Astrophysicist Debunks the Moon Landing Conspiracy Theory
VloĹžit
- Äas pĹidĂĄn 10. 06. 2024
- Join my mailing list briankeating.com/list to win a real 4 billion year old meteorite! All .edu emails in the USA đşđ¸ will WIN!
In 1969, Apollo 11 was the first crewed mission to land on the Moon.
Or was it?
According to conspiracy theorists, it's obvious that the moon landing was faked. Now, I don't usually pay much attention to such claims, but a few days ago Joe Rogan published a new episode of his podcast, in which he hosted none other than Bart Sibrel himself, giving him a platform to spread his anti-science nonsense to millions of people around the world.
So, as a scientist, more specifically an astrophysicist, I feel that it is my duty to debunk his claims one by one and to explain the science behind the Apollo 11 mission.
Tune in!
Key Takeaways:
00:00:00 Intro
00:01:26 Getting the terminology right
00:03:11 Wind on the Moon
00:04:57 Magnetic fields and radiation
00:08:48 Going to Antarctica
00:10:50 Letâs look at the evidence
00:17:00 Why are so many people defending the moon landing?
00:20:14 The science behind the Moon landing
00:33:37 Back to the Moon!
00:39:23 Outro
References:
Jre segment with moon discussion and footage ⢠Bart Sibrel Argues Tha...
full JRE video is here ⢠Joe Rogan Experience #...
⢠Moon had magnetic field at least a billion years longer than thought www.theguardian.com/science/2...
⢠A Real Dynamo: Moonâs Magnetic Field Lasted Far Longer Than ... www.space.com/37756-moon-magn...
⢠Magnetic fields on the moon are the remnant of an ancient core ... www.sciencedaily.com/releases...
⢠Mystery of Moonâs Magnetic Field Deepens | Scientific American www.scientificamerican.com/ar...
⢠How strong is Sun magnetic field on Moon surface? And on Mars? space.stackexchange.com/quest...
⢠A Study of the Magnetic Field of Moon - NASA/ADS adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1962I...
⢠Lunar Laser Ranging experiments - Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_L...
⢠How NASA Uses Simple Technology to Track Lunar Missions www.nasa.gov/missions/artemis...
⢠Tests of Gravity Using Lunar Laser Ranging - SpringerLink link.springer.com/article/10....
⢠Next-generation Laser Ranging at Lunar Geophysical Network and ... iopscience.iop.org/article/10...
⢠International Laser Ranging Service - NASA ilrs.gsfc.nasa.gov
SEISMOGRAPH
INDIA AND CHINA
⢠Independent Verification
The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) has taken high-definition photos of the Apollo landing sites, capturing the Lunar Module descent stages and the tracks left by the astronauts. This provides independent verification of the landings, as the LRO is a separate spacecraft not involved in the original Apollo missions.
Additional resources:
âĄď¸ Follow me on your fav platforms:
âď¸ Twitter: / drbriankeating
đ CZcams: czcams.com/users/DrBrianKeatin...
đ Join my mailing list: briankeating.com/list
âď¸ Check out my blog: briankeating.com/cosmic-musings/
đď¸ Follow my podcast: briankeating.com/podcast
Into the Impossible with Brian Keating is a podcast dedicated to all those who want to explore the universe within and beyond the known.
Make sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode!
#intotheimpossible #briankeating #joerogan #bartsibrel - VÄda a technologie
![Adam Frank: Are We About To Discover Aliens? [Ep. 425]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ajSz9ljfsFc/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? đ¤đ¤đ¤đ¤đ¤đ¤đ¤đ¤
I 100% believe that we went to the moon but Dr. Keating this seems rushed đ¤ˇââď¸
I think Joe did a decent job constantly having to tell Bart âIâm steel-manningâ 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 đť
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.
â@@jasondelano7702well it was a conspiracy theory untill it was found out and the government come clean , so he's spot on with his analysis đ
@@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. Itâs 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.
@@PhonyPhoniPhone 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.
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, itâs 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.
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 âcolludeâ with the US in a worldwide deception.
Which reason he gave?
