Who has the stronger argument: me, or Bart?

@mrslave41

Ай бұрын

the interesting question is when are you going to figure out the mathematical theory that predicts his behavior? 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔

@Wandering_Chemist

Ай бұрын

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 🍻

@WhatDemocracy

Ай бұрын

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

@WhatDemocracy

Ай бұрын

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

@WhatDemocracy

Ай бұрын

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!

@jasondelano7702

Ай бұрын

Exactly. If he calls a certified event such as Operation Paprclip a conspiracy theory, is he qualified to comment on this matter at all?

@jonathonkiner7415

Ай бұрын

@@jasondelano7702 No he is not.

@FaceFcuk

Ай бұрын

​@@jasondelano7702well it was a conspiracy theory untill it was found out and the government come clean , so he's spot on with his analysis 👍

@user-yk4gd1fl4z

Ай бұрын

@@jasondelano7702 The guy dosen't seem particularly researched or very intelligent to me.

@jasondelano7702

Ай бұрын

@@user-yk4gd1fl4z Not in the least bit.

It's easier to be fooled than to be told you were fooled.

@PhonyPhoniPhone

29 күн бұрын

Everybody plays the fool. It’s even more foolish to not admit it and double down on the foolishness.

@CT99234

23 күн бұрын

History has taught us that your point is utterly untrue.

@PhonyPhoniPhone

22 күн бұрын

@@CT99234 which side are you on hoax or real?

@michaelbarrett7327

20 күн бұрын

@@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.

@michaelbarrett7327

20 күн бұрын

@@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.

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.

@Vic-cv3df

27 күн бұрын

"Why would they do this" is a valid question, considering the fact that Bart does not do a good job explaining it himself.

@LookOutForNumberOne

27 күн бұрын

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.

@jasonnewland6187

27 күн бұрын

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.

@TELEVISIONARCHIVES

25 күн бұрын

Bart was terrorizing Neil Armstrong and the other astronauts. The man is completely off his rocker

@user-hx5lz4qr1c

16 күн бұрын

well in his defence 99.9 % of humans are dimwitted , pathetic idiots......and MORONS 2 boot !!

4:05 Wait a minute. He exactly specified why the USSR would "collude" with their arch enemy.

@Jim-mn7yq

Ай бұрын

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.

@matheusrocha8731

Ай бұрын

Which reason he gave?

@onlyonewhyphy

Ай бұрын

​@matheusrocha8731 I didn't check, but he's clearly stated 4:05. Maybe check.

@matheusrocha8731

Ай бұрын

@@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).

@onlyonewhyphy

Ай бұрын

@@matheusrocha8731 based on your opening sentence, I'm going to treat you the same way. TL;DR

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

@markh441

Ай бұрын

He thinks artificial light is a candle lol

@kevinalmiron8693

Ай бұрын

@@markh441 I don't know why he made such a big deal about something so simple. We all know what electric light is

@michaelbarrett7327

20 күн бұрын

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

8 күн бұрын

All light is electromagnetic waves, it’s all a phenomenon of electromagnetism.

@michaelbarrett7327

8 күн бұрын

@@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.

They can't even get to it in 2024 . how was is possible then and not now?🤷‍♂️

@Jan_Strzelecki

21 күн бұрын

Who told you they can't get to it in 2024?

@DamianB82

13 күн бұрын

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 😅

@paulndorosh

8 күн бұрын

Incentive + money. If you only have one, you are going nowhere.

@GBlunted

7 күн бұрын

The necessary initial Orion unmanned trip to the moon says they can't send people in 2024?

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.

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

Ай бұрын

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.

@user-kj5sr7bn8l

Ай бұрын

@@DrBrianKeating ever hear of a "fan"? It keeps a room cool.

@user-nv1ro9ie6x

Ай бұрын

@@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.

@dark_sky_guy

29 күн бұрын

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 🤔

@gunternetzer9621

28 күн бұрын

@@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.

