret NASA technologies related to space travel, they do not make this public.
The US Congress says it is illegal to sell space technology to China.
China is blackmailing the United States and the CIA is illegally giving them this technology in
return for not exposing the moon landing fraud.
And the same applies to Russia.
One of the last publications to be found on the sibrel.com homepage is about a year old.
The world's most intelligent AI not available to the public, multiple AIs interconnected, Google's neural network,
which they demonstrated for three days at a congress in Moscow.
One team had it up and running: they wrote a symphony in two seconds, a novel in two seconds - and it has a
program for detecting deep fakes that has never been wrong.
You can show him a video of Biden or Trump and it will tell you in a second whether it's fake or not.
It analyzes all pixels and the geometry of the image.
A team fed it images of the lunar surface from the unmanned Chinese probes and it said they were real.
For every Apollo image presented to the program, it said it was a fake - a fake background.
That means it was recorded in a television studio.
This intelligent AI simply said that.
We have a video on my website that shows Putin seeing the results in real time.
He doesn't look surprised at all, actually rather frightened.
But if the truth comes out, maybe something true about him will come out or he will no longer be able to blackmail the US.
And so the former Russian space director said on the day he retired: "Hey, I wanted to say
something that I couldn't say when I was still in my post.
The moon missions are fake."
When did that come out?
That was about three years ago.
RT television is therefore supposed to be against corruption.
Well, they never reported on how Putin was shown that the world's smartest AI just said the moon missions were fake.
They never reported on it.
And if I leave a comment in another article about AI: "What about the AI that says before Putin that
the moon missions are fake?", it will be deleted.
After the former Russian space director said the moon missions were faked, I get a call from Fox News the next day.
They want to do an hour-long special on whether or not we went to the moon, and they want to interview me.
And they say, "Look, Mr. Sibrel, we haven't read your book, we haven't seen your films, and even if we find
conclusive evidence that the moon missions are fake, the show will conclude that they're real to appease people."
So you were told that before you got the interview? Right. And that's Fox News - that's
no more their friend than Russia Today is.
Otherwise they wouldn't have fired Tucker Carlson, who had 100 million viewers for each of his shows.
Or are they? These people are not in business to make money as they should be.
They are concerned with information control.
So I took a look at her special.
They found a Russian scientist from 1969 who congratulated them.
The speaker said, "See, the Russians think we were on the moon!"
But Fox News did not report that the former Russian space director had said six weeks earlier that the moon missions were faked.
Fox News lies just like RT lies.
Both are controlled and are supposed to produce programs that assure people that the moon missions are real.
Back to the refuters of my arguments.
If they were really on the moon, Dan, anyone who says otherwise is just an idiot.
So why are there a thousand YouTube videos that took tens of thousands of hours to produce to convince
a bunch of idiots that the moon landings are real?
If I said that Mickey Mouse was the first president and not George Washington, you think there would be a thousand videos to
get people back on board: "No, no, no, it's not Mickey Mouse.
Here are the reasons why. It really is George Washington."
Ok. You mentioned that ... with these other countries - China, for example, that the footage of the Chinese lunar module is real.
They've actually been up there and the rebuttal guy I heard said, "Yeah, other countries have gone to the moon, that's a fact.
There just hasn't been a manned moon flight since - when was our last one? 1971?
1972. But they sent turtles and spiders and whatnot to the moon.
Is that true or is it nonsense?
I don't think so.
I do not believe that any animal has landed on the moon, as has been claimed.
They sent animals through the radiation belt to see how high the radiation exposure would be.
This is in the clip on my website where the NASA engineer testifies.
People don't know this, but about a thousand miles above the Earth a radiation field begins that is 30,000 miles thick.
Every manned mission was far below that, except the one to the moon.
The man said that the radiation there was dangerous and that the technology to cross this
radiation field and survive had not yet been invented.
I saw the NASA clip where the director said, "We still have to solve this problem before we...
"We have to solve the radiation problem before we send people through that region of space, but they have
to go through that region of space to get to the moon.
You see, "We need to solve these problems before we send people through this region of space," which means
the problems are not solved, so if they had sent someone through, they would have died.
So how exactly did they get to the moon?
Yes.
So basically they sent unmanned probes with two Geiger counters into the radiation.
They should already know they're not lethal if they've flown to the moon six times to
walk around it and two more times to orbit it.
So they brought the Geiger counters back.
So I asked, "you know, this was a civilian mission funded by taxpayers, I'm a journalist and an American citizen,
can I please have the readings from these Geiger counters?"
They said: "This is a military secret.
And I said: Okay, let me make sure I understand this: If you send probes to the sun to measure the temperature
of the sun, the measured temperature of the sun is not a military secret, but part of nature?
Of course.