â@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
Extremely disappointed with how you presented this topic. When you want to change someone's mind, you certainly don't do it by calling them a pathetic idiot. It's not infantile to believe the government lies and keep secrets. We know they do this. I sure was hoping that you'd give me a nice factual conversation about how the moon landing really happened, but that's not what happened. You rambled on about "why would they do this" and belittled and demeaned everyone who believes it could have been faked.
"Why would they do this" is a valid question, considering the fact that Bart does not do a good job explaining it himself.
And that was my point too, he flashes his credentials as if what he says must be true.
The moon landing is true because he went to the South Pole, LMFAO.
Good comment. Brian reminded me of Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Everything in video was snark. "I'm a real scientist." That means they have a PhD. LOL. I would rather ask a aerospace engineer their opinion on the moon landing.
Bart was terrorizing Neil Armstrong and the other astronauts. The man is completely off his rocker
well in his defence 99.9 % of humans are dimwitted , pathetic idiots......and MORONS 2 boot !!
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?
They can't even get to it in 2024 . how was is possible then and not now?đ¤ˇââď¸
Who told you they can't get to it in 2024?
Rather why didn't they go there yet again? One answer is there might be no real incentive to do that, the second answer might be because it's currently impossible and most likely wasn't back then either, my guess is just as good as yours, pick one đ
Incentive + money. If you only have one, you are going nowhere.
The necessary initial Orion unmanned trip to the moon says they can't send people in 2024?
I donât 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 wasnât referring to the flag standing to attention because he didnât 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 âwaves in the windâ. I know you say itâs because of the vibrations from the astronauts and the they of atmosphere, however Iâd like to hear the explanation as to why the âwaveâ slows down and speeds up at points whilst the astronauts arenât near it. Otherwise heâs point could still be valid.
2. The van allen belt, he covers why astronauts on the ISS and previous missions arenât affected by it, I believe he states it starts x000miles away, almost like a doughnut, so wouldnât 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 âtalkâ. 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 donât 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? Doesnât mean it didnât 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 donât know the source.
I donât agree. But letâs 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 đ¤
@@user-nv1ro9ie6x 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.
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.
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 manđ
@@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.
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. Itâs the power of storytelling I suppose.
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.
â@@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.
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. đ
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 âa little blowâ he meant thatâs how he got the cocaine away from him.
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.
I think you are under appreciating how gullible Joe Rogan is.
@@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 đ.
NASA still hasnât solved the van Allen belt issue⌠according to nasa
Source?
Of course not. You freaks never have a source (or proof).
@@marksprague1280 1974. paper by Kruger&Dunning.
âThe 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.â
James Van Allen
đ Thanks for the laugh, you pumpkin
It hasn't solved it for Orion. Yet.
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
Asking "why" avoids debating the evidence at hand.
How much of the podcast did you listen to?
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 canât refute any of the technical points I made. Have a nice day
â@@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 âNever go full retardâ 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.â@@mikeyforrester6887
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
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
Lol 31:37 we make travel on earth less safe when we question what people say they've done?
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 hasnât 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 âź3.9, 3.6, 3.3, and 3.2 billion years ago, donât 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.)
Thereâs a second step to the research, too. Thatâs for scientists to show that the moonâs 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 Moonâs 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 (ÎźT), whereas present-day Earthâs magnetic field is around 50 ÎźT1. During the Apollo program, magnetic field strength readings ranged from 6Îł (6nT) to a maximum of 313Îł (0.31ÎźT) at different sites. Some hypotheses suggest that the Moon acquired its crustal magnetizations early in its history when a geodynamo was still operating. However, itâs 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 Moonâs 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
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
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.
â@@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?
â@@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 itâs weird they lost and recorded over the footage and telemetry data
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,
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.
â@@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?
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?
Not so sure that "plane safety" was a prudent choice of analogies to use these days đ
Really? Commercial Aviation, âper passenger mileâ, is SEVEN times safer than travel by automobile. . .
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 đŤŁđ
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.
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?
