I 100% believe that we went to the moon but Dr. Keating this seems rushed 🤷♂️ I think Joe did a decent job constantly having to tell Bart “I’m steel-manning” the other side. Bart is just a weird guy who seems extremely married to his ideas and it came across all during the podcast. We can criticize the origins of NASA all we want but no doubt we have learned a great deal from our small departure from this planet! Cheers 🍻
radiation? And why did they blatantly fake some footage? Come on, Brian. Stop throwing around the conspiracy theorists BS. You're better than that. Maybe these people don't want to debate when they just get labelled a conspiracy theorist. I just want to know #1 how did they get through all that radiation #2 why did they fake so much of the footage #3 why were all the blueprints and vital information on the missions destroyed
radiation? And why did they blatantly fake some footage? Come on, Brian. Stop throwing around the conspiracy theorists BS. You're better than that. Maybe these people don't want to debate when they just get labelled a conspiracy theorist. I just want to know #1 how did they get through all that radiation #2 why did they fake so much of the footage #3 why were all the blueprints and vital information on the missions destroyed
@@CT99234 Can you give an actual historical evidence. I am not sure history is the appropriate vehicle to demonstrate an axiom or potential axiom is false, but assuming it is, I see history largely on the side of the axiom here.
@@PhonyPhoniPhoné I think that is the wrong question for people to ask. We should all be on the side of truth, and there would be less hoaxes and less conspiracies if people were more trained and focused on discerning what is true, rather than taking sides.
When Keating started off arguing semantics of the term, "electrical light" he immediately lost credibility. This was a distraction from relevant facts.
@@DrBrianKeating I posted a comment earlier. It informed you how your claims of the magnetometer findings being corroborated by the moon rocks were contradicted by an article from Popular Mechanics. They say the moon rocks show the complete opposite of what you claimed. Can you confirm who is correct? You, or the Popular Mechanics article. Neither of you is a moon landing denier, so you won't be able to use character attacks against them. You'll have to actually make your case. Hopefully you respond to this contradiction, unless you are more interested in sensationalism than debate?
@@DrBrianKeating You waffled endlessly and jumped around between issues. You did not refute any of his points either. You claim he only showed one picture. Then you just wave a newspaper around claiming it is first hand evidence, you showed 0 pictures. Why don't you upload some clear photos that everyone can look at from this newspaper. Why don't you explain what's going on with the shadows? You dismissed the radiation which is actually a serious issue as harmless Search: "Artemis 1 moon mannequins unpacked from Orion spacecraft (photos)"
Its hard for me to listen to your counter arguments when you begin by insulting Joe and Bart right away. It is weird that people like you get so emotional about this topic.i dont think you would be a good fit for a discussion with Joe and Bart, not because of your intelligence but because you are being disrespectful. Not a good idea to start clowning joe either because he is a professional comic who would do really good at clowning you back and it would not be fair. Nevertheless i will try and get through the rest of this video. Off to a bad start already though
This video was not thorough and not well articulated. Go check out some of Dave McKeegan’s videos. He has loads of videos debunking the fake moon landing theory and flat earth. He did a video specific to the Bart Sibrel podcast as well.
It was about radiation not magnetic force. Obama himself said that "we are trying to develop technology, friendly to astronauts, to be able to cross the radiation belt".
@mfkh9421 Oh, well, if that eminent aerospace engineer Obama says it, it must be true...... yes, there is an issue with "crossing the Belts" in NEW , UNTESTED spaceships, which employ NEW, UNTESTD electronics; carrying crews on months-to-years long missions - as opposed to Apollo's 12 days or less; the new crews shielded by new, lighter, but UNTESTED rad shielding, those crews subject to lower allowed rad exposure limits. I'm sure aerospace engineer Obama new all of this, but just forgot to mention it all.....
I don’t agree with a lot of what Bart has said but your arguments need to be better before you debate him. 1. The flag argument, he wasn’t referring to the flag standing to attention because he didn’t realise there was a rod holding it up. I think anyone would / could see that a rod is threaded through. His argument is more about how it “waves in the wind”. I know you say it’s because of the vibrations from the astronauts and the they of atmosphere, however I’d like to hear the explanation as to why the “wave” slows down and speeds up at points whilst the astronauts aren’t near it. Otherwise he’s point could still be valid. 2. The van allen belt, he covers why astronauts on the ISS and previous missions aren’t affected by it, I believe he states it starts x000miles away, almost like a doughnut, so wouldn’t affect the ISS and more to do with heading much further out. 3. Time delay for talking, he covers this. His argument is quite compelling, he accepts that there should be a time delay, he asks why there is a voice stating “talk”. Could the voice be a button that the astronauts pressed that made them aware that their voice was being broadcast? 4. I agree, people got bored of the moon, it became expensive, waste of tax payers money etc. nothing to gain to keep going back, mars was a step too far at that point in time. I don’t have the time to go through the full video, but your arguments need to be better before you debate him. He makes valid points. Maybe NASA did fake some photos? Doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. The biggest tell for me was that Russia would have been tracking that rocket the entire time, it would have been exposed as a fraud back then, his argument that NASA is being blackmailed has no foundation as we don’t know the source.
@@DrBrianKeating The footage he was talking about showed the flag wave when an astronaut simply walked past it. That seems to indicate that there was air. Did you even watch the thing you are trying to debunk? Also, your comment is total nonsense even if we were talking about atmospheric wind. According to you, a studio would be less likely to have wind than the moon? Get out.
Also what about the fact that he said that they use their knowledge of the fake landing to black mail the US government.....and what about the A.i that when asked about the pictures and videos even said it was fake 🤔
@@David-r6c8l The flag only moved due to the astronauts manipulating it into position or from venting from the LM when they were pressurising/depressurising the cabin between moonwalks, and when conducting RCS thrusting tests prior to lift off. Without air drag, these movements caused the free corner of the flag to swing like a pendulum for some time. The fluttering went on for a while due to no wind resistance in a vacuum.
I think you're under appreciating how good Rogan is at getting his guests to be comfortable and give their point of view. Why are you trying to insult the dude by joking about him smoking a moon rock? He openly suggested having a debate with someone like you. Be cool Dr.
@tcl5853 exactly, he has always been one to buy into or give creadance to conspiracy theories. He's an excellent podcaster and I like most of his material, but he doesn't need to be put on some sort of pedastal.
@tcl5853 Joe may have started off not knowing lunar science from lunacy, but those days are long gone. You can watch his interview with Neil de Grasse Tyson where Neil broke policy and explained the science to him and showed him how the conspiracy is rubbish.
point of views and opinions and beliefs are not truths. They need to be validated. Anyone can say the moon is made of cheese, anything is possiblw when you just make shi* up. Be Cool? How about Be Sane?
exactly. WHen Brian said that I was thinking...wow, straw man argument. Now we are debating the semantics of artificial light, when what was meant was clear and obvious, and this nullifies the claims how??? I suspect we did land on the moon, but there are several issues that NASA has explained poorly and inconsistently over time, and I would like to know why without having the questions derailed by false logic and distractions. My guess is we went to the moon but had falsified footage to provide a greater impact visually and eliminate the possibility of failure in a must win scenario. If it was a hoax, I don't know why they would have gone back, but then again, not sure why they went back if it wasn't a hoax either. Very expensive repeat experiment.
@@ludviglidstrom6924 Brian was being pedantic and now you're being equally so. Although it would be perfectly correct to say that all light is electromagnetic waves we colloquially refer to artificial and natural light sources, and technically n many fields such as photography. I don't see any reason why it is any different to refer to light as electrical, in this situation, with reference to the means of producing the light. Making fun of this use of terminology when it was clearly colloquial, and implying some didn't ask because of it, this is just another straw man fallacy, or a definite fallacy...take your pick of the two, as I don't care at all which way you want to be inconsequential.
OK, so since Sibrel doesn't use the term "artificial light", it must therefor be natural sunlight. What is the relevance of your possession and sharing of a "moon rock"? The VA radiation belts don't effect lower Earth orbit. You are winging it Dr.
Brian i would like you to explain about the radiation and what measures were taken to protect the astronauts and also please explain how much fuel was needed for the trip.
The Apollo astronauts were not significantly harmed by radiation during their missions because they traveled through the Van Allen radiation belts quickly, limiting their exposure time, and the spacecraft provided a shield against most of the radiation.
The lethality of the van Allen belts is completely wrong and full of misinformation. If you want an explanation look it up yourself and if you claim otherwise then you have the behavior and logic of a flat earther but about the moon. Conspiracy theorist these days assume things without doing the research themselves. Ever heard of gravity and slingshot maneuvers? Not to mention the lack of resistance and that the rocket was using 3 stages to achieve the feat. I would like to know why you are so against human achievement. It is also hilarious that you conspiracy theorist think they are leaving clues behind so they can be exposed rather than make an effort to hide it. That is conspiracy logic. You want to know the amount of fuel needed? Just under 950,000 pounds and no it isn't the typical fuel. It is liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. The third and final stage of liftoff required 66,700 gallons of liquid hydrogen and 19,359 gallons of liquid oxygen. Do your research before making bold conspiracy claims in the form of questions.
@@Vic-cv3dfthe van Allen belts are not as lethal as conspiracy theorist claims and it does not cover the entire earth like an entire layer. Also rocket science is not his strong suit so explaining how the rocket was able to achieve the feat is a waste of time. He is just another conspiracy theorist.
you forget the MOST important thing. THE possibility of the landing without any problems 5 times. With no real testing, first time all perfect scenario
There were plenty of problems throughout, like Armstrong's last second boulder dodging or the circuit breaker issue that nearly stranded Apollo 11, just none that completely derailed everything except Apollo 13. And even if there really weren't, can you understand how "everything went perfectly except the time everyone almost died" is a little selective?
Apollo 11 was the first of the "Apollos" to actually intend a landing. The previous and subsequent flights weren't "fails" as someone said here, beside Apollo 1 (whose crew died in an accident during testing) and Apollo 13 turning from a landing mission to a flyby. The last Apollo to go to the Moon was Apollo 17, and there were 6 landings in total. It's all documented to the point that it's incredibly irrational to argue against it. You could argue that your own birth was fake while you're at it.
“The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious & entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense.” James Van Allen
POINT 1. If you are the same Keating who is a professor at UCSD, then your university's web site says that your research is funded by (1) NASA, (2) the NSF, (3) United States Antarctic Program, and (4) others. What would happen to your funding if you agreed with Bart Sibrel ? Don't you have a conflict of interest ? POINT 2. Sibrel wrote a book entitled "Moon Man." It is available from an on-line seller whose name is similar to "Amazing." That on-line seller posts reviews. One reviewer, named "Z8," claims to be a 24-year veteran of the USAF. Z8 states, in paragraph 5, that (1) liftoff from the moon, plus (2) subsequent docking with an orbiting command ship, is a process he calls "rejoining." Z8 states that he has practiced "rejoining" in aircraft. Z8 states that "rejoining," on the moon as described by NASA, is "beyond ridiculous." Z8 states: "Six times, without a hitch. No." POINT 3. There are web sites which set out images taken by spy satellites. The spy satellites orbit at about 100 miles above the earth, but they must look through the atmosphere. One site, named 38north, followed by org, shows an impressive satellite photo. You can distinguish semi-trailer trucks from pick-up trucks and from ordinary cars. NASA's LRO, Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, orbits at 31 miles above the moon, and there is no atmosphere. NASA claims that the LRO has found the landing sites of the Apollo craft, but the images are ludicrously crude, in view of those demonstrated by 38north. Restated: 38north demonstrates that discernable photos are available from the LRO, but NASA apparently fails to provide them.
I won't bother with point 1 and the desperate grasping at straws. Point 2: The only "joining" that aircraft perform is mid air refueling. It is a process complicated by winds and the eddies that the lead aircraft generates. In space, there are no such external forces acting on the craft, and each will move at a constant velocity and continue in the same direction until one or the other fires a thruster. The target vehicle can be considered stationary, and the rendezvousing vehicle moves to join it. All that is required is patience and a means of measuring relative velocity, either radar or a trained human eye. Point 3: You're talking apples and oranges. The recon satellite is fitted with high-resolution, narrow field of view lenses to observe objects. The LRO was intended for mapping the surface and was fitted with wide-angle lenses for landscape work.
He falls into just repeating the same lines and attacking people's intelligence like all people like him, without actually giving an individual thought.
@@onlyonewhyphy I didn't watch this video (opened just to see the comments), but I think 4:05 is when the author of this video uses the fact that USSR didn't say it was fake as an argument. In response to this, the guy in this comment is pointing out that Sibrel explained why USSR did not expose the fraud. What I want to know is what argument Sibrel used. There is a documentary that provides as an explanation the fact that, if USSR presented proof that it was fake, media would just convince people that the Soviets fabricated it because they were butthurt (which indeed is probably what would happen).
@@ThomasVWorm obvious? How? Do you think several car batteries from 1960 is enough to run air conditioning for a few days? It's not just a tad warm up there, it's incredible temperatures and the air con was supposedly ran at perfect temperature all the way there and back.. in the 60's... Come on.. you couldn't do that today with several car batteries
@@ThomasVWormmy god, watching the believers talk to the unbelievers is exactly like watching Zealots try to convince Atheists. Leave your smug arrogance at the door and you might elicit some fairness in people's responses...
At 24:15, you start talking about how the moon rocks have proved the moon has a magnetic field. That immediately made me think of an article I read from Popular Mechanics. Here are some excerpts that completely contradict what you are saying: "...scientists say they can show the moon hasn’t had a magnetic field for at least the last 4 billion years-chipping away at a longtime argument over whether the moon ever had a magnetic field at all. Their evidence comes via specimens gathered during the Apollo missions decades ago." "So scientists used samples gathered from the Apollo missions decades ago, made of the right kind of material to register magnetic activity, like the car paint or nail polish. The Apollo samples, formed at ∼3.9, 3.6, 3.3, and 3.2 billion years ago, don’t show any evidence of core dynamo activity-the telltale behavior indicating the presence of a magnetic field. (A dynamo is a spinning electrical generator, like the spinning, iron core of the Earth.) There’s a second step to the research, too. That’s for scientists to show that the moon’s surface shows evidence the moon has been consistently blasted by solar winds-something the magnetic field would protect against." So who is correct on this particular issue then? You in your so far WILDLY inaccurate and misleading video? Or them over at Popular Mechanics? If the magnetometers claim a lunar magnetic field, but the rocks don't, doesn't that warrant scrutiny? I assume you'll say not. Your video just gets worse as it goes on...
The Moon does not currently have a dipolar magnetic field like Earth does. Its magnetic field is very weak in comparison. The primary difference lies in the fact that the Moon’s magnetization is almost entirely crustal in location. Lunar rocks formed 1 to 2.5 billion years ago were created in a field of about 5 microtesla (μT), whereas present-day Earth’s magnetic field is around 50 μT1. During the Apollo program, magnetic field strength readings ranged from 6γ (6nT) to a maximum of 313γ (0.31μT) at different sites. Some hypotheses suggest that the Moon acquired its crustal magnetizations early in its history when a geodynamo was still operating. However, it’s also possible that transient magnetic fields were generated during large impact events. Recent observations indicate that high paleofield strengths from Apollo samples may record impacts rather than a core dynamo. Regardless, the Moon’s current lack of a long-lasting magnetic field has implications for its volatile resources and geological history1
@@jimpresser3438 You fail to recognize or even address the point here. Like Dr Keating, you have not debunked a thing. You have just typed words. Dr Keating said that the rocks corroborated the findings of the magnetometer allegedly left by the astronauts, but Popular Mechanics says the opposite. Are you able to inform us who is correct? Keating or Popular Mechanics? Please don't supply a Dr Keating level of response, you must actually substantiate your claims. A link or the name of your source will suffice.
