Note: The radicalizer algorithms don't necessarily push what you want to see. They push what gets a rise out of you. This can be completely faked opposition. Usually their goal has nothing to do with your opinions or understanding but only to keep you engaged.
It was a very great technical achievement by the US. As a software engineer who appreciates the challenge scientists and engineers faced, it's a minor miracle that they managed to do it without fatality. _(PS don't trust my software.)_ 😂
I don't trust the premise of that site. It seems more geared towards using political alignment to shift what's viewed as fact so that you end up with a more centrist worldview which allegedly means more correct, instead of using fact as their lynchpin. You should get the evidenced fact first, then choose which political party or politicians will get your vote for yourself based on it. News is more than just politics, but it seems this is _more_ centered on politics than most and that informs what gets reported. Their ads seemed to be based on the idea of avoiding any reporting that might disagree with your political views, whY with that upfront political grading graph of varioud news outlets in their ads. That's dangerous. And what criteria does it have for what they consider equal reporting? It seems like a "my opinion means just as much as your knowledge" situation. During the pandemic would it have reported on the "benefits" of hydrocholriquine and drinking mercury as just as valid as the science behind vaccines, because right wingers were heavily pushing pseudoscience and distrust in medical science as much as the left wing was pushing basic hygiene, pandemic procedures and vaccinations? Would they have propped up the view that climate change activists are alarmists just as much as they reported on the actual facts of climate change which are dismal and scientifically valid? Nah, this seems like just taking advantage of a cultural trend of distrusting the reporting, which itself was caused by political propaganda. Capitalizing on the market instead of providing any needed solution to a real problem.
"I read a German book and it didn't make sense and therefore, English is the only language on earth because if I can't read it, no one can because it is unreadable."
My girlfriend is Filipina and speaks English as a "second language". I knew she was trying to cover up her learning disability with fake words from a language that doesn't exist! I've been bamboozled!!! (In reality she's very smart and knows more languages than me and I respect her too much to even be that sarcastic without this boring disclaimer😭)
B.S. I think there were several witnesses. Why on earth 🌎 would Aldrin lie about punching 👊 some dude!! Ha. Hardly his most prestigious moment. I'm sure he has better to boast about!
It was self defense; Sibrel not only had arranged the meeting by fraud (being a coward and a liar) but was actively preventing Buzz and his family from leaving (which at best is wrongful imprisonment).
"Why do they feel compelled to keep defending the moon landing?" - a man who has dedicated his entire life to proving the moon landing didn't occur, unsuccessfully
@@therookiegamer2727 Well, they did use Apollo 10 as a trial for almost landing, so unless he absolutely insists on catastrophic failure, that also counts as "try" IMHO. And not forgetting the Apollo 1 thing, which was certainly a point of "we need to fix a bunch of stuff NOW" call. He makes it sound like they built one rocket, pushed a button and were on the moon.
@@atkelar which ironically is what they did with the space shuttle. Too complex for partial system tests, and not fully automated. So the very first launch was the full stack, and crewed.
Yeah, this line makes me want to punch anyone who says it. I’m sure most don’t realize that Apollo 11 was the summation of the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo Programs, more than 11 years of work, and engineering taking one tiny careful step after another, and studying and documenting each careful step along the way nearly to death. “They got there on the first try,” while it may be accurate, in a sense, is one of those statements that’s intended to deceive despite being justifiably true.
The "can't go beyond the Van Allen" belts is my favourite argument. So they believe scientists that say the Van Allen belts exist, but don't believe the same scientists that say we can avoid most of them, that the craft provides protection, that we can limit our travel through them, and completely miss the worst of them. The way they act you would think it was a naked man without craft spending 20 hours in the worst part of the belts. If that was the case it wouldn't be the belts they would have to worry about!!