If you send probes to Jupiter to find out how much helium is in Jupiter's atmosphere, then the
amount measured is not a secret, but part of nature.
So why should a part of nature, namely the amount of radiation that an astronaut would have to pass
through in order to reach the moon, be a secret?
Because the original discoverer of the Van Allen radiation belt said that the dose is 100 times more lethal.
And that's why there are mannequins orbiting the moon and no people.
Okay. The Wikipedia article on this says that Van Allen said something like, "Oh no, I think people can walk through it."
Believe it or not - I can look it up.
Yes. Of course Wikipedia spreads lies on every other page.
Absolutely!
So originally he said, "It's a 100 times more lethal dose".
And if he later says, "It's not fatal," then the guy is an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about.
So why is it on the gearshift?
The same applies to Von Braun.
First he says: "It will take three 800,000-ton rockets to fly to the moon," and then he says:
"Oh, you only need 30,000 percent less rocket power.
Anyone who fudges their calculations in this way is therefore incompetent.
So why is he in charge?
Either he's right or he's incompetent, right?
Yes.
So if he's incompetent, you can't go to the moon, and likewise, if he's right, you can't go to the moon.
Do you think the two boys received the call?
Well, we have a list of the people who were at Cannon Air Force Base when the first moon landing was filmed.
It comes from President Johnson himself.
Cannon Air Force Base in eastern New Mexico?
Yes, Clovis, New Mexico.
Our source who saw them filming the fake moon landing was the head of security at the Air Force's most secure base.
President Johnson personally gave him a list of 15 people who had been admitted as eyewitnesses.
He kept this list as a souvenir, and we published it in the book, both in the American and German versions.
And Van Allen was on that list.
Okay, so this main evidence you're talking about plus the conclusion in your head,
that's enough to disprove the moon landing.
You don't have to deal with the sea and the rocks and the crosshairs on the photos and all that stuff.
Yes, that's beside the point.
Okay, understood, but the spotlights with the spotlight...
Well, I mean, the man who built the Hasselblad camera that took the pictures said, "These
pictures were taken in front of electric lighting."
Did he?
Yes, that's what he said.
Okay.
[Bart Sibrel: Yes, on the Fox special called "Conspiracy Theory - Did We Land on the Moon?", on which I was a consultant.
Yes, speaking of cameras: The two camera shots that still puzzle me are, one, the footage of Armstrong getting off the
lunar module, and two, this perfectly timed and panned film.
I mean, as a filmmaker, as a photographer - how did they get that perfect view of the lunar module being shot back into space?
You know which ones.
Well, there should have been a dramatic radio delay between the remote control and the man
and that he guessed right, that's a bit absurd.
The interesting thing in my movie "When Astronauts Go Crazy" is that we interview Alan Bean , who says on camera:
"We didn't fly through the radiation belt", which is true.
They stayed in orbit for eight days to ascend and descend in front of witnesses, perform the splashdown and so on
and then an astronaut says about the descent: "You know, it was very quiet", which we also hear
on the tape, although it should actually be loud.
Then we have Eugene Cernan who said, "Oh, it was very loud, you could hardly hear each other!"
So what was it?
Isn't that a little contradictory and inconsistent?
Is there any evidence that Stanley Kubrick worked on the studio production of the fake moon landing?
Well, there is a logical conclusion and there is some evidence that he did it.
In my opinion, it is irrelevant who forged it.
The fact is, they faked it in 1968 when it was filmed at Cannon Air Force Base while he was simultaneously shooting
"2001 A Space Odyssey," a movie about a flight to the moon.
Oh yes!
The fact is that they faked the moon landing.
Someone had to be responsible for these fake images.
They could either hire the general of the Pentagon's media department and have good security but amateurish results.
Or they could hire the best filmmaker in the world, Stanley Kubrick, get good results in
the short term and worry about security later.
I would have done the second thing.
And in his movie "Shining", one of the actors, the little boy, wears a hand-knitted Apollo 11 sweater.
And then there is Kubrick's last film "Eyes Wide Shut".
For 50 years, people have seen the picture of Buzz Aldrin with his arm bent and not
noticed the many wrinkles in his pressure suit.
How many folds are in a balloon?
In any case, people's eyes are wide shut.
I understand, yes.
Stanley contractually insisted that this movie (Eyes Wide Shut) be shown on the 30th anniversary of the launch to the moon.
And was he?
Yes, on July 16, 1999.
I think Stanley Kubrick would have found it fascinating to make a movie that was so good that people
thought it was real, as a kind of intellectual award.
He either had something to do with it or knew about it.
And again, it is irrelevant.
I don't say in my book or in my movie that he did it.
It's an interesting theory.
There is some evidence to suggest that he either had something to do with it or knew about it.
Right, right.
