Speaker 1: Okay, imagine this. What if the biggest race we ever ran,
the space race, didn't actually end of the Moon. What
if that giant leap wasn't you know, the finish line,
but more like a smokescreen, a detour on the way
somewhere much much bigger.
Speaker 2: It's a compelling thought, isn't it. Because there's always been
this sort of background noise, this buzz of speculation that
the official story of space exploration well might be missing
a few chapters exactly.
Speaker 1: We're talking about Project Redson, this persistent idea that maybe,
just maybe humans actually walked on Mars way back in
the nineteen seventies, long.
Speaker 2: Before we were officially told it was even remotely feasible.
Speaker 1: Yeah, sounds like pure sci fi, I get it. But
the amount of claims, the alleged evidence, the supposed cover ups,
it's that's a lot, it really is. So today that's
where we're going, right down the rabbit hole. We'll look
at the stories, the proof that's popped up over the years,
and also, really importantly, why so many people are convinced
it just didn't happen.
Speaker 2: Our mission isn't really to say yay or nay.
Speaker 1: Decinatively, no, not at all. It's more about dissecting this
whole thing, this mystery that just won't go away. Why
does it stick around?
Speaker 2: And that brings up the big question right away, why
the secrecy? I mean landing on Mars, that's monumental. The
whole space race was built on public triumphs, national pride.
Showing off basically hiding a Mars landing feels well, completely backwards.
Speaker 1: Doesn't it. It absolutely does. The story we all know is,
you know, Apollo seventeen lands on the Moon in seventy two,
then bam, budget cuts, Apollo eighteen nineteen twenty all.
Speaker 2: Canceled, poof gone, just like that.
Speaker 1: But this redsin theory says, hold on a second, maybe
those missions didn't just disappear into some accountant spreadsheet. Maybe
they went somewhere else secretly to Mars.
Speaker 2: It does change the picture quite a bit.
Speaker 1: It's like finding out your town's mayor had a secret
life as a I don't know a deep sea explorer.
Speaker 2: Well, and you have to remember the context, right, the
Cold War secrecy around tech military stuff that was just
standard operating procedure. So the idea of a joint US
Soviet mission, which is part of some reds and theories.
Speaker 1: Wow, can you make that.
Speaker 2: Would have been politically explosive if it got out. Then
it suggests a level of cooperation or maybe just mutual
interest that seems almost unthinkable for that era.
Speaker 1: Totally unthinkable. Yeah, and that's kind of where the first
alleged breadcrumbs start appearing. Remember back in what twenty eleven
and this Italian journalist Lucas Kenton Burrow, Oh.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I remember him. He made quite a.
Speaker 1: Splash, didn't he. He held this press conference, claimed redsin
was real, talk about secret sources, leaked emails, classified papers.
But the thing that really grabbed everyone that super grainy
photo he showed supposedly buzz Aldrin on Mars right.
Speaker 2: And that's the thing with this kind of evidence, isn't
it grainy photos, secondhand accounts. They often lack the hard
details you need to actually verify anything, definitely, but that ambiguity, ironically,
it can kind of fuel the belief. It gives you
just enough to spark your imagination, but not enough to
easily shoot it down. Classic hope territory really leaves room
for wishful thinking.
Speaker 1: That's a great point. And then you've got these comments
from actual Apollo astronauts. Sometimes they say things that are
a little cryptic jigu, Yeah, people jump on them, interpreting
them as hints about secret Mars stuff like buzz Aldrin
talking about a strange structure on Fobos, Mars's moon.
Speaker 2: Right the monolith comment.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And Gene Cernan, you know, the last man on
the Moon. He made some remarks about future Mars trips
that some people read is looking back at past unacknowledged trips.
Speaker 2: It's intriguing, for sure, but you have to be careful.
These guys saw things, experience things we can barely imagine true,
so when they talk about space it might sound odd
to us anyway, Jumping from I'm interested in Mars to
I secretly went to Mars. That's a pretty big leap.
Speaker 1: It is, it really is? Okay. Then there's the whistleblower angle.
This guy known only is Bravo Xcierra twenty four Ah, Yes,
the anonymous source supposedly smuggled photos out of NASA picture
showing you know, astronauts on a reddish planet, a little
habitat thing, a rover, and the pyramid.
Speaker 2: Can't forget the alleged pyramid in a crater.