@@0LoneTechexactly, or you can't survive the artic if you were abandoned there in a t-shirt, therefore no one has been to the artic. Or if you tried to swim the atlantic you would die therefore no one has ever travelled it
That’s been my exact argument for years. So Nasa send up a probe, discover deadly belts, tell the whole world there’s these deadly belts we can’t pass through then just pretend to send astronauts through them anyway. Nuts! I have a Moon landing denier (plus every other conspiracy going) friend who quotes the Van Allen belts all the time. There’s absolutely no reasoning with him. In the end I told him the van Allen belts don’t exist, it was just a lie to throw the Russians off from going to the Moon. Using hIs nonsense logic back on him 😂
They are all nonesensical people with straw arguments, but pretty much as you say, why made up a magnetic belt to have to solve an extra problem for the "imaginary" lunar landing. Its like, if I am going to lie, I would make it as easy as possible. And then you have the problem of well, trusting when a scientist says something that works for them and not the other 99% , and a lot of times they just out of context quotes also like seen on the video.
The first microwave oven was sold in 1947. That's 11 years prior to NASA even being established. Care to try again? Perhaps you can also explain how Apollos 8 and 10 didn't happen?
@@critthought2866Explain something?😂😂😂 No they can't explain how it could have been faked without contradicting themselves on a flatearth level. All they can do is JAQ off.
Why did they destroy the technology and not preserve/evolve/document the technology on the 68’ Dodge Dart, instead of recording over the HISTORICAL DATA, forcing us to have to reinvent the wheel and accomplish the same task 70 years later using a more complicated/risk-saturated process for the 2024 Honda?! Stupid comparison. Cars are evolved from hundreds of years of evolving engineering and manufacturing processes. It’s almost commonplace for people to make them in their own garage. Go in your garage and make a Saturn Rocket. I will wait. In the span of 13-15 years, we made the most advanced vehicle on the planet, which accomplished the most sacred task in human history. Oh- but we lost the technology, not only that- we lost the blueprints, data, telemetry, video, and we destroyed all of the tooling. I worked from floor to plant manager at a very large aerospace company, as well as 3 others, including a powerplant manufacturer. All of them STILL have tooling from some of their first models, made almost 100 years ago. Not just one, ALL OF THEM. But NASA is different. They didn’t keep anything. 🙄 In all of human history, name an instance where this occurred, when humanity was moved forward, but they misplaced the engineering/data/tooling “way to make it” other than the space program? HASN’T HAPPENED. So forgive a MF for asking questions, and doubting things. I would rather question things than blindly accept any narrative, especially based on the track record or lying that ALL GOVERNMENTS have done, including this one.
Funny how landing deniers dismiss any and all photographic evidence and first hand accounts but will accept the son of a former Air Force member telling anecdotally about their father witnessing something but all the evidence was suspiciously destroyed. That they accept as definitive proof. Wow.
Bro! It was a deathbed confession, those are automatically true! In fact, it was a deathbed confession of a deathbed confession. A double deathbed so double true!
I had the same thought but about the widow telling him the CIA murdered her husband. The discrepancy between the amount of evidence they're willing to deny for something they don't want to believe and the amount they're willing to accept for what they do want to believe is just incredible.
@@danwilson17 Is there even any proof directly from NASA or the CIA that the CIA were directly involved in the construction of any of the modules? The only thing I found from a brief search about CIA involvement with NASA was just that the CIA was tattling to NASA about what the Soviets were doing. So it just seems like it’s a case of everyone blaming the CIA, because they’re a more or less classified government agency.
With Rogan being such a fan of MMA, you'd think he'd consider Bart a bad person to listen to based purely on his inability to take a punch from an 80 year old man.
@@glenwiley6032 you know for years hearing from tin foil hat morons about free masons being bad I have yet to see anything that you would call actual evidence that there is something sinister about the free masons.
Dude saying that if we went to the moon, then we should have reached another solar system by now is insane, lol. Complete lack of understanding of the scale of space.
He ignores the fact that we have reached another solar system with Voyager 1 and it took 35 years to do so. There is no need to send any humans and its quite impossible to do so until we develop interstellar flight.
@@WCDavis-cl7siThe next solar system is 4 trillion kilometers away. That's 3.78x10^13 km. The moon is 380.000 km away. It takes roughly 2 to 3 days to get to the moon, it takes 75,000 years to reach the nearest solar system. The universe is huge, way too large to even comprehend these distances.
