You're listening to the Paranormal UK Radio Network and now it's time for the Paranormal
Peep Show. Hi, welcome to the Paranormal Peep Show with myself Neil Ward
and joining me this month in lieu of Andie Chaplin, who's a very busy
man with his tuned in events, is once again our friend and occasional co
host, Ben Emlyn Jones. Hi, Ben, how are you ideal?
It's I'm very well. Thanks, It's good to be back on the show.
Lisa all always very interesting in these programs. It's always nice and I
can step in to Ali's shoes and help you out. Good. Thanks for
joining us, Ben, So you've been quite busy on your own shows and
live streams and things like that. You had a few technical issues with YouTube
the other n idea you're in your live stream unfortunately. Yes, I had
another issue where YouTube decided to stop my livestream. They've done this several times
in they delete videos and things like this. It's very very annoying. It
was for a completely false since it was a completely false situation as well,
they accused me of what they said. There was the detective copyright material copyrighted
although I was actually broadcasting something that's in the public domain. So but you
know, you can't really appeal. They just stopped the live team. So
what I did was I went over to Rumble and I carried it on there
where you don't have all that kind of aggravation. So I'm you know,
I pay a lot of homage to the the old techies who create these websites.
You know, mine's gab get a rumble bit shoot, et cetera.
So it was. It ended up being a very good live stream. It
was great fun. And what was the subject to the live stream for those
that don't talking around and Tucker Carlson's historical interview with the President Putin of Russia.
It's really quite extraordinary thing. So I did a deep dive into all
the I did deep dive into the into all the content, all over two
hour seven minutes of it. Quite So, what was your opinion of the
thing in general? I think it's very very good. I mean it's I
think the the war in Ukraine over the last couple of years when I went
during the time it was on, was portrayed in a very one sided way
in the Western media. We were told that Ukraine was good and Russia was
bad, and that was it, And I think that's false. I think
there's another side of the story, and I'm glad it's now been told on
such a high profile a platform and it's been seen by so many people.
So hopefully I'll make people think again. It wasn't perfect. I mean,
it possible Tucker will go back and do more. But I was hoping,
hope, above hope. I was hoping that, you know, Peutin would
come clean about the UFOs. I know what he knows, yeah, saying
I was egging Tucker on going ask him about the UFOs because Tucker Carson is
very very open minded about UFOs. He's always tin good about it, so
he understands these things. But I was hoping he'd ask present Peutin about that.
He didn't so well, as imagine because he was a Fox Fox News
guy, Tucker Carston, wasn't he. Yeah, he was sacked by there
even though he yeah, popular hosts. Yeah, I guess Patts wouldn't be
able to do this Peuting interview if he was still in an employee of Fox
News. I would imagine. Well, I think when he actually got sacked,
a lot of people said, you know, this is a it could
be a great opportunity for him rather than a disaster. And indeed, he
set up his Tucker Carson News network and he does his own things now and
so this is a very impressive from development on his part, I think.
But I just said I'd like it. I wanted to go back and ask
Puttin about the UFOs and maybe some other things as well, because he does
know about it, Carson. He's always talking about UFOs. It would be
interesting to see that development if that happens. So good luck to him if
he can do that, and I for one would be watching it definitely if
that happened. So, without further ado, I think we best bring on
our guest who we have had before on the Paranormal Peep Show. He joined
us a few months ago, and with one of these particular subjects, there's
always a lot more to explore and it can't be done necessarily in one to
our show because there's a lot more to be said. So we welcome back
to the Paranormal Peep Show Randy. Randy, welcome back, Hill, Thank
you. I'm very happy to be here, and hello to YouTube. Ben.
Good to see you again. It's been about a few years. I
think, yes, we was Apollo Detectives. I think Molle first, Yeah,
directive, Yeah, that was with Blue Earth thing. Yes, that's
so interesting. Yeah yeah yeah. So Randy Wilsh joins us from Canada and
he spoke to us a few months back on his book The Apollo Moonhoaks Hidden
in Plain Sight, and I think we covered a lot of part one where
we talked about the F one engines on the Saturn five rocket, the navigation
problems possibly that might have had on the Apollo thirteen mission. And your actual
show prompted a bit of to and and fron with some of that on our
YouTube channel that watched it, and they've done their own investigations into the Apollo
things. They've looked at it, and it was someone from your old country,
from Ireland of all places, and they've been doing a look at the
what they consider is a new calculation of the Earth to the Moon. Shanina.
I think her name is hopefully I've got your name right, I apologie
if I haven't. But she's produced this video on how she's recalculated the distance
and mates it quite surprisingly to about a two thousand mile range approximately from the
Earth to the Moon. Now, I said that those details to you,
what I mean, because you know about navigation and things like that, and
you've looked at the Apollo thirteen stuff, Randy, is there anything wrong with
that or do you think there's problems with that calculation she's done? So,
first of all, I did a cursory look at her her a couple of
her videos, and I'm well, first of all, I was struck by
her detail and by her mathematical abilities, and so nobody can dispute that.
In terms of her overall theory. I mean, I really have to look
into this further. Now. I've been out of school for forty five years,
so I don't always trust my own math here either, you know,
to be honest with you, But I'm also very careful not to criticize the
work of someone else's even if I don't necessarily agree with them. It's an
interesting theory, there's no doubt about it. If I could offer her some
constructive criticism, I would leave the Apollo missions out of it. She's only
going to further discredit herself by that. Because I've noticed that from the comments
that she's getting that people are jumping on the Apollo Moon mission aspect, they're
ignoring her actual theory, right, so to give herself a little bit more
credibility. So far, I haven't seen any thing, to be honest with
you, that in my opinion, validates her theory. But you know what,
in in the last twenty years, I've learned not to shut the door,
and especially in the last four years, where there seems to be an
enormous rise in consciousness overall among the human race, given what we've all went
through with the UH. And I'll use some colde words here, I don't
I know, it's just going on YouTube, So you know, given you
know the the how shall I say the tyranny in the last four years,
if I can put it that way, So I've learned not to discount outright
anyone's theory. I would like to know more about it. I'm hoping maybe
she puts a book out where I can actually sit down read the book and
then study it and make notes and go from there intriguing it is. The
one concern I do have with her is that she's she's going to be eventually
categorized within the flattered theory crowd. And that's you know, that's a major
syop in and of itself, So if I were going to be a little
bit careful about that, but you know, it sounds intrigued. I think
you should have her own I think she should have her own platform first,
and then we could take it from there. So I'm kind of not convinced
right now, but definitely I will keep my mind open, because I mean,
in terms of the navigation aspect, me and I, as you said,
I've looked into this, and I think it's important to when we're talking
about the Paul missions, which she did, and she starts off her video
by saying that they ready to go to the moon type of thing, and
automatically she's now diverting people away from her own work. I like to argue
or to debate and discuss that the Paul missions were faked, and I like
to prove it within the official framework, because that's how you actually convince people.
It's not about winning people over, it's just getting them to look at
this themselves and say, well, you know, well, the Moon is
two hundred and fifty thousand miles away. Here's the method that they used to
get there. And I think I successfully proved or made a very good case
that with technology fifty years ago, let alone today, it's just impossible to
do it within the official framework. So that's kind of the angle I like
to work from. If it turns out that she's right, well then that
just validates my theory even more so. But I would like to look at
her work a little bit more before I actually, you know, say yay
or nay on this. Yeah, that sounds a fair assessment, to be
honest. The other interesting thing is that I'm not absolutely sure how they calculated
originally the distance of the Earth to the Moon, and then they got it
rolled in the end to recalculate they got everyone by a few thousand miles or
something. So I think at the time of Kubrick's film where two thousand and
one, no, not two thousand and one the show, they had room
two three eight, which a lot of people allude to have been in the
distance of the Earth in two hundred and thirty eight thousand miles, And it
was around about that time that everyone agreed or thought it was two hundred thirty
eight thousand mills. But then later on they did some further calculations and came
up with some other distance which I'm not even sure. But how do they
do, you know, how they work those calculations out? Is it some
sort of parallax thing different points of the Earth point in How does that work?
Yeah? I mean, let's face it, they had pretty good mathematical
capabilities going back hundreds of years, even thousands of years, and they were
you know, even going back hundreds of years, they were pretty getting very
precise. I mean, you know Isaac Newton for example, they were getting
it was very not exactly on, but they had some mathematical ability. They
had techniques that they used basic gold trigonometry, geometry to figure out a rough
estimate of the Moon. But now we're talking about today, and as you
said earlier, there is being different distances and that actually is something I mentioned
in I think my first book I mentioned that. And when it comes down
to navigating from here to the Earth sorry sorry, to the Moon. Now,
whether it's a man mission or on man mission, you would think that
they would be precise right down to the last inch. And I'm not.
I haven't seen a lot of evidence of that even with today's technology. Right,
given that the moon also the moon you know, moves, it's it
doesn't necessarily moves its business, but it's closer at some points, it's further
away, so you need to be precise and you need to have that actual
distance in real time. So my answer to you is that, well,
they can't figure it out, you know, and they're supposed to have,
you know, the high IQ and the mathematics and the supercomputers to do it.
I certainly wouldn't know how to, but what I do know is that
they're not as precise as they let on. And now if they're not as
precise as they let on, that raises another question, because if you're going
to navigate two hundred and fifty thousand miles, you need to be precise.
There is no margin for error, especially when it comes from admissions given the
limited propellant that they have on board, because they'd have to be constantly making
corrections. And we all know that every effort was made, and again speaking
within the official version, every effort was made to keep weight down as much
as possible that also included propellant. If you were to fly an airplane like
that, you've killed a lot of passengers. And supposedly they've got more accurate
reens now, so they claim they landed the laser reflectors there with the first
mission. By putting laser reflectors, and presumingly the idea is that that they
would send a signal back to Earth and they could measure the distance very accurately
back in nineteen sixty nine. And yet in nineteen eighty or eighty one,
whenever the Cube Brick film came out, they were saying the Earth was two
hundred and thirty eight thousand miles from the Moon. And you would think that
if they've got these lasers bouncing, they were bound to work out the distance
with the lasers back in sixty nine, so we should about it accurately.
Back in sixty nine. From the word go, I would have thought,
well, I think you just answered general question. You would think, right,
yeah, and that's exactly right. And the other thing is just that
for those out there that don't realize this, both the Soviets at the time,
the Soviet Union and the Americans were bouncing lasers after the Moon as early
as nineteen sixty one sixty two, and they were getting fairly good results and
some good accuracy as well. So the argument that the poulmissions happened because they
put laser reflectors on the Moon is really a fallacy. It just doesn't hold
up because the areas that they target those lasers happened to be the areas on
the Moon were the most and that just happens to be the areas where they
handle all six missions supposedly landed all six missions. So it's really and you
know what amazes me is is that, uh, these geologists and you know,
work for established institutions haven't really figured this part out yet, and yet
we as lead people have, so you know, again this is in the
book for people who are really interesting diving into it, but they and the
other thing also with laser reflectors isn't that they've been placed there. They can
easily placed there by onmand missions, which the Soviets have done and still have
the Americans. So it's just a lot of fallacy for me. M yeah,
I mean, the fact is, I think it's on MythBusters where they
show a thing supposedly proven the Apollo missions are real. They go to some
observatory top type of place where they said, right, we're going to send
a laser beam to the Apollo level landing side and we're going to get a
signal back. But as you say that's the reflective eraror anyway being across equator
of the Moon, because that's the point there's furthest as has been struck by
the sun the most. At a certain points anyway, you're going to get
some sort of reflection back anyway. So I mean it's such a tiny,
tiny, little two foot across a little box that they got to somehow hit
from presumably a wide beam. By the time it is, it's going to
be hitting all sorts of things moon, rock, dust and all sorts of
things. So you're going to get lots of things bouncing back. So I
think you had to get a scattered reflection as such coming back. What do
you know about that bend as. Yeah, So no, that's a good
point, And I haven't done a lot of research in that because there's other
areas to research that. You know, you couldn't research every aspect of the
polymicians. You'd need you need a team of about one hundred and twenty people
to do that if you dig in the evers back. But just to your
point there regarding the lasers, I mean, fifty years ago you had quite
a dispersal. When you fire a laser it would expand it would probably hit
about it too, maybe a two square mile two or three square mile area
of the moon. They'd refined that. They've managed to refine that with technology
and you don't need to reflect or the belts it back. You can refine
it, and you know, I don't know how how refined it is,
but technology when it comes to lass has been refined and they've been able to
narrow that dispersal pattern as it gets to the moon. So you're getting a
pretty good h I would say accuracy. But then again, you know,
there seems to be discrepancies in the distance of the moon. So your guest
is as good as mine in terms of what's really going on here. There's
a lot of disinformation and disinformation when it comes to this, and there's a
lot of people that you know, look into this in their thrownout. That's
why I cautioned the previous uh, the individual from Ireland that you were mentioning,
it's just you know, continue on with her work, that would be
my suggestion, but leave the Apollo moons out, lead that up to us
and just focus on your own work. I mean that's to say that she
can also look into the Apollo thing on her own thing and presumably doubt it
whatever she wants to do. But yeah you can presumably, Yeah, that's
right. You. It's a difficult lines tread. You've got to like publish
certain things in certain calls and certain things in other areas. And if you
claim it all together, you're going to get a lot of You might rattle
quite a few cages when you want to actually be heard among above the rattle.