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.

@jasonviola1880

Ай бұрын

Well said, you can't bring that emotion into the debate.

@ricodelta1

Ай бұрын

Flint held his own but still remained unconvincing

@marcusedvalson

Ай бұрын

@@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.

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

@douglasdarling7606

Ай бұрын

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😅

@RevalFassaadid

Ай бұрын

@@douglasdarling7606 and my cat name is betty, stay at the point

@maskonfilteroff3145

Ай бұрын

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?

@vitaly2432

29 күн бұрын

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.

@gunternetzer9621

29 күн бұрын

6 landings (of which 3 weren't perfect) and testing from Apollo 7 to 10 in Earth and lunar orbit.

NASA still hasn’t solved the van Allen belt issue… according to nasa

@marksprague1280

27 күн бұрын

Source? Of course not. You freaks never have a source (or proof).

@djuro14

27 күн бұрын

@@marksprague1280 1974. paper by Kruger&Dunning.

@djuro14

18 күн бұрын

“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

@Prometheus7272

9 күн бұрын

😂 Thanks for the laugh, you pumpkin

@jasoncatt

8 күн бұрын

It hasn't solved it for Orion. Yet.

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.

@kendallcjones9032

Ай бұрын

bingo -- he gave no answers to the issues raised; nothing

@dispatchcenter1241

27 күн бұрын

Would it matter if he gave info you can find online by yourself? Nothing you asked for is a secret.

@Vic-cv3df

27 күн бұрын

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.

@Death_is_inevitable.

25 күн бұрын

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.

@Death_is_inevitable.

25 күн бұрын

​@@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.

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

Ай бұрын

I think you are under appreciating how gullible Joe Rogan is.

@cjcholbert

Ай бұрын

@@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.

@human678

Ай бұрын

@@tcl5853 Joe has switched sides on this topic

@dirkbester9050

Ай бұрын

@@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.

@Jacob-ed1bl

Ай бұрын

It was a fucking joke, you seriously got that butt-hurt 😂.

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".

@FaceFcuk

Ай бұрын

I will rephrase that " TO CROSS THE RADIATION BELT MORE SAFELY ".

@KevinVenturePhilippines

29 күн бұрын

For a NEW mission. Wow, lol. 🙄

@marksprague1280

28 күн бұрын

O'Bozo as a scientific source?????? You really ARE desperate.

@occhamite

28 күн бұрын

@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.....

@funpants9448

28 күн бұрын

When Obama said “a little blow” he meant that’s how he got the cocaine away from him.

In the Rogan episode there was a call for someone to debate Bart Sibrel. You should go on again and debate him

@TheTjb1956

26 күн бұрын

brian keating is about as credible as the moon landings and shocking at making a point

How much of the podcast did you listen to?

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

Asking "why" avoids debating the evidence at hand.

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

@codetech5598

Ай бұрын

Weren't there people (Eskimos) already living near the North Pole?

@gunternetzer9621

20 күн бұрын

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.

@DamianB82

13 күн бұрын

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

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...

@jimpresser3438

Ай бұрын

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

Ай бұрын

He never said the magnetic field was like Earths

@jasondelano7702

Ай бұрын

@@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.

@LookOutForNumberOne

27 күн бұрын

HE knows better because he is a REAL scientist that went to the South Pole. LMFAO

@MrMarcRomain

22 күн бұрын

He's obviously a paid shill from somebody

Lol 31:37 we make travel on earth less safe when we question what people say they've done?

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.

@grimmertwin2148

Ай бұрын

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.

@manueloliveira200

Ай бұрын

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!!

@ThomasVWorm

Ай бұрын

Come on. They just send a broadcast satellite to the moon with a VCR.

@aussiehardwood6196

Ай бұрын

​@@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.

@ticthak

27 күн бұрын

@@ThomasVWorm And how would they manage the seleno-stationary (or even close enough to that for sufficient time) orbit for that apeture?