Brian, first off, this is coming from a huge fan. I first saw you on JRE, and have been a follower ever since. Great channel, great content. But I want to share some feedback. If Bart or Joe do take you up on your offer, it is imperative that you approach the debate in the right way. Flint Dibble was so successful in his debate with Graham Hancock because he refused to make it a personal thing. He went in prepared with facts upon facts. He responded to Graham's claims on a factual basis. You may notice that what Graham did was try to drag Flint in to the mud of personal attack; but Flint didn't take the bait. This is the master level approach. Do not make it personal. While Bart's claims may be ridiculous, he may be besmirching the name of Nasa and well meaning scientists, don't make it about that. Make it ONLY about the scientific claims. It is too tempting to assume that he is a fool, or he is a charlatan, or ridiculous. All those things may be true, but as soon as you dip your argument in to talking about him in any way, you cede ground. You give him ammunition to make it about being silenced, etc etc. You drag the argument exactly where he wants it: unprovable ground. You are a principled scientist who cares about the facts; Bart is not. He only cares about proving his conclusion. So, he will say anything and take the conversation in any direction that keeps you from disproving his conclusion. Make it about the facts, facts, facts. Flint took 2 weeks vacation to prepare for his debate with Graham. He talked to other experts who helped him assemble his refutation. He came with slides upon slides. He made it a stipulation of his coming on JRE that he was able to go first, and present his case. It is my recommendation to you to do the same thing. This conversation has too much reach to be taken lightly. It is important. My 2 cents on the matter. Good luck brother.
@@ricodelta1 I guess that is the rub with debates like this. Some people see it as Flints job to do the convincing; when it is people like graham who are making the big claims with zero evidence. It’s the power of storytelling I suppose.
@@marcusedvalson "zero evidence"? That's not accurate. Graham has plenty of evidence. Whether or not it's credible and verifiable evidence is another matter.
I appreciate your intellectual prowess, love consuming your content, but this missed the mark. You seem far to personally aggrieved on this topic. You can enlighten the public on facts without constant childish insults.
Got you hear you, but like he states in the beginning he’s essentially giving himself permission to just allow his full human response to come out without a tempered tongue.
Perhaps because having to defend the moon landings is a patently absurd proposition in the first place? It's on par with defending the fact that the Holocaust actually happened.
My god, don't try to debate him, he will rip you to pieces. I watched the moon landing and remember it quite well, it was my most admired event in my life up until then, being very interested in science and space. If you look at it with a rational mind it is nearly impossible to believe that they went. The technology was in its infancy, they got it right in the first go? and then 4 more times without incident, and then decided to stop because they were bored with it? on the dawn of space travel and oh well that's enough for 50 years, give me a break, oh an the government doesn't lie or do other nasty things, open your eyes.
*_"If you look at it with a rational mind it is nearly impossible to believe that they went."_* Correct - known science is not a question of 'belief'. *_"The technology was in its infancy"_* Specifically, what technology was lacking? *_"they got it right in the first go?"_* The success of Apollo was built upon the foundations of the Mercury and the Gemini Programmes. Moreover, aside from the unmanned testing and validation, Apollo 8 which journeyed to the moon, Apollo 9 that tested the LM, Apollo 10 was a dress-rehearsal for the landing and took the LM to within a mere 47,000 ft of the lunar surface. *_"and then 4 more times without incident"_* So you claim to be knowledgeable about "science and space" but you didn't know that there were a further five landings or of the near catastrophic Apollo 13 mission? Furthermore, each Apollo mission was fraught with risk, danger and technical problems. Some of them serious, others not so much. It is testament to the redundancies engineered into the programme and the expertise, ingenuity and diligence of the astronauts and the personnel on the ground that a crew was not lost. *_"and then decided to stop because they were bored with it?"_* They had achieved the objective and Congress were no longer willing to provide the obscene levels of funding necessary to sustain the Programme. As a result it was prematurely cancelled and with it, Apollo 18, 19 and 20. *_"oh an the government doesn't lie or do other nasty things, open your eyes."_* "The government"? Which one? There are over 200 independent national governments worldwide. And meanwhile the crap online conspiracy theory that you yourself trust is entirely and unfailingly honest, unwaveringly accurate and consistent, not in the least bit intentionally deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic monetised or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is completely free of vested interest and agenda? Righto then. Of course governments can lie, deceive and conspire. No one in their right mind would suggest otherwise. But simply because they do that does not then logically follow that claims of faked moon landings or any random conspiracy theory of one's arbitrary choosing, devising or consequence of personal bias/agenda should automatically be assumed to be true. A lazy syllogistic logical fallacy.
You don't have a rational mind, you don't understand how the technology behind it works, you don't understand their reasons for not going back, all you have is your preconceived bias towards not believing they went there because you just don't want to believe and you are ignorant. Keep flaunting your ignorance and lack of understanding of the subject as if you're making solid points.
Other countries didn't go because they couldn't afford it. The 4% of the US annual budget that was spent on the landing effort was equal to about half of any other country's annual budget.
@@alejandroberrios4756 India landed an UNMANNED robotic probe weighing maybe 2000 pounds. That's a LOONNGG way from the 40,000 pounds that the Apollo spacecraft weighed. India still has to climb the same technological mountain that defeated the Soviets.
@@marksprague1280 the OP didn’t say anything about manned or unmanned craft going to the moon, he/she just assumed no other countries have been to the moon, I provided an example demonstrating that in fact another country has landed a spacecraft on the moon. Manned or unmanned isn’t relevant.
No, I agree. Making a video calling crackpots people who legitimately challenge one of most important achievements in human history doesn’t take you anywhere. I have no problem with the moon landing official story, but to deny that there are no enormous issues with the moon landings is quite disingenuous
People who get defensive and respond with irrelevant insults usually have something to hide. Having said that, I don't think this guy has anything to hide, he really it's reacting like an initially immature teenager, just like the new genZ who have been mentally conditioned into never asking any questions, never doubting what they are told but blindly repeating it, even when what they are told is that a man can get pregnant (for example). We live in unthinking times, a time of groupthink where the act of questioning is considered offensive, practically heresy, even when you're questions are scientifically sound, how dare you ask! Really REALLY bad times for science.
I'm genuinly interested in listening to real reasoning. No question is too stupid to ask, and therefore I find it very problematic when you try to debunk conspiracy claims by starting off the conversation by calling people crackpots. That's one thing I really admired with Stephan Molyneaux's discussion with a flat earther. Instead of just calling him an idiot, he kept asking questions until the flat earth guy couldn't give any more explainations. I don't give a crap if the Earth is flat or not, but at least we're having a serious discussion and reasoning. The moon landing is a sensitive topic, but the reason people start questioning it, is because the best argument for the landing is that NASA is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and therefore we did it. That's not a proof, it's just blind national chauvinism.
Why such a hand waving dismissal of the Van Allen radiation zone. Why did you not calculate? All the data you need is there, shielding, time inside, velocity, exposure.
Well, for one theing, Dr. James A. Van Allen, the discoverer of the Belts which bear his name, was absolutely clear that Apollo was entirely real..... If that doesn't entitle us to dismiss Hoaxer claims about VAB radiation, WHAT WOULD?
Could you clarify what you're suggesting? Are you implying that telemetry tapes from a mission that consumed 8% of the US budget were repurposed? That seems quite far-fetched. We've preserved film reels from the 1920s, so why would we not save these important tapes?
What a lot of people miss is that even up to the 70s when I started in computing, magnetic tapes were only a temporary method for holding data, where that data would then be printed out onto paper as a hard copy to be archived, where it can be copied multiple times and distributed as required, and therefore the magnetic tapes would be wiped and ready for new data.
I watched the moon walk live at an outback school (Yetman Primary School) around midday NSW time on the 20th July 1969 (we are a day ahead of course), Australia. The moon walk was received by the Parks radio telescope using Australian owned equipment and personal. The broadcast was live from Parks received before the rest of the world. The broadcast started with the first 2 minutes from Hunnysuckle Creek (replaced with the DSN Tidbinbilla facility today) NASA sponsored dish near Canberra, to the Parks dish (CSIRO) for the rest of the 2 Hour moon walk, you can see in the broadcast an improvement in the quality on the switchover to Parks. The Parks dish is 538 wavelengths across at 2200 MHz so has a beamwidth of 0.13 degrees. The moon is 0.5 degrees wide, so if it wasn't pointing at the moon or even the correct part of the moon, then there wouldn't be anything received. Australian technicians, engineers and scientists have no interest in some dumb conspiracy, let alone the US taxpayer and 400,000 brilliant US individuals that made Apollo possible.
Yup it's hard to argue with that. Then again some people think the earth is flat or hollow like the moon. And miracles happen. Yet bad things happen to good people all the time.
Facts. They matter. I always mention this to the conspiracy people but I wasn´t actually there. Nice to hear from someone who witnessed it first hand. Thanks for sharing. cheers!!
@@manueloliveira200what about all the 'facts' we were told during Covid that all turned out to be lies. I can list quite a few of them. We have a trust issue, plenty of conspiracies have turned out to be true.
the same way russia, china and USA is at each others throats but still join up when it comes to space station? they are playing you. money laundering. owning the lands while you work and pay them
That does not prove. Suppose it was indeed fake, and suppose the Soviets provided proof of it. A very likely outcome: USA and Western media would claim their proof is falsified and would not recognize it (because admiting the fraud would be much worse for USA). The Soviets would come out as butthurt liers. Plus, there is the possibility of an agreement the Soviets would made in exchange for something (part of the money that was said to be destined to the program, maybe?). I'm not claiming that's what happened; I'm saying that, supposing it was fake, the fact that USSR did not present proof of it can be plausibly explained, and thus is not a proof, and not even a very strong evidence.
Here's a question, if it's so easy to send astronauts through the van Allen radiation belt (just a small bit of aluminum should do the trick) why hasn't anyone else sent someone there much less the moon? The Soviets were the first to put up a satellite, put a man into space, and had much more time recorded in space. Why would they not at least fly someone halfway to the moon?
Bart did not knowing leave a microphone but accidently left it there after being literally kicked out of the astronaut's home. Bart showed the astronaut the film of them faking the shot of the earth through the window. The astronaut threatened Bart with a Lawsuit if he would make it public. Bart essentially said so sue me. Bart was physically assalted and thrown out of the house. Bart heard from his car, the astronaut's son suggest to having Bart whacked. Bart had to go back to pick up the microphone.
This was pretty underwhelming. As expected, you didn't rebut the best arguments. Yes, 99.99% of the photo and video evidence is consistent with expectations. The conspiracy/simulation theory hinges on the anomalies. The motivation to take the moon missions was to win the cold war, according to proponents. The soviets were ahead of the Americans in virtually all aspects of space and rocket tech. There is a nice documentary called 'The Engines that came in from the cold' showing how NASA engineers were shocked by how advanced Russian rocket tech was, decades ahead of the US. 1. **First and foremost, you never addressed Sibrel's primary evidence, namely, the video footage showing the astronauts 'faking' being halfway to the moon**. 2. Re: the flag, nobody doubts the flag on the moon would have waved when touched. The argument is that there is video footage showing it suddenly start to move even when nobody touches it, I believe mostly from Apollo 15, and 17. 3. Re: the shadows. Yes, the term 'electrical light' sounds ridiculous, but you didn't even address or attempt to explain the anomalous photos wrt to the shadows. This is covered in detail in the conspiracy film 'American Moon', which is probably the best version of the conspiracist arguments I've seen. And no, 'mythbusters' did not debunk this. Terrain doesn't explain these photos. A debunking would show how you can get close to 90 degree shadows from nearby objects in relatively flat terrain using only the sun, where the sunlight is coming from the side (i.e. not vertical, not a result of perspective). Some photos show shadows and patterns of illumination consistent only with a single close, artificial stage light or else multiple artificial lights. 4. Re: the moon rocks; moon rocks exist on earth too, like in Antarctica, and they can be picked up by unmanned missions. This isn't evidence at all that humans went to the moon. 5. Re: the 'retroreflectors'. I think this is a pretty good argument. The skeptics argue that: a) people were bouncing lasers off the moon way before the Apollo moon missions, and b) you can put them on the moon with unmanned missions, as apparently the Soviets did, so this isn't evidence that the video/photographic record is authentic. 6. Re: the audio delays, contra Sibrel, the argument is that the responses are sometimes too fast, less than 2-3 seconds or whatever. Finally, and lastly,, I'll just mention that I find the argument that 'everybody would have to be in on it' is pretty weak. In reality, only a dozen or so people would need to know. Presumably, all those scientists thought it was real b/c there was no way to distinguish between data coming from a simulation and the real thing.
Sorry, but the intense heating that meteors endure while entering the atmosphere causes changes in their microstructure. There are more than 800 pounds of lunar soil and core samples that have been analyzed by scientists from around the globe for over 50 years, and certified to be non-meteoric and extraterrestrial in origin. Try again.
Two questions. Why, more than 50 years after the last Apollo mission in 1972, has there not been even one manned mission to the moon by any country? Why are there still no close-up photos/videos of any of the Apollo landing sites clearly showing the equipment left behind?
By 1969 there was a new generation in the White House that wasn’t interested in manned space exploration. Richard Nixon even wanted to amalgamate NASA with other government departments, and of course, Nixon never liked John Kennedy and didn’t want to prolong his legacy.
Once Apollo 11 had returned from the Moon and Kennedy's goal had been achieved, cutbacks began and continued into the early 1970’s during a widescale retreat from technology projects due to competing demands e.g. Vietnam War, economic recession, public apathy, and a grassroots Republican backlash against what was seen as an over-reaching of federal government into the nation’s affairs. It was extremely expensive; each mission cost $1 billion to put two men on the Moon for a maximum of 3 days, a sum which was not financially sustainable, and it was also extremely dangerous. Out of 12 manned Apollo missions, including a ground test, there was one catastrophic failure (Apollo 1) and a mission failure (Apollo 13), that’s a terrible ratio. The speed with which it was possible to land an American on the Moon was a function of the U.S./Soviet missile race and President Kennedy’s decision, in the face of Russian space successes, (and to save his own political reputation after the Bay of Pigs disaster) to turn the moon project into the ultimate symbol of American prestige. There was no political imperative to go back to the Moon (by any country) as there was to get there in the 1960’s Cold War, which was a completely different time, except now for commercial reasons. Even Apollo 8 commander Frank Borman said. 'Any idea that the Apollo programme was a great voyage of exploration or scientific endeavour is nuts. People just aren't that excited about exploration. They were sure excited about beating the Russians.’ Taking pictures of galaxies millions of miles away is about light gathering capacity as opposed to taking pictures of small objects on the Moon which is about resolution. Hubble or any other telescope cannot achieve the resolution to see the objects left on the moon as their mirror diameters are far too small.