This is the thing I mean, I talk about the apollom More missions.
You talk about the Apolloment missions to you. Now we have this this
individual in Ireland and her work, and she's talking about her work, but
now she's mixing it in with another controversial subject. One's enough, right,
Hey, yeah for another video? Right, So that's my friendly advice to
her. Ben, do you want to come in? Yeah, I'm not
actually familiar with this lady. I don't know I've actually seen her comments.
There's such like that. I know a lot of people have a lot to
say about this particular issue. I've not heard anyone say anything that successfully counters
the points we made. As far as the retro reflector goes from Apollo eleven.
This has always seen this is wrongly presented as proof. I've seen many,
many examples, including amateur radio hams reflecting all kinds of wavelengths, amplitudes,
and frequencies, transmissions off the Moon, off the lunar surface generally.
Indeed, one guy showed off how he used his short wave radio to get
a echo a radio echo off the Moon, and he could he actually could
work out just basically on the time it took for the signal to go there
and come back exactly how far away the Moon was. The Moon has a
very regular orbit. It's one of the most non eccentric whatever the opposite of
eccentric is orbits in the entire Solar system. It's literally it's almost like a
completely circular orbit varies very very little indeed once. So once you know where
it is at one point, you can pretty you can guess pretty much any
time in the future where it is going to be and how far it's going
to be a way it's going to be pretty pretty much precisely both by simply
working it out. So the idea that the polybicians had to happen, because
we know how far the away the how far away the moon is, and
we know exactly how far it is because of the using laser or radio or
any other form from electromagnetic radiation. It's simply false, and it's it's something
they keep coming back to. I think they may be appealing to the to
the uninitiateds trying and put try and reflect their interest away before they get too
deep. I think a lot of these skeptic documentaries are doing that. They're
they're very a lot of them are very transparently false from our position, because
they're not aimed at us. They're not aimed at they're not aimed at change
our minds. They're aimed at deflecting interest away by people who new to the
subject and don't know. And so that doesn't surprise me to all. But
anyway, I wish I wish her luck. If she can, she may
be able to work something out. Good. Hey, guys, I just
need to let the dog out because Okay, she's begging to go out the
move. Harry's chatting, and I'll come back in a few minutes be with
me, thank you. Okay, Okay, So you the the whole issue,
I mean the whole issue. I suppose it's in your book, Randy,
isn't it, Because you wrote a book. Yeah, so they just
wanted to expand on the point you made there. And I'm not saying that
this is my theory, but there has been some some video footage of the
moon that has come out in the last few years, and uh, these
are, of course, I would say, on official sources. But nonetheless,
you know, they're putting their credibility in a line. And there seems
to be some anomaly when it comes to looking at the surface of the mood.
So there have people are seeing things that shouldn't be there considering that it
doesn't have an atmosphere. And they've even got as far as to say,
you know, is there some kind of a barrier. No, whether that
barrier is from advanced technology, we don't know. Is that a barrier that's
just you know, an actual phenomenon that also could affect the lasers, and
it could affect in terms of getting proper distances. But it is another intriguing
field to take into consideration because there seems to be a lot of really new
and well a little information in terms of challenging the consensus reality just can what
exactly do you mean by a barrier? Yeah, so I was actually on
a phone in show last week and an interview. It was live, and
we had a phone in call session and this individual I called in and he
asked me, how was I aware of the fact that some of the you
know, when you point a telescope at the Moon, and a lot of
really there's a lot of very confident amateur astronomers out there and they point their
equipment at the Moon and then they videotape it, and they've noticed occasionally that
there seems to be some kind of vertical line that goes across their camera.
Now, whether that's a video camera anomaly or atmospheric anomaly, it could be
any number of things, but they seem to have ruled a lot of that
out. And so it goes back to is there some kind of barrier in
the between here and the moon? Now, this barrier would obviously be somewhat
transparent, right, It's not like a physical barrier. So they're getting into
some very deep rabbit holes here. And I bet this is a deep rabbit
hole, not one that I really wanted to go into in terms of in
depth study, at least right now. But there does seem to be circumstantial
evidence. And I say that, let me emphasize that word circumstantial evidence that
there is some occasionally there is a distortion in terms of the video footage of
the Moon where you have this vertical line going across and almost you can almost
like see some transpers and you see other things going off, like you see
lights going off on the Moon, and that these are not you know,
people can brush it off and say, well, maybe it's it's a meteorite
strike or multiple strikes, but there does seem to be in the Other thing
is is there does seem to be areas in the Moon. I think it's
in the south from our vantage point from I'll use our sense of directions because
they're the opposite when you're on the Moon. But the southeast quadrant there seems
to be some activity, some build up of heat. So there's some strange
things going on in the moon. A lot of things coming out now in
the last two or three years. So really, you know, you can't
discount anything. And as I said earlier, I like to argue the point
within the official version, but there's another layer to add on to this when
it comes to the Moon. That's really since I've got an image in mind
that meant that what it could be. I mean, based on what you've
described, and I've never heard of this before. It's as if it's some
kind of a false image of holographic image or something. Yeah, there's being
projected to hide something underneath, like in the in the book Atlas Shrugged,
where there's a town and it can't be seen from the air because it has
a From the air, it looks like there's just nothing there below you except
normal landscape. But it turns out that's actually a something. It's actually a
projected image into the sky. Yes, it could very well be a natural
phenomenon, right, But it's just interesting that it's only been noticed now,
more so in the last i would say last ten years, and that I
mean that that's intriguing, you know, and it's aren't given that technology when
it comes to photographic video technology has theres a lot more advanced than has ever
been. So maybe maybe the camera's picking up something. Maybe it's just a
natural phenomena. I don't know, but that's what people That's not what I'm
reporting. That's what astronomers, amateur astronomers are reporting. Yeah, there's several
Obviously, the moon has the dark side of the moon, which or the
far side to give it its proper name, which always faces away from the
Earth, which is invisible. It's actually one of the few places in the
entire universe which is completely invisible to the Earth from the Earth surface apart for
a reason other than sheer distance. And it's right next door to us.
It's our closest neighbor. And in fact, there's two people like a name
Carl Wolf and Donna Hare, who actually worked for NASA processing photographs, and
they both report that the NASA were taking pictures of artificial objects on that on
that particular air away from the Moon. They were built quite openly on the
surface, which they could do so because no one could see it from the
Earth's surface, and NASA were basically touching them up. They're getting artists with
paintbrushes to touch up the photographs for publishing them. I mean, I don't
know if that's true, but both these people reported it, and so I
wonder if they could be that there is something on the side facing the Earth,
which of course would be spotted immediately if it were just there, and
maybe someone wants to try to hide it in some way, and maybe the
technology exists put some kind of holographic image above it. I mean again,
I'm speculating like you are, but I think that's very interesting, Randy.
I've never heard of that before, so thank you. Yeah. And I
do want to emphasize, and I'm glad you said that. I just want
to emphasize that, of course we are speculating. I don't need all the
businesses or the engineers like Steve jumping in and say, you know our rich
you're talking about prove the mad No, a lot of genists are signing this,
So I'm just speculating there. Steve may get easy, right, but
there is I have read this and I'll finish at this point when it comes
to the subject. But I have read in numerous books, and I don't
have a source for those books. But I have read over the years physicists,
actual physicists talking about the Moon in terms of its size and its mass,
and it being for its size and its mass, it shouldn't be in
the orbit it's in around Earth. I have read that. That's not me
saying that out there. That's what I have read, and I don't have
a source for that, so don't come at me. But that is what
I have read, and It's interesting because there may be some circumstantial evidence to
or intriguing evidence to back that up, or at least to give it a
little bit of a validity in the sense that when NASA fires, when they
crash into the wit, which they purposely done, they crash some you know,
uh, sped rockets into the surface of the Moon. I mean they've
come back and actually used the phrase it rang like a bell for a noun,
so that kind of gives it a little bit of a literality. Definitely,
I mean the the I'm interested that the density of the Moon is very
low considering its geology and which is not unlike the Earth, but it's density
is actually very low, indicating that their man there are. It's probably even
the subsurface geology is very different, which is unlikely. Or there are large
cavities within the Moon's caves and and other spaces. These could be either natural,
or they may fall naturally, or they may be artificial. Of course,
there are natural caves under the Earth as well, but some people say
are they artificial? Are they built by a non human intelligence or maybe a
very advanced human intelligence in the distant past, or something like that that we
don't know because no one knows what they are. No one's ever been there
to find out. No one's the naki, right, Well, that's yeah,
that's they are the ejaculation speculation bulks. But ancient mythology across the world
is replete with stories of non human intelligence is interacting with us quite openly.
Eric von Danikin has written a lot about this. Are the bawntful of people,
you know, And like I'm not saying like, you know, yeah,
I'm you know, I'm laughing a little bit. But at the same
time, we can't discount anything anymore. I mean, okay, yes,
we need to see evidence and we need to say it in front of So
speculation is good, and I've speculated in my books, and I speculated in
my recent book, which I'll talk about after, but just put out a
third book, and speculation is okay, But don't come out and say this
and this and this unless you can actually prove it. Now, I can't
prove what I just said in terms of the moon and the anomalies on the
moon. But definitely, how do you how do you look into something when
you talk about it and then maybe you speculate it and you come up with
speculator about it, and then you come up with a hypothesis, right,
and then at leads to a theory, you know, and then you go
from there. So that's basically all I'm doing is is that nothing, nothing,
can be discounted when it comes to the Earth of Moon and especially our
old history, which I do think a lot of is being falsified. Another
area for another day, folks, But yeah, so yeah, because I
was just thinking as you're talking about Inside the Moon, the Jules Byrne film
story first Men in the Moon, where there's a film version a bit where
these two Victorian travelers. I think in the film they had a lady with
him, but I don't know whether they rode that in for the film of
the sixties and Lionel Jeffreys I think was the actor who was the scientist inventor,
and they devised this anti gravity paint or something they painted on the side
of their ship and it allowed them to float upwards out. Yeah, that's
it, And they discovered these internal caverns like Ben was talking about, but
they had these creatures in there. Ray harry House and I think did the
animation a great film. I loved it, but yeah, it also again
reminds me of the remote viewer in goos Swan who worked for the CIA but
also worked for other people undisclosed. He gave them, perhaps pseudonyms, he
didn't want to kind of disclose exactly who they were where. He was asked
to remote view some coordinates, and he realized that the coordinates he was remote
viewing happened to be on the Moon. And he said, I'm on the
Moon, you know. And he could sort of see mountains or craters and
things like that. But he said, but there's people here, he said,
but they're naked. But they were humanoids, he said, But they
weren't humans. They were humanoids. In other words, they had a head,
two arms, two legs, and that's perhaps as far as the similarity
went. They must have looked very alien like, but for some reason they
were naked. They did all lots of reports of UFO occupants tend to talk
about very close fitting bodysuits, so they could have had that. He may
have not seen it quite fully, but they seemed to be mine in the
moon in some way. It's don't helium three they've discovered on the moon,
but they seem to be harvest in the Moon for mineral resources in some way.
