Beneath the headlines.
Behind the timelines, there is a story no one wants you to find.
Welcome to some unapproved thinking, where forgotten truths, buried patterns, and
invisible systems rise to the surface.
You weren't crazy.
You were just early.
Let's begin,
you know.
It's fascinating.
Thinking back to our last episode where we took on the idea that dinosaurs
might not have existed at all.
It's clear there's more out there that challenges what we've always believed.
So today, I've got another big topic on the board here for you all.
One that still divides people to this day, the moon landing, that
monumental moment televised to millions, provoking not just awe, but also a
lot of skepticism and I've got to ask.
What if the greatest show on Earth really never happened?
It was July 20th, 1969, the date of the greatest achievement in
human history, or was it the date of the greatest lie ever told?
Even though I was only about six, I remember watching the moon landing
as a kid, feeling that surge of American pride, that sense of
human triumph over impossible odds.
Three men traveled 240,000 miles through deadly Space, landed on an airless
rock and returned safely to earth.
It was magnificent.
It was inspiring.
It was everything we wanted to believe about human potential.
But here's what I didn't know then.
We'd never done it before, and oh yeah, let's not forget
we've never done it since.
Think about that for a moment.
In 1969 with computers less powerful than your phone, we supposedly
achieved something so complex that modern NASA admits they can't
figure out how to do it safely.
Today.
We went to the moon six times in four years, then never went back.
We quote, unquote, lost the technology.
We destroyed the evidence, and we recorded over the original footage.
Whoops, my bad.
Tonight we ask when the greatest achievement in human history can't
be repeated with modern technology.
Did it really even happen the first time?
This is some unapproved thinking.
Thank you to our sponsor, the Dark Horse Entrepreneur Podcast.
Unlock your potential with the Dark Horse entrepreneur AI escape Plan, the
podcast empowering hardworking parents to break free from the nine to five
grind through AI powered side hustles.
Check them out@darkhorseentrepreneur.com.
Now back to the show.
We live in an age where every image can be manipulated, every video can be faked,
every narrative can be manufactured.
Deep fake technology makes it impossible to trust visual evidence.
CGI.
And now, AI image creation creates realities that never existed then.
Social media spreads this manufactured content faster
than truth can even catch up.
But what if this technological deception isn't new?
What if the most sophisticated special effects production in history happened
back in say, 1969 when television was the dominant medium and the public had
no way to verify what they were seeing?
I've spent years inside corporate systems where we'd craft narratives for
big brands, watching how easily visual content could be shaped, manipulated,
and made to serve interests that had nothing to do with just the facts.
Back then, I thought we were just doing marketing.
What I didn't realize was I was watching the blueprint for something much bigger.
That said, could the Apollo moon landings represent the ultimate test of whether
we can trust institutional authority, especially when the stakes are high
enough and the technology exists to create convincing enough deceptions.
Understanding what really happened in 1969 isn't just about space exploration.
It's about recognizing how power uses spectacle to maintain legitimacy
when the greatest achievement in human history can't be repeated, not
even with today's modern technology.
When the evidence has been destroyed and when questioning,
it makes you somehow unpatriotic.
You're not looking at science.
Nope.
You're looking at faith.
And faith I've learned can be manufactured as easily as any other product.
Let me walk you through the most basic question that nobody wants to answer.
If we went to the moon in 1969, why can't we go back now?
NASA's official explanation is that we quote, lost the technology.
Think about that for a moment.
We supposedly achieved the most complex technological feat ever in human history.
Then, oh, we just forgot how we did it.
I guess that means it's not like riding a bike.
Meanwhile, today, we have better computers in our pockets than existed in
1969, but somehow we just can't seem to figure out how to get back to the moon.
I've been in enough corporate meetings to recognize convenient
explanations when I hear them.
This isn't technological progress.
Is damage control first.
There is the Van Allen radiation belts that seem to present an
insurmountable problem that NASA has never adequately addressed.
These are zones of deadly radiation that surround earth extending from about 400
miles to 36,000 miles above the surface.
Any human traveling through them would receive lethal doses of radiation.
In 2014, NASA engineer Kelly Smith, admitted on camera.
As we get further away from Earth, we'll pass through the Van Allen
Belts An area of dangerous radiation.