The other side of Brandolini's Law (the Bullsh1t Asymmetry Principle) is that when someone is confronted with something they don't understand, it takes an order of magnitude to figure out the "truth" than it takes to just make something up. Throw in a lack of good faith, and you get Idiocy As Doctrine.
It's worse. Since bullshit doesn't require experiment or truth, it can be produced at will. The bullshit evangelist can therefore produce more bullshit at any pace you can attempt to feed them facts, never needing to pause to assess any validity. Notably, the bullshit doesn't even need to be fresh; they can and do just keep repeating a single piece of bullshit no matter how disproven. Bullshit only requires a lack of care for truth. Conspiracy kooks actively avoid truth, seeking out fanciful nonsense to hold over facts. This adds on another layer; you can't convince them of what's true, because when you state something true, they use that truth (which they claim falsehood) to claim you're in the (however non-existent and unrealistic) conspiracy.
@@hotmess9640 I can understand the idea that there's a silver lining of proper learning hiding behind debunks of people like Bart, but it's a bit much to say that he's "very important". Learning can still take place without them, and without them there are less people believing untrue things and then acting on those false beliefs. A lack of people confidently spreading misinformation (intentionally or otherwise) would just simply make for a better world. And we can and should encourage learning in as many people as we can. School is....really not good about that, most of the time. Definitely needs improvement on that front. Which, funnily enough, goes hand in hand with eliminating grifters, since those who thrive on lies are the most determined to hamstring the school systems. Proper learning robs them of their power, and of future victims, after all.
There are few people I despise as much as Bart Sibrel. He creatively edits interviews, mislabels sources, switches audio tracks around, arranges interviews using deceptive cover stories then uses the target's discomfort to character assasinate them ; And worst of all, plays the opressed victim in all of this. I do, however, salute your seemingly superhuman ability to address his claims in a calm and civilized manner.
@@paulzuk1468 This is one of Sibrel's weakest points. Why did NASA tape over all the moon landing Apollo tapes? Why did they donate a piece of petrified wood to the Dutch Museum and claim it was a moon rock? Why are they all Freemasons that go into space? Why could they take more pictures than is what is physically possible using a Hasselblad camera that were extremely sharp and showed no signs of radiation? How could their space suits physically absorb the hundreds of degrees temperature changes between shadow and light on the moon? Why is it the astro NOTS couldn't remember if they saw stars from the surface of the moon when they got back?
@@paulzuk1468 I have researched this subject for a long time and Sibrel is a very suspect character who brings up some of the worst and most easily debunked points as his main points, which leads me to believe he is a controlled opposition character. It would have been much, much easier for them to simply use a glowing transparency to mimmick the earth in that shot, and not even be in space.. his entire window theory is just dumb, the guy I think is controlled opposition, kind of like the "flat earth" people who tried to take over moon landing skepticism... oh and Rogan also who used to believe it was faked then suddenly changed his mind.
@@Gigi-xr3qs _Why did NASA tape over all the moon landing Apollo tapes?_ They didn't. They taped over backup tape of _one_ landing. _Why did they donate a piece of petrified wood to the Dutch Museum and claim it was a moon rock?_ They didn't. The rock you're thinking of didn't come from NASA and wasn't donated directly to the Dutch museum. _Why are they all Freemasons that go into space?_ They're not. _Why could they take more pictures than is what is physically possible_ We know the exact time each and every photo was taken. It's certainly physically possible. _using a Hasselblad camera that were extremely sharp_ The benefits of the wide angle lens. _and showed no signs of radiation?_ The _Apollo_ photos do show signs of radiation. _How could their space suits physically absorb the hundreds of degrees temperature changes between shadow and light on the moon?_ They couldn't, and they didn't have to, because there were no such temperature changes. _Why is it the astro NOTS couldn't remember if they saw stars from the surface of the moon when they got back?_ Because "astro NOTS" are made up. The real astronauts, on the other hand, said that they couldn't see stars from the surface of the Moon, and they didn't see any stars while photographing the solar corona. It's really interesting that everything you've said is factually incorrect in one way or another.