The flag wasn't moving because of wind and the footprint on the moon was proved real by the myth busters in an episode along with other myths
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.â 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 âa man-made lightâ
Reference the flag moving in the wind. If they were on earth, then someone forgot to close the stage set doors every time they put a flag up. The movement is obviously down to the flag being moved by hand; it is interesting that only the bottom of the flag 'flaps in the wind' as it has no stiffener unlike the top held out strait and horizontal.
I love your work. Would love an interview with Dr Gerald Schroeder!
Iâm 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.
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. Iâm sorry to hear that. How pray tell did Bart survive telling this story for decades now? Is he ok?
9.6.2024
hello Dr Brian Keating!
thanks for this video.
I'm here to heal đ
Def Leppard - Photograph (my cover version)
*_I'm outa lie, outa lots_* đ
*_Got a photoshop, picture of_* đ
*_Fashion killer, I'm too much_* đŞ
*_You're the only one I wanna punch_* đ¤đ
*_I say you're fake everytime I stream_* đ¨âđť
*_On every page, every size of screen_* đąđťđĽđş
*_So wild so free stay far from me_* â
*_You're all I loathe, lie fantasy_* đ¤Ž
*_Oh, look what you've done through this rotten ball clown_* đ
*_Oh oh, look what you've done_* đĄ
*_Photoshop - I don't want your..._* đ
*_Photoshop - I don't need your..._* đ
*_Photoshop - All you've got is a photoshop_* đ
*_But it's not enough_* đ ââ
*_I'd be your leader, if you're there_* đ¨âđŤ
*_Put your trust on me, if you care_* đ¤
*_Such a human, I got style_* đ
*_I make every brain heal with a smile, oh_* đ
*_You had some kinda hold on me_* â
*_You're all washed up it's history_* đđ°đŠ
*_So wild so free stay far from me_* â
*_You're all I loathe, lie fantasy_* đ¤Ž
*_Oh, look what you've done through this rotten ball clown_* đ
*_Oh oh, look what you've done_* đĄ
*_I gotta hate you_* đ¤Ź
*_Photoshop - I don't want your..._* đ
*_Photoshop - I don't need your..._* đ
*_Photoshop - All you've got is a photoshop_* đ
*_You've gone straight off my head_* đ
Some might call us insane to question the moon landing in 2024. I think it's great just thinking about it and talking about it too. Thanks Dr. Keating!!
I agree! Anyone can prove it by mathematics. I wouldn't believe planes fly but with mathematics it perfectly makes sense!
@@Life_42 Big time. That Bart guy is easily disproved but damn he's kinda entertaining. I love conspiracy theories but I don't believe them all. Some stem from a sliver of truth and others not so much. I can see why others don't believe it happened given America's history with the truth.
Agreed.
Just talking in detail about these things is better than dismissal.
@@daveythesearcher I'm still in awe every time watching a plane fly over! Thinking how heavy the plane is, all the engineering, and how fast all the people in the plane are traveling comfortably with a restroom, food, and other luxuries!
@@Life_42 It's definitely worth a pause for thought. Thanks for engaging i love exploring stuff from the mundane to the unanswerable.
This is a great undertaking
When speaking of the 18th mission you almost said âscriptedâ before you caught yourself and said âscheduledâ, now they will use that soundbite as a way to debunk nasa.
While I DON'T DISAGREE... this had the tone of a Priest lecturing a "non-believer" and I'm not sure that helps anyone.
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.
5:13 âflag⌠freshman high school levelâ đđđđđ. I donât know where you went to high school but I never heard this explanation in my life. It actually always bothered me. I think itâs 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.
I think the issue is that we havenât sent anyone back there for 50 years.
Itâs always going to raise questions
We have, there have been several people on the moon since. People stopped caring enough to warrant another go.
Good luck getting back on JRE....
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 heâs 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.
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.
Do not lean until your own understanding, but to faith.
"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.
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.....
Shill or fake intellect. Time will tell.
Time will tell when those landing sites are confirmed by other countries. The fools here will be nowhere to be seen at that point.
60 years and waiting.. any day now right â@@Vic-cv3df
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.
I've always liked that documentary, Supermoon Me, where the guy eats only moon rocks for 30 days and his liver is shot but it turns out he was getting blasted every night so it wasn't actually the moon rocks that ruined his liver after all. I mean that scene where he throws up moon rocks in the moon's parking lot was dramatic and all, but seriously: Eating lots of moon does not link to liver damage. Yet, people still go on Rogan about it. It's sad.