Radiation like this can harm the guidance systems onboard computers
or other electronics on Orion.
We must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space.
Wait, what?
We must solve these challenges, but didn't we solve them back in
1969, how did the Apollo astronauts survive radiation that NASA admits?
We still haven't figured out how to protect against the lunar module.
Looks like it was built in someone's garage.
I've seen the photographs, the technical specifications, the
construction details, thin aluminum foil, curtain rods, and duct tape.
This flimsy contraption supposedly survived the vacuum of space, landed on
the moon and launched back into orbit.
But come on, let's be honest with one another.
It looks more like a high school theater prop than a spacecraft
capable of interplanetary travel.
Then there is the photographic evidence, which seems to raise
more questions than it answers.
The American flag waves and the lunar wind, except there's
no atmosphere on the moon.
The shadows fall in multiple directions suggesting multiple
light sources like studio lighting.
The astronauts are perfectly lit even when they're in shadow indicating fill
lighting that doesn't exist on the moon.
Stanley Kubrick's 2001 a Space Odyssey was released in 19 68,
1 year before the moon landing.
The special effects were so convincing that they're still impressive today.
Kubrick had perfected the exact visual techniques needed to fake a moon landing,
front screen projection, miniature models, and precise lighting control.
The timing isn't coincidental.
The movie that demonstrated how to fake space travel was released just months
before the most important space mission.
In history.
Kubrick had the technology, the expertise, and the government connections to pull off
the greatest deception in human history.
Here's what's most disturbing about this whole operation.
We're not allowed to question it.
Asking basic questions about the moon landing gets you labeled as a conspiracy
theorist, anti-science, or unpatriotic.
The same institutions that lied about Vietnam, Watergate, and
weapons of mass destruction, demand unquestioning faith when it comes to
their greatest claimed achievement.
Look, the original telemetry data was allegedly destroyed.
The original video footage was allegedly recorded over.
The blueprints for the Saturn five rocket were allegedly lost.
Every piece of evidence that could prove the moon landing happened has
conveniently disappeared, leaving us with grainy footage and government assurances.
When you can't reproduce the achievement, when the evidence has been destroyed,
when questioning is forbidden, and when the technology supposedly used
looks like a high school science project, you're not looking at the
greatest achievement in human history.
You're looking at the greatest deception.
I've seen this pattern before in corporate settings when a project fails.
But admitting failure would destroy careers and budgets.
You create a narrative that explains the failure as success.
You destroy the evidence that contradicts the narrative.
You attack anyone who questions the story, and you hope that time and repetition
will make the lie feel like truth.
The moon landing has all the characteristics of a corporate coverup
scaled to national proportions.
The only difference is that instead of protecting quarterly earnings,
they were protecting American prestige during the Cold War.
This pattern of using spectacular deceptions to maintain
political legitimacy runs deeper than most people realize.
I've traced how governments throughout history have staged elaborate
performances to convince populations of their power and competence.
The ancient Romans perfected the use of spectacle for political control.
Gladiatorial games, chariot races and elaborate ceremonies
weren't just entertainment.
They were demonstrations of imperial power designed to keep
populations distracted and compliant.
The bigger the spectacle, the more impressive the empire seemed.
Medieval rulers used elaborate coordination ceremonies and religious
pageantry to establish divine authority.
The spectacles were carefully choreographed performances designed
to convince populations that their rulers had supernatural legitimacy.
The more impressive the ceremony, the more legitimate the ruler appeared.
I've studied how the Nazi regime understood that spectacular events could
create powerful psychological effects.
Their rallies, parades, and ceremonies weren't just political gatherings.
They were carefully orchestrated performances designed to demonstrate
power and create emotional compliance.
The Nuremberg rallies were essentially television productions designed
for mass psychological impact.
Hollywood's development during the 1960s created unprecedented
capabilities for visual deception.
The same studios that created convincing alien worlds and space battles for
movies had the technology to create convincing footage of moon landing.
The lying between entertainment and propaganda became increasingly blurred.
The Cold War created enormous pressure for spectacular demonstrations of
American technological superiority.
The Soviet Union had achieved every major space milestone, and they achieved
them first, the first satellite, the first animal in space, the first human
in space, and even the first spacewalk.
America desperately needed a victory that would demonstrate
superiority over the communist system.