I'd really like to point out something that really goes to show how terrible a liar Bart Sibrel is. He mentions in the podcast that the video he shows was supposedly "outtakes", found "by accident". He doesn't explain in the podcast, but this is one of Bart's oldest claims - it's arguably the start of his grift. When discussing the creation of his film "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon", Bart claims he obtained this footage by, and I'm being 100% serious: Emailing NASA asking about the footage, and some intern accidentally sent him the "outtakes" in the reply. Let's just take a moment to break this apart. In order for this to be true: -NASA not only filmed and recorded incriminating evidence, but then kept it in storage. -Said incriminating tapes were then, once digitization technology came around, converted into a digital file, since otherwise it would not have been possible to send via email. -At no point did anyone look at this tape and mark it as "do not watch" or destroy it, and in fact made it so accessible that a random intern was able to send it to a stranger on the internet. Bart Sibrel thinks so little of his audience that he thinks they'll actually believe this... and he's right. They do.
Not certain how he got the footage, but has NASA denied the footage is authentic? The evidence you lay out leads me to think he may have been given the footage on purpose.
@@williamsaling9648 the footage is genuine, as Dave explains. It was never secret and Bart never "found" it. It was already around, Bart just pretends it secret so that his "explanation" seems more plausible to a gullible audience
I don't understand orbital mechanics, but I understand history. These people seem to believe that Apollo 11 was one thing that happened just once, that one day everybody woke up, watched on TV that Americans had gone to the Moon, saw a few fuzzy images, and everybody just believed it. The whole historical and scientific context is absent. However, presenting moon landings in that way to their public is an unbeatable statement for everybody who have the conspiracy mentality already settled in their heads: starting from the immovable principle that ""they lie,"" any proof of reality will not be accepted by them. Ever noticed that believing in one conspiracy theory of any kind (evil vaccines, fake climate change, QAnon, antisemitic tropes, etc.) multiplies the possibilities of believing all of them, no matter how preposterous? Talk to an antivax guy, tell him about the silliness of flat Earth. You'll see him taking notes to "make his own research."
@@glenwiley6032 If the moon was plasma, it would be a star, as the sun consists of plasma. Therefore, night would look like day, except due to the proximity it would be lethally hot and we would be boiled alive by the moon:) I say this because I genuinely don't know if this is satire or not
That's because you're not a scientist. Going to space (real space, not "near Earth") is waaaay harder than people actually realize. Which is where the doubt comes from : 1960's technology was able to do what 2024 Musk can't. It is weird.
@@ludwigvanzappa9548 Especially when you consider he was literally begging for donations a few years ago because he claimed UA-cam cut his only source of income (his youtube channel, of course...)
I also noticed in all of that, there was never anything brought up about how the Soviet Union and China or any of the U.S.A.'s other Cold War adversaries ever once questioning the Apollo manned lunar landings. Not once. In fact, quite the opposite. They could easily track the spacecraft as well as receive the voice and telemetry transmission, thus knowing whether Apollo spacecraft were just circling the Earth or on their way to the Moon, etc.
Well Bart said that he believes Russia and China are blackmailing the US and they know we faked it. Of course be literally had 0 evidence of this claim
They all fake the missions. It's about seeming powerful to the population. Ever seen the Chinese "moon walks" where there are bubbles all over the place?
So very much this. If they thought it was even a little bit credible to claim it was fake, they probably would have tried, too. Both the Soviet Union and the United States thought they were in an existential fight with each other. Prestige was very important to both sides (getting allies and support), and in fact was arguably the reason the US even tried to get to the moon (to make up for the lost prestige from not getting to space first). I once brought this up to a moon landing skeptic. He claimed that the US _paid off the USSR_ to not expose the lie. All I could do in response sputter and mentally add "doesn't understand the Cold War" to my list of conspiracy theory blind spots
Or government. I literally need 6 signatures to buy a roll of toilet paper. My signature, my bosses, the division secretary, acquisitions, my bosses again, and finally mine again. Plus that only applies if the purchase is less than $3,000. Over that and you need a lot more signatures.