I watched that Joe Rogan episode, it sent chills through me. This rebute needs to be imporved upon since I feel like it's not exactly addressing some of the concerns raised. As a simple example, Brian doesn't seem to understand the motivation for faking the moon landing, making the strawman argument that it is to increase funding for NASA. This is a failure of understanding of the psychology of the cold war. Also maybe it's correct to be angry about this, but remember the heart of science is skepticism of authority, that's why we insist on testing theories. So a scientist who loses his cool over a skeptic is a turn off. Bart, and people like him that are skeptical, are not lunatics, they might be wrong, but they are not lunatics, as far as I can tell. And they need to be disproven with cool calm facts. Don't need sarcasm, strawmans or insults. As another example, Brian says that the fact that we have lazor reflectors on the moon is great evidence we were there. But then Brain immediately undermines this evidence by stating that the Russians did the same thing, only they did it remotely. So if they can do it remotely, I would imagine we could as well. My biggest concern, being a electrical engineer, is how did they put this all together in only ten years? In ten years time they went from nothing to putting a man on the moon. Do you know how long it takes to do simple things? And not just that, what were the odds of success? If those astronauts died wouldn't that be a national tragedy so was it worth the risk when we were in a cold war with Russia? One of Bart's strongest points, other than the radiation belt, was the observation that nothing really ever works the first time. He mentions how it took some airplane hundreds of attempts to lift off the ground. How did they know that the landing craft would be able to successfully launch off the moon and then intersect with the orbiting space shuttle, on the very first time, with zero room for error, with 1960s technology, after only ten years of work? Three astronuats were killed just sitting in the spaceship, docked on Earth, when they turned it on, basically right before this happened. The only convincing evidence that The moon landing is probably the greatest triump of human history, not just technological, but also a triump of the human spirit. It is one of the greastest sources of pride we have as Americans. We need to have a debate to settle this issue, at least for me. We may have to debate this with each new generation who was not alive at the time to witness it, so be it. Remember, truth above all else.
We landed on the moon because I'm outraged and that's it. Guy, calm down, write in a meaningful way what you want to say and try again without straying into any side topics. So far it sounds like... arg arg arg blah blah blah arg arg arg.
Sorry, you doing this has lost you credibility in the way you handled debunking them.. i thought science was about facts, you clearly address each point with a pre determined bias. This wasnt well done, its a thumbs down from me and you havnt convinced me and moved the needle one little bit Im sorry
@@g13n79 with facts… all he said was “we went to the moon, period” and then got some scientific facts wrong that any high school student should know. I don’t believe we didn't go to the moon, but this was a less than average attempt, particularly from someone who calls themselves a scientist
Brian offered, but I don't think he should. It is a loony conspiracy theory, and that's it. Sibrel has absolutely zero credentials. No qualifications, a lack of the most basic scientific knowledge.
After I saw few years ago scientists who were on mainstream media denying what is written in the books of science which they read for exams just because corporations told him I started to question everything and If I want to know then I read and listen all people who are expert in that field and then I come to truth. (I don't mean on "experts" on news)
Brian Gregory Keating is an American cosmologist. He works on observations of the cosmic microwave background, leading the BICEP, POLARBEAR2 and Simons Array experiments. He received his PhD in 2000, and is a distinguished professor of physics at University of California, San Diego, since 2019. Note Doctor Keating is the Leading scientific investigator for BICEP, POLARBEAR2 and Simons Array.
Pretty unconvincing... im starting to actually beleive we DIDNT go to the moon after watching this :S Youre supposed to be an intelectual, please do better.
The footage doesnt show that at all. Bart Sibrel just made a bunch of claims with absolutely nothing to back it up. But yes, it has been easily debunked by several people. The claim is absurd to begin with, because if they were in low earth orbit when they took that footage then you would be able to see the features of the earth changing relatively quickly as the craft rapidly orbited the earth and the camera's perspective changed. The footage shows none of this so clearly they weren't in earth orbit... And second, Sibrel intentionally left out part of the original broadcast that disproves that theory. At one point the astronauts perform a scheduled roll in the command module, and you can clearly see the earth leave the edge of the window and then reappear in the opposite window after they finish the roll. You can see this in a video called "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon - Debunked - The Box Set". Start watching at about 1 hr - 33 minutes. The whole video completely debunks all of Sibrels claims, as do David McKeegan's videos.
Is it a good comparison - Moon Landing v reaching the Poles? The technology required to go to the Poles was far more primitive compared to that required for landing on the Moon. The technology for going back to the Poles improved making it easier to return after 50 years. The original technology for the first visit to the Poles from 50 years earlier had (unlike the technology for the Appolo missions) not been lost. It would be possible even today to go back to the Poles with the technology available when it was first done. Difficult, but possible. Moreover - 50 years after the alleged Moon landing - the technology available has improved almost beyond recognition - yet there still hasn't been any return to the Moon - and unlikely to be even an attempt in the reasonably foreseeable future. I don't know whether Neil Armstrong did set foot on the Moon. If he did - absolutely amazing. If he didn't -also absolutely amazing - since it required that the USA pull off one of the biggest deceptions in history. Well done either way. Et In Arcadia Ego. Paul
Rocket technology has not progressed much at all and although modern computers are far more sophisticated, they are far more vulnerable to particle radiation than those that used low density integrated circuits and magnetic core memory, both of which are extremely radiation hard. There is also no cold war imperative and no time limit placed on it by a president. The terrain will be rougher this time with longer shadows and a heavier lander. We also live in much more risk averse times. All these issues are what has caused it to take so long this time around.
I think you actually pointed out one of the reasons and it might be as simple as no interest in going there. Back then it was simply a "di.k measuring competition" and Russia lost it, was it true or not was a secondary issue. Be it real or fake, news spread all over the world and even if Russia had valid arguments to discredit this it would not matter, since credibility of a losing side is always perceived as weaker. Like any other psyops it's not the truth that matters but what the population perceives as truth, political 101
Imagine then a fleet or a ship with a captain who is taller and stronger than any of the crew but lacks proper navigation skills. The sailors, all believing they have the right to steer despite never learning the art, quarrel over control, and dismiss anyone who suggests otherwise.” In this analogy, Socrates argues that just as a skilled navigator should steer a ship, knowledgeable and trained individuals should govern a state, not amateurs chosen by popular opinion. Similarly, we should source our knowledge from true facts backed by science. It's truly sad to see so many people manipulated so easily.
WELL I CAN'T ARGUE WITH YOU ON THIS !!! That is a sound and reasonable statement indeed. The issue I see in our society, and perhaps any, is that those who rise the the ranks are NOT necessarily the most capable or trustworthy. SO I agree that the downside of democracy in any form, even the vote of a board of governs in academia or a corporate decision, is tainted by the elevation of popularity over suitability. But what mechanism shall we trust to get the suitable persons into the positions of trust. And what does this have to do with the moon landing??? I forget how we got here.
Dear professor Keating, thank you, thank you, thank you. I'm just a laid person. I don't have any credentials but I do have god-given common Sense and for years I have said to myself how can this have been faked with human nature tendency to tell the truth, we as human beings are more adept to telling the truth than telling lies. You mean to tell me for all these years everyone held this tightly knit secret unrelated to one another just for the purpose of what professor Keating. Please don't underestimate the power of not just sensationalism but of egotism. Some people have huge egos and seek any subject because of their popularity to create controversy to increase their platform. Their agenda and their recognism. If such a word exists, get more people at get more viewers even at the expense of inventing lies. Thank you sir
57 year old engineer. My late aunt was hiking in Switzerland and watched Apollo 11 landing with a group of Swiss people. She told me that all the Swiss called it Hollywood BS as it happened. She found herself trying to defend it even then. I will always remember that. I find it difficult to believe technically how we could successfully send people there every 5 months. They golfed and they even sent a car with fenders on the wheels. Takes a real leap of faith.
Takes a real lack of knowledge. Luckily for you, having less knowledge makes incredulity far easier. For instance, the LM descent module storage quadrant area was about 4m x 4m x 4m. The fact that you think that a small folded vehicle couldn’t fit its fenders in there is…. interesting. The less you understand, the easier it is to shout ‘FAKE’. I observe this phenomenon daily. The parade of ignorant strawman arguments are always accompanied by incredulity, and vice versa.
@westnewwest4325 For "an engineer" you show a remarkable lack of technical intuition. Do a youtube search on the terms "Apollo LRV Training Simulation"; "Apollo 15 Rover Deployment"; "Moon Machines - The Lunar Rover" and you will see videos which fully answer your silly issues. 'They" didn't "play golf": ONE man, Alan Shepard, did a demo with the golf club head attached to a tool handle.
Yeah I thought same thing when I was a kid and seeing the full color photos on a newspaper. When something looks too good? It usually is. I think the landings were real, but I also think they threw in a few glamour shot type pics in -- made in a studio with perfect lighting and professional level quality cameras to capture those non-regolith everywhere type studio photographs we saw back then. Your Swiss friends have a keen eye too. It makes sense that the real pics were so awful and the good ones were the studio pics. That's why they were faked... they wanted the emotional impact of the pics, forgetting it was a lie. But that's their business... lying...
@@WeTheLittlePeople this just tells me you haven’t looked through the scans of all the film magazines. Even the few ‘cover shots’ (there would always be a few given the location and subject) are wonky and badly composed, badly lit in the original film/scans. Of course the journals and publications editors of the day had their setters crop, boost contrast and saturation for their cover pics. Even the ‘Blue Marble’ was the best of a sequence of similar shots and it was still way out of centre -frame. There were also black and white shots from the same event. Look at the original scan, it’s quite washed out. It’s the subject which stands out. Mind-blowing viewpoint of our planet. Same goes for any of the more popular pics. I have forty years of photography under my belt (30 as pro, and 20 as digital imaging consultant) and over the years I’ve enjoyed looking at and examining the highest res scans of all 6 Apollo landing missions. The whole set have been archived at Flickr Project Apollo albums. If you haven’t already, go and bookmark and work your way chronologically through the albums/film magazines one by one. Frame by frame. Then you see the reality of it. Warts and all. It’s also fun (for me) seeing the ‘signature’ of each astronaut on the pics they take. By ‘signature’ I mean style, skill, interest bias, etc. Some more competent than others. Drastically so. They did have a lot of training in taking photos, but of the 30,000 odd pics there weren’t too many keepers for popular publications. For me, as a photographer and amateur astronomer, every frame is a story of its own and equally fascinating. If you see even one with ‘studio lighting’ then please be sure to post the ID here in the comment/reply. It will be big news. Not least for having fooled every pro photographer and/or VFX expert for 50 odd years…
@@WeTheLittlePeople There are hundreds of over-exposed, under-exposed, out-of-focus, motion-blurred and poorly framed photos in the archive. Most of the photos you find in the NASA archive have been brightened and colour-balanced for publication.
Your approach here was very feminine. All emotion even just dismissing things as "just ridiculous". I think you should leave this subject to people who arent as emotionally attached because thier dad gave them moon landing posters. Prof, the conspiracy is not about your dàd ok, hes still a great guy. Let it go.
Debunk the video of the astronauts faking how far they were from Earth from within the shuttle during the mission. That is the strongest evidence and it's always conveniently left out of debunking videos.
So you trust the astronauts went to the moon. They took a video in the cabin whatever that means. Then they faked the landing videos meaning you don’t trust them also? Got it. For your information Bart’s main evidence was the photographs with electrical light. Remember he thinks it was Kubrick who did the whole thing.
That's one of Bart's more ridiculous claims. First of all, if they were in lower earth orbit, it would be obvious because you would be able to see the features of the earth changing relatively quickly as the craft rapidly orbited the earth. And second, Bart conveniently left out part of the original broadcast that completely disproves his absurd theory. At one point the astronauts perform a scheduled roll in the command module, and you can clearly see the earth leave the edge of the window and then reappear in the opposite window after they finish the roll. To see this shot, look up the video here called "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon - Debunked - The Box Set" and then start watching at about 1 hr - 33 minutes.
I’ve heard more people giving Rogan a hard time for platforming these people but I think they’re missing the point. Joe does a great job of platforming interesting people (including you) and even loons but it’s a net gain for all us budding scientists and experimentalists wanting to get to the truth. The existence of these science doubters can to some extent be attributed to a lack of scientific education.
@tcl5853Joe is not on a quest for irrefutable truth, his obsession is like most podcasters-content. Why? Eyeballs 👀 !!! Like a Black executive once said about the channel, “BET”, in response to people from the Black community complaining about the network’s content: “The ‘E’ in ‘BET’ does not stand for education”
This is sad that we have to compete with literal luna-tics in teaching history to our kids. There is a loss in credibility of our historians when people get suspicious and conspiracy minded.
I grew up during the moon mission period. I remember watching the Glenn launch and watched the live feed when Neal first stepped on the moon. My father was one of the engineer scientists who worked out the orbital mechanics of docking two spacecraft. The landing wasn't faked.
I used to work with a few of them. Every step of the entire mission has been reproduced countless times 4 decades later in independent simulations and the hardware does exist.
@@TWitherspoon seriously dude you sound like you went to moon and personally saw the foot print. There is a lot to learn dude you have to reason. to see the lies n excuses Did you know they can show a prerecorded footage and say with logos its live. or is it physically impossible? like is that a possibility or is that too hard to humans to do?
AI didn't say the videos and pics were fake. Russian propaganda made the claim AI debunked the videos and pictures. Also, AI gets things wrong all the time too.
Debate is a whole field of expertise in itself. I'd practise debating in topics that aren't so close to your heart, before exposing yourself to a debate with these guys, who will look to expose any shred of emotion as a weakness. Being able to identify flaws in epistemology and logical fallacies are skills as important as a PHD in this instance.
It’s difficult too convince people we landed on the moon, but it’s important to show the science behind it in a video like this so people can do their own research and decide for themselves, though honestly, those who believe we never went to the moon probably won’t bother looking into it. Thank you for your hard work anyway Brian!
Why cant anyone just get to the point and dish the evidence. I believe we went, but what fuels these conspiracies are people getting overly wordy and stretching 30-60 minute videos. If you wanted to end it just bring the heat without the long winded set up and drawn out conversation.
@DrBrianKeating I have a quick question: why in the thousands of hours of claimed footage of astronauts walking on the moon we never see a single impact on the moon's surface? We see the aftermath of them scarring the terrain. It is known for centuries that the moon is covered in craters. Why then when on the surface we never incidentally captured an impact? You figure if you were to set up cameras on the moon and then fast forward through that footage it should look like a light rain is occurring. Billions of particles of space debris make contact with the moon daily. Why do we never capture any impact of any size? We see the lunar dust kicked up when the astronauts are shuffling around on the alleged surface of the moon and yet never - to my knowledge - do we ever see any impact occur. Do you know of any footage or photo of an impact occurring during a lunar walk by one of the Apollo missions? P.s. Mind you meteors don't burn up before hitting the moon. The moon has no atmosphere to burn them up before impact like the Earth.
The moon's surface solidified more than 3 BILLION years ago. That cratering and dust has taken all that time to accumulate, and the majority of the collisions occurred very early on, when there was much more loose debris in the solar system. We've had cameras on the moon of for less than a century, just a miniscule moment in the moon's life. To further compound the odds, the moon has over 14,000,000 square miles of surface area, and we might have only as much as a square mile under observation. Do the math.
Maybe, but if you trust your government more than the facts, then you are justified in being Gullible. You see, I don't have enough information to believe in a moon landing to date, but I do believe that there Earth is not flat. People have different opinions. It is all about the level of information.
Do your research. It's the biggest reason the USA is so backwards. They think the world hasn't caught up with their 1960s tech. But they still haven't caught up with the rest of the worlds tech.
@@DrBrianKeating No you only touch a few points and even in those things you kinda went all over the place instead of addressing the specific point. You give NASA waay to much credit and you believe everything they say. When it comes to the moon landings its all there and it is pretty obvious to tell how fake it was. I mean come on you even went off on the term electrical light which is the same for electric light. (Any electrical component that produces light).