And once he said that, he said they're aware of me though somehow,
they're aware of his consciousness being shot to the moon in some way,
and he said, they're sort of coming towards me. They're aware that I'm
here. So the guy that was gave him the coordinates, who was in
charge of this research project, basically said, gad, they're come back now,
come back now. And he speculated, he said, I don't know
who this guy was that engaged him. He called him mister Axelrod, and
he paid something like ten thousand dollars cash per day, which was a very
very large summer of money back in nineteen seventy five or whenever he was asked
to do this. And he wondered if this this mister axel was himself an
alien, and he wanted to test out how far humans in their psychic development
had got, In other words, could they were there's psychic abilities discover that
mister Axelrod and his buddies are doing something surreptitiously on the Moon that they didn't
want them to know about. So he obviously heard about Ingo swand thought,
right, I need to see how far this guy can penetrate our defense systems,
a bit like engaging a computer hacker to hack into your own company's web
stuff to see if your defenses are good enough to withstand it. And this
is the kind of an analogy that was used. So he was penetrateing the
Moon's defenses with his psycho bulance. He got there and they were aware of
him. So after that he was told not to do it again. Kind
of thing. But it makes me wonder if there are people on the Moon.
You know, there's a a website. I think I let you know
about it. The other night Ben called Allies of Humanity and it's this guy
who the last thirty years, he's kind of supposedly a channel communication from this
I would call it. I think he would call it an alien alien beans
or something like that. Marshall Vyne Somers's that's the guy. Yeah, Yeah,
I've read I've read one of his books. Yeah, So basically he
to summarize it then and Ben, you're aware of it then, so he's
received communications from these beings who have parked themselves somewhere within close facility to the
Earth. And I speculated it to myself that maybe they were on the Moon,
perhaps on the backside of the moon, because we talked about bases on
the backside of the moon. Does this all type with other sources of information
about backsides of the moon, bases, that kind of stuff. But apparently
they won't say where they are because they don't want themselves to be discovered.
But what they're doing, apparently these other aliens, they're monitoring the comings and
goings of all these other et races coming to Earth, and they're reporting through
to this Marshall Somers, the recipient of the messaging, is exactly what's going
on, and they're sort of saying that these are the bad guys that are
coming in. They're trying to manipulate humanity. They're trying to genetically manipulate humanity
so they can put their people in to key positions on Earth within government,
who in thirty years time might look human, but in fact they're thinking alien,
you know. And so there's not gonna be one laser gun fired in
this take over of Earth or humanity. They're going to do it in a
stealth mission from within, rather like a virus might take over your body and
mutate. And that's the kind of plan. And this is what Marshall Summers
says in his writings The Allies of Humanity. So that's a website that if
anyone wants to go and check out, it's called the Allies of Humanity.
It's worth looking into. It reminds me of that film They Live about the
Yes disguise of humans. You've put special sunglasses on you can see them.
Yeah. Now, in your second book, Randy, the Apollo Moon Hopes
Hidden in Plain Sight, Part two, you talk about the founders of JPL
Jet Propulsion Laboratory. For those that don't know what JPL is. Lots of
space fans but definitely know what JPL is. But for those that don't,
you all explain a bit about who JPL was, how they came about,
and why you spoke about them in your book. Sure is it okay?
I just want to make a footnote to what you were just talking about.
Sure, absolutely, Yeah I was. When I say, and I'm actually
talking to the viewers out there, I wouldn't have scaled the possibility of remote
viewers. And this seems to be some size behind it, the fact that
the CIA and military intelligence have you heavily involved in and they've been recruiting people
over the last several decades. So the scenes they seem to give it a
lot of validity soul for the naysayers out there, I would encourage you to
look at that. But there was one that came to mind when you were
talking about that individual you just mentioned is later Nick al Yeah, Ingoswarm is
Nick Alger. Nick Alger has been involved in military intelligence for for decades.
He too is a remote viewer, and he now has a channel on Rumble
and he talks a lot about this, and he has made some uncanny predictions
in the last three to four years that I have been watching him that have
actually come to fruition that actually come true. And it's interesting because you really
got my interest when you said that. You know, when he was the
ingom swam was revolt view and he felt like somebody was looking back. That
is exactly what Alger's Nick Alger's experience was when he was asked to remote view
of the moon and he felt that he was intruding and he got scared and
he stopped it because he they were looking back at him right right, could
be the very same beings. Yeah, he talked about that. So definitely
that's an area that. You know, some people will laugh at but hey,
you know what, as they say, truth is stranger in fiction.
So we'll leave that open for now. What's this Space Paul in the pun?
Yes, yeah, so JPL you talked about Jehpa. We knew was
that can book. So I came across when I was writing, when I
was looking into researching book two, I came across, just by accident,
several books on Jack Parsons. And Jack Parsons, for those of you who
don't know, was an upcoming scientist back in the nineteen twenties, thirties and
forties. Now there's a lot of information to Jack Parsons that we can get
get out, we can talk about. But what really struck me with Jack
Parsons is that, And before I get into that, all of you who
don't know, Jack Parsons theories to this day are were used if you believe
the Paul missions were using the Paul missions in terms of whatever they got out
of those missions. I mean, they never went to the Moon, but
they did get something out of the Saturn five rocket and of course the Space
Shuttle and Jack Parsons theories really are prevailed with in the space Shuttle technology in
terms more in terms of the solid fuel boosters that the space Shuttle used.
Now, Jack Parsons, it's very it's really difficult to know where to start
with him. So let me just give it a little bit of a history
for Jack Parsons. And for those who don't know Jack Parsons, is was
he actually had created, along with two other individuals at that time, two
other scientists, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory JPL, and they named it they named
the Jeft Propulsion Laboratory in after Jack Parsons, since he thought of the idea.
But as Marcus Allen kind of wondered, and I thought it was a
very good point in his part, is it actually Jack Parsons laboratory, but
they changed it to Jet Propulsion Laboratory, right? And what makes Jack Parson
very interesting is there's a few layers of Number One, Jack Parsons had no
formal education. He had nothing beyond grade twelve or or high school. He
had no university level education. And with that he managed to develop theories that,
as I just mentioned Darli are still in use to this date by NASA.
He literally one day, at about eighteen or nineteen years old, he
read a paper back then, and I think it was nineteen I don't know,
let's see maybe nineteen thirty thirty one. He read an article in the
newspaper about rocket science, which was unheard of at that time. Rocket science
was for Hollywood. It was out of the domain of the military. They
weren't interested in it at that time. It was you know, it was
a cartoon. It was entertainment. But he read an article from that was
actually published by a professor at the California Institute of Technology call TACH. He
literally walked in just one day, you know, this nineteen twenty year old
walked in the cal TACH, searched down the professor and told the professor he
was really intrigued with his work. And the professor, of course was busy
with other work, but he was really intrigued with Jack Parsons at that time
in his knowledge, and long story short, he sent them on to somebody
else. And now another long story short. Jack Parsons not only became a
frequent visitor or guest, shall I say, at CALTACH, he became a
faculty member. And that's what any higher education. He was given his own
lab to do his own experiments, and of course the experiments got involved limited
explosions, so they had to move that off site. And they funded his
whole research in a desert and funded his lab there and gave him an entourage.
And this is a man who basically walked in off the street literally right
literally, and within within a few years he's not only a member of the
faculty of Caltech. Uh, he has all arms mill and he has now
he has negotiations going on with the US military to develop propulsion systems for their
weapons because World War II is coming up, right. But here's the other
thing that I think makes it even more intriguing. This is a man and
this is why we never hear about him a lot. They they they have
a dedication to him once a year. They dedicate you know, they have
a ceremony for him once a year at JPL. And it's it's always low
key. It's never in the forefront, it's never out in the open.
And that's a really shies a way when it comes attack to talking about Jack
Parsons, because Jack Parsons has another interesting background. Jack Parsons was a Satanist
and he was a developed follower of Alistair Crowley and Alistair Crowley. For many
of you out there will know Alistair Crowley was very prominent in the political and
entertainment scene back in the nineteen twenties, thirties, forties and fifties in Britain
and a lot of followers. And to give you some idea the importance of
Alistair Crowley, Alistair Crowley is on the cover of the Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts
Club band by the Beatles, and he's also I believe that the guitars for
led Zeppelin. His name excases me right now, you'll know it. Oh
yeah, the best doesn't need the best. You know, he owns I
think he owns one of the houses or one of the mansions that Alister Crowley.
Y. Yes, but it's much Lochness. Yeah yeah, so very
interesting. And so when he was he basically, and this is how I
portrayed him in the book, he's a rocket scientist by day and an occultist
by night, and that eventually led to his two worlds colliding, and it
really was his demise. But there's some other interesting aspects to Jack Parsons that
people don't know about. And it turns out that Jack Parsons had a close
connection to Werner von Braunt and this was in the nineteen thirties, before World
War two, and I want to emphasize that point, before World War two.
So now you have a scientist connected to that Caltac and also to the
FBI, because the FBI had run security checks on him because he's now involved
in military weaponry, so he was involved in that. And then we find
out that he's an occultist. There's lots of letters written between him and Alistair
Crowley. They never physically met, but they had a close correspondence. But
there is but he did meet Ron L. Hobbard, who went on to
develop Scientology, to create the Church of Scientology. And we all know about
the Church of Scientology, and it's influenced with actors like Tom Hanks and Tom
Cruise and its influence in Hollywood and in politics. So that's the other side
of Jack Parsons, and this explains in part why NASA is very shy about
putting him out in front. When it wasn't for Jack Parsons, you wouldn't
have a space shuttle program. And the other thing is is that Jack Parsons
also and this is a crucial point that I want to make is Jack Parsons
was constantly under the surveillance of the FBI. So what does that tell you?
Well, if he's constantly under the surveillance of the FBI, then how
is it that the FBI either didn't know or knew? And we're covering up
the fact that he had a correspondence not through letters, but through over stations
with Vernon von Bryant, not only before World War two, during World War
two and after World War Two. One has to ask what was that about.
There's a lot more to Jack Parsons than we have that we have been
told. There's a lot more going on here. Very intriguing and only wrote
one chapter. If I was to do that, just as it would be
a whole book or maybe two. That's how intriguing. Rabbit hole this is
when it comes to talking about Jack Parsons. I suspect with the fact that
he was in communication with Verna von Brown. And again for listeners that don't
know of yours, haven't who von Brown is. He was the inventor of
the the war machines against Britain, which was the V one and V two
rockets basically that launched the blitz against the Brits in World War two. So
they these rockets were far off from Germany and they basically crash over London or
surrounding counties, some far if they would deserve Birmingham as well. And after
World War II was over, he along with many other German scientists, were
taken under a scheme operated by the USE called Operation paper Clip, which was
to bring in these German World War II scientists into the United States. They
weren't tried as war criminals. They were kind of basically brushed that aside because
they were too valuable to shut up in prison all day or even shoot or
wherever they would have done with these people. They actually harnessed what they could
from them, and so vernevon Brown was used basically to help set up NASA
and went on to design the Saturn five rocket, which allegedly took people to
the Moon. And so his involvement with Jack Parsons pre war and during the
war, it must have been that the FBI must have learned a hell of
a lot about vernevon Brown through Jack Parsons, either surreptitiously or they just interrogate
him. Who's this guy is talking to? Tell us all about him,
and they must have seen a lot of information and from presumably from that point
on, they must have targeted vernevon Brown of a person of interest to utilize
at some point in the future. Whenever that point of the war came.
They definitely wanted him alive to bring in. I think that sounds like the
case. You know, I would agree that. I think that's a very
good um. That's he raised a very good point. I had more questions,
though, what and this has to be asked. Jack Parsons was killed
in a very mysterious accent in nineteen fifty two. He was only thirty seven
years old. Is it possible? And this is just speculation on my part,
but it's possible because when you look at the bigger picture, Well,
the FBI knew him. Now, the FBI had revoked his security clearance because
of that he was involved in the occult, but then he was allowed back
in, but he was closely watched. But just put that aside for a
second. Was Jack Parsons and the relationship between Jack Parsons and Verner von Braun
was that more? Was Berna von Braun seeking information from Jack Parsons in terms
of his own technology with the V two rocket. In other words, was
Bernavon? Was Vernon von Braun getting advice and Jack Parsons to build a weapon
that was terrorizing Britain? Right, And that's just one aspect of him that
has to be asked. And if so, the FBI was fully informed of
this, and the recursor to the CIA was involved in this, which I
think was the OSS at the time, and of course therefore ergo the American
government, right and Britain would have to have known about this too. So
you have to ask yourself, well, if that's the case, and again
just just speculation on my part. If that's the case, then what exactly
was World War two all about? When you have the hierarchy, the government
officials and scientists in both Britain and the United States aiding the enemy to attack,
the build of technology to attack their own people. Yeah, it's always
like a wife of testing out the technology. Yeah. Yeah, And that
cannot be discounted. You cannot come back and meet anybody out there, cannot
come back and say that's not true. But we don't know. But there
is again circumstantial evidence that that's exactly what may have been going on, because
why else would he be in telephone conversations. In fact, Jack Parson's partner
at the time, his girlfriend, she used to talk about it. Oh,
he's talking about German, was talking to about German in Germany before,
during, and after World War And there's evidence that they did physically meet when
Vernemont Braun was brought over along with the other Nazi scientists. And that's for
me, that's a troubling development because it paints NASA and now NASA wasn't in
existence before before this happened. Of course, NASA came out in nineteen fifty
nine. Okay, but Jack Parsons Jet Propulsion Laboratory is within NASA. It's
basically under the purview of NASA, and NASA celebrates its existence every year.