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
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?
@@twitherspoon8954 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?
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.
âThe 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.â
James Van Allen
Itâs difficult too convince people we landed on the moon, but itâs 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 wonât 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.
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.
The sun produces certain artifact shadows, but an artificial light produces different artifact shadows because of radius of the rays.
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 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 doesnât 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.
â@@davebowles1957And that's called arrogance.
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?
Why would the astronauts say they, "don't recall seeing any stars" in their initial press conference upon return?
They did go for sure, I have studied the missions transcripts intensely. The reason we have not been back is that from the time they left Earth orbit untill they arrived in Lunar orbit they could see no stars, or even the Sun. The most important of "One of truths protective layers" that Armstrong told us about.
The only thing that you've "studied" is online grift and what dumb conspiracy theorists told you to think.
@@yassassin6425 I'm only reporting what the astronauts said so unless you are a moon hoaxer you are just too dumb to hear.
@@thedarkmoon2341 No, you're not. In fact, the astronauts _explicitly_ state that they can see the stars once they fly into Moon's shadow. You'd know that, had you been really "studying the missions transcripts intensely".
@@Jan_Strzelecki No, they saw lots of stars when they arrived in the vicinity of the moon and took photos oft hem, and said thy were all white.
071:59:20 Armstrong: Houston, it's been a real change for us. Now we're able to see stars again and recognize constellations for the first time on the trip. It's - the sky is full of stars. Just like the night side of Earth. But all the way here, we've only been able to see stars occasionally and perhaps through the monocular, but not recognize any star patterns.
@@thedarkmoon2341 So you do admit that your initial statement was incorrect?
Okay, if you say itâs real then I believe youđ
đ Dear God...
@@onlyonewhyphy Well, heâs not some random , heâs a freakin cosmologist đ
@@vanessa1569 lol, yeah you "trust the experts". That's never backfired, backfires and continues to backfire.
I think Brian is correct. Your logic and reasoning is beautifully hilarious and ignorant.
@@onlyonewhyphy In all fairness, I donât trust any olâ expert, but the quality of his dad jokes reveal a nerdiness that gives me reason to be confident đ
Thankyou. My father was there from the beginning at NACA, it hurts my soul knowing what NASA actually does, I was brought up on the base, with the whack jobs of the internet take over the science algorithms. My father helped create the space program and he wasn't the Wizard of Oz he was a mechanical engineer focused on solid rocket and propulsion technologies. Bart drives me nuts. Thankyou
There are plenty of fruitbats flying around on the internet. We live in strange times, indeed.
The Lunar Orbital Reconnaissance satellite took a very good picture of the Apollo 11 landing site on March 7th, 2012.
Yes youâre right.
@@DrBrianKeating There is also a good video done by a CZcams channel called "The Action Lab", entitled 'Putting a Flag in a Vacuum Chamber to See if Flags Can Wave on the Moon". It is a practical experiment showing that the flag will still wave in a vacuum. Nice basic experiment to easily disprove this most famous claim the moon landing was faked.
Bart showed the pictures where you can see sh#$ , just a random picture of a lunar peice of land, no flag, no rover. How easy is it to show actual pictures of the rover or anything related to apollo ?? Why there is no picture on the net ??
Definitely debunked critics, although spent too much time attacking critics.
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
Myth buster did a good special on debunking all the conspiracy through demonstration. Worth taking a look
Seriously? How exactly did you debunk anything?
Nothing in existence would qualify as a debunking to you.
Just call it fake, CGI, photoshop......
Wow, Dr. I have never seen you so fired up about a subject. I will walk lightly because I really want your professional opinion. Have you thought about the pictures taken on the moon with the Hasselblad film camera. I can go into more detail if you are interested.
Well either way I look forward to you taking up the invitation and going on Joe Rogan and debating Bart, and the invitation was put out there at the end of the show, unless you're too busy to go on the most watched English speaking podcasts on the planet.đ
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)
â@@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)
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.