Did the government have to admit at the end that: "Yeah, okay, some shots were done in a studio because we
couldn't recreate it because of the temperatures" or whatever had anything to do with the movie?
So: "Yes, these images were recreated so that the public knows what's going on."
Did this kind of footage also go outside?
Well, a little side note to answer that question.
The last time I was in a hotel, I remember flipping through the HBO program .
A third of ten films reported on aliens from outer space.
If three of the ten films were about what an idiot Trump is or, conversely, what a hero Trump is, it would
definitely be a concerted effort to steer public opinion.
For some reason, the government wants us to believe in UFOs.
And they hold hearings in the US Congress about it. Why are there no congressional hearings on JFK or the moon landing scam?
They want us to believe it, so it's a lie.
Recently a movie came out about the flight to the moon and the faked pictures.
They wanted us to believe that the pictures were faked, but that they were really on the moon.
But that is also a lie.
The reason they had to do that is because the AI just said the pictures were fake.
They're pondering, trying to figure out: "Okay, the pictures are fake, but how can we still get people to believe
that the story is true without it being embarrassing for us?
The fact is: in 1969, 10% of the population thought the moon mission was a fake before it was launched.
So the last thing they would do would be to falsify any of it officially, because then
they would be accused of falsifying everything.
It's quite simple: if you really went to the moon, you wouldn't have to fake anything.
If they pretend to be halfway to the moon, it's because they can't fly halfway to the moon.
They didn't care.
In the alleged live landing, it was an Atari graphic that showed a small rash on the surface of the moon.
There were no live images.
Well, if I were the head of NASA, I'd put a camera on the side of the rocket, put it in protective glass, and take a picture 24/7
from the launch pad to the moon to prove we were really there.
Shoot a flare off the moon or something.
But they didn't do any of that.
They showed as little as possible, and then they only showed a picture of the fourth generation.
The broadcasters said: "Give us a live broadcast".
They said: "No, we'll take the image, project it onto a large screen with the projection quality of 1969,
have it filmed by a TV camera, transfer it to a TV monitor and have it filmed from there".
They could have had a live broadcast.
And then I can say: Ron Howard was warned by his grandfather: the moon missions are fake.
He didn't listen. He wanted to make this special program.
So he went to NASA and said, "We're going to put all the original footage on HD TV and project it 100 feet wide.
NASA said, "Give us a few days," and two days later all the footage was lost so it couldn't be transferred to HD.
Wow. How did you know that Ron Howard's grandfather said that to him?
He admitted it.
He said. Yes, and so not only did they deliberately destroy all the original videotapes, they also dismantled and threw away all
the parts of the only device that could be used to play them, in case the originals were ever
found, making it impossible to play them again.
They destroyed all the original telemetry data showing where the rocket really was.
And they destroyed all the schematics, blueprints and diagrams of the original equipment that showed what battery power could
supposedly cool the lunar module down to 72 degrees (Fahrenheit) for three days with a car battery and the fuel and all that.
Well, they would never do that if they had really flown.
But that's exactly what they would do if they were committing fraud, you know?
You spent the equivalent of 250 billion dollars to go to the moon, right?
Imagine Bill Gates spends 250 billion dollars to build the first computer, it works fantastically, he
throws it in the oven along with all the blueprints.
Maybe they should have done the same with the atomic bomb, but they didn't, did they?
No, the B-52 is 70 years old and there are still 200 of them in service.
So if they had really flown to the moon, they would never have destroyed anything, but that's
exactly what you would do if you were committing fraud.
And that in itself is proof of fraud, that they have destroyed everything.
And do we actually have NASA people, government people going on record: We've lost the technology?
Well, no, they didn't say they lost it, they said they destroyed it on purpose.
It's one of the video clips on sibrel.com, my book "Moon Man", it's interactive.
One of the links is that of their own NASA astronauts saying "we destroyed this technology".
[Astronaut Don Pettit: "I would return to the moon in a nanosecond.
The problem is that we no longer have the technology to do this.
We used to have them, but we destroyed them and it's a painful process to rebuild them."
Why would they destroy something that costs 250 billion dollars if they don't even want
to destroy the technology of the atomic bomb?
You see, they did it to cover up the fraud.
Wow, okay. Well, I think we'll wrap it up right here.
Bart Sibrel, do you have any final thoughts?
And afterwards you can remind us once again of your books and where everyone can find you.
Now that it is broadcast in German...
Sure.
Here it is, the German version of "Moon Man", published by Kopp-Verlag.
It is the true story of a filmmaker who is on the CIA's hit list.
It's now out in hardcover in German. And you can go to sibrel.com and watch the testimony of the deathbed confession.
You can find all this on the sibrel.com homepage.
Okay. Well, thank you very much for your time. It was really a pleasure and an honor.
But of course.