But they were always reluctant to talk about Jack Parsons. Jack Parsons had many
layers, many layers. Here's an uneducated person, just to recap, an
uneducated person who solved a problem with the solid solid rocket boosters that went on
for several hundred years. Remember solid solid rock say that ten times solid fuel
rockets have been around for seven hundred years. You know, you go back
to the bend some time era right. They were used in more and he
had solved the problem of the problem of instability. There was a constant problem
with solid few boosters they would you know, they would, they were prone
to blowing up. He solved that problem that he didn't have to mass thematical
ability to solve the problem. But what he did was is he knew what
the problem was, and he told his colleagues who did have the higher functioning
math like differential calculus, what the problem was, and they came up with
the equations and fixed it. So, you know, here's an individual,
Jack Parsons, who didn't have the ability for differential calculus, but yet he
was a seer and he came out he discovered the problem and then told him
what the problem was, and then the mathematicians fixed it. That's a very
good example of the contribution that many can make and that he himself has made.
And of course then there's his work with the occult and it turns out
now that he was actually experimenting with explosives. And this is me saying,
is this is the information I've read on him, that he was actually trying
to open a portal to another dimension and release a gateway that entities come forward,
and there is some speculation and some ethanist that that's exactly what happened one
night a few weeks before he was actually killed when he was experimenting and there
was an explosion and he wasn't hurt at that time, but the whole house
shook, and there was a couple of witnesses that described what they what they
saw as banshees that were produced from that explosion. Now, that could have
been another, you know, a trick in the i of phenomena, but
there seemed to be something very serious happened. And one of the individuals I
think his name was Ed Powers, who he was working closely with, distanced
himself from Jack John from Parsons. Jack Parsons to distance himself after that,
he had nothing more to do with him. He was that scared. So
something happened that night as a result of Jack Parsons experiments that scared away his
own very close friend and colleague. Something very serious happened. It was only
a few weeks later that he was supposedly killed in an accident. I don't
know who as an accident. I speculate that maybe more behind it, but
I also speculate that maybe they wanted him out of the way because he was
the real genius, if I can put it that way, behind the technology
that Massa is used in today, not Vernon von Braun. That's just my
own speculation, but I could be wrong, and you know, I'm not
saying Verna von Braun was. He was no slou cheater. He certainly have
made some contributions. But he had a conscience too, as you know,
as we I found out later that he wasn't really sure if he wanted to
be involved in THEPALL program. He knew about the lie, he knew that
we were on. He knew his early seteen sixty two that they were going
to land on the moon, and he surprised everybody at that time, but
even his close as entourage at a conference one day when he actually announced that,
and much to the chagrin and as surprised for his own colleagues who were
closely tied to him, and they he informed the world before he informed them.
That tells me that he reluctantly did it because he knew this was over.
There's a lot there, there's a lot. Yeah, Yeah, I
was actually doing some calculations the other night, when I'll take it into the
account of the announcement by Kennedy that we're going to go to Moon in sixty
two, and they went in sixty nine, so it's like eight years.
But they even had to sort of put things on the hold because they had
the Apollo one fire in sixty seven I think it was, so they had
to redesign the capsule for that, which holded production for maybe a year and
a half or something. So if that Apollo one fire didn't happen, they
didn't have to redesign the capsule. In Siri, you could have said that
they could have got to the Moon perhaps in six and a half to seven
years, which is just an amazing amount of time really for someone that launched
a man vertically up into space sixty miles up to then three weeks later announcing
they were going to the Moon. It is akin to a kid making a
payper araplane to say that now, in five or six years time, he's
going to go flying from London to New York in a jumbo jet that he's
going to make himself. Yeah, yeah, and we're going to skip all
the technology in between to get there. And that's and that's basically that's that's
a very good analogy. That's exactly what happened. Of course, it turns
out it didn't happen, but that's the impression that they gave that did happen,
right, And I, when I was looking at researching the technology in
both my books, a more reasonable reasonable assessment of how long it would have
taken. That's spending of hundreds of billions of dollars a year possible for man
missions. I'm talking in terms of man missions to the moon and back.
I would say a reasonable assessment back in nineteen sixty one sixty two would have
been at least sixty seven, maybe eight decades to get one with present technology.
I'm not talking about technology that we don't know about, because let's face
it, there seems to be technology out there. We've seen some circumstantial evidence
of that that we can't explain, right, But I'm just talking about in
terms of our own technology. But as you said, they did it well
six seven or eight times within that timeframe. And of course when you mentioned
the nineteen sixty seven tragedy of Apollo one, well that brought that time frame
really down to to three hours because they basically had to redesign that three years.
Rather so they basically had to redesign two years because they landed in nineteen
sixty nine. So they had to basically go back to the drawing board,
keep the basic designer, redesign the whole thing in the systems, the wiring
and everything, and have this ready without virtually any testing. I counted for
a PALL command module test re entries into the Earth's atmosphere four two of them
include two of those four we rather Saturn five, and all three three of
them. Basically, we're almost a disaster. We know Paul six was the
disaster. That was the second old Man launched at the Saturn five. We
know that was a disaster. So the previous three it was really iffy whether
you could tell they were fudging the numbers because there were some anomalies, and
even admitted that, so you had on that basis alone. They put a
crew on board for the first launch, a man crew, which was a
PALL of seven, and they lount that and supposed they work perfectly. I
actually get into that in my third book, because the third book I wrote
is on fiction, and we had fun speculating what was really going on and
what that whole mission was about. If I was to pick one of Paul
mission that was real, I would reluctantly go reluctantly and I say that ephis
is added with Paul seven because that was a low Earth mission, right,
so I would reluctantly go with that. And that wasn't launched on the Saturn
one satur five hours last on the Saturn one be a much smaller with more
with established technology, you know, in terms of that, so it wasn't
using the F one engines. So I had fun in the in my latest
book speculating and what that mission was really all about and what happened on re
entry and and why subsequent missions were canceled after that because of Apollo seventh.
So some intriguing stuff there. Excellent, Ryan, I think we better take
a break here on the Paranormal peep Show. We're talking to Randy Walsh about
all things Apollo and JPL and also the Cohen hell that ties up into it.
So join us in Power two. Well, we'll continue, but will
also be looking into the Kennedy assassination. So stay tuned. The day is
the best day by life listening to the Paranormal UK Read your Network joined Andy
and Leal every month on the paranorl Peach part of the Paranoral UK Radio Network
for fun that frolics and lots of information about weird stuff, UFOs, ghosts
and things that go bump in the night and everything associated with them. Fascinating
guests, fascinating talk, fascinating information. Hello and welcome back. I'm ben
Elin Jones. This is the Paranormal Peep Show and I am here with Neil
Ward and our guest Randy Walsh, and so we're going to continue the conversation
we were having in part one to do with the moon landings and lots of
other subjects that are related so well, Randy, we were just talking about
strange that things going on in the Moon of all kinds. And of course
ever since Apollo there's been there was quite a long sort of strudged through the
desert when it came to doing he exploration. But there have been a number
of unmanned missions by all the nations and including some ones that weren't active original
such as India, China, Japan, Is et centa. So what do
you have to say about those? Because there were some anomalies with those as
well. Aren't that? Yeah, how surprising? You know, one would
think that after five six decades of allmanned probes, that we would have gotten
this right by now, and it just seems that we it's like going back
in time. It's like we just set up the first probe, and here
we have problems all over again with technology that is supposed to have been proven
right, not just with with American technology. We were talking in other countries,
the European Space Agency, Japanese Space Agency, the Chinese, the Indian
Space Agency, and it was a very interesting story about the Indian allmanned probe
I in the interview I was in last week. As I mentioned earlier,
I had a caller ask me, actually he was the He sort of was
a little critical of India and he said, you know they you know,
they don't even have indoor plumbing and yet they landed an all manned probe in
the Moon. And I said, well, I've been to India and India
has they have the extreme poverty, there's no doubt about that, but they
have the opposite, the extreme technological ability by our standards. I mean,
there's there's there's this. Unfortunately, it's no in between, you know,
very wealthy and you know, fluent community. Once you've got you know,
the extreamer on the other side. But they do have some capabilities. But
now they landed. I believe they sent two on them probes to the Moon
recently. One crashed or landed upside down something like that. I mean,
it was really strange and it turns out and I can't prove this, but
from what I've been able just to curse research I've done on this, I
haven't really dealt into a deeply. So I'm sure if I'm wrong, the
comments will tell me I'm wrong. Their viewers are pretty good at that.
I'm sure that. So it seems NASA had either accidentally or purposely given them
the wrong calculations and that caused the mishap with their man probe. And I'm
wondering why is NASA giving them information when they have, you know, their
own capabilities. And then Madi wonder is NASA actually supplying coordinates to all the
others based agencies in the world. In other words, are we seeing some
evidence come to the surface that these amann probes have to see NASA's permission before
they go near the Moon, let alone go near any of the Apollo landing
sites. And that's what I read from this, and so they basically might
Indian. I'm speculating here, but India might have said, well, we're
going to ahead and launched it anyway, so let's as well, let us
help you. And of course the end result wasn't very good for India,
and I believe they latched another one at that time was satisfactory. They had
a successful landing, if I'm not mistaken, or could it be in another
country, but they were steered to the self landing on the south pole of
the lunar surface. So again we have this same scenario repeating itself over again
over that no one's allowed to land on near any of these poles, that
six Apollo landing sites, And we see this scenario play out every time this
happens and fans I've actually and was actually announced at one point that there was
a plan to make those sites into national monuments, even though even though they're
not. They're not actually in the United States, they're actually on the on
the moon. According to the I forgotten the name of the treaty, but
according to various treaties, no one and own land on an extraterrestrial body,
and no one can claim sovereignty over an extratracial body under the current political order.
You know. The thing about it is there is we do live in
the age of proliferation of space technology now, which mirrors the perferation of the
nuclear weapons in the generations before. We have like frast, China, UK,
India. You know, dozens of countries now have an active space program.
And there's even something called the Lunar x Price. This was issued by
Google and it was going to award a price to any privately funded project that
will launch a rocket to the Moon, deploy a mobile lander on the Lula
surface, and travel half a kilometer and radio a signal back, which is
an extraordinary feat. This was only achieved in the sixties with the Lunar Lunar
cod missions, and an American company called Astrobiotic Technology announced at one point it
was going to send a rocket to the landing site of the Apollo eleven lunar
module and send its mobile lander into the vicinity of Tranquility Base to take photographs
and video footage of the lem descend stage, the flag, and any of
the other things that might be there. NASA's reaction was to approach the Google
X Prize organizers and ask them to observe a set of exclusion zones around the
landing site of the Apollo missions. They asked them to be two hundred and
twenty five meters across, and this will include no fly zones above the side,
so the any descending rockets, so that even a rain of rocket vapor
resourced rocket vapor abshorsed doesn't pollute the stasis that is supposedly there. But in
according to a nineteen sixty seven treaty this is the Treaty on the Principles governing
the Activities of States in the exploration and Use of Outer Space, no nation
can claim sovereignty over any part of the non terrestrial body or any part of
space, and that no one can own land on an extra treasure. What
you can't sell parts of the Moon, or sell parts of planets and things
like that the way you can on Earth. And so this is this,
I thought was rather a strange thing, especially considering that other states actors have
also asked made the same statement, they planned to do the same thing,
and again NASA have stepped in and they've either asked nicely or they've tried to
be a bit sneaky about trying to stop that. I mean, you think
you think it'd be very interesting to observe these sites from close quarters. I
mean they have allegedly been They've been spotted by the lunariconsins observer. They've has
taken photographs of what supposedly are these sites. Although Jarald White, our colleague
on the Fellow Polytective, he disbused this and has put forward a very very
good argument why that shouldn't be. But then we have other what's happened since
then? Iss, the various missions that have happened since Apollo have been not
as successful as the Apollo program. In fact, it's a good job there
unmanned, otherwise we'd be dealing with a number of action or deaths. In
the last few years. For example, the Berrostreet one mission, this was
a public private partnership from Israel. Lander was about to land the Bearasheet one
craft on the lunar surface that it failed, literally within a few feet of
landing, almost exactly the same thing at after Chai andre and one, the
first Indian landing mission to the Moon. This failed. And then since then,
I know they've sent to other craft and they've been more successful. But
the first one didn't work, and then since then we've also had them.