The delay Bart was talking about was when they were shooting a picture of the earth through the window. In the video after Houston talks there is a time delay that ends when Neal is promted to talk. Then Neal resumes talking. Bart alleges that they were in low earth orbit so they could not respond right away. Here the prompt made it look like it took time to respond to Houston.
I really don't know about this is it possible or not but I am sure what happened about Kennedy, so you take official version as a true. Obviously you take official opinion about everything as "safe and effective" in domen out of your expertise.
That's the dumbest conspiracy theory of all . Never thought much about Moon Landing theories , but to suggest that , for example , the CIA,MI5,Mossad's secret files don't contain any secret evidence of more than 2 people keeping a secret of some conspiracy . For example , Tunny and Collossus , the first digital computer for decrypting Nazi high command communications was kept secret by everybody involved and only opened up by british archives relatively recently . It's proven that the Enigma secret was being actively kept by a small group at the top of British intelligence decades after WW2 . The architecture of project orion hydrogen bombs which use very small amounts of fissionable material and high explosive to initiate thermo-nuclear detonations is still secret . The CIA refused to release the Kennedy files even though it was against the law to do so . They pressured the president into delaying their exposure . What they did release proved conspiratorial activity that had remained secret for over half a century . Anyone that thinks the government isn't in the business of keeping secrets and doesn't know how to keep a secret doesn't know anything about how government works . How many non-disclosure agreements do you think are being kept by 2 parties across America simply by the power of money ? It's such an insult to the employee's of US and British intelligence to suggest they've always blabbed . Just look at the revelations after the fall of the Berlin wall . It's not hard to not write a book about a crime you committed .
Oh , shame!! Did Keating delete my comment?? I guess since he pinned his face to a stupid denial of the history of secrecy (Collussus , Tunny, Enigma, Project Orion , The Cambridge 4 (Nope) 5 ... Oh no , it was 6 or was it closer to 15 ? Who knows except the archivist at MI5 . Kennedy files released by Trump . Kennedy files refused release by CIA against US legal statute . I said nothing about the Moon Landing and I'm not a believer in any unconventional theory about the Moon Landing , but I guess since he pinned his face to a stupid comment it was easier to delete me under the assumption that I'm some denier . People who work in intelligence take pride in keeping secrets . It's a patriotic civil service for 99.9% of people with Secret clearence .
@@milDelux I's one thing for a few people to keep some dry, mundane legit secret, for security reasons, for a little while. It's another thing entirely for 400,00 people to keep THE juciest scandal in history secret, for no reason , for many decades on end... NEVER could happen.
The start of this video is pathetic as it tries to debunk the “pathetic” critics of the moon landing. This is the argument of this commentator and how he start his defense, if you don't know that electrical light is called artificial light or man made light (bigot) you don't know what you are talking about.
And yet, it thoroughly _fails_ at proving it fake, since each and every point raised by Mazzucco is factually incorrect, and often contradicts something shown elsewhere in the same video. It's a "spot the fallacy" exercise, essentially.
9.6.2024 hello Dr Brian Keating! thanks for this video. I'm here to heal 😊 Def Leppard - Photograph (my cover version) *_I'm outa lie, outa lots_* 🙏 *_Got a photoshop, picture of_* 🌐 *_Fashion killer, I'm too much_* 💪 *_You're the only one I wanna punch_* 🤜🌐 *_I say you're fake everytime I stream_* 👨💻 *_On every page, every size of screen_* 📱💻🖥📺 *_So wild so free stay far from me_* ⚠ *_You're all I loathe, lie fantasy_* 🤮 *_Oh, look what you've done through this rotten ball clown_* 😠 *_Oh oh, look what you've done_* 😡 *_Photoshop - I don't want your..._* 🌎 *_Photoshop - I don't need your..._* 🌍 *_Photoshop - All you've got is a photoshop_* 🌏 *_But it's not enough_* 🙅♂ *_I'd be your leader, if you're there_* 👨🏫 *_Put your trust on me, if you care_* 🤝 *_Such a human, I got style_* 😎 *_I make every brain heal with a smile, oh_* 😊 *_You had some kinda hold on me_* ⛓ *_You're all washed up it's history_* 🌐🟰💩 *_So wild so free stay far from me_* ⚠ *_You're all I loathe, lie fantasy_* 🤮 *_Oh, look what you've done through this rotten ball clown_* 😠 *_Oh oh, look what you've done_* 😡 *_I gotta hate you_* 🤬 *_Photoshop - I don't want your..._* 🌎 *_Photoshop - I don't need your..._* 🌍 *_Photoshop - All you've got is a photoshop_* 🌏 *_You've gone straight off my head_* 😌
5:13 “flag… freshman high school level“ 😂😂😂😂😂. I don’t know where you went to high school but I never heard this explanation in my life. It actually always bothered me. I think it’s a good idea that you well-paid government scientists are coming back down to earth to talk to us simple people and explain to us interesting things.
Myth Busters also adressed many of these theories. Also, as a public individual, I feel you have a duty to adress these theories. Finally, I am sure Joe is open to having debunking heard, as he has been open in the past.
You subscribe to the claim that the moon landings were faked which is one of the biggest displays of misunderstanding of facts and ignorance on the internet, so how exactly would you be able to tell if he's debunked anything? You're a joke.
You subscribe to the claim that the moon landings were faked which is one of the biggest displays of misunderstanding of facts and ignorance on the internet, so how exactly would you be able to tell if he's debunked anything? You wouldn't know the truth about this if it hit you in the face.
You subscribe to the claim that the moon landings were faked which is one of the biggest displays of misunderstanding of facts and willful ignorance on the internet, so how exactly would you be able to tell if he's debunked anything?
The budget argument is very powerful. People don’t realize how much less America spends today on Space and Military now compared to the 1960s. Back in the 1960s darn near 2/3 of the federal budget was military spending. Today, we spend more on social programs. Imagine having to shoot for the moon now when everything costs more and your budget as a % of GDP is even lower than before.
That is not a powerful argument at all, you just aren't applying critical thought. If we pretend the landings were real for a moment, we can look at it like this: In the 60's, NASA was trying to figure out how to get to the moon from scratch. Everything needed to be researched, designed, and constructed. This was technology that had never existed before, so the expense would naturally be large. 25,000 firms, 400,000 workers. In addition, NASA ran 3 separate programs to learn about spaceflight before they ever allegedly touched down on the moon. Mercury, Gemini, then Apollo. Multiple different crafts, different suits, different rockets... all at a premium cost due to the revolutionary nature of the task and the innovation required by all. This doesn't even factor in why costs spiralled in the first place. Mistakes, delays, redesigns etc... Now that all that preliminary research and testing has been done, there would not be any need today for a budget as large as they had back then. All they need to do is build the craft they already designed and fly it to the moon. Simple. The fact they make weak excuses like "its too expensive" is sheer foolishness. In 60 years, the costs associated with manufacturing haven't come down at all? What a crock of cr@p. It's just an excuse to cover for the fact they never went in the first place. The budget argument is the weakest I ever heard.
Never understood why people continue to insult each other publicly when the data provided as evidence should be the only thing that is needed in this video or others that are debunking. Not insults. Not the need for name calling, mimicking etc.
Yeah the data, the science.... like hearing Fauci again. You do realise the data can be as good as the one who produces it? People swapped the meaning of science with propaganda, those are not the same thing unfortunately. Science requires repetitive confirmation of a thesis, by unrelated sources and by sources I mean researchers not new media. The fact that the herd repeats bs all over the place doesn't make bs truth especially if the actual information source is the same.
If it really pisses you off that the moon landing was faked, debate Bart for $1,000,000. Let's see where you stand unless you're scared. This will be the debate of the century. I'll chip in on the bet just to see a "layman" demolish a "scientist" on a debate.
I’m 55 now and I remember back in the day moon landing, conspiracy theorist with take me off as well, because I never thought our country would be able to do something so insane. After the last few years, I now realize my country is capable of anything. Saying that, I believe we went to the moon. The most compelling thing the guy said was maybe the Earth in the window thing.
The most compelling thing is that you can build the entire mission in matlab (and people have using the software that was running on the computers at the time) and it all works exactly as expected.
He provided ZERO proofs that they went. It's just : it's impossible they would have fake it, trust me bro! If you don't provide any proofs why would you expect people to "believe". We don't want to believe we want to know!
Do you genuinely want to know? - If so, learn about the actual science, technology and the history of the Apollo Programme instead of what junk online conspiracy theory and fraudulent grifters tell you what to think. All of the answers are out there and none of this is a question of 'belief'.
![🔴 ฟุตบอลแชมป์กีฬา 7HD แชมเปียน คัพ 2024 [รอบ 8 ทีมสุดท้าย] - ช่วงเช้า](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bXFWzzy4UJw/mqdefault.jpg)
Who has the stronger argument: me, or Bart?
the interesting question is when are you going to figure out the mathematical theory that predicts his behavior? 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔
I 100% believe that we went to the moon but Dr. Keating this seems rushed 🤷♂️
I think Joe did a decent job constantly having to tell Bart “I’m steel-manning” the other side.
Bart is just a weird guy who seems extremely married to his ideas and it came across all during the podcast.
We can criticize the origins of NASA all we want but no doubt we have learned a great deal from our small departure from this planet!
Cheers 🍻
radiation? And why did they blatantly fake some footage?
Come on, Brian. Stop throwing around the conspiracy theorists BS. You're better than that. Maybe these people don't want to debate when they just get labelled a conspiracy theorist.
I just want to know
#1 how did they get through all that radiation
#2 why did they fake so much of the footage
#3 why were all the blueprints and vital information on the missions destroyed
radiation? And why did they blatantly fake some footage?
Come on, Brian. Stop throwing around the conspiracy theorists BS. You're better than that. Maybe these people don't want to debate when they just get labelled a conspiracy theorist.
I just want to know
#1 how did they get through all that radiation
#2 why did they fake so much of the footage
#3 why were all the blueprints and vital information on the missions destroyed
You are very neglectful of the evidence showing discrepancies to the official narrative..... BS
You've lost me. The paperclip conspiracy was no conspiracy...it happened!
Exactly. If he calls a certified event such as Operation Paprclip a conspiracy theory, is he qualified to comment on this matter at all?
@@jasondelano7702 No he is not.
@@jasondelano7702well it was a conspiracy theory untill it was found out and the government come clean , so he's spot on with his analysis 👍
@@jasondelano7702 The guy dosen't seem particularly researched or very intelligent to me.
@@user-yk4gd1fl4z Not in the least bit.
It's easier to be fooled than to be told you were fooled.
Everybody plays the fool. It’s even more foolish to not admit it and double down on the foolishness.
History has taught us that your point is utterly untrue.
@@CT99234 which side are you on hoax or real?
@@CT99234 Can you give an actual historical evidence. I am not sure history is the appropriate vehicle to demonstrate an axiom or potential axiom is false, but assuming it is, I see history largely on the side of the axiom here.
@@PhonyPhoniPhoné I think that is the wrong question for people to ask. We should all be on the side of truth, and there would be less hoaxes and less conspiracies if people were more trained and focused on discerning what is true, rather than taking sides.
When Keating started off arguing semantics of the term, "electrical light" he immediately lost credibility. This was a distraction from relevant facts.
lol very open minded of you shows you can’t refute any of the technical points I made. Have a nice day
@@DrBrianKeating I posted a comment earlier. It informed you how your claims of the magnetometer findings being corroborated by the moon rocks were contradicted by an article from Popular Mechanics. They say the moon rocks show the complete opposite of what you claimed. Can you confirm who is correct? You, or the Popular Mechanics article. Neither of you is a moon landing denier, so you won't be able to use character attacks against them. You'll have to actually make your case.
Hopefully you respond to this contradiction, unless you are more interested in sensationalism than debate?
I wise man once said “Never go full retard” and you Stanley chose to do it anyways.
@@DrBrianKeating You waffled endlessly and jumped around between issues. You did not refute any of his points either. You claim he only showed one picture. Then you just wave a newspaper around claiming it is first hand evidence, you showed 0 pictures. Why don't you upload some clear photos that everyone can look at from this newspaper. Why don't you explain what's going on with the shadows? You dismissed the radiation which is actually a serious issue as harmless Search: "Artemis 1 moon mannequins unpacked from Orion spacecraft (photos)"
What he said about the waving flag sounded convincing. It made sense to me anyway.@@mikeyforrester6887
Its hard for me to listen to your counter arguments when you begin by insulting Joe and Bart right away. It is weird that people like you get so emotional about this topic.i dont think you would be a good fit for a discussion with Joe and Bart, not because of your intelligence but because you are being disrespectful. Not a good idea to start clowning joe either because he is a professional comic who would do really good at clowning you back and it would not be fair. Nevertheless i will try and get through the rest of this video. Off to a bad start already though
This video was not thorough and not well articulated. Go check out some of Dave McKeegan’s videos. He has loads of videos debunking the fake moon landing theory and flat earth. He did a video specific to the Bart Sibrel podcast as well.
couldn't agree with this more
It was about radiation not magnetic force. Obama himself said that "we are trying to develop technology, friendly to astronauts, to be able to cross the radiation belt".
I will rephrase that " TO CROSS THE RADIATION BELT MORE SAFELY ".
For a NEW mission. Wow, lol. 🙄
O'Bozo as a scientific source??????
You really ARE desperate.
@mfkh9421 Oh, well, if that eminent aerospace engineer Obama says it, it must be true......
yes, there is an issue with "crossing the Belts" in NEW , UNTESTED spaceships, which employ NEW, UNTESTD electronics; carrying crews on months-to-years long missions - as opposed to Apollo's 12 days or less; the new crews shielded by new, lighter, but UNTESTED rad shielding, those crews subject to lower allowed rad exposure limits.
I'm sure aerospace engineer Obama new all of this, but just forgot to mention it all.....
When Obama said “a little blow” he meant that’s how he got the cocaine away from him.
I don’t agree with a lot of what Bart has said but your arguments need to be better before you debate him.
1. The flag argument, he wasn’t referring to the flag standing to attention because he didn’t realise there was a rod holding it up. I think anyone would / could see that a rod is threaded through. His argument is more about how it “waves in the wind”. I know you say it’s because of the vibrations from the astronauts and the they of atmosphere, however I’d like to hear the explanation as to why the “wave” slows down and speeds up at points whilst the astronauts aren’t near it. Otherwise he’s point could still be valid.
2. The van allen belt, he covers why astronauts on the ISS and previous missions aren’t affected by it, I believe he states it starts x000miles away, almost like a doughnut, so wouldn’t affect the ISS and more to do with heading much further out.
3. Time delay for talking, he covers this. His argument is quite compelling, he accepts that there should be a time delay, he asks why there is a voice stating “talk”. Could the voice be a button that the astronauts pressed that made them aware that their voice was being broadcast?
4. I agree, people got bored of the moon, it became expensive, waste of tax payers money etc. nothing to gain to keep going back, mars was a step too far at that point in time.
I don’t have the time to go through the full video, but your arguments need to be better before you debate him. He makes valid points. Maybe NASA did fake some photos? Doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. The biggest tell for me was that Russia would have been tracking that rocket the entire time, it would have been exposed as a fraud back then, his argument that NASA is being blackmailed has no foundation as we don’t know the source.
I don’t agree. But let’s say it was filmed on a sound stage. Why would there be WIND inside a studio?! Total nonsense.
@@DrBrianKeating ever hear of a "fan"? It keeps a room cool.