Only in America could a large proportion of the population want to call into question, their greatest technical achievement, (an inspiration to the world) Itâs the level of general education (general science) and critical thinking ability. Many kids have no interest in the miracle they were born into ⌠The Universe.
Great video, it was sorely needed đ.
Iâve heard more people giving Rogan a hard time for platforming these people but I think theyâre missing the point. Joe does a great job of platforming interesting people (including you) and even loons but itâs 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.
If Rogan held the conspiracy theorists accountable for there theories I would agree with you. But he doesnât he encourages them by agreeing with their stupidity. I suppose itâs partly due to Joeâs lack of education.
@@tcl5853Joe is not on a quest for irrefutable truth, his obsession is like most podcasters-content.
Why?
Eyeballs đ !!!
Like a Black executive once said about the channel, âBETâ, in response to people from the Black community complaining about the networkâs content:
âThe âEâ in âBETâ does not stand for educationâ
Conspiracy Theory. . . âTwo people can keep a secret, if one of them is deadâ
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 shouldnât 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.
Almost slipped up and said they were getting ready to script another landing at 835
I caught that too đ
The picture in which Bart refers to "electrical light"
was a picture the astronaut took of his own shadow with the sun behind him.
A few feet to the right was a rock that had a shadow produced by a light source to its right instead of behind.
I contend even artificial light would not produce that picture. The two shadows intersected at 90 deg. instead of at the horizon.
The astronauts shadow would have to been composited in.
*_"I contend"_*
But no one gives a flying f**k about your personal incredulity, least of all reality!
stop using joes thumbnail
Leave him alone
@@Bambino_60 make me
@@PauloConstantino167 I really want to say âYEAH! Make himâ đ
@@seabud6408 make me
Brian i like you bro but your wrong on this one.
Why would Joe have this guy on his show , simple âbusinessâ.Joe runs a business and a lot of his followers like this conspiracy stuff.
It's my understanding that the moon is an extremely hostile environment. For example, temperatures may vary between -250 to 200 degrees depending on exposure to the sun. Or what about the chances that a small space rock traveling 25,000 mph crashes into the astronauts or the spacecraft.
Very low
@@DrBrianKeating What's more controversial is the question of whether or not the moon is actually real. There is a book called 'Our Mysterious Spaceship Moon'.
The astronauts were never exposed to the maximum temperature on the Moon which is +260F at mid-day. With no atmosphere this refers to surface temperature not atmospheric temperature. Every lunar landing was made shortly after sunrise. One lunar day (dawn to dusk) lasts nearly 15 Earth days, and the astronauts were only on the Moon for a maximum of 3 Earth days, so they werenât there long enough for the Sun to be at its highest and hottest or at night when the Moon is at its coldest.
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.
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 âwe went to the moon, periodâ and then got some scientific facts wrong that any high school student should know. I donât believe we didn't go to the moon, but this was a less than average attempt, particularly from someone who calls themselves a scientist
Impressive, very nice. But can you debunk âAmerican Moonâ by Massimo Mazzucco?
@DrBrianKeating it would be better to say "testa a testa" (head to head) than "mano a mano" (it usually means "by steps")
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 couldnât fit its fenders in there isâŚ. interesting. The less you understand, the easier it is to shout âFAKEâ.
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...
@@Monkey-Epic this just tells me you havenât looked through the scans of all the film magazines. Even the few âcover shotsâ (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 âBlue Marbleâ 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, itâs quite washed out. Itâs 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 Iâve 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 havenât 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. Itâs also fun (for me) seeing the âsignatureâ of each astronaut on the pics they take. By âsignatureâ 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 werenât 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 âstudio lightingâ 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 yearsâŚ
@@Monkey-Epic 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.
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 đ
People can be so limited in their own perception of their own potential that they assume that other humans arenât capable of such achievements
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.
Too much mudslinging and emotional attitude. Was hoping for a video without that stuff.
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.
â@@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
Do you know how some people don't believe we went to the moon? Well, I don't believe there is a moon.
I'm only kiddingđ , but it is definitely not 1/4 of a million miles away. I can see it from my house and I wear glasses đŽ