These are people are either paid to help sell this lie or useful idiots. This video purposely avoids key point of Barts video and deflects to trivial statement he happened to make in conversation. Classic tactics used by a losing argument. @@Jan_Strzelecki
Re: Van Allen radiation tests of the Orion. The electronics of today are far FAR more susceptible than those of the Apollo era. This is mostly because of the size of individual circuit components. The 'integrated circuit' of Apollo were thousands of times less densely packed with circuitry. A modern microprocessor, with mask sizes in the nanometer range is much more sensitive to radiation damage, and so their performance must be tested. Of course, deniers don't want to look into this sort of detail, they'd rather just spout off platitudes about 'Van Allen belts are deadly... and they know it'.
It's not just size; it's the operating principles too. AGC used wired rope ROMs for their core programs; flipping a bit in that requires physical rewiring. In contrast, modern computers use flash and DRAM memories which amplify minuscule charges, including changes.
Sibrel is clearly lying when he says Kaysing worked for NASA for 6 years,,,He was working for Rocketdyne as a tech writer and librarian..He resigned in 1963...He may have been involved in work that was being done for NASA...but that is not the same thing...
@@fluffskunk True..But the Hoax Believers have to be given the details...to avoid them coming back with "Yes, but what about.....etc" ..They are relentless in their stupidity....
@@noellesherman4824 I am guessing you are referring to statement about having to deal with radiation problems with the Artemis missions, and future missions, by a NASA spokesman.. First, the missions in the future will be much longer than the Apollo missions therefore protection needs to be better. Second, the electronics, computers etc are much more sensitive to radiation than the old Apollo equipment. And therefore needs better shielding, and as they have not been used in space before they need to be tested..as they will be also used on much longer missions such as to Mars. You do understand that new equipment needs to be tested ?Boats have been built for thousands of years but they still need to test new designs to see that they are waterproof !
@@deldelahaye3811 ALL missions, past, present, and future, need to pass through the 25, 000 miles of intense radiation that comprise the van Allen bets. Where they are heading, whether to the moon or Mars, is irrelevant to this problem.
Yep, used to be my Xbox gamer strap line. The thing is, it's not incompetence, that's too kind. It's actually ignorance or refusing to listen to reason, and in the internet age where it's never been easier to learn. I used to have to walk 40 mins to my local library as a kid, then went to university and walked to the library. This is not what we thought would happen when we invented the internet/www. My bad, people are stupid apparently, Oh wow I despair
It’s not incompetence. It’s men wanting attention and lying to get it. This man doesn’t believe the moon landing was fake, he *wants* to believe it was fake, that’s why he keeps waiting for Joe’s head nod to continue.
@@Jedbullet29 The internet has made showcasing human stupidity easier. Unlike written publications, there are very few editors to filter out the most egregious stupidity.
True as no-one could be arsed if they had to write a letter stamp it and post it , plus all it takes is 1 like to give a twat a dopamine boost and a sense of acceptance.
Why do the Barts of the world lead such sad and angry lives trying to gain notoriety; trying in vain to convince the world of their confusion and their deception? All they do is bleed away what’s left of their lives while preaching to the choir of other Barts. What a waste . . .
Couple things, for starters he makes money so there's profit motive, but that's the easy answer. Still, guys like him must get exposed to the answers to these questions regularly so I'd assume there *must* be some level of dishonesty. But -- and more importantly -- there's the other side of this, the people that believe him and literally believe it. Here's only one of many anecdotes when I went down this road: I would regularly hear that you could get a consumer grade telescope, and look at the moon landing site. I thought this would be great evidence so I went looking for it, and what I found instead was astronomy clubs saying you couldn't. So I went back and would ask them to give me videos or something of normal people using their telescopes and seeing this site. Instead of giving me any links, the only thing I've EVER received is people calling me a flat earther and mocking me. Anyone who expects I'd walk away from that assuming the video must exist and I'm just a crazy guy would be incredibly wrong, it reinforced what guys like Bart were saying. Because these people are PRO moon landing, they were never called on their BS. To this day I don't know if that BS was claiming you can view it with a telescope, or the BS was through a failure to provide a video, all I know is something didn't add up. So if you want to help when it comes to these types of things a) be very careful about the claims you make, and b) call out people that agree with you when they make claims that don't fit the evidence -- and if they DO fit the evidence, then encourage them to provide proof or provide it yourself. Remember that even when a person responds with something silly like "Ohhh, I guess you just trust everything your government says" that doesn't mean what you've said hasn't had an effect. Another tip is to try to get people to ask their group very basic questions, things can get very clear when the group you're in starts turning on you for asking about simple contradictions.