President Kennedy's 1961 promised to land on the moon before this
decade is out, created a political deadline that had nothing to do
with technological readiness.
The commitment was made for political reasons, not for scientific ones.
When the deadline approached and the technology still wasn't ready, the
pressure to fake success became enormous.
Add to that, the television age made spectacular deceptions more powerful
and more feasible than ever before.
For the first time in history, a single event could be witnessed simultaneously by
hundreds of millions of people worldwide.
The Moon Landing was the first global television event watched by
an estimated 650 million people.
Let's not forget that the military industrial complex had enormous financial
incentives to maintain the space program.
Regardless of any actual achievements, NASA's budget peaked at over 4% of federal
spending during the Apollo program.
Yeah, reaching about $5.9 billion.
That's billion with a B dollars.
That's about $40 billion in today's money.
Not to mention the thousands of contractors and hundreds of thousands of
jobs depended on continued space funding.
The pattern reveals itself in how questioning the moon landing
became socially unacceptable.
Just as questioning other government narratives gets you labeled as unpatriotic
or conspiracy minded, asking basic questions about Apollo evidence triggers
immediate dismissal and ridicule.
The historical precedent shows that governments are perfectly capable
of staging elaborate deceptions when the political stakes are high
enough and the technology exists to make the deception convincing.
The Moon landing had all the necessary elements, enormous political pressure,
available technology, financial incentives, and a captive audience.
Understanding this history helps explain why the Moon Landing narrative has been so
successfully maintained for over 50 years.
Despite the obvious problems with the evidence, it's not because the evidence
is strong, it's because the political and economic interests served by the
narrative are too powerful to abandon.
Let me show you the recurring mechanisms that allow spectacular deceptions
to succeed and see how they apply to the Apollo Moon Landing program.
The pattern always begins with enormous political pressure
that makes failure unacceptable.
Kennedy's public commitment to reach the moon before 1970 created
a deadline that had to be met regardless of technological readiness.
When political survival depends on achieving the impossible, the
impossible gets achieved through deception rather than innovation.
Technological capabilities enable convincing deceptions
that weren't previously possible.
The 1960s represented the perfect moment for faking space travel.
Television was sophisticated enough to broadcast convincing footage,
but the public lacked the technical knowledge to detect deception.
Special effects technology had advanced enough to create believable space scenes.
I've watched this dynamic in corporate settings where the technology to
fake success exists alongside the pressure to deliver impossible results.
The temptation becomes irresistible when the alternative is admitting failure.
Financial incentives create powerful motivations for maintaining deceptions.
The Apollo program employed over 400,000 people and involved
thousands of contractors.
The economic benefits of continued space funding provided enormous
incentives to maintain the narrative regardless of actual achievements.
Institutional authority prevents questioning of the
fundamental assumptions.
Nasa, the military, and the scientific establishment, all had reputations
invested in Apollo's success.
Admitting deception would've destroyed institutional
credibility and ended careers.
This clearly created powerful incentives to maintain the narrative.
The complexity of the claimed achievement makes independent verification impossible.
Space travel involves so many technical variables that outsiders can't
effectively challenge the evidence, the barriers to entry ensure that
only those with institutional support can participate in space research.
Eliminating independent verification media cooperation ensures that
narrative management extends beyond government control.
News outlets that received exclusive access to Apollo
coverage had incentives to maintain positive relationships with nasa.
Critical coverage would've meant losing access to future
revenue generating space stories.
The destruction of the evidence then prevents future verification of claims.
The original telemetry data, video footage and the technical blueprints
were allegedly destroyed or lost, making it impossible to verify the
moon landing claims through the direct examination of the primary evidence.
The most insidious aspect is how the deception itself makes people
complicit in maintaining it.
Americans become invested emotionally in the moon landing
as a source of national pride.
So questioning the Apollo program and its results would then become
psychologically threatening because it challenged fundamental beliefs
about American exceptionalism and technological superiority.
This pattern extends to and helps explain how alternative explanations
get suppressed or even ridiculed scientists, engineers, and researchers
who question Apollo evidence face professional ostracism, and
even total career destruction.
The system effectively protects itself by making alternative explanations
socially and professionally unacceptable.