You never addressed the point that there was not enough battery power to run the electronics and air conditioning for the entire time.

@ThomasVWorm

Ай бұрын

There was obviously enough battery power.

@NotEvenAProperWordForAUserName

Ай бұрын

​@@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

@ThomasVWorm

Ай бұрын

@@NotEvenAProperWordForAUserName why do you think, you do need airconditioning? And why do you think, they did use car batteries?

@onlyonewhyphy

Ай бұрын

​@@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...

@tomatoparty3158

29 күн бұрын

You have to admit it’s weird they lost and recorded over the footage and telemetry data

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

Not so sure that "plane safety" was a prudent choice of analogies to use these days 🙄

@dewiz9596

Ай бұрын

Really? Commercial Aviation, “per passenger mile”, is SEVEN times safer than travel by automobile. . .

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.

@marksprague1280

25 күн бұрын

There is no "debate". There's simply a group of con men profitting from the gullibility of a herd of scientifically-illiterate id10ts.

@djuro14

24 күн бұрын

@@marksprague1280 Will they weasel out of the trip to Antarctica?

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.

@marksprague1280

18 күн бұрын

Why would anyone bother to dignify that taxi-driving felon and proven liar by debating him,

There isn't actually a lot of scientific evidence presented here...was hoping for more.

@Tonelife70

Ай бұрын

Because the moon conspiracy people offer tons of scientific proof 🫣😂

@Vic-cv3df

27 күн бұрын

He addressed Bart's claims and did a good job dispelling them.

@LookOutForNumberOne

27 күн бұрын

He can't give you what he does not have, that is why he is all over the place.

@Starvin_Marvin138

26 күн бұрын

He falls into just repeating the same lines and attacking people's intelligence like all people like him, without actually giving an individual thought.

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.

@tubecated_development

22 күн бұрын

To really split hairs, there is such a thing as ‘a man-made light’

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.

@occhamite

28 күн бұрын

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

When Keating started off arguing semantics of the term, "electrical light" he immediately lost credibility. This was a distraction from relevant facts.

@DrBrianKeating

Ай бұрын

lol very open minded of you shows you can’t refute any of the technical points I made. Have a nice day

@jasondelano7702

Ай бұрын

​@@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?

@Greenham6603

Ай бұрын

I wise man once said “Never go full retard” and you Stanley chose to do it anyways.

@mikeyforrester6887

29 күн бұрын

@@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)"

@moesypittounikos

29 күн бұрын

What he said about the waving flag sounded convincing. It made sense to me anyway.​@@mikeyforrester6887

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.

@michaelbarrett7327

20 күн бұрын

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.

We all had enough intelligence to understand what he meant by electrical light! The fact you had a problem comprehending that goes to show why we would love not seeing you again on our screens.

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.

Why didn't other countries go to the moon then? Please be more technical and descriptive your debunk seems like a dud

@marksprague1280

14 күн бұрын

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.

Do not lean until your own understanding, but to faith.

I love your work. Would love an interview with Dr Gerald Schroeder!

The film wouldn't have survived a minute on the moon, or on trip through the Van Allen Belts. You are completely deluded. We are living in a Truman Show.

@arthorse6835

18 сағат бұрын

I'm so tempted to do a personal experiment at home: take film and put it in my 250*F oven for 2+ hours and then try to develop that film. Same goes for the duct tape they used on the moon mobile fender, the family pic that was left by Charles Duke in plastic on the moon's surface and the spiral notepads the astronauts had attached to their sleeves. How can those items survive that heat for more than several minutes?

@yassassin6425

12 сағат бұрын

*_"The film wouldn't have survived a minute on the moon"_* Why? *_"or on trip through the Van Allen Belts"_* Why?