Speaker 1: Right, the pyramid. I mean, that's the kind of visual that,
if it's real, just blows your mind.
Speaker 2: If it's real, that's the key verifying where these came
from their authenticity. Without a clear chain of custody, without
proper analysis, they just stay in the claims bucket.
Speaker 1: Yeah, compelling images, sure, but skepticism is kind of your
best friend here, like.
Speaker 2: Seeing a blurry UFO photo. Exciting maybe, but not proof.
Speaker 1: And what about the testimonies? There was Jackie right, former
NASA worker HM.
Speaker 2: Her story was quite something since she.
Speaker 1: Was working monitoring the Viking lander feed back in seventy
nine and suddenly sees two figures in spacesuits walking around
on Mars live feed and then.
Speaker 2: Poof, cut off as soon as someone realized what was showing.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the classic oops, shouldn't have seen that moment, conspiracy gold.
Speaker 2: It's a captivating story, no doubt, but it's entirely her word,
her memory. Decades later, How do you even begin to
verify that, especially if the whole point was it cover
up impossible pretty much, and memory's tricky, you know, without
any backup, it's just an anecdote, a really interesting one,
but still an anecdote.
Speaker 1: Then you have William Rutledge. Now his story is wild, oh.
Speaker 2: Ruttledge, Yeah, that goes way beyond just landing on Mars.
Speaker 1: He claimed he was a retired astronaut flew on these
secret ships, the ISV Columbus. Yea in Melbourne.
Speaker 2: That's it. So they went to the Moon and Mars,
and that Apolla nineteen and twenty were actually these secret Mars.
Speaker 1: Missions and the goal wasn't just exploration, right, it was alien.
Speaker 2: Tech, retrieval tools, bits of spacecraft, even an extraterrestrial body supposedly. Wow, Okay, look,
Rutledge's claims are probably the most out there, and frankly
they've been pretty thoroughly debunked by space buffs. There's just
no record of him. Lots of holes in his story.
Speaker 1: So more gripping narrative than fact.
Speaker 2: Seems that way. Yeah, fascinating story is zero evidence.
Speaker 1: It really is this tangled mess of stories, isn't it.
And then Gary McKinnon throws another wrench in. Yeah, the
Scottish guy who got the NASA and Pentagon computers, right.
Speaker 2: The hacker who apparently just found unlocked doors, no passwords,
that kind.
Speaker 1: Of thing kind of amazing really, Yeah, and he finds
his spreadsheet labeled non terrestrial officers.
Speaker 2: And lists of Navy ships that weren't on any public record,
which to him screamed secret space program.
Speaker 1: It's almost funny the idea of hiding spaceships on an
unsecured spreadsheet.
Speaker 2: Well, what's not funny is how hard the US government
went after him try and extradite him. That part was
very real. Definitely, it shows they were serious about the
breach whatever he actually saw. But does non terrestrial officers
automatically mean astronauts on Mars could mean lots of classified
but maybe less exciting things.
Speaker 1: Good point. And we can't forget doctor John Brandenburg, the
physicist with the ancient Martian civilization theory.
Speaker 2: Ah, yes, the nuclear war on Mars idea.
Speaker 1: Exactly wiped out by nukes, and he thinks NASA is
hiding the evidence.
Speaker 2: Brandenburg's work is based on his analysis of isotopes and
surface features on Mars, but it's definitely, let's say, outside
the mainstream scientific consensus hugely. His link to Red Sun
is more thematic. This idea that if NASA is hiding
secret missions, maybe they're also hiding evidence of ancient Martians.
It just adds to the whole grand cover up narrative.
Speaker 1: So we've got photos, testimonies, hacked files, scientific theories, all
these little pieces.
Speaker 2: Floating around, intriguing pieces.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but and this is the big butt, right. Yeah.
Extraordinary claims need extraordinary.
Speaker 2: Evidence, precisely. And that's where Red Sun, for all its
you know, undeniable fascination, really struggle.
Speaker 1: Yeah. That solid proof just isn't there.
Speaker 2: The lack of anything verifiable, anything independently confirmed. That's the
wall you hit. The idea of a hidden history is exciting,
no doubt, but you can't build history on anecdotes and
blurry pictures, critical thinking, solid evidence, that's what you need.
Speaker 1: Still, it makes you wonder why this idea persists so strongly,
Why Mars in the seventies. What's the appeal?