I should point out that the I think it was the recent it's not the
one that felt went upside down. I think it was a Japanese mission.
I don't know how the details on here that actually did land successfully, but
something very strange happened. Even though it is technically possible to broadcast a live
stream of these space explorations and ind you get video footage, as we saw
from Mars where we had we had astonishing was astonishing a siny recordings of the
landing of the Perseverance Rover, very high quality. This is the first sinny
recordings ever taken on another planet. It's perfectly technically possible to do that from
the Moon. In fact, allegedly happened in the in the nineteen sixties,
and see there was footage. There's film footage of the landing of the Jade
Rabbit rover on the far side of the Moon from China. Yet when this
mission was in its final stages, there was literally no no footage was broadcast
at all to the public. The public were given views on the camera of
the inside of the mission control room, and you saw an animated graphic of
a spacecraft coming to rest on the lunar surface. And then we waited and
waited to see photographs from the Moon taken by this lander, and everyone was
speculating that something had gone wrong. It's just it's obviously is bugged up again
and crashed, and they just haven't told us. And then literally forty five
minutes or an hour later, suddenly they published photographs, not silly footage,
photographs of the lunar surface, and it looks as you'd expect it to look.
However, there are no recordings. There are no there's no stills,
and there's no silly recordings of any period of the landing. And to me,
this sounds like they're trying to hide something. Everyone thought they were trying
to hide the fact that they had crashed when they said, no, no,
it hasn't crashed. Lo here the pictures. So what exactly were they
trying to hide? I would just your word in of Cinny there, ben
Ciny to me suggests sinny films of the the seventh motion pictures, you know,
motion pictures, video, video, video recordings or something like that.
But yeah, I get ocean pictures. Yeah, yeah, good rabbie.
Just looking at just looking at statistics. Just just and these are NASA's on
statistics. Just go back and look over the last five decades. You have
a forty to fifty percent failure rate when it comes to AMAN missions. And
this again is we're talking lots simpler technology as opposed to MAD missions, because
you don't have to build a bigger ship, you don't have to have atmospheric
conditions, you don't have to bring food. You know, there's many,
many other factors involved. So you're you're dealing with more simple technology, if
I can put it that way. And yeah, we still have a forty
to fifty percent success rate, but well behold, when it comes to MAD
missions, we're talking what ninety five percent? Yeah, and more complex in
terms of its missions. And and another thing that I found very interesting when
you were talking about this so called treaty that the United States has or wants
with otter nations in terms of where they can land on the surface and where
they can't that what was going through my mind when you were talking about that,
Ben, was Antarctica. That's the only other place on Earth where you
have all the nations reluctantly or or willingly agreed to a treaty to block entrance
to the average person. You can go to the North Pole and freeze your
butt off all you like, but you can't go to the South Pole and
do that. You need permission to fly down there. And that gets into
a whole other thing. You know, when you look at Admiral Byrd in
the nineteen fifties when he took an expedition down there and there's a firefight.
What was going on there? And they've been very very strict, And it
tells me and I think it really goes back to your cryptic point bend,
what are they hiding? What are they hiding? And you can say that
about Antarctica too as well as the Runer's surface, and also what was interesting
in what you read there by their own admission, it's illegal. It's illegal
what NASA and the American government is doing in terms of preventing other nations or
telling other nations word the land when it comes to the lunar surface. Right,
So definitely, I would have to conclude that that is just more an
acdotal or circumstances evidence that they're hiding something on the lunar surface. There's definitely
something they don't want people to see now, that is that there is no
remnants of the apoly missions on the lunar surface and six locations that they said
people NASA landed there. It's such a thing too. You mentioned Jared White,
Yes, Jered White's some really good work on the LRL photos. I
actually talked about that briefly my book, my second book. I actually took
photos from nineteen sixty five when they were launching amanproachs back then, and they
were surveilling the Moon, and then we're going to use that to build replicas
of that on Earth to trade the astronauts. Wait, wait, that's where
they actually landed. Well, I am right. And the clarity, the
clarity of those photos too, I'm talking about the untrained eye. I'm not
a photographic expert, and you don't have to be. All you have to
do is you have eyes, you see, and you look at the photos
of nineteen sixty five, compare them to the photos that were taken from the
LRO in two thousand and nine. Right, it's a forty year difference.
Take a look over forty years. Take a look at the comparisons, and
you see clarity in nineteen sixty five almost like it's almost as good as the
three D photos that they produce today. That's how clear These photos in nineteen
sixty five were taken from Amann probes. And we're talking analog photography. Back
then, we're no digital, right, but now we're talking digital capabilities when
it comes to photography. So you take the LRO in nineteen in two thousand
and nine, and they produced very pristine photos of areas of the Moon,
except when it comes to the Apollo landing side. Do you get these fuzzy
you know, distorted lack of detail. I mean that tells you right there,
That tells you right there. It should incriminate every I mean you to
to give some more comparisons. In terms of space safety. I mean,
man spaceflight is not inherently safe. The Space Shuttle program lost two shuttles over
the course of it's where it ran in both incasions. It involved the loss
of all crew, which is what you'd expect. We've you say, the
young Man missions have a if you if you are sending any kind of unmanned
rocket to the Moon, you have like a you basically even it's it's basically
an even bet whether it will ever succeed. And and of course the Space
Shuttle was designed. It actually flew for the first time a decade after Apollo,
and it was it was far more sophisticated machine, and it was and
it was intended for comparatively of very very simple missions. We're talking about low
Earth orbits and then coming down again the Apollo bitch. There were two major
malfunctions in the Apollo program and only there were only three fatalities, so that
that was the three astronauts of Apollo one, and that was during a test
on the launch patter. Technically that wasn't a space mission. Apollo thirteen was.
I mean, Marcus and I have did an entire breakdown of Apollo thirteen
on our show and we could discussed it on the detect. It's extraordinary,
and even that course had a happy ending in the end. I mean,
everyone wondered. It was a lot of doubt and a lot of fear,
but it's extraordinary that a disaster, an accident of that nature of that the
extent of damage that was done to the spacecraft was ended up with all three
asternauts returning safety to Earth. That's really has never happened before where that much
damage is done to a spacecraft. Normally, when that much damage is done
to the vehicle, you basically it's goodbye to the crew. But in this
case they survived, all three survived. These this really should make people think.
It really really oughts along with the verotographic evidence that you mentioned as well.
I mean, really, these this is so incriminating, this circumstantial evidence.
It really is, well, well, where is the where's the common
sense and logic in all of this? And and that's what I put forward
when I'm discussing this now. And like you know, our science is not
based on fact. It's not it's not based even on reality. It's based
on a consensus reality. And that's where scientis is gone. And that's changing
now that that's changing, as I said earlier, the last four years has
really opened people's eyes to that. And when it comes to when it comes
to apall of thirteen, without getting too technical, and again I'm not an
engineer and I don't pretend to be, but an explosion of that nature,
just going by NASA's official and I have read this too, NASA's official narrative,
an explosion of that nature would have taken that whole ship out. There's
no way that those not. Even even if it didn't take out the command
module, it certainly would have caused enough damage where there could have been a
rapid decompression of the atmosphere within side. It would have punched a whole But
you know, amazingly that didn't happen. And you know, again, it
just tells me that it's another example of how the whole thing was scripted,
especially the sling shot around the Moon. The gravity assists the fact that the
lunar module, by their own admission, the lunar module was not designed to
get them back to Earth, by their own admission. But lo and behold,
they managed to just make it work with you know, with some calculations
sent up by mission control because they had no computer. Their computer in according
to the official version in the Appal thirteen command module was shut down because they
had to shut off all the powers systems. Right. And here's one other
fact that I just want to point out before we move on. When it
comes to Paul thirteen. You're familiar with the passive thermal control, yes things,
Oh yes, that's it with Bob. Yeah, yeah, exactly.
So barbecue mode. Yeah, that's that's that's that's what it's overheat saying,
yeah exactly. So from my understanding is that the command module makes a full
rotation once every twenty minutes. Okay, so that's three rotations an hour,
and the whole idea, of course, is to dissipate the heat to distribute
the heat, which makes really no sense. They would have been better off
just leaving, I think, without have the heat on one side, because
if you're talking about, you know, space being a vacuum, right,
and we get into all that aspect. But here's what really amazes me with
this. So on the way to the Moon and on the way back,
they put the command module into the barbecue roll, all right, to from
their own narrative, to reduce the amount of heat that they're getting from the
sun because they're in direct sunlight all right, or direct sun rays. Okay,
So but the official narrative in Apoll thirteen is backwards. So now they're
saying that the astronauts were starting to freeze, right, So while they were
freezing, they also have it have it in barbecue mode to keep the heat
down. Well, there's a contradiction here, are you keeping the heat down?
Why are you keeping the heat down if the astronauts in the lunar module,
because they've all moved into the lunar module right, are now freezing.
But they probably, of course, they kept the corridor, you know,
the tunnel between connecting the lunar module and the command module together, so they
can go back and forth. Now, the narrative actually says that the astronauts,
one of them at a time, took turn sleeping in the command module
and the other two we're manning the ships, shall I say, in the
lunar module. But then it turned out that he now everybody had to take
turns sleeping within the lunar module because it was too cold in the command module.
But that doesn't make any sense. Why would it be too cold?
Why didn't you stop the barbecue roll? Maybe that might have helped. Why
is it that we're talking about a ship that's only about two three feet away
from them with an open tunnel that's cold, right, and now the lunar
module is cold. While they argue that because we turn off the electronics,
that's not producing heat, but that doesn't make any sense because then they continued
with the barbecue roll. If they were that cold, why did they continue
with the barbecue role? So you see, their own narrative doesn't add up.
And that to me is what I mentioned earlier. Where's the logic and
common sense in this? Because my question to answer would be, well,
how could they be cold when you actually had to take precautions from the sun?
How is it that shutting down the electronics in the command module while you
seemingly you have the electronics working in the lunar module because your now rely on
a lunarmodule computer, right, which is less powerful? How is it now
that it's too cool? So there's all these kinds I don't have an answer,
But there's all these kinds of questions that come up. So I asked
when I said earlier, the devil is in the details, and when you
read those details, you just see yourself. Yet that doesn't make any sense,
whereas the larger and common sense here I find it. Also an irony
is that in nineteen seventy one when a part of thirteen occurred, it was
also during the Vietnam War, and yet they got the whole world to pray
for these three astronauts that God preturns them safety to Earth. Yet no one
was praying for any of the Vietnam soldiers or the North Vietmanes people dying in
a conflict that was happening right next doorland virtually, and they're praying for three
complete strangers in out of space. It was a published, well, total
publicity. It was made to play into people's imaginations and win their high hearts
and minds, which is a phrase used in the Vietnam War strategy to win
the hearts and minds of the American people for a particular purpose. Yeah,
yeah, yeah, yeah, it is, it is. It is a
point well taken. And you know, and then you had the famous sportscaster
Harod le sal and then, you know, interrupting a football game announcing the
tragedy or the the seriousness situation that was going on with a Paul thirteen.
But you know, you're right. I don't think he's ever paid homage to
the young men and women that were losing their lives on both sides in the
Vietnam War. That's very interesting, and that's a very good point, Neil.
There was one other point I wanted to mention about. Yeah, and
when it comes to Paul thirteen, I know you've talked a lot about this,
so we won't get in I'm sure we don't need to go int it
here. But there is a lot of I would say more than circumstanceial levelments.
There's actually photographic evidence that the Soviet Union and the Americans were a lot
working a lot closely when it came to a p or thirteen. That's an
established fact now. Well, of course they were planning for the Apollo Sawyers
link up later on in seventy three or four. I can't remember, yeah,
which I believe the handshake if I'm correct in memory, the handshake that
occurred between the Russian cosmonaut and the American I don't know who was it Albin
or something or even Skylab wasn't he? But between the US astronaut and the
Cosmo or the handshake between the Apollow Sawers link up occurred over Bournemouth, which
is the seaside town less than an hour away from where I am, so
oh seriously looking up in the sky and yeah, yeah, I remember as
a kid looking at the sky and you could see sky Lab quite clearly.