The global coordination of the Moon Landing narrative suggests systematic
rather than organic acceptance.
The same Apollo story is taught in schools worldwide, displayed
in museums globally, and accepted by international space agencies.
This level of coordination indicates central management rather
than independent verification.
The most concerning pattern, though is how quickly questioning Apollo
became associated with mental instability and social deviance.
Moon landing skeptics are portrayed as delusional tinfoil hat wearing
conspiracy theorists rather than just curious people asking legitimate
questions about evidence and methodology, the pattern reveals that the Apollo
program operates more like a religious institution than a scientific enterprise.
It requires faith in authority rather than solid evidence.
It punishes heretics who question doctrine.
It maintains elaborate rituals, museum displays, and anniversary celebrations
that reinforce the faith and belief, and it promises rewards like national pride
and technological optimism for those who maintain that faith in the system.
Now.
Not everyone has accepted the Moon landing narrative without question Throughout
the decade, since Apollo individuals have recognized the problems with the
evidence and chosen skepticism over patriotic faith, some NASA employees
and contractors have privately expressed doubts about the Moon landing claims.
While few speak publicly due to professional consequences, their
private accounts suggest that many people within the space program
understood that the public narrative didn't match the technical reality.
We've all encountered input from engineers and physicists who have
examined the Apollo evidence and raised serious questions about the
feasibility of the claimed achievements.
The Van Allen radiation problem.
The lunar module design issues and the photographic anomalies have
been documented by technically qualified observers who
understand the relevant science.
International space agencies have quietly acknowledged problems with
Apollo claims while maintaining public support for the narrative.
Some have noted the impossibility of reproducing Apollo achievements
with modern technology.
While others have pointed out inconsistencies in the technical
documentation, independent researchers have documented the connections
between Hollywood special effects technology and the Apollo program.
The timing of Stanley Kubrick's 2001 a Space Odyssey, the availability of
front screen projection technology and the government's access to movie studio
resources all suggest that faking the moon landing was technically feasible.
Some astronauts have made statements that suggest discomfort
with the official narrative.
While none have explicitly admitted deception, some have made cryptic comments
about the difference between what the public believes happened and what actually
occurred during the Apollo missions.
Whistleblowers from the film and television industry have claimed knowledge
of moon landing production activities.
While their accounts can't be independently verified, they
provide consistent details about how the footage could have been
created using available technology.
Observers from outside the United States, particularly from countries that were
competitors in the space race, have noted inconsistencies in Apollo claims.
While avoiding direct challenges that would create diplomatic
problems, their technical analyses often reveal problems that American
institutions prefer to ignore.
As always, the most important skeptics are ordinary people like you and me
who've learned to ask basic questions about evidence and methodology.
We all wanna see original footage rather than copies.
We want technical explanations rather than just appeals to authority.
We want independent verification rather than plain old institutional assurance.
These outliers demonstrate that questioning Apollo evidence isn't about
being anti-American or even anti-science.
To me, it's essential skepticism applied to extraordinary claims that have never
been independently verified by anyone.
Every one of us who asks for real evidence rather than accepting government
assurances helps to maintain the possibility of genuine scientific inquiry.
Their resistance to these outliers reveals the scope of the institutional pressure to
accept Apollo narratives without question the fact that such simple skepticism
requires such courage and often results in professional or social consequences.
Shows how completely the space establishment has captured the scientific
and cultural institutions overall.
So what does this all mean?
Well, I think understanding the questionable evidence for the Apollo
Moon landings changes how we all evaluate government claims, scientific authority,
and spectacular achievements that can't be independently verified by anyone.
Every NASA announcement then becomes a question worth examining far more
carefully because when space agencies claim new achievements or discoveries.
You will start asking for independent verification rather than just accepting
standard institutional authority.
The same organizations that may have deceived the public and the whole world
about Apollo continue making extraordinary claims about space exploration.
The phrase trust.
The science should become insufficient when the science
involves claims that can't be reproduced or independently verified.
Real science not only welcomes questions, it actually stems from questions and
provides real quantifiable evidence.
Meanwhile, fraudulent science demands pure faith and punishes
skepticism at any level.
Government achievements will take on a new significance when you understand how
political pressure can and will create powerful incentives for deception.
