Ferdinand Santos’ list of logistical and technical points and questions is extensive, comprehensive and, unique, at least that I know of. His academic resume gives him the bona fides to speak to such specifics with competency, but some of what he mentions, like where the parachutes, very heavy and big, were stored, would not even need such credentials, just good observational skills.
I’ve never heard anyone else cover these points about basic things like fuel supply, battery power, re-entry heat, speed, g-forces, radiation, communications, trip duration, hygiene, the parachutes, et al, not to this extent and in this way.
The existing documentaries and scholarship about Apollo, the well-known analyses of photos, light and shadows ‘on’ and ‘from’ the Moon; the definitely faked image of the Earth from ‘halfway to the Moon’ footage in the darkened cabin of the capsule; the ‘lost’ and recorded-over Apollo telemetry data and the ‘destroyed’ technology that needed to be re-invented-discovered-built since Apollo; the challenge of the Van Allen belts which still needed solving, according to NASA, many years post-Apollo before men could safely be sent to the Moon; and various other anomalies and likely deal-breakers surrounding the Apollo ‘missions’ alone already make it unavoidable that an open mind will consider and probably conclude that they were likely staged, and could not have been otherwise, but adding Santos’ analysis of both Apollo and Artemis makes their narratives cartoonish in their implausibility.
Santos has other articles on his SS page about the Apollo specifics, and he did two recent interviews with filmmaker (Jones’ Plantation, Barnum World) and webcast host, Drew Treglia:
On Artemis: https://maverickinthemachine.podbean.com/e/artemis-ii-dark-side-of-the-moon-bugaloo-dr-santos-is-back/
Most relevant, however, as to remedy and good news, the focus of this website, I consider any civil discussion of reasonable and plausible counter-narratives and unknown or as yet unconsidered information, about any and every topic, to be an exceptionally good thing, a very positive harbinger of a potential future society and world, and a necessary precursor to practical remedy.
Second, and specifically, NASA and its works are beyond suspect, with a thick air of impropriety and implausibility surrounding them. That would be enough with any other association in life to sever it. One should not need to prove or argue every tiny detail of every single narrative over and over and over, which only happens because one is in a mandatory club against one’s will in association with people not of one’s choosing. One would simply sever ties when satisfied of impropriety or implausibility, or even the likelihood of either, or would simply never join the ‘club’ in the first place.
I believe remedy begins with the contemplation and acceptance of that principle.
What would be NASA’s fate if all those who who were not convinced of its merit or authenticity were no longer supporting it, felt only as much association with it as they would with SpaceX or Blue Origin, that is, none beyond possible curiosity? I think that’s probably a much saner and very different world.