@yassassin6425

12 сағат бұрын

@@arthorse6835 . *_"I'm so tempted to do a personal experiment at home: take film and put it in my 250*F oven for 2+ hours and then try to develop that film."_* Instead of ending up with a charred molten mess that you will then need to clean off your oven you could instead learn about the difference between heat and temperature. Then appreciate that in a vacuum there is no convection, whilst understanding how the film was contained and protected from the radiative heating of the sun and that 250°F represents a surface equilibrium temperature that takes time to reach and was an extreme that was never experienced by the Apollo missions which were all timed to coincide with the lunar dawn. Lunar daytime is equivalent to 29.5 Earth days. *_"Same goes for the duct tape they used on the moon mobile fender, the family pic that was left by Charles Duke in plastic on the moon's surface and the spiral notepads the astronauts had attached to their sleeves. How can those items survive that heat for more than several minutes?"_* Because in the absence of an atmosphere there is obviously no air temperature. Why is it even necessary to explain this?

stop using joes thumbnail

@Bambino_60

11 күн бұрын

Leave him alone

@PauloConstantino167

11 күн бұрын

@@Bambino_60 make me

@seabud6408

8 күн бұрын

@@PauloConstantino167 I really want to say “YEAH! Make him” 😀

@PauloConstantino167

8 күн бұрын

@@seabud6408 make me

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.

@GetnBrains

Ай бұрын

i thought nasa had said they went to the moon but they faked the footage?

@monky_dust

Ай бұрын

We (the humans) did not. It's not a big deal.

@sdrc92126

Ай бұрын

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.

@tubecated_development

Ай бұрын

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.

@DrBrianKeating

16 күн бұрын

Wow. I’m sorry to hear that. How pray tell did Bart survive telling this story for decades now? Is he ok?

When speaking of the 18th mission you almost said “scripted” before you caught yourself and said “scheduled”, now they will use that soundbite as a way to debunk nasa.

russia landed reflectors on the moon as well... and they haven't been to the moon

@LookOutForNumberOne

27 күн бұрын

SOLID.

@iniquity123

24 күн бұрын

But it didn't work did it due to not being deployed correctly.....

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!!

@Life_42

Ай бұрын

I agree! Anyone can prove it by mathematics. I wouldn't believe planes fly but with mathematics it perfectly makes sense!

@daveythesearcher

Ай бұрын

@@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.

@onlyonewhyphy

Ай бұрын

Agreed. Just talking in detail about these things is better than dismissal.

@Life_42

Ай бұрын

@@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!

@daveythesearcher

28 күн бұрын

@@Life_42 It's definitely worth a pause for thought. Thanks for engaging i love exploring stuff from the mundane to the unanswerable.

Why would the astronauts say they, "don't recall seeing any stars" in their initial press conference upon return?

@yassassin6425

11 сағат бұрын

Because Sir Patrick Moore asked them whether they were visible in the sun's corona.

The correct stance to have is, that you dont know if it was faked. You, just like the rest of us, actually dont know! What makes you a fraud is your assertion that you know, when you dont.

This is a great undertaking

We did not,land on moon.

@yassassin6425

24 күн бұрын

The consilience of evidence and six landings prove you wrong.

@iniquity123

24 күн бұрын

You're an idiot, but carry on.

@Skankhunter420

16 күн бұрын

Based on your grammar alone I don't believe you.

"American Moon" from Massimo Mazzucco is the best thorough critique of the still pictures and video NASA offers. Highly recommended.

@Jan_Strzelecki

13 күн бұрын

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.

While I DON'T DISAGREE... this had the tone of a Priest lecturing a "non-believer" and I'm not sure that helps anyone.

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.

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.

@dnagara

Ай бұрын

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.

@Rabbinicphilosophyforthewin

27 күн бұрын

@@dnagara the point stands. Emotion weakens the argument.

@Vic-cv3df

27 күн бұрын

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.

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.

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_* 😌

The fact that USSR congratulates the states for the landing,should be enough

@conspiracy1914

Ай бұрын

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

@matheusrocha8731

Ай бұрын

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.