You know. So when you people say fake space is totally fake, there's
nothing out there. I absolutely convinced there are objects up there. You know,
you see these things all but in from time to time. Shy Lab
is a very very very bright all matine object at the time, and of
course when they filmed sky that returning to Earth anyway as it come, you
know, broken up fragments of broken satellites. Well, it's interesting that you
mentioned Skylab because Skylab, and I believe that they do have low worth capability.
You know, there are some things that are real. A lot of
things are fake, but there are some things that are real. And I
agree with you that they do have that capability. But it's no practical use.
There's just no use for it unless you you know, you're using it
as a stepping stone to get to other planets. But of course that involves
exotic technology that we don't have. But Skylab, just to before I leave
my mind here, Skylab, of course was the last, I believe,
the last launch of a Saturn five and that was in what nineteen seventy five,
and it was in nineteen seventy three or nineteen seventy five on those one
of those years. And of course Skylab was damaged when they had discovered that
Skylight was damaged on when it reached lower th orbit, and of course that
caused its decay over the next seventy years and then re entered the Yeares's atmosphere.
I believe in nineteen seventy nine that what's interesting about that they've come up
with all kinds of reasons why Skylight was damaged, right, and they did,
of course send several crews up there. But I speculate, and this
is just one more speculation. I believe that the Saturn five launches, the
PALL program was to hide there were true reason for the Saturn five launches.
I think they were actually trying to get something out of those engines. They
may have succeeded temporarily, and I think when it came to the last launch
of Skylight with the Saturn five, I believe that there was a failure of
one of the engines or two of the engines in the app one first stage
of the Saturn five, which probably caused the damage to Skylight, because remember,
when you look back, had the launch of a Paul six, which
was the second launch of an anmanned Saturn five that was almost a catastrophic failure,
and there is an engineer. It was closely tied to the appall program.
You can he's on YouTube. We've all seen them speak and he said
that if there had been a crew on board, because of the pogo effect
and the vibration, if there had been a crew on board, they would
have had to aboard. That's how serious that that that second launch was.
And of course then of course they went from that launch onmanned seven months later
to amand launch on Saturn five, but no testing in between, either static
and or flight testing, and it was supposedly perfect. And so I think
there were definitely that was one aspect of the Saturn five program. And after
the launch of Skylab, that's when they discontinued it. They just weren't able
to succeed in getting any reliable output from the EPP one engines. So thinks
I think Skylab was a very expensive team county in space just to black wooster
bubbles. Really yeah, yeah, yeah, and no practical purpose whatever.
And really notice no spation really does unless unless when we go back to the
nineteen fifties and take Vernon von Braun's concept or maybe Jack Parsons, maybe he
was the one that came up with that idea, and maybe that's why he
was possibly silenced. Right, maybe it was him, but because they had
to justify bringing Nazi scientists over to America after World War Two, so they
needed some justification for that. And of course the Soviet Union had their their
bunch as well. But I'm wondering if a lot of those ideas were really
Jack Parsons idea, and it had needed to get him out of the way,
or maybe they did get him out of way. Maybe it was a
fake death. I don't know, right, but Vernon von Braun just given
him the benefit of the doubt that he came up with this. The only
sole purpose I could see for a space station is to use as a platform
to launch. It's impractical to be launching from Earth. You cannot launch an
anything heavier than a Saturn five. It just if you had an explosion at
the Saturn five rocket on the launch pad, it would be equivalent to one
kilo tom bomb, a small atomic bomb, with the devastation would be enormous.
You couldn't be around, you couldn't be anywhere near five or ten miles
of that explosion. Right, and try building something bigger and then do the
map. Try multiply to thrust the thrust output from the Saturn five engines,
which is seven point five million pounds of trust. Multiply that by three times,
and think of what will happen if there was a catastrophic explosion within at
the city. You'd have to be a minimum ten to fifteen miles away from
there. It's just not practical. It's not practical. So if we were
really serious about MAD missions, they would have been working on vernonon Bron's idea
concept rather in the nineteen fifties of building a space platform, and that is
that would take decades to do that in and of itself, to require decades,
tons of research, lots of you know, incredible minds to make this
work. It would have been at least three to four decades. That's what
I meant earlier when I said if they were going to launch anything to the
Moon man wise to the Moon or Mars, even which Mars is impossible.
You cannot launch a man mission to Mars with this technology. You cannot survive.
You won't survive that ten on trip. It's not survivable, all right.
And you don't even have to know the sized background to know it's not
survivable. You just have to use logic and common sense. But I do
believe that it would have taken several decades to get that platform and that apparatus
in lower thorbit then to use as a launch base a launch vehicle to send
other man missions from there out. And also it would be like like a
repair station and a rescue station. There was absolutely no means of rescuing a
man crewed that might have been in distress between here and the Moon, So
they had no means of doing that. So basically it was the one way
mission is eider do or die. You were you know, anything happened,
you were not coming back. So just on that basis alone, just when
you think about the that basis the psychology is b of Barts of Brill said,
and I agree with him. If people could just let go are their
emotional ties to the part program, they'll see it for what it really is.
Penny's rake. Yeah, yeah, So I had the one thing about
that because that's very interesting. Sure, just a couple of things. Firstly,
as far as as far as the issue with with the Soviet cooperation,
there's a book called National National Suicide by Anthony Sutton. This isn't about the
space missions, but it is about Soviets American relations before and during the Cold
War, and which is is totally utterly different to what we the public were
told about Soviet American relations. And it mirrors with the Nazi Soviet related the
Nazi Soviet and the Nazi American relations and Nazi British relations in World War Two
as well. And before that act, Arthur C. Clarke wrote to a
story. It was actually a serialized story, and it was called The Other
Side of the Sky and it was about It was a fiction that was written
in nineteen fifty two and it was all about the first ever a fictional account
of the first Mad mission to the Moon. Now, as you point out
Arthur C. Clark's stories, he regularly consulted with scientists and people in the
early in the early space program. He regularly consulted with these people and this
is and this so this story is based on his discussions with scientists. In
this particular story, there's these rockets to the Moon. They launched from,
as Randy has just described, an orbiting space platform. They're constructed in space
and they're launched from an orbiting space platform to the Moon. And then they
go into orbit and then there's like a descent stage. So it's a very
interesting story written along before any any real space missions. It's very interesting.
Well two thousand and one displayed that kind of idea very well really with its
orbit in space station. You have the Orion Shuttle go up to the space
station and then they took a further ship out a different I think it was
a I forget what they called it, but as a Moon shuttle or something
that was called. It wasn't anything like the Orion shuttle that launched from Earth
to the space station. And then this shuttle landed down on the on the
Moon and landed on the base that they had on the Moon, which was
yeah, I mean that was that film was very advanced for its time in
the concept of everything, and really that's how presumably you should be doing stuff
now, and it's only yeah, sure, it's only in this day and
age. Now they're talking about those kind of concepts in practical ways, like
they're talking about a lunar gateway and a else a lunar gateway. They're talking
about maybe a space station orbit in maybe the Moon sort of the Earth at
some point, but certainly they talk about a lunar gateway, which is a
space station basically orbit in the Moon, and the idea is that a craft
will fly out to the Moon, dock with this orbit in gateway, as
they call it, and then take a secondary craft down to the Moon from
there. There are decads away from constructing anything of that at the minute.
I mean, it's all kind of just on the drawing board at the minute,
and budgets and plans will likely change anyway. But that is very hard
to see Clark at that particular point anyway, except they've moved the orbit in
space station from Earth. They've moved it bright into the orbit of the Moon.
I don't know why, but they seem to think that it's the Moon
is a good place to jump off to go to Mars. But essentially you
still got to launch people from Earth to get up into space to then land
on the Moon, to then take off from the Moon to go to Mars.
You think, why don't just do it in one trip. I don't
know that was correct. Actually. The story is called Adventures to the Moon.
It's a series of a six connected stories that were published in The Evening
Standard and now in some of the books of the off sea Clark. But
it's a really fascinating thing to read. Again, the scientists in the nineteen
fifties, we're not talking about the kind of space mission eventually emerged a decade
later from NASA. So why did they why did they change the entire mission
profile? Well, it's interesting too. It's interesting to note too that I
believe Arthur C. Clark had intelligence connections too, So I'm wondering if a
lot of what he was writing was a syops. And I mean his ideas
are far I think, more tangible then the idea they ultimately came up with,
you know, with the watching from from Earth and then they the lunar
orbited lunar orbit rendeview. That method was you know, it's just just it's
just it's just not feasible. But that was probably the only way they can
sell I mean, let's be if they were to go with either vernevon Brockets.
Remember if Vernab Brown wanted to do what was called a direct entry and
back. It's like he wanted he had a massive rocket the size of he
wanted to launch something the size of the Empire State building from Earth. He
said, if you're going to launch from Earth. That's the only way you're
going to be able to do this, all right, And so you're not
going to launch a rocket the size of the Empire State Building. Then you're
looking at launching three, maybe four rockets, not as large as the Empire
State Building, but certainly larger than at the launched the equipment to get them
there, that the propellant that they would really need. So when you know,
you really put that, that really puts it all into perspective. It
really does. I mean, the whole thing was a syops and and and
it ties in with some many other aspects, which again I get into.
I was because you know, uh, in my new book, I'm you
know, it's fiction, and I was able to speculate. So it's everything
I've learned in the last five six years, all my research inside and outside
of my two books all comminated in that one. And he gave us a
chest to sort of go down to rabbit holes and speculate a little bit.
And actually we based it on truth saw That's just something to keep in mind
about the RTC. Clark that he had intelligence connections. So just for people
to keep that in mind, I think we'll move on there from the Apollos
there. I just want to say this very briefly though, and it's concerning
the radiation, the Van Allen radiation belts, you know, because you know,
you talk about the original concept was the size of the Saturn five being
the size of the Empire State Building. And I remember Vernavon Brown talking in
the nineteen fifties film saying the size of a ship would have to be the
size of the Queen Mary, which is probably the same size as the Empire
State Building or something like that. But also when they launched launched Explorer one
or whatever the ships were that went up to detect the van and radiation belts,
so they suspected something was up there, and Van Allen himself, James
Van Allen, confirmed it, and basically he wrote an article that says that
these two belts of radiation will be prohibitive to safe land spaceflight basically, and
then hey, presto, a few years later they're launching people through them,
and it's only we're impressed that NASA says, oh yeah, well they received
nothing more than a chest X ray. It makes you wondered thinking, well,
why didn't Van Allen say that in his article saying, yeah, it's
perfectly safe to fly through the Van Allen ration belts, so that it's launched,
you fly through it very fast, you're likely to get nothing more than
a chest X ray. It doesn't bear thinking about. Really, he was
writing, kind of some extremely dangerous stuff it's to travel through. And yet
here we are being told that they're getting nothing more than a chest X ray.
And yeah, they's still later on they're talking about the dangers of radiation,
thinking, well, hang on, it was a chest X ray fifty
years ago. What's changed. Yeah, And it's very interesting because back in
nineteen fifty eight, when James Van Allen himself said that, and he was
asked, are a man missions to them, you know, traveling through the
island belts, possibly said no, unless you go through the North and South
Pole. But when you think about that for a second, that's an enormous
distance for any spacecraft. Poly missions with their limited propelling capacity would have to
travel, and you're talking tens of thousands of miles more off their track to
get you know, to go north because they lost in the equator, so
they'd have to go north through the North Pole or through the South Pole and
you're talking a huge amount of distance, so you would have to carry more
fuel. Now, as for the Van Allen bells, so you have the
the two of them, right, but there's not there's not just two.
It depends on what time, what time of year we're talking about, because
solar flares can crate a third artificial radiation belt. And then you have the
uh, the nuclear explosions that were launched, the three nuclear missiles that were
launched into lower orbit in the nineteen fifty eight nineteen fifty nine which contaminated and
caused a third belt. And then you have the thermal nuclear explosion that was
launched in nineteen sixty two. That's a thermonuclear weapon at least one thousand to
two thousand times more powerful than either of the previous weapons they launched, and
that contaminated. There was a basic and being very basic here, but you're
talking about a half life of some serious intest radiation of twenty five plus years,
and that's still a factor up there. So then when you factor in
the Apollo the August four, nineteen seventy two event, just before the last
so called Apollo mission Apollo seventeen, you had a radiation belt that formed from
the massive solo flare that they had back then. NASA itself admits that if
the astronauts hadn't been caught on that they would have been killed instantly. And
yeah, of course five months they went ahead launched the crew. Anyway,
you know that there's that logic and common sets again, right, So you
so you're looking at not just two. So you've got the inner belt,
the inner dominated proton belt, and then you've got the the that's the natural
form belt, and then you've got the outer supposedly less intense electron belt.