@@DrBrianKeating The footage he was talking about showed the flag wave when an astronaut simply walked past it. That seems to indicate that there was air. Did you even watch the thing you are trying to debunk?
Also, your comment is total nonsense even if we were talking about atmospheric wind. According to you, a studio would be less likely to have wind than the moon? Get out.
Also what about the fact that he said that they use their knowledge of the fake landing to black mail the US government.....and what about the A.i that when asked about the pictures and videos even said it was fake 🤔
@@David-r6c8l The flag only moved due to the astronauts manipulating it into position or from venting from the LM when they were pressurising/depressurising the cabin between moonwalks, and when conducting RCS thrusting tests prior to lift off. Without air drag, these movements caused the free corner of the flag to swing like a pendulum for some time. The fluttering went on for a while due to no wind resistance in a vacuum.
I think you're under appreciating how good Rogan is at getting his guests to be comfortable and give their point of view. Why are you trying to insult the dude by joking about him smoking a moon rock? He openly suggested having a debate with someone like you. Be cool Dr.
@tcl5853 exactly, he has always been one to buy into or give creadance to conspiracy theories. He's an excellent podcaster and I like most of his material, but he doesn't need to be put on some sort of pedastal.
@tcl5853 Joe has switched sides on this topic
@tcl5853 Joe may have started off not knowing lunar science from lunacy, but those days are long gone. You can watch his interview with Neil de Grasse Tyson where Neil broke policy and explained the science to him and showed him how the conspiracy is rubbish.
It was a fucking joke, you seriously got that butt-hurt 😂.
point of views and opinions and beliefs are not truths. They need to be validated. Anyone can say the moon is made of cheese, anything is possiblw when you just make shi* up. Be Cool? How about Be Sane?
What do you mean you dont know what an electrical light is? The light from your aparment or home? Thats electrical light. Is different from the Sun
He thinks artificial light is a candle lol
@@markh441 I don't know why he made such a big deal about something so simple. We all know what electric light is
exactly. WHen Brian said that I was thinking...wow, straw man argument. Now we are debating the semantics of artificial light, when what was meant was clear and obvious, and this nullifies the claims how??? I suspect we did land on the moon, but there are several issues that NASA has explained poorly and inconsistently over time, and I would like to know why without having the questions derailed by false logic and distractions. My guess is we went to the moon but had falsified footage to provide a greater impact visually and eliminate the possibility of failure in a must win scenario. If it was a hoax, I don't know why they would have gone back, but then again, not sure why they went back if it wasn't a hoax either. Very expensive repeat experiment.
All light is electromagnetic waves, it’s all a phenomenon of electromagnetism.
@@ludviglidstrom6924 Brian was being pedantic and now you're being equally so. Although it would be perfectly correct to say that all light is electromagnetic waves we colloquially refer to artificial and natural light sources, and technically n many fields such as photography. I don't see any reason why it is any different to refer to light as electrical, in this situation, with reference to the means of producing the light. Making fun of this use of terminology when it was clearly colloquial, and implying some didn't ask because of it, this is just another straw man fallacy, or a definite fallacy...take your pick of the two, as I don't care at all which way you want to be inconsequential.
OK, so since Sibrel doesn't use the term "artificial light", it must therefor be natural sunlight. What is the relevance of your possession and sharing of a "moon rock"? The VA radiation belts don't effect lower Earth orbit. You are winging it Dr.
Brian i would like you to explain about the radiation and what measures were taken to protect the astronauts and also please explain how much fuel was needed for the trip.
bingo -- he gave no answers to the issues raised; nothing
Would it matter if he gave info you can find online by yourself?
Nothing you asked for is a secret.
The Apollo astronauts were not significantly harmed by radiation during their missions because they traveled through the Van Allen radiation belts quickly, limiting their exposure time, and the spacecraft provided a shield against most of the radiation.
The lethality of the van Allen belts is completely wrong and full of misinformation. If you want an explanation look it up yourself and if you claim otherwise then you have the behavior and logic of a flat earther but about the moon. Conspiracy theorist these days assume things without doing the research themselves. Ever heard of gravity and slingshot maneuvers? Not to mention the lack of resistance and that the rocket was using 3 stages to achieve the feat. I would like to know why you are so against human achievement. It is also hilarious that you conspiracy theorist think they are leaving clues behind so they can be exposed rather than make an effort to hide it. That is conspiracy logic. You want to know the amount of fuel needed? Just under 950,000 pounds and no it isn't the typical fuel. It is liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. The third and final stage of liftoff required 66,700 gallons of liquid hydrogen and 19,359 gallons of liquid oxygen. Do your research before making bold conspiracy claims in the form of questions.
@@Vic-cv3dfthe van Allen belts are not as lethal as conspiracy theorist claims and it does not cover the entire earth like an entire layer. Also rocket science is not his strong suit so explaining how the rocket was able to achieve the feat is a waste of time. He is just another conspiracy theorist.
you forget the MOST important thing. THE possibility of the landing without any problems 5 times. With no real testing, first time all perfect scenario
They were 18 missions planned only 17 actually occurred so that's 12 fales and five successes so what the f*** are you talking about man😅
@@douglasdarling7606 and my cat name is betty, stay at the point
There were plenty of problems throughout, like Armstrong's last second boulder dodging or the circuit breaker issue that nearly stranded Apollo 11, just none that completely derailed everything except Apollo 13.
And even if there really weren't, can you understand how "everything went perfectly except the time everyone almost died" is a little selective?
Apollo 11 was the first of the "Apollos" to actually intend a landing. The previous and subsequent flights weren't "fails" as someone said here, beside Apollo 1 (whose crew died in an accident during testing) and Apollo 13 turning from a landing mission to a flyby.
The last Apollo to go to the Moon was Apollo 17, and there were 6 landings in total.
It's all documented to the point that it's incredibly irrational to argue against it. You could argue that your own birth was fake while you're at it.
6 landings (of which 3 weren't perfect) and testing from Apollo 7 to 10 in Earth and lunar orbit.
“The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious & entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense.”
James Van Allen
How's it pathetic to call it electrical light? You know, like a lightbulb. Why wpuld there have to he a specific thing he calls it? Makes no sense
POINT 1. If you are the same Keating who is a professor at UCSD, then your university's web site says that your research is funded by (1) NASA, (2) the NSF, (3) United States Antarctic Program, and (4) others. What would happen to your funding if you agreed with Bart Sibrel ? Don't you have a conflict of interest ?
POINT 2. Sibrel wrote a book entitled "Moon Man." It is available from an on-line seller whose name is similar to "Amazing." That on-line seller posts reviews. One reviewer, named "Z8," claims to be a 24-year veteran of the USAF. Z8 states, in paragraph 5, that (1) liftoff from the moon, plus (2) subsequent docking with an orbiting command ship, is a process he calls "rejoining." Z8 states that he has practiced "rejoining" in aircraft. Z8 states that "rejoining," on the moon as described by NASA, is "beyond ridiculous." Z8 states: "Six times, without a hitch. No."
POINT 3. There are web sites which set out images taken by spy satellites. The spy satellites orbit at about 100 miles above the earth, but they must look through the atmosphere. One site, named 38north, followed by org, shows an impressive satellite photo. You can distinguish semi-trailer trucks from pick-up trucks and from ordinary cars.
NASA's LRO, Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, orbits at 31 miles above the moon, and there is no atmosphere. NASA claims that the LRO has found the landing sites of the Apollo craft, but the images are ludicrously crude, in view of those demonstrated by 38north. Restated: 38north demonstrates that discernable photos are available from the LRO, but NASA apparently fails to provide them.
I won't bother with point 1 and the desperate grasping at straws.
Point 2: The only "joining" that aircraft perform is mid air refueling. It is a process complicated by winds and the eddies that the lead aircraft generates. In space, there are no such external forces acting on the craft, and each will move at a constant velocity and continue in the same direction until one or the other fires a thruster. The target vehicle can be considered stationary, and the rendezvousing vehicle moves to join it. All that is required is patience and a means of measuring relative velocity, either radar or a trained human eye.
Point 3: You're talking apples and oranges. The recon satellite is fitted with high-resolution, narrow field of view lenses to observe objects. The LRO was intended for mapping the surface and was fitted with wide-angle lenses for landscape work.
Thanks for this informative comment 👍
Hard hitting questions. I also want an answer
@@gregwelte Point 2: Anyone who tries to use that taxi-driving felon Sibrel as a source has zero credibility.
There isn't actually a lot of scientific evidence presented here...was hoping for more.
Because the moon conspiracy people offer tons of scientific proof 🫣😂
He addressed Bart's claims and did a good job dispelling them.
He can't give you what he does not have, that is why he is all over the place.
He falls into just repeating the same lines and attacking people's intelligence like all people like him, without actually giving an individual thought.
4:05 Wait a minute. He exactly specified why the USSR would "collude" with their arch enemy.
I went back to the time marker you posted and heard no explanation as to why the Soviet Union would “collude” with the US in a worldwide deception.
Which reason he gave?
@matheusrocha8731
I didn't check, but he's clearly stated 4:05. Maybe check.
@@onlyonewhyphy I didn't watch this video (opened just to see the comments), but I think 4:05 is when the author of this video uses the fact that USSR didn't say it was fake as an argument. In response to this, the guy in this comment is pointing out that Sibrel explained why USSR did not expose the fraud. What I want to know is what argument Sibrel used. There is a documentary that provides as an explanation the fact that, if USSR presented proof that it was fake, media would just convince people that the Soviets fabricated it because they were butthurt (which indeed is probably what would happen).
@@matheusrocha8731 based on your opening sentence, I'm going to treat you the same way.
TL;DR
You never addressed the point that there was not enough battery power to run the electronics and air conditioning for the entire time.
There was obviously enough battery power.
@@ThomasVWorm obvious? How? Do you think several car batteries from 1960 is enough to run air conditioning for a few days? It's not just a tad warm up there, it's incredible temperatures and the air con was supposedly ran at perfect temperature all the way there and back.. in the 60's... Come on.. you couldn't do that today with several car batteries
@@NotEvenAProperWordForAUserName why do you think, you do need airconditioning?
And why do you think, they did use car batteries?
@@ThomasVWormmy god, watching the believers talk to the unbelievers is exactly like watching Zealots try to convince Atheists.
Leave your smug arrogance at the door and you might elicit some fairness in people's responses...
You have to admit it’s weird they lost and recorded over the footage and telemetry data
At 24:15, you start talking about how the moon rocks have proved the moon has a magnetic field. That immediately made me think of an article I read from Popular Mechanics. Here are some excerpts that completely contradict what you are saying:
"...scientists say they can show the moon hasn’t had a magnetic field for at least the last 4 billion years-chipping away at a longtime argument over whether the moon ever had a magnetic field at all. Their evidence comes via specimens gathered during the Apollo missions decades ago."
"So scientists used samples gathered from the Apollo missions decades ago, made of the right kind of material to register magnetic activity, like the car paint or nail polish. The Apollo samples, formed at ∼3.9, 3.6, 3.3, and 3.2 billion years ago, don’t show any evidence of core dynamo activity-the telltale behavior indicating the presence of a magnetic field. (A dynamo is a spinning electrical generator, like the spinning, iron core of the Earth.)
There’s a second step to the research, too. That’s for scientists to show that the moon’s surface shows evidence the moon has been consistently blasted by solar winds-something the magnetic field would protect against."
So who is correct on this particular issue then? You in your so far WILDLY inaccurate and misleading video? Or them over at Popular Mechanics? If the magnetometers claim a lunar magnetic field, but the rocks don't, doesn't that warrant scrutiny? I assume you'll say not. Your video just gets worse as it goes on...
The Moon does not currently have a dipolar magnetic field like Earth does. Its magnetic field is very weak in comparison. The primary difference lies in the fact that the Moon’s magnetization is almost entirely crustal in location. Lunar rocks formed 1 to 2.5 billion years ago were created in a field of about 5 microtesla (μT), whereas present-day Earth’s magnetic field is around 50 μT1. During the Apollo program, magnetic field strength readings ranged from 6γ (6nT) to a maximum of 313γ (0.31μT) at different sites. Some hypotheses suggest that the Moon acquired its crustal magnetizations early in its history when a geodynamo was still operating. However, it’s also possible that transient magnetic fields were generated during large impact events. Recent observations indicate that high paleofield strengths from Apollo samples may record impacts rather than a core dynamo. Regardless, the Moon’s current lack of a long-lasting magnetic field has implications for its volatile resources and geological history1
He never said the magnetic field was like Earths
@@jimpresser3438 You fail to recognize or even address the point here. Like Dr Keating, you have not debunked a thing. You have just typed words.
Dr Keating said that the rocks corroborated the findings of the magnetometer allegedly left by the astronauts, but Popular Mechanics says the opposite. Are you able to inform us who is correct? Keating or Popular Mechanics?
Please don't supply a Dr Keating level of response, you must actually substantiate your claims. A link or the name of your source will suffice.
HE knows better because he is a REAL scientist that went to the South Pole. LMFAO
He's obviously a paid shill from somebody
Brian, first off, this is coming from a huge fan. I first saw you on JRE, and have been a follower ever since. Great channel, great content. But I want to share some feedback.
If Bart or Joe do take you up on your offer, it is imperative that you approach the debate in the right way. Flint Dibble was so successful in his debate with Graham Hancock because he refused to make it a personal thing. He went in prepared with facts upon facts. He responded to Graham's claims on a factual basis. You may notice that what Graham did was try to drag Flint in to the mud of personal attack; but Flint didn't take the bait. This is the master level approach. Do not make it personal. While Bart's claims may be ridiculous, he may be besmirching the name of Nasa and well meaning scientists, don't make it about that. Make it ONLY about the scientific claims. It is too tempting to assume that he is a fool, or he is a charlatan, or ridiculous. All those things may be true, but as soon as you dip your argument in to talking about him in any way, you cede ground. You give him ammunition to make it about being silenced, etc etc. You drag the argument exactly where he wants it: unprovable ground. You are a principled scientist who cares about the facts; Bart is not. He only cares about proving his conclusion. So, he will say anything and take the conversation in any direction that keeps you from disproving his conclusion. Make it about the facts, facts, facts. Flint took 2 weeks vacation to prepare for his debate with Graham. He talked to other experts who helped him assemble his refutation. He came with slides upon slides. He made it a stipulation of his coming on JRE that he was able to go first, and present his case. It is my recommendation to you to do the same thing. This conversation has too much reach to be taken lightly. It is important.
My 2 cents on the matter. Good luck brother.
Well said, you can't bring that emotion into the debate.
Flint held his own but still remained unconvincing
@@ricodelta1 I guess that is the rub with debates like this. Some people see it as Flints job to do the convincing; when it is people like graham who are making the big claims with zero evidence. It’s the power of storytelling I suppose.
@ricodelta1 he also did try to pull the race card
@@marcusedvalson "zero evidence"? That's not accurate. Graham has plenty of evidence. Whether or not it's credible and verifiable evidence is another matter.
I appreciate your intellectual prowess, love consuming your content, but this missed the mark. You seem far to personally aggrieved on this topic. You can enlighten the public on facts without constant childish insults.
Got you hear you, but like he states in the beginning he’s essentially giving himself permission to just allow his full human response to come out without a tempered tongue.
@@dnagara the point stands. Emotion weakens the argument.
Perhaps because having to defend the moon landings is a patently absurd proposition in the first place? It's on par with defending the fact that the Holocaust actually happened.
