TNT Radio: Hear Now Bart Sibrel’s Moon Landing Interview
Sunday 26th June: Bart Sibrel: Tin foil hat-wearing conspiracy theorist or truther? The man NASA astronaut, Buzz Aldrin, punched in the face talks to us on TNT Radio Live. Listen now and decide for yourself!
As CEO of Principia Scientific International (PSI) I have had many requests for us to hold the debate: Did we really go to the moon?
So, last week, we got the ball rolling with an article posted on the site, titled, Moon Landing Conspiracy Theories, Debunked’ (June 24, 2022) and we were delighted to have on our radio show, Sky Dragon Slaying, one of the world’s most controversial moon landing critics, Bart Sibrel.
LISTEN TO THE BART SIBREL INTERVIEW BELOW:
If you believe opinion polls, Sibrel is winning wider public support for claims made in his book, Moon Man: The True Story of a Filmmaker on the CIA Hit List . A 2016 survey in the UK showed that as many as 52 percent of Brits think America faked the Apollo moon landings.
In 2002, the second man to walk on the moon, Buzz Aldrin, who was 72 at the time, punched Sibrel in the face when Sibrel confronted him (video below)
Sibrel covered the following points during in this TNT Radio Live broadcast:
- Apollo’s achievement with its 50-year-old technology cannot be reproduced today by any nation in the world, including the United States (only now is modern technology capable of faking the moon landings).[10]
- The shadows appearing in one of the Apollo 11 photographs are not parallel, and therefore must have been taken in a studio with multiple light sources (in fact this is consistent with reflection from the lunar surface and inconsistent with the existence of only one shadow per object).[11]
- The Van Allen radiation belt that exists around the Earth does not allow humans to pass through it due to its extreme radiation (the Apollo 11 crew were within the belts for under two hours so would have been exposed to an estimated 18 rads – well within safe limits).[12][13]
The above are just a few points, much more is set out in his documentary, ‘A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon.’
“The shadows aren’t right,” says Sibrel, as he refers to NASA film footage and photographs he believes was mostly likely created by film maker, Stanley Kubrick.
In addition, Sibrel further insists NASA foul play meant that several astronauts were likely murdered for threatening to expose the Big Lie. It is circumstantial evidence, but certainly arguable that several Apollo astronauts died mysteriously.
In a friendly back and forth, TNT Radio host, O’Sullivan interjects that the problem with this ‘fake lighting’ theory is that although the sun is the main source of illumination on the moon, it isn’t the only source of illumination. Another source is the lunar ground, which reflects the sun’s light, which we discussed about in the Apollo 11 pictures:
“the sunlight is being scattered or reflected off the ground every which way, and some of it—a small fraction but enough to be able to see—scatters into the shadows.”
Kubrick’s Role in the hoax
Sibrel and many doubters argue that famous film maker, Stanley Kubrick, was hired by the Pentagon to fake the Apollo film footage and Kubrick’s epic film, 2001: A Space Odyssey eerily parallels the Apollo program.
The film production started in 1964 and was released in1968, while the Apollo program also began in 1964 and culminated with the first moon landings on July 20th 1969.
A ‘must watch’ documentary on this is ‘Kubrick’s Odyssey: Secrets Hidden in the Films of Stanley Kubrick by Jay Weidner (2011-2012)
This is a well made and argued documentary giving convincing cinematic reasons of how Kubrick could have faked many of the iconic Apollo images using Front Screen Projection and Scotchlite, a screen material that was made up of hundreds of thousands of tiny glass beads each about 0.4mm wide.
However, while Jay Weidner’s film argues that Kubrick faked much of the visual material shown to the public, he believes men really did walk on the moon.
50 YEARS AFTER KUBRICK – HOW CGI FX VALIDATES NASA
Retorting to Sibrel’s claims I cited how modern computer graphics experts, for example, in Lunar Landing Conspiracies with Maxwell and VXGI – by NVIDIA 2014, are astonished at the high-quality of the supposed ‘special effects’ and even today’s technology cannot fabricate those iconic space mission images. See video here.
According to the history books, Apollo astronauts flew nine missions to the moon, of which six landed on its surface. A total of 24 astronauts took part in those missions, with three – Jim Lovell, Gene Cernan and John Young – flying twice. A dozen men landed, while the remainder flew over its surface. Each of those 12 moonwalkers was American; each flew between the Christmases of 1968 and 1972.
The proof we were there is the trash we left behind?
As astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson says, “It’s easier to actually put men on the moon than to successfully fake it”
In October-November 1977, the Soviet radio telescope RATAN-600 observed all five transmitters of ALSEP scientific packages placed on the Moon surface by all Apollo landing missions excluding Apollo 11. Their selenographic coordinates and the transmitter power outputs (20 W) were in agreement with the NASA reports.