Speaker 2: Maybe it taps into something deep, you know, that feeling
that the official story isn't always the.
Speaker 1: Whole story, a bit of healthy skepticism towards authority.
Speaker 2: Maybe, and also just wonder the possibility that amazing things
happened just outside our view. It makes a world feel
a bit more mysterious, maybe more exciting than the everyday
And think.
Speaker 1: About the era too, massive tech leaps the Cold War
paranoia exactly.
Speaker 2: The space race itself wasn't exactly an open book, was it.
Lots of classified military angles for sure. So the idea
that even more secret stuff was happening alongside the public
missions it doesn't feel completely impossible. In that context, secrecy
was kind of the default setting back then.
Speaker 1: That's a really good point. The lines between science prestige
and military applications were probably way blurrier than we think.
Speaker 2: The rockets, the life support, navigation, all that tech needed
for the Moon had obvious dual uses. It wasn't just
about planting a flag.
Speaker 1: Okay, But here's something interesting. Some details mentioned in these
red Sun claims, like that mar used.
Speaker 2: To have water, which we now know is true thanks
to later probes.
Speaker 1: Right, yeah, so does that give any retroactive credibility to
the secret vision claims because they mentioned stuff that turned
out to be real.
Speaker 2: It's tempting to connect those dots. I get it, but
we have to be careful about confirmation bias. Just because
one detail aligns with later science doesn't validate the core
claim the secret landings.
Speaker 1: Right, Correlation isn't causation exactly.
Speaker 2: Science proved the water thing through its own methods. Evidence
peer review, none of which exists. For Red Sun, those
coincidences could be informed guesses, could be chance.
Speaker 1: Okay, fair enough, But what are the landing coordinates? Some
Red Sun stories mentioned specific spots on Mars.
Speaker 2: That later turned out to be near where actual NASA
rovers landed. Yeah, that one always raises eyebrows.
Speaker 1: It seems too specific for pure chance, doesn't it.
Speaker 2: It does seem specific. But even without secret landings, NASA
would have been doing long term planning, serving potential future
sites for decades. Ah, So maybe those coordinates came from
early legitimate surveys and planning documents, information management, strategic foresight
that could explain it without needing hidden astronauts, like scouting
movie locations years ahead.
Speaker 1: That makes sense, And now fast forward to today, Space
isn't just NASA anymore. You've got SpaceX, Blue Origin.
Speaker 2: Right, private companies with big Mars ambitions.
Speaker 1: Operating with maybe potentially less public oversight than a government agency.
Speaker 2: It definitely adds a new layer as private companies take
a bigger role, transparency might change accountability, It might.
Speaker 1: Look different, which could just fuel even more speculation about
what's happening off camera, so to speak.
Speaker 2: It's a whole new dynamic, a new frontier, maybe with
fewer public eyes on it.
Speaker 1: It almost feels like like the stage is being set
differently now. Maybe NASA releasing Mars infos slowly, piece by
piece is part of that, like managing expectations, prepping us, Yeah,
prepping us maybe, So it's not a huge shock when
SpaceX land and finds something unexpected, something NASA maybe new
about already.
Speaker 2: That's a really thought provoking idea strategic information release. Are
they guiding the narrative to avoid surprises linked to the
past or just managing our understanding of current discoveries?
Speaker 1: Who knows?
Speaker 2: It? Really highlights the power of information, doesn't it? Who
controls it when it gets released?
Speaker 1: So wrapping this up, we've gone through the claims, the evidence,
the debunking, the context, Project Redsin. It seems lacks that
solid proof.
Speaker 2: Substantiation is definitely missing.
Speaker 1: But the story itself, the questions it raises about secrecy,
about what's possible, it's still pretty compelling, isn't it.
Speaker 2: Absolutely? Even if the nineteen seventies Mars landings are almost
certainly myth, the underlying themes government transparency, the unknowns of space,
the potential for hidden history, they still resonate deeply.
Speaker 1: And as we actually do get closer to sending people
to Mars for real this.
Speaker 2: Time, hopefully for real this time, it.
Speaker 1: Makes you think about these alternative narratives, Why do they
get created, why do they stick, and what do both
the official stories and these unproven theories tell us about
ourselves and our whole push out into the Solar System.
Speaker 2: It's definitely something to chew on, isn't it a fascinating
lens for looking at our past, present, and future in
space