How much of the podcast did you listen to?
My god, don't try to debate him, he will rip you to pieces. I watched the moon landing and remember it quite well, it was my most admired event in my life up until then, being very interested in science and space. If you look at it with a rational mind it is nearly impossible to believe that they went. The technology was in its infancy, they got it right in the first go? and then 4 more times without incident, and then decided to stop because they were bored with it? on the dawn of space travel and oh well that's enough for 50 years, give me a break, oh an the government doesn't lie or do other nasty things, open your eyes.
No it’s not
Of course. But to these people NASA has become almost a religion at this point. So much of it relies on their blind faith and they cannot see it.
@@deusvult6259 Said the gullible believer in dumb online conspiracy theory.
*_"If you look at it with a rational mind it is nearly impossible to believe that they went."_*
Correct - known science is not a question of 'belief'.
*_"The technology was in its infancy"_*
Specifically, what technology was lacking?
*_"they got it right in the first go?"_*
The success of Apollo was built upon the foundations of the Mercury and the Gemini Programmes. Moreover, aside from the unmanned testing and validation, Apollo 8 which journeyed to the moon, Apollo 9 that tested the LM, Apollo 10 was a dress-rehearsal for the landing and took the LM to within a mere 47,000 ft of the lunar surface.
*_"and then 4 more times without incident"_*
So you claim to be knowledgeable about "science and space" but you didn't know that there were a further five landings or of the near catastrophic Apollo 13 mission?
Furthermore, each Apollo mission was fraught with risk, danger and technical problems. Some of them serious, others not so much. It is testament to the redundancies engineered into the programme and the expertise, ingenuity and diligence of the astronauts and the personnel on the ground that a crew was not lost.
*_"and then decided to stop because they were bored with it?"_*
They had achieved the objective and Congress were no longer willing to provide the obscene levels of funding necessary to sustain the Programme. As a result it was prematurely cancelled and with it, Apollo 18, 19 and 20.
*_"oh an the government doesn't lie or do other nasty things, open your eyes."_*
"The government"? Which one? There are over 200 independent national governments worldwide.
And meanwhile the crap online conspiracy theory that you yourself trust is entirely and unfailingly honest, unwaveringly accurate and consistent, not in the least bit intentionally deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic monetised or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is completely free of vested interest and agenda? Righto then.
Of course governments can lie, deceive and conspire. No one in their right mind would suggest otherwise. But simply because they do that does not then logically follow that claims of faked moon landings or any random conspiracy theory of one's arbitrary choosing, devising or consequence of personal bias/agenda should automatically be assumed to be true. A lazy syllogistic logical fallacy.
You don't have a rational mind, you don't understand how the technology behind it works, you don't understand their reasons for not going back, all you have is your preconceived bias towards not believing they went there because you just don't want to believe and you are ignorant. Keep flaunting your ignorance and lack of understanding of the subject as if you're making solid points.
Why didn't other countries go to the moon then? Please be more technical and descriptive your debunk seems like a dud
Other countries didn't go because they couldn't afford it. The 4% of the US annual budget that was spent on the landing effort was equal to about half of any other country's annual budget.
You know that India landed a spacecraft on the moon last year, right?
@@alejandroberrios4756 India landed an UNMANNED robotic probe weighing maybe 2000 pounds. That's a LOONNGG way from the 40,000 pounds that the Apollo spacecraft weighed. India still has to climb the same technological mountain that defeated the Soviets.
@@marksprague1280 the OP didn’t say anything about manned or unmanned craft going to the moon, he/she just assumed no other countries have been to the moon, I provided an example demonstrating that in fact another country has landed a spacecraft on the moon. Manned or unmanned isn’t relevant.
@@alejandroberrios4756 Certainly it's relevant. Landing a robotic probe is child's play compared to a manned mission.
stop using joes thumbnail
Leave him alone
@@Bambino_60 make me
@@PauloConstantino167 I really want to say “YEAH! Make him” 😀
@@seabud6408 make me
this pig getting ratiohoooooooeD
I watched this with an open mind and I'm afraid you haven't convinced me one way or the other.
That's called willful ignorance.
No, I agree. Making a video calling crackpots people who legitimately challenge one of most important achievements in human history doesn’t take you anywhere. I have no problem with the moon landing official story, but to deny that there are no enormous issues with the moon landings is quite disingenuous
@@davebowles1957 no, its called skepticism.
@@davebowles1957And that's called arrogance.
russia landed reflectors on the moon as well... and they haven't been to the moon
SOLID.
But it didn't work did it due to not being deployed correctly.....
@@iniquity123The Soviet retroreflectors have been used.
While I DON'T DISAGREE... this had the tone of a Priest lecturing a "non-believer" and I'm not sure that helps anyone.
You debunk with emotion. Not convincing
A _LOT_ of emotion and ego. Far too much
He’s still right dorks
@@Greenham6603 You were super cool when you called people names. It really proved your point.
I believe that I'll take the word of a scientist over that of a taxi-driving convicted felon and proven liar.×
People who get defensive and respond with irrelevant insults usually have something to hide.
Having said that, I don't think this guy has anything to hide, he really it's reacting like an initially immature teenager, just like the new genZ who have been mentally conditioned into never asking any questions, never doubting what they are told but blindly repeating it, even when what they are told is that a man can get pregnant (for example).
We live in unthinking times, a time of groupthink where the act of questioning is considered offensive, practically heresy, even when you're questions are scientifically sound, how dare you ask!
Really REALLY bad times for science.
I'm genuinly interested in listening to real reasoning. No question is too stupid to ask, and therefore I find it very problematic when you try to debunk conspiracy claims by starting off the conversation by calling people crackpots. That's one thing I really admired with Stephan Molyneaux's discussion with a flat earther. Instead of just calling him an idiot, he kept asking questions until the flat earth guy couldn't give any more explainations. I don't give a crap if the Earth is flat or not, but at least we're having a serious discussion and reasoning. The moon landing is a sensitive topic, but the reason people start questioning it, is because the best argument for the landing is that NASA is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and therefore we did it. That's not a proof, it's just blind national chauvinism.
Why such a hand waving dismissal of the Van Allen radiation zone. Why did you not calculate? All the data you need is there, shielding, time inside, velocity, exposure.
Well, for one theing, Dr. James A. Van Allen, the discoverer of the Belts which bear his name, was absolutely clear that Apollo was entirely real.....
If that doesn't entitle us to dismiss Hoaxer claims about VAB radiation, WHAT WOULD?
Could you clarify what you're suggesting? Are you implying that telemetry tapes from a mission that consumed 8% of the US budget were repurposed? That seems quite far-fetched. We've preserved film reels from the 1920s, so why would we not save these important tapes?
What a lot of people miss is that even up to the 70s when I started in computing, magnetic tapes were only a temporary method for holding data, where that data would then be printed out onto paper as a hard copy to be archived, where it can be copied multiple times and distributed as required, and therefore the magnetic tapes would be wiped and ready for new data.
Electrical light means not sunlight, come on bro
Except it is sunlight, so Bart is wrong whatever he choses to call it :-)
I watched the moon walk live at an outback school (Yetman Primary School) around midday NSW time on the 20th July 1969 (we are a day ahead of course), Australia. The moon walk was received by the Parks radio telescope using Australian owned equipment and personal. The broadcast was live from Parks received before the rest of the world. The broadcast started with the first 2 minutes from Hunnysuckle Creek (replaced with the DSN Tidbinbilla facility today) NASA sponsored dish near Canberra, to the Parks dish (CSIRO) for the rest of the 2 Hour moon walk, you can see in the broadcast an improvement in the quality on the switchover to Parks. The Parks dish is 538 wavelengths across at 2200 MHz so has a beamwidth of 0.13 degrees. The moon is 0.5 degrees wide, so if it wasn't pointing at the moon or even the correct part of the moon, then there wouldn't be anything received. Australian technicians, engineers and scientists have no interest in some dumb conspiracy, let alone the US taxpayer and 400,000 brilliant US individuals that made Apollo possible.
Yup it's hard to argue with that.
Then again some people think the earth is flat or hollow like the moon. And miracles happen. Yet bad things happen to good people all the time.
Facts. They matter. I always mention this to the conspiracy people but I wasn´t actually there.
Nice to hear from someone who witnessed it first hand. Thanks for sharing. cheers!!
Come on. They just send a broadcast satellite to the moon with a VCR.
@@manueloliveira200what about all the 'facts' we were told during Covid that all turned out to be lies. I can list quite a few of them. We have a trust issue, plenty of conspiracies have turned out to be true.
@@ThomasVWorm And how would they manage the seleno-stationary (or even close enough to that for sufficient time) orbit for that apeture?
The fact that USSR congratulates the states for the landing,should be enough
the same way russia, china and USA is at each others throats but still join up when it comes to space station? they are playing you. money laundering. owning the lands while you work and pay them
That does not prove. Suppose it was indeed fake, and suppose the Soviets provided proof of it. A very likely outcome: USA and Western media would claim their proof is falsified and would not recognize it (because admiting the fraud would be much worse for USA). The Soviets would come out as butthurt liers. Plus, there is the possibility of an agreement the Soviets would made in exchange for something (part of the money that was said to be destined to the program, maybe?). I'm not claiming that's what happened; I'm saying that, supposing it was fake, the fact that USSR did not present proof of it can be plausibly explained, and thus is not a proof, and not even a very strong evidence.
Not at all
Here's a question, if it's so easy to send astronauts through the van Allen radiation belt (just a small bit of aluminum should do the trick) why hasn't anyone else sent someone there much less the moon? The Soviets were the first to put up a satellite, put a man into space, and had much more time recorded in space. Why would they not at least fly someone halfway to the moon?
Um, about 2 months ago Russia claimed the moon landing photos are fake. So this is not true.
Bart did not knowing leave a microphone but accidently left it there after being literally kicked out of the astronaut's home. Bart showed the astronaut the film of them faking the shot of the earth through the window. The astronaut threatened Bart with a Lawsuit if he would make it public. Bart essentially said so sue me. Bart was physically assalted and thrown out of the house. Bart heard from his car, the astronaut's son suggest to having Bart whacked. Bart had to go back to pick up the microphone.
Wow. I’m sorry to hear that. How pray tell did Bart survive telling this story for decades now? Is he ok?
Nothing about that sounds real...
In the Rogan episode there was a call for someone to debate Bart Sibrel. You should go on again and debate him
brian keating is about as credible as the moon landings and shocking at making a point
This was pretty underwhelming. As expected, you didn't rebut the best arguments. Yes, 99.99% of the photo and video evidence is consistent with expectations. The conspiracy/simulation theory hinges on the anomalies. The motivation to take the moon missions was to win the cold war, according to proponents. The soviets were ahead of the Americans in virtually all aspects of space and rocket tech. There is a nice documentary called 'The Engines that came in from the cold' showing how NASA engineers were shocked by how advanced Russian rocket tech was, decades ahead of the US. 1. **First and foremost, you never addressed Sibrel's primary evidence, namely, the video footage showing the astronauts 'faking' being halfway to the moon**. 2. Re: the flag, nobody doubts the flag on the moon would have waved when touched. The argument is that there is video footage showing it suddenly start to move even when nobody touches it, I believe mostly from Apollo 15, and 17. 3. Re: the shadows. Yes, the term 'electrical light' sounds ridiculous, but you didn't even address or attempt to explain the anomalous photos wrt to the shadows. This is covered in detail in the conspiracy film 'American Moon', which is probably the best version of the conspiracist arguments I've seen. And no, 'mythbusters' did not debunk this. Terrain doesn't explain these photos. A debunking would show how you can get close to 90 degree shadows from nearby objects in relatively flat terrain using only the sun, where the sunlight is coming from the side (i.e. not vertical, not a result of perspective). Some photos show shadows and patterns of illumination consistent only with a single close, artificial stage light or else multiple artificial lights. 4. Re: the moon rocks; moon rocks exist on earth too, like in Antarctica, and they can be picked up by unmanned missions. This isn't evidence at all that humans went to the moon. 5. Re: the 'retroreflectors'. I think this is a pretty good argument. The skeptics argue that: a) people were bouncing lasers off the moon way before the Apollo moon missions, and b) you can put them on the moon with unmanned missions, as apparently the Soviets did, so this isn't evidence that the video/photographic record is authentic. 6. Re: the audio delays, contra Sibrel, the argument is that the responses are sometimes too fast, less than 2-3 seconds or whatever. Finally, and lastly,, I'll just mention that I find the argument that 'everybody would have to be in on it' is pretty weak. In reality, only a dozen or so people would need to know. Presumably, all those scientists thought it was real b/c there was no way to distinguish between data coming from a simulation and the real thing.
Sorry, but the intense heating that meteors endure while entering the atmosphere causes changes in their microstructure.
There are more than 800 pounds of lunar soil and core samples that have been analyzed by scientists from around the globe for over 50 years, and certified to be non-meteoric and extraterrestrial in origin.
Try again.
Two questions.
Why, more than 50 years after the last Apollo mission in 1972, has there not been even one manned mission to the moon by any country?
Why are there still no close-up photos/videos of any of the Apollo landing sites clearly showing the equipment left behind?
By 1969 there was a new generation in the White House that wasn’t interested in manned space exploration. Richard Nixon even wanted to amalgamate NASA with other government departments, and of course, Nixon never liked John Kennedy and didn’t want to prolong his legacy.
Once Apollo 11 had returned from the Moon and Kennedy's goal had been achieved, cutbacks began and continued into the early 1970’s during a widescale retreat from technology projects due to competing demands e.g. Vietnam War, economic recession, public apathy, and a grassroots Republican backlash against what was seen as an over-reaching of federal government into the nation’s affairs.
It was extremely expensive; each mission cost $1 billion to put two men on the Moon for a maximum of 3 days, a sum which was not financially sustainable, and it was also extremely dangerous. Out of 12 manned Apollo missions, including a ground test, there was one catastrophic failure (Apollo 1) and a mission failure (Apollo 13), that’s a terrible ratio.
The speed with which it was possible to land an American on the Moon was a function of the U.S./Soviet missile race and President Kennedy’s decision, in the face of Russian space successes, (and to save his own political reputation after the Bay of Pigs disaster) to turn the moon project into the ultimate symbol of American prestige.
There was no political imperative to go back to the Moon (by any country) as there was to get there in the 1960’s Cold War, which was a completely different time, except now for commercial reasons. Even Apollo 8 commander Frank Borman said. 'Any idea that the Apollo programme was a great voyage of exploration or scientific endeavour is nuts. People just aren't that excited about exploration. They were sure excited about beating the Russians.’
Taking pictures of galaxies millions of miles away is about light gathering capacity as opposed to taking pictures of small objects on the Moon which is about resolution. Hubble or any other telescope cannot achieve the resolution to see the objects left on the moon as their mirror diameters are far too small.
I watched that Joe Rogan episode, it sent chills through me. This rebute needs to be imporved upon since I feel like it's not exactly addressing some of the concerns raised. As a simple example, Brian doesn't seem to understand the motivation for faking the moon landing, making the strawman argument that it is to increase funding for NASA. This is a failure of understanding of the psychology of the cold war. Also maybe it's correct to be angry about this, but remember the heart of science is skepticism of authority, that's why we insist on testing theories. So a scientist who loses his cool over a skeptic is a turn off. Bart, and people like him that are skeptical, are not lunatics, they might be wrong, but they are not lunatics, as far as I can tell. And they need to be disproven with cool calm facts. Don't need sarcasm, strawmans or insults.