1. con for money and limited fame by tricking stupid people as any evidence is always ignored and puts too much time into it to not be correctedby fake or 2. pathetically stupid beyond belief.
@@filipferencak2717..... In the 60's and 70' we accepted what we seen on tv as real and didn't question anything, looking at the 'moon landings' today they all look phoney and ridiculous.
I can't believe these arguments are still used today even though they have been debunked a thousand times and make no sense to begin with. It's so disrespectful toward all those people who actually worked (and sometimes died) to make it happen and produce science.... what a sad and spiteful old man.... Anyway, that was a great video to watch. As always I really enjoy your calm demeanor, and fully clear and comprehensive way of presenting the facts. Thanks.
It's because they want to believe it's fake. And if someone debunks their claims (while most of the time they will just shout FAKE), then they forget that instantly and spout their bull**it to the next person, who did not see them getting debunked and hope they will be believed without evidence
Grifters don't care about their arguments being debunked as long as there are idiots who would believe them, to make profit off. And idiots don't care about arguments being debunked because they want to believe in some crazy conspiracies, they think "knowing the secret truth" makes them very special or smart. That's why you hear the same tired old shit from them again, and again, and again.
It's a religion... their faith in the idea that the moon landing was fake convinces them that any evidence to the contrary is fake and anything that might be misrepresented to support their claims is undeniable proof.
If they wanted to silence Grissom or prevent him from going to the moon they could have simply removed him from the program. He was a respected member of the program, an engineer himself. He overcame the suspicion from his lost gemini capsule. Killing him and 2 other good men along with him at the cost of setting the overall mission back and the loss of the capsule, is just a ridiculous thing to do. These lying pricks are disgusting, casting dispersions on brave honorable heroes from the past to make a little bit of money for themselves is a low form of life.
If they wanted to stop him going to the moon all they had to do was move him to some other job. Simples. "New orders, Grissom, you're now team redesign technical flight coordinator in charge of paperclip recovery operations in Alaska."
Quick note - Dave had been previously caught lying and deceptively editing his videos... So do you hate all liars or just the ones with a differing opinion?
@@ianirving1033 Well that's a bold assertion with no evidence presented to back it up. When? Where? How? Or is this just a bit of baseless name calling?
Flerfers: "why don't they launch rockets straight up? Isn't space UP, why do they launch and fly to a diagonal? Also flerfers: they can't pass the Van Allen Belt, because then they'd have to launch from the poles, and not around the equator like they do. They'll fly straight into the belt!
Moon landing deniers aren't always the same as flat earthers. And they will likely just use this argument as a smoke cloud to try and "disprove" actual science. They don't care about making a coherent argument.
I caught that too. Bart claims you'd have to launch at the poles to avoid the belt.... Even if directly launching out, we can launch at any angle we want... But it is my understanding that we launch into earth orbit and then make our final trajectory launch from orbit.... So this seemed an idiotic claim to me.
@@capoman1 they probably think that rockets act like fireworks and only the way it's pointed, since they have the scientific understanding of a toddler.
Rogan should have Dave on the show. The amount of research it took for you to make this video is astounding. Much respect to you for putting in all that effort!
If the USSR had said anything about Apollo being fake (they already had a lot of achievements in space, and they had other things to do), US media would have ignored or twisted the information anyway. Americans would have NOT believed it anyway.