All right, And of course NASA said that it went through the outer regions
of the outer belt, but then when you look at its trajectory, they
contradict themselves because it's not always night. It's not always what they say it
is. And then and then then add in the other two or three artificial
radiation belts, and you're a lot longer there. Now. When you're talking
radiation, as you just mentioned earlier, when you talk in radiation, wouldn't
you want to be as specific as possible when it comes to time that you're
going to be in that radiation region because of the exposure to the astroskers.
Remember, the astronauts had no radiation protection. The the the the material that
the commandment was made out of, it attenuates that theories it's supposed to attenuate
the radiation down to an acceptable level given the time that they're supposed to be
in the van aland belts, but there's no protection. And so that's the
case. And then when you want to do precise calculations to find out,
well, exactly how long are they be going to be in there? They're
going to be in there for fifteen minutes, is it twenty minutes? And
is the attenuation going to be enough? And you were on top of that,
you would need that data in real time, which they had no capability
of doing back then because the brand aland belts are constantly in blocks. Having
said that, bottom lined here. Having said that, I've read many reports
from NASA itself over the years, and from people in support of NASA and
in support of the polymsicions that promote polymicicians that give conflicting data when it comes
to the radiation. I think his name is Richard Braddock famously posted a you
know, talking about it or it was safe for the Apollo Astronauts to go
through because they went through this area and you only spent ten to fifty minutes.
He says, it's taking his paper down, right, But those calculations
are based on an estimate. He uses mathematics, a lot of mathematics,
but ultimately he's just coming up in an estimate. He's not coming up.
He's not using real time data for any specific Apollo mission, and that needs
to be emphasized. There was no specific data. They had overall data,
as they claim, but they had no specific data for each mission, and
that's what they based this on. Okay, right, so thank you for
that. Where we've been talking about the Apollo missions, now we'll take it
right back and we'll talk about the guy that set the ball rolling of the
Apollo missions. Going from Jack Parsons, we're going to Jack Kennedy now.
And so you've been writing a book or your part way through write a book
about the assassination of Kennedy. And I believe there's some sort of strange connections
in that with a cult stuff or something. But maybe you could a highlight
that for us if you can, and ran sure. Well, first of
all, I went down to Daley Plaza where Kennedy was assassinated back in two
thousand and five. My wife and I we decided to She knew I've always
wanted to check out the site for myself, and I wanted to visit the
Texas Cool Book Depository, which they now turned into. All the sixth floor
they turned into a museum is in dedication in honor of JFK. And when
we went down there, my wife is really good at this, she noticed
some numbers, and the numbers all had very a cult symbology. And the
other aspect to it was is that you would see statues of gargoles which were
on the rooftops of the buildings surrounded and the whole thing reaps of has a
lot of occult aspects to it, and a lot of freemasonary symbology evalved as
well. And the other interesting point, and that's, by the way,
not the premise of my book. I'm just sort of putting this out as
sort of an after thought if I If I can put it that way.
The other thing to keep in mind is that you know, when it comes
to numbers, I'm going to be looking a lot more into this. I
am going to write a chapter on it because I think it's fascinating. I
think people need to know. I mentioned the force higher than the military earlier.
I'm not sure was this interview or another interview, and that force may
tie in with the occult aspect of all of this and these people. If
you notice these people in positions of power, whether you like it or not,
whether people want to hear this or not, because I know some people
get annoyed about this, but they're all connected in some ways. Either scullm
bones, Freemasonry, Illuminati, you name it, they're involved in it.
And in fact, it seems to be you have to be a member of
the club in order to get not only to where you are in politics,
but to get to where you are in the music industry. If you're not
a member of the club, you don't reach that level of fame and fortune.
And even when you reach that level of fame, unfortunate. It's just
a cyber issue. When you reach that level of fame and fortune, you
don't have control over your own wealth. You're very controlled. You're controlled,
your money is controlled, the material that you put out is controlled. I
mean, that's the world we're talking about. It's very dark. So when
it came to dv Plasia and the assassination. It's interesting that Kennedy was assassinated
on November twenty second, and then when you add the month at number eleven,
that becomes thirty three. Thirty three is a very very important number when
it comes to Freemasonary Lynnon Johnson, who succeeded him, was a thirty third
degree freemason, and Daly Plaza itself is very close to thirty third degree latitude
in geographical location. So you factor all this in and then you look at
the coincidence between the Kennedy assassination and the Lincoln assassination, and you have to
ask yourself, is that by design or is that cosmic? As people will
say, I'm beginning to wonder if it's by design, and if it's by
design. The similarities between those two assassinations you're familiar with that that both both
presidents were shot on Friday, both in the presidence of their wife. Lincoln
was shot in the Fourth Theater, Kennedy was shot in the Ford. Lincoln
I mean, and is uh you know his secretary was put said, Kennedy's
secretary was Lincoln. I mean. You find all these and then you find
the assassin of Lincoln had this exact had a three name James will I think
it was Booth, Yeah, but it was three names, and Lee Harvey
Oswell and all the names out of the fifteen letters each. I mean,
it's just on kinde they were shot. I mean, it's it's just amazing.
Even Johnson. There's similarities between Lyndon Johnson and Lincoln's vice president and it's
just like Henny. And you have to wonder if this is by design.
This shows you that depth of the conspiracy involved to take Kennedy out was taking
Kennedy out. And this is the other question. Was it because of his
policies or was it in part because of his policies? But could it be
also in part as a siops? Could it be? Could it that whole
concept, the idea of assassinating him the way they did, because there was
other ways of doing it. Kennedy had very serious health problems, that's no
secret that came out even before his election, and he managed to sort of
pay that over. Could it be could it have been a siops like a
psychological operation? It says that it was designed to traumatize the American public.
Could it be in the beginning of where we are right now could not have
started then Could this be the beginning of an infiltration of American society, government
institutions, and American society through the Kennedy assassination? And when you add in
the occult aspect, you see the many layers involved, and in my book
actually go into I analyzed the official version, So I started off in chapter
on over the war report, because I don't want it just to be about
the cult. Actually get into that, and then I analyze the people who
use psychology to try to discredit the conspiracy theorist if I put it that way,
and in favor of the official version. And then I add the third
chapter, which I just finished. The third chapter I just finished, I
talk about how some of the supporters who are being promoting the official version of
assassination are actually, in essence hinting very subtly that there was a lot more
going on here, and I talk about that, and then I'll definitely get
into the evidence, and then I'm going to get into what I think is
the real conspiracy behind Kennedy because a lot of new information has come out in
the last years, and it was a very interesting, a very interesting interview
that Lyndon Johnson former President Lyndon Johnson at the time, Remember he abruptly was
abruptly announced in nineteen sixty eight that he would not run for a second term.
And in nineteen sixty nine, after he left office, he gave an
interview to CBS anchor Walter Cronkite, and in that interview he was asked about
the War Commission Report, and Johnson had said at that time, he says,
I believe that there were international connections. And Walter Concrete asked him that
a repudiation of the World Report, and he said no, he says,
I believe that they did a thorough job and they got at some some of
this, they got some backs oud and so on and so forth. And
what's interesting about that is is that after the interview was over, he asked
that that interview be classified, so it was CBS class by the interview.
Lyndon Johnson died three years later in nineteen seventy two. And then it was
in nineteen seventy five when that interview was finally released and you can find out,
yeah, you can find out on YouTube. But it got me thinking,
I've learned about that interview for ten years or more. But it was
only recently when I actually looked at the interview because something struck me when what
Johnson said, he said, I quote, I believe there were international connections
in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Now it's reasonable to assume that
he was talking either about Cuba and or the Soviet Union, because a year
before Kennedy was assassinated there was the well actually, three months into Kennedy's presidency,
he approved a CIA plan to infiltrate and started uprising in Cuba and able
to enter an area called the Bay of Pigs in the southern end of Cuba,
and that all went that went sideways. What the CIA didn't tell Kennedy
when Kennedy approved it is that the only way for this to succeed is to
have US military involvement. But Kennedy made the stipulation that there will be no
US military involvement. These all have to be armarked planes because he didn't want
the world to see the US involved in the overthrow of a sovereign country,
and which made a lot of sense. But what Kennedy wasn't told that the
mission was about to fail, and they thought that they could pressure him.
The CIA thought that they could pressure him into setting in US forces, but
Kennedy stood fast and he said no. And to Kennedy's credit, he said
no, and the mission failed, and the CIA hated him for that.
I mean, they were beside themselves. Kennedy ended up firing Alan Dalles,
who was then the CIA director, because of his betrayal, and he also
fired a general by the name of Charles Cabal, who was also involved in
the Bay Pigs attempt to invade Cuba. That's interesting that there's Charles Cabald,
the general that Kennedy fired in nineteen sixty one. His brother, Earl Cabal,
was the mayor of Texas Dallas, Texas, the very day that Kennedy
was assassinated. And it turns out now that General Charles Cabal and his brother
Ero caball Erol Cabal, the mayor of Texas right who probably would be responsible
for a lot of the security that day, both are now known as now
been proven to have had CIA connections. So you see how it all ties
in. Yeah, So then you move forward two years later to the Cuban
missile crisis, and again you've got Kennedy fighting with his not only with the
opposition, you know in Congress and the Senate that we needed to go further
and take Cuba out, but you had him fighting with his joint chief and
staff. Kennedy again stood down anyway behind their backs, and he worked out
a deal secret behind us. They wanted him to invade you, but they
thought that the given missile crisis was the perfect opportunity to do so, regardless
of the fact that we were all risking World War three in thermonuclear war.
I mean, back then they had the capability of doing what they have the
capability of doing now. And it's a little it's a little frightening that we're
now on that we're on that that uh pressipice once again. But just to
just to sort of round this out, so Kennedy had struck a backroom deal
with Nikita Krushov at the time and had secretly agreed not to if he pulled
his missiles out of Cuba, he would not he would take his missiles out
of Turkey, which were aimed directly at the Soviet Union at the time.
That was a secret deal, but of course the military knew this. So
the military after this, that's a mital Mark on Kennedy. So after this,
Kennedy had was approached by his own chiefs of staff and this actually came
out from a freedom of Freedom of Information Act through the National Security Agency,
and he was asked to approve a plan called Operation Northwoods. And anybody can
look this up. It's actually on Google. You can look it up.
And the plan was for to approve terrorist attacks around the country and that included
shooting passenger airliners down and then to blame it on Cuba as a pretext for
war. Wow, take to take Cuba out. So when you just forget,
when you put the occult stuff aside, is enough. Just look at
the political and the geopolitic politics at that time. I mean, you can
see already that he's up against some serious, serious forces. But I think
he began to realize this. The Cuban missile crisis really opened his eyes.
He Kennedy, he was intelligent, I mean, he was a very intelligent
man, but he was young and naive and he didn't fully understand the power
against him when he got into office. It was only after the Cuban missile
crisis that really opened his eyes and he started to make moves at one of
the moves he did. And I'm not saying this is the sole reason he
started making moves on the central banking system, the Federal Reserve, the Federal
Reserve. A lot of people don't understand. A lot too, is that
the federal banking system has an enormous amount of power, not just in the
United States, but around the world. And that's what I think Lyndon Johnson
was hinting at when he said that there were international connections. I think it
goes far beyond Cuba, the Soviet Union. I think it goes even higher
than that, and I think there may be an occult aspect involved in it
as well. So that's basically the direction I'm going in. And I even
think I could identify maybe two or three to shooters. I sort of established
so far that there were at least three assassination teams in place that were one
was to take over one missed type of thing. And also there's one other
point I want to bring up, and this has come out recently, and
this is this is really going to be it's annoying to some people. But
we talked earlier about the movie The Shining MHM, and we talked about the
the undertones, the hidden message in the movie, the shining in terms of
faking new Pollo missions, and and and there was Jay Wider was actually quite
famous for He did some really good work on that, and he he made
a documentary showing how standy Kubrick was was basically putting hit messages in that movie,
indicating that he faked or was involved in some way in faking new Pollo
missions. Right. Well, Stanley with Jay Widner has now come out with
a documentary just within the last couple of months. Uh uh, his third
being that Kennedy fate his assassination. Oh wow, and yeah, and it's
getting a lot of attention. The reviews online are about three and a half
out of five, so a lot of people are not buying it. But
I haven't looked at the documentary yet, but I've listened to two or three
interviews with Jay Widner an hour or so each. I mean, I was
really getting into it, and I'm I do not give Jay Widner credit for
that theory. He's been given credit for coming up with that theory. But
that theory has been out and I've been following this. This has been out
for about four five, six years now. This theory actually came out in
nineteen in twenty eighteen, right, and there's a lot of videos online about
it. I didn't buy it then and I'm not buying it now. While
I will say because I looked into it and I just don't see the evidence.