As another example, Brian says that the fact that we have lazor reflectors on the moon is great evidence we were there. But then Brain immediately undermines this evidence by stating that the Russians did the same thing, only they did it remotely. So if they can do it remotely, I would imagine we could as well.
My biggest concern, being a electrical engineer, is how did they put this all together in only ten years? In ten years time they went from nothing to putting a man on the moon. Do you know how long it takes to do simple things? And not just that, what were the odds of success? If those astronauts died wouldn't that be a national tragedy so was it worth the risk when we were in a cold war with Russia? One of Bart's strongest points, other than the radiation belt, was the observation that nothing really ever works the first time. He mentions how it took some airplane hundreds of attempts to lift off the ground. How did they know that the landing craft would be able to successfully launch off the moon and then intersect with the orbiting space shuttle, on the very first time, with zero room for error, with 1960s technology, after only ten years of work? Three astronuats were killed just sitting in the spaceship, docked on Earth, when they turned it on, basically right before this happened. The only convincing evidence that
The moon landing is probably the greatest triump of human history, not just technological, but also a triump of the human spirit. It is one of the greastest sources of pride we have as Americans. We need to have a debate to settle this issue, at least for me. We may have to debate this with each new generation who was not alive at the time to witness it, so be it. Remember, truth above all else.
There is no "debate". There's simply a group of con men profitting from the gullibility of a herd of scientifically-illiterate id10ts.
@@marksprague1280 Will they weasel out of the trip to Antarctica?
We landed on the moon because I'm outraged and that's it. Guy, calm down, write in a meaningful way what you want to say and try again without straying into any side topics. So far it sounds like... arg arg arg blah blah blah arg arg arg.
Sorry, you doing this has lost you credibility in the way you handled debunking them.. i thought science was about facts, you clearly address each point with a pre determined bias. This wasnt well done, its a thumbs down from me and you havnt convinced me and moved the needle one little bit Im sorry
You want him to pretend and make believe or? Of course he's pre-determined by this point, we've heard these arguments for decades
Yes, right from the start.
Explain how he should have debunked the conspiracy claims
@@g13n79 with facts… all he said was “we went to the moon, period” and then got some scientific facts wrong that any high school student should know. I don’t believe we didn't go to the moon, but this was a less than average attempt, particularly from someone who calls themselves a scientist
I don't think you really debunked the "fake Moon landing theory". Why not a discussion/debate with a Moon Landing unbeliever?
You were not paying attention, were you? He offered to debate the guy, one on one, on a Joe Rogan show. . . (Right at the beginning of the video)
@@dewiz9596 I skiped that... it would be fun to watch. I hope they will do that.
Brian offered, but I don't think he should. It is a loony conspiracy theory, and that's it. Sibrel has absolutely zero credentials. No qualifications, a lack of the most basic scientific knowledge.
The little respect I had for Rogan has gone.
The left and the right are both gripped by anti science nonsense.
After I saw few years ago scientists who were on mainstream media denying what is written in the books of science which they read for exams just because corporations told him I started to question everything and If I want to know then I read and listen all people who are expert in that field and then I come to truth. (I don't mean on "experts" on news)
this 'Astrophysicist ' is from the Anthony Fauci school of 4 in 5 science experts recommend.
Brian Gregory Keating is an American cosmologist. He works on observations of the cosmic microwave background, leading the BICEP, POLARBEAR2 and Simons Array experiments. He received his PhD in 2000, and is a distinguished professor of physics at University of California, San Diego, since 2019.
Note Doctor Keating is the Leading scientific investigator for BICEP, POLARBEAR2 and Simons Array.
And you are from the Donald Trump school of DIY (bleach) vaccines?
Pretty unconvincing... im starting to actually beleive we DIDNT go to the moon after watching this :S
Youre supposed to be an intelectual, please do better.
I don't wanna waste my time so, did he debunk the footage that clearly shows that they are faking the distance half way to the moon?
The footage doesnt show that at all. Bart Sibrel just made a bunch of claims with absolutely nothing to back it up. But yes, it has been easily debunked by several people. The claim is absurd to begin with, because if they were in low earth orbit when they took that footage then you would be able to see the features of the earth changing relatively quickly as the craft rapidly orbited the earth and the camera's perspective changed. The footage shows none of this so clearly they weren't in earth orbit...
And second, Sibrel intentionally left out part of the original broadcast that disproves that theory. At one point the astronauts perform a scheduled roll in the command module, and you can clearly see the earth leave the edge of the window and then reappear in the opposite window after they finish the roll. You can see this in a video called "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon - Debunked - The Box Set". Start watching at about 1 hr - 33 minutes. The whole video completely debunks all of Sibrels claims, as do David McKeegan's videos.
Is it a good comparison - Moon Landing v reaching the Poles? The technology required to go to the Poles was far more primitive compared to that required for landing on the Moon. The technology for going back to the Poles improved making it easier to return after 50 years. The original technology for the first visit to the Poles from 50 years earlier had (unlike the technology for the Appolo missions) not been lost. It would be possible even today to go back to the Poles with the technology available when it was first done. Difficult, but possible. Moreover - 50 years after the alleged Moon landing - the technology available has improved almost beyond recognition - yet there still hasn't been any return to the Moon - and unlikely to be even an attempt in the reasonably foreseeable future. I don't know whether Neil Armstrong did set foot on the Moon. If he did - absolutely amazing. If he didn't -also absolutely amazing - since it required that the USA pull off one of the biggest deceptions in history. Well done either way. Et In Arcadia Ego. Paul
Weren't there people (Eskimos) already living near the North Pole?
Rocket technology has not progressed much at all and although modern computers are far more sophisticated, they are far more vulnerable to particle radiation than those that used low density integrated circuits and magnetic core memory, both of which are extremely radiation hard. There is also no cold war imperative and no time limit placed on it by a president. The terrain will be rougher this time with longer shadows and a heavier lander. We also live in much more risk averse times. All these issues are what has caused it to take so long this time around.
I think you actually pointed out one of the reasons and it might be as simple as no interest in going there. Back then it was simply a "di.k measuring competition" and Russia lost it, was it true or not was a secondary issue. Be it real or fake, news spread all over the world and even if Russia had valid arguments to discredit this it would not matter, since credibility of a losing side is always perceived as weaker. Like any other psyops it's not the truth that matters but what the population perceives as truth, political 101
@@Ruda-n4h I asked ChatGPT and it said the reason was due to funding.
Imagine then a fleet or a ship with a captain who is taller and stronger than any of the crew but lacks proper navigation skills. The sailors, all believing they have the right to steer despite never learning the art, quarrel over control, and dismiss anyone who suggests otherwise.” In this analogy, Socrates argues that just as a skilled navigator should steer a ship, knowledgeable and trained individuals should govern a state, not amateurs chosen by popular opinion. Similarly, we should source our knowledge from true facts backed by science. It's truly sad to see so many people manipulated so easily.
WELL I CAN'T ARGUE WITH YOU ON THIS !!! That is a sound and reasonable statement indeed. The issue I see in our society, and perhaps any, is that those who rise the the ranks are NOT necessarily the most capable or trustworthy. SO I agree that the downside of democracy in any form, even the vote of a board of governs in academia or a corporate decision, is tainted by the elevation of popularity over suitability. But what mechanism shall we trust to get the suitable persons into the positions of trust. And what does this have to do with the moon landing??? I forget how we got here.
If you want to split hairs, there's no such thing as man-made light. There's no such thing as artificial light either. Light is light.
To really split hairs, there is such a thing as ‘a man-made light’
Dear professor Keating, thank you, thank you, thank you. I'm just a laid person. I don't have any credentials but I do have god-given common Sense and for years I have said to myself how can this have been faked with human nature tendency to tell the truth, we as human beings are more adept to telling the truth than telling lies. You mean to tell me for all these years everyone held this tightly knit secret unrelated to one another just for the purpose of what professor Keating. Please don't underestimate the power of not just sensationalism but of egotism. Some people have huge egos and seek any subject because of their popularity to create controversy to increase their platform. Their agenda and their recognism. If such a word exists, get more people at get more viewers even at the expense of inventing lies. Thank you sir
Lol . Human nature is telling truth? We have very different view on this one love
Brian i like you bro but your wrong on this one.
Your wrong
@@TerryWalker-lc1ue haha, yes your
Lol yeah the guy using science is wrong but the guy spouting opinions as fact and irrefutable proof is correct. Okay
This folks is how you don't argue a point. It provides very few facts and there is a lot of name-calling that's irrelevant to the point.
57 year old engineer. My late aunt was hiking in Switzerland and watched Apollo 11 landing with a group of Swiss people. She told me that all the Swiss called it Hollywood BS as it happened. She found herself trying to defend it even then. I will always remember that. I find it difficult to believe technically how we could successfully send people there every 5 months. They golfed and they even sent a car with fenders on the wheels. Takes a real leap of faith.
Takes a real lack of knowledge. Luckily for you, having less knowledge makes incredulity far easier. For instance, the LM descent module storage quadrant area was about 4m x 4m x 4m. The fact that you think that a small folded vehicle couldn’t fit its fenders in there is…. interesting. The less you understand, the easier it is to shout ‘FAKE’.
I observe this phenomenon daily. The parade of ignorant strawman arguments are always accompanied by incredulity, and vice versa.
@westnewwest4325 For "an engineer" you show a remarkable lack of technical intuition.
Do a youtube search on the terms "Apollo LRV Training Simulation"; "Apollo 15 Rover Deployment"; "Moon Machines - The Lunar Rover" and you will see videos which fully answer your silly issues.
'They" didn't "play golf": ONE man, Alan Shepard, did a demo with the golf club head attached to a tool handle.
Yeah I thought same thing when I was a kid and seeing the full color photos on a newspaper. When something looks too good? It usually is. I think the landings were real, but I also think they threw in a few glamour shot type pics in -- made in a studio with perfect lighting and professional level quality cameras to capture those non-regolith everywhere type studio photographs we saw back then. Your Swiss friends have a keen eye too. It makes sense that the real pics were so awful and the good ones were the studio pics. That's why they were faked... they wanted the emotional impact of the pics, forgetting it was a lie. But that's their business... lying...
@@WeTheLittlePeople this just tells me you haven’t looked through the scans of all the film magazines. Even the few ‘cover shots’ (there would always be a few given the location and subject) are wonky and badly composed, badly lit in the original film/scans. Of course the journals and publications editors of the day had their setters crop, boost contrast and saturation for their cover pics. Even the ‘Blue Marble’ was the best of a sequence of similar shots and it was still way out of centre -frame. There were also black and white shots from the same event. Look at the original scan, it’s quite washed out. It’s the subject which stands out. Mind-blowing viewpoint of our planet. Same goes for any of the more popular pics. I have forty years of photography under my belt (30 as pro, and 20 as digital imaging consultant) and over the years I’ve enjoyed looking at and examining the highest res scans of all 6 Apollo landing missions. The whole set have been archived at Flickr Project Apollo albums. If you haven’t already, go and bookmark and work your way chronologically through the albums/film magazines one by one. Frame by frame. Then you see the reality of it. Warts and all. It’s also fun (for me) seeing the ‘signature’ of each astronaut on the pics they take. By ‘signature’ I mean style, skill, interest bias, etc. Some more competent than others. Drastically so. They did have a lot of training in taking photos, but of the 30,000 odd pics there weren’t too many keepers for popular publications. For me, as a photographer and amateur astronomer, every frame is a story of its own and equally fascinating.
If you see even one with ‘studio lighting’ then please be sure to post the ID here in the comment/reply. It will be big news. Not least for having fooled every pro photographer and/or VFX expert for 50 odd years…
@@WeTheLittlePeople There are hundreds of over-exposed, under-exposed, out-of-focus, motion-blurred and poorly framed photos in the archive. Most of the photos you find in the NASA archive have been brightened and colour-balanced for publication.
Your approach here was very feminine. All emotion even just dismissing things as "just ridiculous".
I think you should leave this subject to people who arent as emotionally attached because thier dad gave them moon landing posters. Prof, the conspiracy is not about your dàd ok, hes still a great guy. Let it go.
Debunk the video of the astronauts faking how far they were from Earth from within the shuttle during the mission. That is the strongest evidence and it's always conveniently left out of debunking videos.
let me guess....jesus is lord?
@@ll0013ll Lemme guess... your nose is as big & shiny as Dr Brian Keating's👃
@@ll0013ll You've guessed poorly. Go back to Go, do not collect $200
This comment section is full of believers, not scientists who consider all the evidence.
Crickets
You failed to react to his main point, the video of the faking of being half way to the moon by shooting earth thru cabin window
So you trust the astronauts went to the moon. They took a video in the cabin whatever that means. Then they faked the landing videos meaning you don’t trust them also? Got it.
For your information Bart’s main evidence was the photographs with electrical light. Remember he thinks it was Kubrick who did the whole thing.
That's one of Bart's more ridiculous claims. First of all, if they were in lower earth orbit, it would be obvious because you would be able to see the features of the earth changing relatively quickly as the craft rapidly orbited the earth. And second, Bart conveniently left out part of the original broadcast that completely disproves his absurd theory. At one point the astronauts perform a scheduled roll in the command module, and you can clearly see the earth leave the edge of the window and then reappear in the opposite window after they finish the roll. To see this shot, look up the video here called "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon - Debunked - The Box Set" and then start watching at about 1 hr - 33 minutes.
@@jmp4177 agreed!
Too much mudslinging and emotional attitude. Was hoping for a video without that stuff.
I’ve heard more people giving Rogan a hard time for platforming these people but I think they’re missing the point. Joe does a great job of platforming interesting people (including you) and even loons but it’s a net gain for all us budding scientists and experimentalists wanting to get to the truth. The existence of these science doubters can to some extent be attributed to a lack of scientific education.
I'm with you brother.
Fostering stupidity and ignorance is never a net gain. The Rogan Experience is where stupid people go to feel smart.
@tcl5853Joe is not on a quest for irrefutable truth, his obsession is like most podcasters-content.
Why?
Eyeballs 👀 !!!
Like a Black executive once said about the channel, “BET”, in response to people from the Black community complaining about the network’s content:
“The ‘E’ in ‘BET’ does not stand for education”
Yeah you are right. Anyone that calls artificial light, electric light must be an idiot. Case closed they did go to the moon. You proved it.
This is sad that we have to compete with literal luna-tics in teaching history to our kids. There is a loss in credibility of our historians when people get suspicious and conspiracy minded.
Not so sure that "plane safety" was a prudent choice of analogies to use these days 🙄
Really? Commercial Aviation, “per passenger mile”, is SEVEN times safer than travel by automobile. . .
I grew up during the moon mission period. I remember watching the Glenn launch and watched the live feed when Neal first stepped on the moon. My father was one of the engineer scientists who worked out the orbital mechanics of docking two spacecraft. The landing wasn't faked.
There are literally pictures of the landing sites, rover tracks, and footprints taken from orbital probes of India, Japan, EU, China, Russia...
I used to work with a few of them. Every step of the entire mission has been reproduced countless times 4 decades later in independent simulations and the hardware does exist.
sorry to say they pulled a fast one on you when you were a kid.
@@conspiracy1914
How did those footprints get there?
@@TWitherspoon seriously dude
you sound like you went to moon and personally saw the foot print.
There is a lot to learn dude you have to reason. to see the lies n excuses
Did you know they can show a prerecorded footage and say with logos its live. or is it physically impossible? like is that a possibility or is that too hard to humans to do?