That’s a false equivalency. A more accurate statement would be your dad made hotdogs 50 years ago but now can’t figure out how to make them again. I don’t claim to understand everything but one thing I can’t wrap my head around is the simple fact of “we can’t go back”… logically that makes no sense. Everything and I mean everything has advanced yet space travel has regressed… Interesting…
@@K3NZO_ Do you think it's impossible for someone to forget something? No one is saying we can't go back. If you actually watch the video they have 40% of the budget (inflation adjusted) to achieve a much bigger final goal, so of course it will take time. They should be taking their time because we don't want to kill people again.
😂😂😂 All these governments are in the same club…you think Russia and China with all their “integrity” would miss out on billions of dollars from blackmailing the US making up this moonlanding? Heck no. They not exposing anything. They’re going to get paid
small correction, von Braun was never head of NASA but director of the Marshall Space Flight Center in Hunstville up till the first Apollo missions. He became Deputy Associate Administrator for Planning in 1970.
@@matildamarmaduke1096 not correct. He was instrumental in starting the US space program, when he was the director of the Development Operations Division of the US Army Ballistic Missile Agency (ABMA) and with his team modified a Redstone rocket to launch Explorer 1 on 31 JAN 1958. NASA was established several months later by the Eisenhower administration (1958 Space Act) to combine all space efforts under a civillian umbrella (before Explorer 1, the US Navy had to endure ridicule when the Vanguard rocket which was supposed to launch the first US satellite blew up during launch). While NASA was established on 29 JUL 1958, the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) was opened two years later and only then was the ABMA team moved there. In 1960, von Braun insisted that he would only transfer with his team to MSFC if his brain-child Saturn would be developed by NASA. For more on this, i'd recommend the 1979 book "Stages to Saturn" by Roger E. Bilstein which is freely available on the web.
@@matildamarmaduke1096 No he didn’t. President Eisenhower started NASA. Von Braun was a director. Please stop entertaining nonsense and lies, conspiracy theories are lies.
And lying through his teeth about "them" changing the hatch opening direction the day before the test/fire.. Just completely despicable! And an outright lie! (Makes me want to land a punch in his face.. like Buzz's.)
And moronic. We're supposed to believe NASA murdered those 3 guys with a fire caused by lax safety precautions, to silence them because they had been critical of NASA's SAFETY PRECAUTIONS?
Fun fact: Sibrel as well as being a conspiracy nut is also a taxi driver. Two years after his run-in with Buzz, Sibrel physically assaulted a woman he claimed took his parking spot and narrowly avoided jail. He is, in short, insane.
Absolutely Amazing video! I was crushed after I saw Candace Owens have this loon on her show. I fell for every bit of it. Thank God people like you make videos like this!
If you still belive the moon landing was real I feel sorry for you. If the moon landing was real the government wouldn't go through great lengths of getting rid of evidence or people's that go against that.
I just watched it a few hours ago. It’s very easy to deceive people when there’s only one side. After 45 minutes, even I started questioning, so don’t feel bad. 😊
@@OnlyJalenPhd nobody has landed on the moon! NOBODY! I'm 100% certain of that. The CIA is the most evil most corrupt organization that has ever existed they're basically legal terrorists and I don't trust them one bit!
@@OnlyJalenPhd And its even easier to deceive people when theres multiple sides to a story. How many times have conspiracy theories sounded so far fetched only to come mostly true to an extent or totality.
For me, the big appeal with Dave's videos is I always learn something new and interesting. The debunking is just kind of the framework he uses to hang all kinds of interesting knowledge on.
I'm not a huge Joe Rogan fan, but I love his retort to Sibrel's supposed eye witness account. "Yeah, and I have eye witnesses who were raped by Bigfoot." Just comes outta nowhere lol
@@Green_Tea_Coffee Does not change the fact that Bigfeet have been recorded on video and audio combined with hundreds of independent witnessed sightings. Does not matter wtf witnesses' beliefs or political associations are about other things, because that would be Ad Homming them. Only a stupid antiscientific person does not understand that about science and history.