@nicolasm978

Ай бұрын

Not at all

@FenyvesViktor

Ай бұрын

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?

@brianblockchain6039

Ай бұрын

Um, about 2 months ago Russia claimed the moon landing photos are fake. So this is not true.

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.

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.

@marksprague1280

28 күн бұрын

How quaint. A grade school dropout believes that infantile "AI" software has omnipotent wisdom.

Good luck getting back on JRE....

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.

@twitherspoon8954

Ай бұрын

There are literally pictures of the landing sites, rover tracks, and footprints taken from orbital probes of India, Japan, EU, China, Russia...

@sdrc92126

Ай бұрын

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.

@conspiracy1914

Ай бұрын

sorry to say they pulled a fast one on you when you were a kid.

@twitherspoon8954

Ай бұрын

@@conspiracy1914 How did those footprints get there?

@conspiracy1914

Ай бұрын

@@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?

Shill or fake intellect. Time will tell.

@Vic-cv3df

27 күн бұрын

Time will tell when those landing sites are confirmed by other countries. The fools here will be nowhere to be seen at that point.

@nickmathews6226

22 күн бұрын

60 years and waiting.. any day now right ​@@Vic-cv3df

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.

“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

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!

@twitherspoon8954

Ай бұрын

There are literally pictures of the landing sites, rover tracks, and footprints taken from orbital probes of India, Japan, EU, China, Russia...

@Jacob-ed1bl

Ай бұрын

It's only difficult for mentally challenged people. For everyone else it'spretty obvious.

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.

@DrBrianKeating

Ай бұрын

Thanks I am in contact with Joe

Seriously? How exactly did you debunk anything?

@djuro14

Ай бұрын

Nothing in existence would qualify as a debunking to you. Just call it fake, CGI, photoshop......

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.

@yassassin6425

12 күн бұрын

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.

@davebowles1957

29 күн бұрын

That's called willful ignorance.

@resonance3486

27 күн бұрын

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

@Rabbinicphilosophyforthewin

27 күн бұрын

@@davebowles1957 no, its called skepticism.

@DamianB82

13 күн бұрын

​@@davebowles1957And that's called arrogance.

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

@Vic-cv3df

27 күн бұрын

There are plenty of fruitbats flying around on the internet. We live in strange times, indeed.

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.

@yassassin6425

22 күн бұрын

The only thing that you've "studied" is online grift and what dumb conspiracy theorists told you to think.

@thedarkmoon2341

22 күн бұрын

@@yassassin6425 I'm only reporting what the astronauts said so unless you are a moon hoaxer you are just too dumb to hear.

@Jan_Strzelecki

21 күн бұрын

@@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".

@thedarkmoon2341

21 күн бұрын

@@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.

@Jan_Strzelecki

21 күн бұрын

@@thedarkmoon2341 So you do admit that your initial statement was incorrect?

Definitely debunked critics, although spent too much time attacking critics.

this 'Astrophysicist ' is from the Anthony Fauci school of 4 in 5 science experts recommend.

@TheShootist

29 күн бұрын

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.

@Vic-cv3df

27 күн бұрын

And you are from the Donald Trump school of DIY (bleach) vaccines?

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.

@samuelemeryjiujitsu

Ай бұрын

I'm with you brother.

@evilsimeon

Ай бұрын

Fostering stupidity and ignorance is never a net gain. The Rogan Experience is where stupid people go to feel smart.

@tcl5853

Ай бұрын

If Rogan held the conspiracy theorists accountable for there theories I would agree with you. But he doesn’t he encourages them by agreeing with their stupidity. I suppose it’s partly due to Joe’s lack of education.

@readynowforever3676

Ай бұрын

@@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”

Great video, it was sorely needed 😊.

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.

Myth buster did a good special on debunking all the conspiracy through demonstration. Worth taking a look

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

@robertrozanski5874

Ай бұрын

Lol . Human nature is telling truth? We have very different view on this one love

The Lunar Orbital Reconnaissance satellite took a very good picture of the Apollo 11 landing site on March 7th, 2012.