When failure is politically unacceptable and the technology exists to fake
success, then extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Rather than just simple, patriotic faith, the importance of independent
verification becomes clear.
When you realize how completely government institutions control
space research, when only NASA and its contractors can access space
technology, examine evidence and publish findings, the potential for systematic
deception increases dramatically.
Media coverage of space events become suspect when you understand
how institutional access creates incentives for uncritical reporting.
News outlets that depend on NASA for space stories have powerful reasons to
avoid challenging space agency claims.
Educational content about space exploration takes on new significance.
When you understand how early indoctrination shapes lifelong beliefs.
Children who are taught Apollo stories as unquestionable fact
develop emotional investments in those narratives that make adult
questioning psychologically difficult.
Hmm.
It's curious how this aligns so closely with the dinosaur discussion
we just had in the last episode.
Right.
Pattern recognition becomes more important than individual mission analysis.
When the same problems appear across the entire Apollo program, destroyed evidence,
impossible technology, photographic anomalies, unreproducible achievements.
Recognizing the pattern helps you understand that you're dealing with a
far more systematic deception rather than just some isolated problems.
Most importantly, you realize that government authority isn't
automatically legitimate and that spectacular achievements can be faked
when the political stakes are high enough and the technology exists to
create convincing enough deceptions.
Look, the goal here isn't to reject all space exploration or to even
dismiss the possibility that humans might someday travel to the moon.
The goal is just to demand the real evidence versus accepting government
assurances to ask hard questions rather than just trusting in authority and to
maintain scientific skepticism rather than maintaining blind patriotic faith.
When you understand that the Apollo moon landings may have been the greatest
television production in history, rather than the greatest achievement in human
history, you can start to make far more informed decisions about what government
claims deserve your total acceptance and what claims might just require a
bit more evidence to earn your trust.
They told you it was one giant leap for mankind.
What if it was just one giant leap for television?
The most watched moment in human history performed on the most sophisticated
sound stage ever built, directed by the same people who brought you the Cold
War and the military industrial complex.
I've traced this story from corporate conference rooms to
Hollywood studios, from NASA facilities to television networks.
The same techniques we use to tell epic stories and to sell products
got scaled up to sell the impossible dream of human space travel.
We supposedly went to the moon six times between 1969 and 1972, and
then just never ever went back.
We supposedly just lost the technology.
We accidentally destroyed the evidence and suddenly, whoops.
We recorded over the footage.
The greatest achievement in human history quickly became the
greatest mystery in human history.
The Van Allen Radiation Belts that NASA admits we still can't safely traverse.
The lunar module that looks like tinfoil and curtain rods, the flagwaving in the
lunar wind where there's no atmosphere.
The shadows falling in multiple directions like studio lighting, the perfect
illumination in areas that should be pitch Black Stanley Kubrick showed
us how to fake space travel in 1968.
Then NASA showed us quote unquote, real space travel in 1969.
The technology was identical.
The timing was perfect.
The political pressure was enormous, and the financial incentives were massive.
But wait, we're not allowed to ask questions.
Questioning the moon landing makes you a tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist
anti-science, and ultimately makes you unpatriotic the same institutions that
lied to you about everything else.
Then demanded your unquestioning faith about their greatest claimed achievement.
Hmm.
But
yeah,
nothing to see here.
The original evidence was destroyed.
The technology was lost, the blueprints disappeared.
All that remains is that grainy footage, and of course, government
assurances of its legitimacy when you can't reproduce the achievement
and the evidence has been eliminated.
I don't think you're looking at science of any kind.
Nope.
You're looking at faith.
The greatest show on Earth wasn't performed under the big top.
It was performed in a television studio broadcast to 650 million people and
sold as the greatest triumph of human achievement over quite impossible odds.
They didn't take us to the moon.
They took us for a 239,000 mile ride and back again multiple times.
The official story is that we went to the moon and came back.
The real story is that we went to Hollywood and we just never left.
One small step for man, one giant leap for television.
Tracy out
if this story didn't sit right with you.
Good.
You are not here to be comforted.
You are here to see what others overlook.
Thanks for exploring some unapproved thinking.
Learn more@someunapprovedthinking.com.
New episodes, drop weekly.
Subscribe, share, and keep questioning because the pattern's still playing out.
And next time we're going deeper.