One thing i know is tech and we couldn't do it then and we still cant do it. AI EVEN SAID ALL VIDEOS AND PICS WERE FAKE.
How quaint. A grade school dropout believes that infantile "AI" software has omnipotent wisdom.
AI didn't say the videos and pics were fake. Russian propaganda made the claim AI debunked the videos and pictures. Also, AI gets things wrong all the time too.
@@FreeWVson Given the infant state of AI, it's irrelevant as a source.
Electrical light. As opposed to sunlight, son of silly persons.
Debate is a whole field of expertise in itself. I'd practise debating in topics that aren't so close to your heart, before exposing yourself to a debate with these guys, who will look to expose any shred of emotion as a weakness. Being able to identify flaws in epistemology and logical fallacies are skills as important as a PHD in this instance.
Why would anyone bother to dignify that taxi-driving felon and proven liar by debating him,
Asking "why" avoids debating the evidence at hand.
The winner is Bart Sibrel
It’s difficult too convince people we landed on the moon, but it’s important to show the science behind it in a video like this so people can do their own research and decide for themselves, though honestly, those who believe we never went to the moon probably won’t bother looking into it. Thank you for your hard work anyway Brian!
There are literally pictures of the landing sites, rover tracks, and footprints taken from orbital probes of India, Japan, EU, China, Russia...
It's only difficult for mentally challenged people. For everyone else it'spretty obvious.
Why cant anyone just get to the point and dish the evidence. I believe we went, but what fuels these conspiracies are people getting overly wordy and stretching 30-60 minute videos. If you wanted to end it just bring the heat without the long winded set up and drawn out conversation.
Nothing's going to end it. There were nutz in Salem, Mass. in the 17th century, there are the same sort of nutz now, and there will always be nutz.
@DrBrianKeating I have a quick question: why in the thousands of hours of claimed footage of astronauts walking on the moon we never see a single impact on the moon's surface? We see the aftermath of them scarring the terrain. It is known for centuries that the moon is covered in craters. Why then when on the surface we never incidentally captured an impact?
You figure if you were to set up cameras on the moon and then fast forward through that footage it should look like a light rain is occurring. Billions of particles of space debris make contact with the moon daily. Why do we never capture any impact of any size? We see the lunar dust kicked up when the astronauts are shuffling around on the alleged surface of the moon and yet never - to my knowledge - do we ever see any impact occur.
Do you know of any footage or photo of an impact occurring during a lunar walk by one of the Apollo missions?
P.s. Mind you meteors don't burn up before hitting the moon. The moon has no atmosphere to burn them up before impact like the Earth.
Did you research that at all?
@@djuro14 did you?
@@deusvult6259 Not really. Did you research that at all?
Guess not.
The moon's surface solidified more than 3 BILLION years ago. That cratering and dust has taken all that time to accumulate, and the majority of the collisions occurred very early on, when there was much more loose debris in the solar system. We've had cameras on the moon of for less than a century, just a miniscule moment in the moon's life. To further compound the odds, the moon has over 14,000,000 square miles of surface area, and we might have only as much as a square mile under observation.
Do the math.
Lunar landing denial - Second only in wanton ignorance to flat earth belief.
Exactly!
Best comment I've seen so far.
Maybe, but if you trust your government more than the facts, then you are justified in being Gullible.
You see, I don't have enough information to believe in a moon landing to date, but I do believe that there Earth is not flat. People have different opinions. It is all about the level of information.
Do your research. It's the biggest reason the USA is so backwards. They think the world hasn't caught up with their 1960s tech.
But they still haven't caught up with the rest of the worlds tech.
What year did YOU personally land on the moon to be so confident? Or did you see it on the screen of entertainment?
Bart has the strongest arguments
Such as ? I destroyed everything he said and more
@@DrBrianKeating No you only touch a few points and even in those things you kinda went all over the place instead of addressing the specific point. You give NASA waay to much credit and you believe everything they say. When it comes to the moon landings its all there and it is pretty obvious to tell how fake it was. I mean come on you even went off on the term electrical light which is the same for electric light. (Any electrical component that produces light).
@@DrBrianKeating No, you didn't. You just regurgitated NASA propaganda.
@@kevinalmiron8693 he resorted to put downs rather than proof.
@@iamnegan1515yeah. There is actually more proof that we didn't go to the moon that proof that we did
We've been to the moon. That's how we know it's made of cheese. I'm 61 and lived through the space race.
wallace and gromit will agree
Do we need an astrophysicist to explain a sci-fi movie for us?
The delay Bart was talking about was when they were shooting a picture of the earth through the window. In the video after Houston talks there is a time delay that ends when Neal is promted to talk. Then Neal resumes talking. Bart alleges that they were in low earth orbit so they could not respond right away. Here the prompt made it look like it took time to respond to Houston.
With dumb logic like that, when was the last time that you actually busted a paradigm?
I really don't know about this is it possible or not but I am sure what happened about Kennedy, so you take official version as a true. Obviously you take official opinion about everything as "safe and effective" in domen out of your expertise.
Conspiracy Theory. . . “Two people can keep a secret, if one of them is dead”
That's the dumbest conspiracy theory of all . Never thought much about Moon Landing theories , but to suggest that , for example , the CIA,MI5,Mossad's secret files don't contain any secret evidence of more than 2 people keeping a secret of some conspiracy . For example , Tunny and Collossus , the first digital computer for decrypting Nazi high command communications was kept secret by everybody involved and only opened up by british archives relatively recently . It's proven that the Enigma secret was being actively kept by a small group at the top of British intelligence decades after WW2 . The architecture of project orion hydrogen bombs which use very small amounts of fissionable material and high explosive to initiate thermo-nuclear detonations is still secret . The CIA refused to release the Kennedy files even though it was against the law to do so . They pressured the president into delaying their exposure . What they did release proved conspiratorial activity that had remained secret for over half a century . Anyone that thinks the government isn't in the business of keeping secrets and doesn't know how to keep a secret doesn't know anything about how government works . How many non-disclosure agreements do you think are being kept by 2 parties across America simply by the power of money ? It's such an insult to the employee's of US and British intelligence to suggest they've always blabbed . Just look at the revelations after the fall of the Berlin wall . It's not hard to not write a book about a crime you committed .
Guess there shouldn’t be anything such as classified documents.
Oh , shame!! Did Keating delete my comment?? I guess since he pinned his face to a stupid denial of the history of secrecy (Collussus , Tunny, Enigma, Project Orion , The Cambridge 4 (Nope) 5 ... Oh no , it was 6 or was it closer to 15 ? Who knows except the archivist at MI5 . Kennedy files released by Trump . Kennedy files refused release by CIA against US legal statute . I said nothing about the Moon Landing and I'm not a believer in any unconventional theory about the Moon Landing , but I guess since he pinned his face to a stupid comment it was easier to delete me under the assumption that I'm some denier . People who work in intelligence take pride in keeping secrets . It's a patriotic civil service for 99.9% of people with Secret clearence .
@@milDelux I's one thing for a few people to keep some dry, mundane legit secret, for security reasons, for a little while.
It's another thing entirely for 400,00 people to keep THE juciest scandal in history secret, for no reason , for many decades on end...
NEVER could happen.
That one always had great truthiness to it, but it's obvious secrets can be kept by many people for a long time.
The start of this video is pathetic as it tries to debunk the “pathetic” critics of the moon landing. This is the argument of this commentator and how he start his defense, if you don't know that electrical light is called artificial light or man made light (bigot) you don't know what you are talking about.
"American Moon" from Massimo Mazzucco is the best thorough critique of the still pictures and video NASA offers. Highly recommended.
And yet, it thoroughly _fails_ at proving it fake, since each and every point raised by Mazzucco is factually incorrect, and often contradicts something shown elsewhere in the same video.
It's a "spot the fallacy" exercise, essentially.
I also highly recommend AMERICAN MOON. Difficult to find on YT because its shadow banned but its worth looking for it
Bottom line.....the first human moon landing is STILL up for grabs.
Bottom line is, you are wrong. In spite of your childish caps lock insistence, there were six.
Lol 31:37 we make travel on earth less safe when we question what people say they've done?
Sibrel is a clown but I don't think you did a very good job
9.6.2024
hello Dr Brian Keating!
thanks for this video.
I'm here to heal 😊
Def Leppard - Photograph (my cover version)
*_I'm outa lie, outa lots_* 🙏
*_Got a photoshop, picture of_* 🌐
*_Fashion killer, I'm too much_* 💪
*_You're the only one I wanna punch_* 🤜🌐
*_I say you're fake everytime I stream_* 👨💻
*_On every page, every size of screen_* 📱💻🖥📺
*_So wild so free stay far from me_* ⚠
*_You're all I loathe, lie fantasy_* 🤮
*_Oh, look what you've done through this rotten ball clown_* 😠
*_Oh oh, look what you've done_* 😡
*_Photoshop - I don't want your..._* 🌎
*_Photoshop - I don't need your..._* 🌍
*_Photoshop - All you've got is a photoshop_* 🌏
*_But it's not enough_* 🙅♂
*_I'd be your leader, if you're there_* 👨🏫
*_Put your trust on me, if you care_* 🤝
*_Such a human, I got style_* 😎
*_I make every brain heal with a smile, oh_* 😊
*_You had some kinda hold on me_* ⛓
*_You're all washed up it's history_* 🌐🟰💩
*_So wild so free stay far from me_* ⚠
*_You're all I loathe, lie fantasy_* 🤮
*_Oh, look what you've done through this rotten ball clown_* 😠
*_Oh oh, look what you've done_* 😡
*_I gotta hate you_* 🤬
*_Photoshop - I don't want your..._* 🌎
*_Photoshop - I don't need your..._* 🌍
*_Photoshop - All you've got is a photoshop_* 🌏
*_You've gone straight off my head_* 😌
We did not,land on moon.
The consilience of evidence and six landings prove you wrong.
You're an idiot, but carry on.
Based on your grammar alone I don't believe you.
5:13 “flag… freshman high school level“ 😂😂😂😂😂. I don’t know where you went to high school but I never heard this explanation in my life. It actually always bothered me. I think it’s a good idea that you well-paid government scientists are coming back down to earth to talk to us simple people and explain to us interesting things.
Myth Busters also adressed many of these theories. Also, as a public individual, I feel you have a duty to adress these theories. Finally, I am sure Joe is open to having debunking heard, as he has been open in the past.
Thanks I am in contact with Joe
Stop acting like you debunked something, because you didn't. I get it... you're just doing damage control, but you didn't debunk anything
You're a flat earther so how would you know if he's debunked it?
Why does Elon Musk say he needs to stage fuel (much more than Apollo) to make it to the moon and back?
Because his shit is much bigger and uses more fuel.
@@kayjay592 What is the mass of Elons shit landing on the moon and returning vs Apollo?
@@kayjay592 Its not 7-9 refuels. They need 7-9 launches the get enough fuel up there.
You cant get lots of it up there in a single go.
Seriously? How exactly did you debunk anything?
Nothing in existence would qualify as a debunking to you.
Just call it fake, CGI, photoshop......
You subscribe to the claim that the moon landings were faked which is one of the biggest displays of misunderstanding of facts and ignorance on the internet, so how exactly would you be able to tell if he's debunked anything? You're a joke.
You subscribe to the claim that the moon landings were faked which is one of the biggest displays of misunderstanding of facts and ignorance on the internet, so how exactly would you be able to tell if he's debunked anything? You wouldn't know the truth about this if it hit you in the face.
You subscribe to the claim that the moon landings were faked which is one of the biggest displays of misunderstanding of facts and willful ignorance on the internet, so how exactly would you be able to tell if he's debunked anything?
Let me guess, Brian thinks Elivs is dead.
Who is this mysterious "Elivs" character?
@@viralsheddingzombie5324 it's Elvis Presley. Google it. Some people didn't believe he'd died and a whole little "cult" grew up around it.
@@viralsheddingzombie5324 He is the Lord of Rivendell.
That is lunacy, all we know for sure is that Elvis has left the building.
You ain't nothing but a hound dog 😂
Bart
Dr. Keating thank you for this. Rogan could barely keep it together, Jamie talked more than ever before.
I agree about Jamie!
The budget argument is very powerful. People don’t realize how much less America spends today on Space and Military now compared to the 1960s. Back in the 1960s darn near 2/3 of the federal budget was military spending. Today, we spend more on social programs. Imagine having to shoot for the moon now when everything costs more and your budget as a % of GDP is even lower than before.
That is not a powerful argument at all, you just aren't applying critical thought. If we pretend the landings were real for a moment, we can look at it like this:
In the 60's, NASA was trying to figure out how to get to the moon from scratch. Everything needed to be researched, designed, and constructed. This was technology that had never existed before, so the expense would naturally be large. 25,000 firms, 400,000 workers.
In addition, NASA ran 3 separate programs to learn about spaceflight before they ever allegedly touched down on the moon. Mercury, Gemini, then Apollo. Multiple different crafts, different suits, different rockets... all at a premium cost due to the revolutionary nature of the task and the innovation required by all. This doesn't even factor in why costs spiralled in the first place. Mistakes, delays, redesigns etc...
Now that all that preliminary research and testing has been done, there would not be any need today for a budget as large as they had back then. All they need to do is build the craft they already designed and fly it to the moon. Simple. The fact they make weak excuses like "its too expensive" is sheer foolishness. In 60 years, the costs associated with manufacturing haven't come down at all? What a crock of cr@p. It's just an excuse to cover for the fact they never went in the first place.
The budget argument is the weakest I ever heard.
Never understood why people continue to insult each other publicly when the data provided as evidence should be the only thing that is needed in this video or others that are debunking. Not insults. Not the need for name calling, mimicking etc.
Yeah the data, the science.... like hearing Fauci again. You do realise the data can be as good as the one who produces it? People swapped the meaning of science with propaganda, those are not the same thing unfortunately. Science requires repetitive confirmation of a thesis, by unrelated sources and by sources I mean researchers not new media. The fact that the herd repeats bs all over the place doesn't make bs truth especially if the actual information source is the same.
Do not lean until your own understanding, but to faith.
If it really pisses you off that the moon landing was faked, debate Bart for $1,000,000. Let's see where you stand unless you're scared. This will be the debate of the century. I'll chip in on the bet just to see a "layman" demolish a "scientist" on a debate.
BS man doesn`t˛debate.
There's no point in debating Sibrel. He's just a taxi driver turned con man.
I’m 55 now and I remember back in the day moon landing, conspiracy theorist with take me off as well, because I never thought our country would be able to do something so insane. After the last few years, I now realize my country is capable of anything.
Saying that, I believe we went to the moon. The most compelling thing the guy said was maybe the Earth in the window thing.
i thought nasa had said they went to the moon but they faked the footage?
We (the humans) did not. It's not a big deal.
The most compelling thing is that you can build the entire mission in matlab (and people have using the software that was running on the computers at the time) and it all works exactly as expected.
The Internet turned your brain into soup. Now you will believe anything except non-conspiracy.
I think the issue is that we haven’t sent anyone back there for 50 years.
It’s always going to raise questions
We have, there have been several people on the moon since. People stopped caring enough to warrant another go.
He provided ZERO proofs that they went.
It's just : it's impossible they would have fake it, trust me bro!
If you don't provide any proofs why would you expect people to "believe".
We don't want to believe we want to know!
Do you genuinely want to know? - If so, learn about the actual science, technology and the history of the Apollo Programme instead of what junk online conspiracy theory and fraudulent grifters tell you what to think. All of the answers are out there and none of this is a question of 'belief'.
This is a great undertaking