@DrBrianKeating

24 күн бұрын

Yes you’re right.

@Kismetix

24 күн бұрын

@@DrBrianKeating There is also a good video done by a KZread 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.

@Fatrotry

20 күн бұрын

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 ??

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.😂

Okay, if you say it’s real then I believe you👍

@onlyonewhyphy

Ай бұрын

😂 Dear God...

@vanessa1569

Ай бұрын

@@onlyonewhyphy Well, he’s not some random , he’s a freakin cosmologist 😐

@onlyonewhyphy

Ай бұрын

@@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.

@vanessa1569

Ай бұрын

@@onlyonewhyphy In all fairness, I don’t trust any ol’ expert, but the quality of his dad jokes reveal a nerdiness that gives me reason to be confident 😉

I don't think you really debunked the "fake Moon landing theory". Why not a discussion/debate with a Moon Landing unbeliever?

@dewiz9596

Ай бұрын

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)

@virgiliustancu9293

Ай бұрын

​@@dewiz9596 I skiped that... it would be fun to watch. I hope they will do that.

@bitdropout

Ай бұрын

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.

@bitdropout

Ай бұрын

The little respect I had for Rogan has gone. The left and the right are both gripped by anti science nonsense.

@KhanWuMusic

Ай бұрын

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)

I think the issue is that we haven’t sent anyone back there for 50 years. It’s always going to raise questions

@Flippokid

8 күн бұрын

We have, there have been several people on the moon since. People stopped caring enough to warrant another go.

Almost slipped up and said they were getting ready to script another landing at 835

@jasondelano7702

27 күн бұрын

I caught that too 😂

Conspiracy Theory. . . “Two people can keep a secret, if one of them is dead”

@93thelema777

Ай бұрын

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 .

@milDelux

Ай бұрын

Guess there shouldn’t be anything such as classified documents.

@93thelema777

29 күн бұрын

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 .

@occhamite

28 күн бұрын

@@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.

@ticthak

27 күн бұрын

That one always had great truthiness to it, but it's obvious secrets can be kept by many people for a long time.

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?

@gunternetzer9621

4 күн бұрын

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.

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.

@DamianB82

13 күн бұрын

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.

@DrBrianKeating it would be better to say "testa a testa" (head to head) than "mano a mano" (it usually means "by steps")

Brian i like you bro but your wrong on this one.

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

@QuixEnd

Ай бұрын

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

@iamnegan1515

Ай бұрын

Yes, right from the start.

@g13n79

29 күн бұрын

Explain how he should have debunked the conspiracy claims

@iamjayjay6790

27 күн бұрын

@@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

Only in America could a large proportion of the population want to call into question, their greatest technical achievement, (an inspiration to the world) It’s 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.

Why would Joe have this guy on his show , simple “business”.Joe runs a business and a lot of his followers like this conspiracy stuff.

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.

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.

@tubecated_development

29 күн бұрын

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.

@occhamite

29 күн бұрын

@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.

@Monkey-Epic

29 күн бұрын

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...

@tubecated_development

29 күн бұрын

@@Monkey-Epic 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…

@gunternetzer9621

28 күн бұрын

@@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.

People can be so limited in their own perception of their own potential that they assume that other humans aren’t capable of such achievements

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.

@DrBrianKeating

Ай бұрын

Very low

@jonathonkiner7415

Ай бұрын

@@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'.

@gunternetzer9621

28 күн бұрын

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 weren’t there long enough for the Sun to be at its highest and hottest or at night when the Moon is at its coldest.

Too much mudslinging and emotional attitude. Was hoping for a video without that stuff.

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.

@marksprague1280

27 күн бұрын

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.

@jasondelano7702

27 күн бұрын

Thanks for this informative comment 👍

Impressive, very nice. But can you debunk “American Moon” by Massimo Mazzucco?