In 2008, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) SELENE lunar probe obtained several photographs showing evidence of Moon landings.
Chandrayaan-1. As with SELENE, the Terrain Mapping Camera of India’s Chandrayaan-1 probe did not have enough resolution to record Apollo hardware. Nevertheless, as with SELENE, Chandrayaan-1 independently recorded evidence of lighter, disturbed soil around the Apollo 15 site
In April 2021 the ISRO Chandrayaan-2 orbiter captured an image of the Apollo 11 Lunar Module Eagle descent stage. The orbiter’s image of the Apollo landing site was released to the public in a presentation on September 3, 2021.
China’s second lunar probe, Chang’e 2, which was launched in 2010 is capable of capturing lunar surface images with a resolution of up to 1.3 metres. It claims to have spotted traces of the Apollo landings and the lunar Rover.
Why We Never Went Back
Going to the moon and back for no apparent economic gain is an extraordinarily expensive project. The entire Apollo programme cost $24bn in 1960s money – around $1 trillion in today’s – and for several years was swallowing up almost 5 per cent of the US federal budget.
Why Did the Russians Go Along With the Hoax?
For many Americans who worked in and reported on aerospace research, this denial was never believable. One of these Americans was James Oberg, a NASA space engineer from 1975 to 1997 who speaks Russian and has written multiple books about the U.S. and Soviet space programs. In 1979, he wrote an article for Reason Magazine arguing,
“Many of the same elements that characterized preparations for the Apollo moon landings also showed up in the Soviet program.”
He also noted that Soviet cosmonauts during the 1960s spoke as though they were in a race with the U.S. to the moon.
In truth, the Soviets were in a moon race with the U.S. during the 1960s, and they were fairly confident they could beat the Americans because “they’d had all the firsts,” Oberg says: they had the first satellite, the first probe to land on the moon and the first man and woman in space. In fact, the Soviets thought the U.S. timetable for reaching the moon was just propaganda because it seemed too ambitious.
The fact that the Soviets had built a lunar-landing craft intended for the moon remained a secret until 1989, when American aerospace engineers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology received a tour of the student engineering laboratory at the Moscow Aviation Institute. Even then, the revelation was kind of an accident, says Laurence Young, who was one of the engineers on the trip and is now the Apollo program professor emeritus of aeronautics and astronautics at MIT.
Sibrel delivered to us plenty of tidbits that any good conspiracy theorist/truther would relish, not least concerning Kubrick’s very last film, Eyes Wide Shut,which starred Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman and was released on July 16, 1999.
Sibrel said:
“Stanley Kubrick insisted in his contract that this be the date of the release. July 16, 1999 is exactly 30 years to the day that Apollo 11 was launched!”
This was a convivial and thought-provoking two-hour live radio interview and Sibrel agreed:
“Thanks for being a great host. I think you were the most polite and respectful counter-point I’ve ever encountered. Please accept my apologies for interrupting you at the end as time was running out. Take care and, if you have an open mind, please read Moon Man.”
Bart Sibrel’s book Moon Man: The True Story of a Filmmaker on the CIA Hit List is available to buy on Amazon.com or visit his site, sibrel.com
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Joseph Olson
| #
“Perplexing Apollo Questions for NASA” at principia-scientific.org > Saturn V fuel load, Command/Lander docking ports, airlocks and lunar surface temperatures.
TruthStreamMedia.com > “Military Top Secret Hollywood Film Studio” the CIA Lookout Mountain propaganda center. “NASA Future Wars 2025” the July 2001 seminar on use of trauma based mind control for the continuation of HIVE MIND government parasites
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
Well, what’s important is to make some money off this stuff…why Lee Harvey Oswald found out about the fake moon landing…and paid with his life…my book is coming out next month…it is a REVELATION….the CIA is at the bottom of all this stuff…you just don’t know who to believe.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Right T.C.,
Oswald was killed in 1963 because he knew the 1969 moon landing was fake. Hope you make money from these fools with your book.
Herb
Reply
Andy Rowlands
| #
I’m firmly on Buzz Aldrin’s side here. Sibrel is a jerk.
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Well Andy if your’e on Aldrin’s side, then you must acknowledge his quote to the 8 yr. old. girl, “because we didn’t go there and that’s the way it happened.” Aldrin’s was finally, late in the game going out on a limb. Armstrong had already been cut short on a previous speaking engagement because of cryptic remarks and the three of them were obviously uncomfortable on the original staged interview.
Many people had called out the fake Apollo program a long time before Sebril came along. In fact the original Apollo crew leader Gus Grisham’s (Grisham had been openly critical and hung a lemon on the fake capsule) who was an airline pilot is on record stating that his father and the other two were murdered. There is no way any reasonable preseason can look at this video or the one I posted of the asinine “lunar lander” and still believe in the Apollo fraud.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/0oANUdFS0LxK/
Reply
Andy Rowlands
| #
Oh okay then.