Because if, for argument's sake, let's say this, If for argument's
sake, Kennedy participated in faking his assassination, Okay, why do it in
the public domain? Why do it for millions of people to see? Why
traumatize the American people like that? Why traumatize the people of the world.
Look at the psychological impact that had on people, whether it was fake or
not. You saw this blood all over the place. There was a lot
of supposedly Jay Wider say that there was a lot of gimmicks used to fake
it. You know, Kennedy was trained on this and he was prepped for
it. And then the other theory is that it wasn't Kennedy in the car
that day, was one of his doubles. Kennedy had doubles. Okay,
all presidents do no secrets here. If there was assassination attempt and Kennedy wasn't
killed, I can reluctantly buy the sherry that it was a double that was
in that car that day that was killed. But I have trouble believing that
Kennedy would participate in that if he was supposed to be on the side of
the good. But yet he participates in faking his own assassination. They're traumatizing
his own people. That tells me that he would be on the side of
the good, be on the side of the bat right, So that has
to be taking a consideration too. But one thing that Jay Wider has come
out with, and I agree with this because it's always good to look at
this in an objective way, as as we talked about in the other video
with the researcher in Ireland, it's always good to keep your mind open and
have an objective look at this. Jay Wider has I think successfully proven that
the Saprutal film, the actual the best film. The assassination has had his
missing frames and it's may have been altered, but not the whole film.
If you look at the film and you know, you see the Morriki coming
down, and you see Kennedy waving to the crowd, and there's a big
sign in the way and as soon as he goes behind the sign, that's
when the first shot hits, right, but the sign before the sign is
he's coming. There's a shot fire, and there's a slight reaction from Kenny
because he hears a noise, but it's know what it is, so he
continues on waving. But as the car goes behind the sign, the second
shot hits him. And as he comes out, you see he's obviously reacting.
But what does he do when he's hit? People say he grabs his
neck. That's not what happened. It's shortly right after that, but a
second after you see his reaching for his neck. That's where I believe the
film is altered. And that's what I think Jay Wider is actually pointing out
as well to his credit. And that's where it's really difficult to believe anything
after that point until further down when you see the mortar caad driving out from
that area under the bridge and racing the Parkment Hospital. Now, what happens
when he's first shot. His arms flitch up like that. Okay, if
you look closely, his right arm goes way up and his left art his
left arm comes up about here. He's not grabbing his neck. That's a
neuro reflex. Something druck his spinal cord. And I'm not a doctor,
don't for him to be a medical doctor scientist, but I've read enough about
this struck a spinal cord and caused his arms to flinch up. Would he
even known him to do that? If this was a fake assassination, that
sounds a little far fetched to me. It sounds like that's an that looks
to me like an actual reaction to being shot. Right, And the bullet
that entered him probably entered his back and splintered. The bullet itself splintered,
and this segment came out his throat. That probably wasn't an entry word.
It was probably a fragment from the bullet coming out his throat. Jay Wider
says, when you look at that, where's all the blood? Well,
that would explain why there was a little blood at that point, because if
it was the speck of the bullet coming out his throat causing little blood and
the other bullet was diverted upwards towards his brain, he was probably killed before
he was actually before the headshot. He was probably dead at that point,
And that to me shows me that whoever it was in that car that day,
whether it was Kennedy or one of us doubles, a person was killed
that day in that car. And the other aspect to fake in his assassination
that you would have to account for was leave Harry Oswell killed? Was officer
to J. D. Tippett killed that day? Apparently Lee Harvey Aarsen was
supposed to have shot here. And what about all the other witnesses involved that
mysteriously died and I'd be writing a chapter on that have died under very mysterious
circumstances related to the assassination. So there's all this that has to be taken
into consideration. So, as you can see, I'm pretty well gone down
the rabbit hole on this. Yeah, yeah, Ben. What's your thoughts
on the Kennedy assassination? Oh well, you have just passed the sixtieth anniversary
of that event a couple of months ago, and I did. I did
a couple of special publications for that. Indeed, these anniversaries are informational choke
points, which means that their opportunities for to publish new information is more like
to be seen by the general public. So this is a good time to
write a book like that and to bring a book like that out there are
so there were so many theories about what happened to Kennedy. I mean,
I've I've covered them all in my in my special radio show and my special
video about it. But the one thing that's certain is the official story is
false. Oswald acted alone for his own personal motives, he was the only
shooter, and things like that. None of it makes sense for so many
different reasons. But I mean, I haven't seen Jay Widener's new film.
I've not heard this particular theory that Randy said. I've heard we would talk
about how the Zaprina film was altered. That's so there's several theories about that.
There's things I don't buy. I think maybe just to read herrings,
for example, the umbrella man, the guy with the umbrella, and also
the greer turned around and shot Kennedy with a pistol and that that when you
look closely you can see that's not what actually happens. But there's there's lots
of lots of different theories going out about this, and it seems, even
after sixty years, more something new to learn. And that's good. I
mean, whether we'll get an answer to this. I don't know if when
Absley J. Hilda first started doing lectures about this just after it happened,
whether he thought sixty years later people would still not have the truth and we
still wouldn't know. I don't know if you ever suspected that, I would
you have given up if he had. I have a favorite kind of jfk
assassination story theory or and it's a hypothetical one that never happened, of course,
because it was a Star Trek plot. When they were bringing back Star
Trek to the big screen, which they did do in nineteen seventy nine,
they went through many different ideas of what story they could use, and one
of them was I think it might have been Alan Deine Foster, but I'm
not one hundred percent certain on that. Alandin Foster science fiction, I wrote
Alien. The idea was that the Starship Enterprise goes back into time to try
and prevent the death of President Kennedy, and then when they return, they
save him, and then when they return back to their own time in the
twenty third century, they'll find that there's no Star Trek Federation, no Staffleet
or anything like that, and they think, oh, we screwed up,
so they have to go back again back in time to nineteen sixty nine,
and in this version, Spock goes up with his phaser and assassinates President Kennedy.
And I really love that one the best. It's a shame that was
never produced because obviously totally unrealistic because of the time travel paradoxes and things,
but it's hilarious. That would have been hilarious if that have been produced.
Yeah, can you imagine that the prude of city film man with a phaser
pistol, isn't it right? I think we'll have to draw this chapter close,
gentlemen. I think we've gone past our fifty five minute section for part
two. We're well into the hour and ten minute mode for part two.
But that's fine. We've enjoyed it immensely and we've learned quite a few good
things of interested, and I hope the audience has too. So I want
to say thank you very much for Randy Walsh for joining us once again on
the Paranormal peep Show. Now you mentioned some books there you got coming out.
You've got a third book on the Apollo side of things. When is
that Joe out Randy. That's out now and it's now up on Amazon.
Okay. Yeah, the title is Apollo the Real Mission. Okay. And
there's Retten another person, Yes, her name is Robin Landry. She's on
the back here and yeah, and we teamed up. Maybe we could talk
about that in another video more how it's interesting how that project evolved. But
it's now out. The book is based is fiction, but based on truth,
and the basic premises is that they discover a journal. The book starts
in nineteen nineteen sixties, goes up to the time period of today, and
the astronaut, the first astronist, changed his name. It's based on Neil
Armstrong, but I changed his name in the book to avoid any legal conflicts,
and so it's a fetitional character based on a true story. And basically
before he dies, he says, we didn't do it. None of it
happened. There's a journal find it and that's why book. Yeah, excellent.
You can always change the astronauts to Neo Wold. I went, yes,
sure, how about it one in history. I'll keep that in mind,
Okay. And then you're Kennedy book you're still writing at You're sort of
like a third of the way through it or something. Yeah, so I'm
about a third of the way through it. It'll probably take me at least
than several months because there's a lot of information I want to go into.
I want people to know that it's not just it's not based on the occult,
but there is going to be a chapter in their audit because I do
find it an interesting aspect of the Keady But the bulk of the book is
going to be on the mechanics of the assassination, the geopolitic did geopolitics involved?
And I will be talking about Ben I like it. I'm glad you
brought that up. The Secret serviceation is supposed to shot him. They are
such bogus theories out there, and I agree with you on that one.
And I'm going to be talking about some of those theories in the book.
I'm going to say, you know, which has some validity in which don't,
and that one obviously doesn't. You're right about the subriuted room. It's
not it's reflection. It's not him pointing it gun right. Yeah, Okay,
so that you're out later this year though, Kennedy, Yeah, I'll
try to have it out. It will hopefully be out by foot. I'm
thinking of November, which would be a good day to have. It could
be November, December, or January, but it will be hopefully out by
then. Like I said, I'm almost halfway through it. I'm taking my
time in it because I want it done right. There's a lot of books
out there in the Kennedy Sassination that people are going to ask, well,
why another one? Well, I think I do have not only something different,
but a different twist on it. So that's what I'm on looking at
right now, so I'll keep you informed. Sorry, I wasna that one
called the JFK Book. I have a working title right now, actually have
a working title. I don't want to say it right now. Everybody likes
the title I've talked, so somebody might killed quite yourself. Take it a
bit, I'll tell you what. I'll email it to you. Yeah,
sure, No, I'll publishing that fine. Yeah, that's great. I
mean, I suppose say, using fictional allegory is a very very good way
of communicating communicating information. And I've written some fictional allegorical novels myself, the
Roswell Trilogy I call them, and it's it's it's in a way. I
mean, I think it goes back to George Orwell and his own fiction,
which was very allegorical, very metaphorical for real things, and it's it's in
a sense it gets through a lot of the filters that would be set up
by skeptics of people by that for a fiction, for a non fictional book,
And it's perfectly okay to speculate based on the evidence your opinion. Yeah,
exactly, Yeah, cool, right, okay, Ben, how can
people find you? Well, I mean I should. I've forgot my website
Hospital Porters against the New World Order HPA and W it's pronounced for Panwo.
And the aforementioned book, well, here it is. It's this is the
first one, Roswell writing a novel of Disclosure, and that's the first of
the trilogy. And that's ten pounds in all good bookshops. And I think
if you like the paranormal peep show, I think you'll enjoy this book.
You really will. So I do worge listeners to give it a try,
because it's just up your street, you might say, ex and I will.
I'll plug my own book now then, so my book, I don't
know when it's due out, but it's now completed and it's with the publisher
and it's titled True Tales of the Paranormal by the Award, and it will
be out on our Coturist Publishing and I'm presuming sometime in the summer. I'm
told by the editor they've already got the cover sorted out. I haven't seen
that at all. Although I'm an artist, I've got nothing to do with
the art side of things on this particular book. But I will let people
know more about that as time goes, and I'll probably put it on a
website or something. But yeah, that's coming out in the near future.
And I know that Randy watched our last show Ben where we was talking in
the someher else. He really enjoyed our Psychic Tales and all sorts of fans
stuff uncovered very much, Randy Glad, Actually I really did. And I
just want to add a pootnote that I'm looking forward to both your books,
and I will be reading your book is I have a project coming up after
that. I really want to look more into what that episode and you and
Ben had together some fascinating information on the paranormal in there, and I do
want to say that I really appreciated your personal experience in this as well,
so I do want that said. So, yeah, thank you for that.
Thank you. Yeah. Cool. Well, I've tried to put a
lot of my personal experiences in the book, but I've had to kind of
reshape them. I won't say much more of that. Re edit them slightly.
They make them more appealing, not appealing palatable. Maybe I don't know,
but we all know why anyway. So anyway, this is the Paranormal
Peep Show given thanks to Randy Walsh for his involvement with this this evening.
I hope you found out of interest and feel free to leave comments on the
YouTube channel and also on the MP three version of the Paranormal Peep Show which
goes out on the paranorl UK Radio network. So this is myself NEI Award
and thanks to ben Emlin Jones for Jordan Us once more and we'll see you
soon on the Paranormal Peak show on the Paranormal UK Radio Network. Good night,
you're listening to the Paranormal UK Radio ne Network voted number one for paranormal
podcasts in the UK.