Reply
Heretic Jones
| #
This is a bit off topic, but another hilarious ‘space station’ video has emerged – this time from China…
It has all the old standards: obvious tethers and stiff, hair-sprayed hair…but it also has a hilarious glass of water sitting on the table next to them! Lol!
https://www.instagram.com/tv/CfRn4YUFdQm/?igshid=MDJmNzVkMjY=
Reply
Howdy
| #
“most of the cucks (including many at PSI) believe anything the Jew MSM tell them”
That’s a lie.
Plus some of us ‘cucks’ have a reasoned mind. That’s why we challenge people who don’t.
Reply
Howdy
| #
Why aren’t shadows parallel in the Moon photos?
The truth is that converging shadows are a well-know optical phenomena in photography. There is nothing mysterious about it, in fact you can easily replicate this effect yourself as per the example below.
https://www.spacecentre.nz/resources/faq/spaceflight/moon-hoax/shadows-parallel.html
How to argue with a Moon landing denier.
https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/how-to-argue-with-a-moon-landing-denier/
Reply
Andy Rowlands
| #
Nice one Howdy.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Trash simply proves something was there. Robots? or just a dump from space?
Did NASA find water in their “moon” rocks?
Chinese claim to have found ~200ppm water in rocks.
Was NASA just unlucky?
I’m agnostic on this issue. I see evidence in both directions.
Reply
lloyd
| #
So all the astronomers in the world are part of the Conspiracy. Yeah, right.
Reply
Mario M
| #
Today technology cannot project and produce all the equipments to allow the life in the empty space. Think for example to the temperature conditioning system: it has to warm or cool the cabin which is subject to rapid and intense variation of temperature; in the ISS it has to work for years without malfuntioning otherwise the astro-not will burn or freeze istantaneously, it has to be extremely compact and easy to install. How it is possible? Has this system checked here on ground?
I wonder why the denialists insist on the fake photos which is a weak argument, whereas technical possibilities are much sounder objections.
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
PSI editors. I would like to know why my comments are being deleted. I commented a few hours ago that long before Sebril exposed the fake moon landings, Rocketdyne employee Bill Kaysing and others had revealed the NASA lies. I also commented that it is now time to move on to the. fake nuclear weapons issue. I pointed out that no country has used these alleged weapons in almost 80 years since the fake nuclear attack on Japan in 1945 which was just a typical napalm bombing. I then referred to the book “Revisiting Hiroshima” by Michael Palmer MD which gives an exhaustive analysis of the fake nuclear attack as well as Akio Nakatoni’s :”Death Object, Exploding the Nuclear Weapons Hoax.” If the mission of PSI is to expose scientific fraud and reveal the truth then how about being honest about it rather than applying politically selective half truths from approved commenters.,
Reply
Old_Crow
| #
Have you ever read Bruce Cathie’s books Mark ?
Reply
Andy Rowlands
| #
Mark, we have removed comments because of the repeated anti-Semitic tone, which we have repeatedly asked you to cease, and we have had complaints from other readers about them.
PSI’s policy is that we maintain a very light touch on moderation. We are big believers in free speech and open debate but we will not tolerate blatant racism, especially when it starts having a negative impact on us as an organisation.
Reply
davejr
| #
I have posted many questions in the past and have another one. How did the lunar module lift off and ascend to lunar orbit while leaving its’ rocket engine on the lunar surface?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HQfauGJaTs
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Davejr,
I’m thinking maybe they had more than one engine.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Davejr,
I’m thinking maybe they had more than one engine.
Reply
davejr
| #
Then where is the ascent engine in the footage? Inside the cabin? Where is the rocket exhaust? Rockets do carry their own oxidizer along with fuel. Shouldn’t we see the flame? Just curious, that’s all.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Dave,
Each stage of the rocket had engines. The first and second stage achieved orbit,. The third third stage sent the command module and lunar lander-lem into orbit around the moon. The lunar lander-lem separated from the command module and its rockets took it out of lunar orbit and slowed its descent to the surface. The explosive bolts, cutting of the umbilici, and lem’s rocket were all fired simultaneously to return the lem into lunar orbit, where it rendezvoused with the command module. The lem was then jettisoned and the command module fired its engines to return to Earth orbit and again later to slow the return to Earth.
The reason you don’t see a flame is because when hydrogen burns it has an invisible flame The flame on the Hindenburg was from the paint) and since the gravity on the moon is weak it didn’t need a lot of thrust to return the lem to lunar orbit.
Herb.
Reply
davejr
| #
Oh, a hydrogen flame doesn’t emit any light. I did not know that.