One of my favourite parts of the podcast is around 1hr40mins in, where he mentions that when on the moon, there is a 50% chance of dying from a micrometeorite in a given 24hrs. He says they were there for 3 days, so had a 150% chance of dying??? Bro does NOT understand how percentages work 💀
He said that 6B was the equivalent of 50B nowadays... then he said that NASA received 5% of the budget and today receives 0.5%... What was the budget before and what is it now? He's like the guy he's trying to debunk...
@@vascosantos3854Yeah 6 billion is similar to 50 billion in today's money (USD 1950-1960-2024) . In regards to budget I believe he's referring to rockets and moon missions or moon missions exclusively, saying how Nasa's 5 percent was used exclusively on the moon mission and today it's 0.5 percent on the moon mission? Maybe? I would have to rewatch it, or is it 0.5 percent of the entire federal budget and back in the day it was 5 percent of the entire federal budget, that would be true due to the increase in federal spending? I guess? Over the years?
@@vascosantos38545% of total federal spending in the 60’s, 0.5% today. Resources other than strictly financial ones were flooded into the project and monetary differences between the two eras is just another indication of heightened priority. That is a separate claim from 6 billion being around 50 billion today, which doesn’t account for inflation, which also doesn’t account for the relative cost of aerospace components, employees, and differences in project complexity.
Considering the moon's surface area is about 14.6 million square miles (38 million square kilometres), if you pick a square kilometre patch of ground, it will be hit by a ping pong-sized meteoroid once every thousand years, so the odds of an astronaut being hit by a millimetre-sized object is 1 in 1 million per hour per person. The amount of time the 6 missions spent on the Moon was about 13 days.
I can understand the appeal of having all types of characters on your show, from ex convicts to MMA fighters, to physicists, to comedians, to presidents. I do not however, understand Joe's obsession with including nitwit conspiracy theorists.
I think Bart is a couple memes away from being a flat earther. He behaves just like one. Ignores everything that doesn't support his conspiracy, non stop logical fallacies, willfully ignorant of inconvenient facts, misquotes and misrepresentations every citation, just straight up lies to people, uses the word "proof" like a psuedoscientist, jumps to illogical conclusions, any more? 😂
@Yepbutno-yl5bx Why is every flat earth image CGI? How come no flerfers have ever presented photographic, video, or hyperspectral imagery of the edge or underside of flat earth, or the elephants that hold it up?
@Yepbutno-yl5bx Have you finally figured out how a gyrocompass can work on your pizza world? Have you finally worked out how to accurately calculate distances between locations? Do you even have something as simple as a functional FE based map?
@Yepbutno-yl5bx Still no proof of your 'degree' little boy? "I'm a mechanical engineer by degree but no longer working in the field" "I'm a mechanical engineer in the black forest" "Perspective makes things disappear bottom first"
Let me get this straight, they killed Grissom so he wouldn't be the first to NOT walk on the moon, since they weren't really going? have that right? Lol
I had to comment when he said "That proves it in a court of law." So where's your jury of peers who agree with you? Where's your unbiased selection of individuals who, when presented with the claim, agree that it shows what you claim it does? I don't think 12 randomly selected individuals would agree that those moon photos were faked based on your claims.
Speaking as a professional photographer I also agree with you. His ‘court of law’ quote made me wince. He tells complete lies about the way shadows appear in sunlight. I can’t believe he would make such schoolboy errors as that so he is conscious of his lies. He also misses and misinforms about lighting in a number of instances.
Also if it's a matter of law, where was the trier of facts? Cross examination? Summary judgement? I mean if it were so obvious the judge could grant summary judgement to throw out the case...
@@tubecated_development as I was listening to the Rogan interview even before he mentioned “a court of law” I was thinking how pathetic he’d be if he was testifying in court.
I hate the fact that just because someone has said something 70 years ago 'in writing' then it must be carved in stone... We are constantly re inventing and updating ideas. You're bang on with how narrow minded these people are.
@@WCDavis-cl7si Oh look, it's the big brave troofer who couldn't explain which map he uses to get anywhere and runs like a simpering coward from simple questions.
The Apollo 1 crew roasted to death in that launch pad accident. If we were trying to fool anyone, why would we do anything like that? Of course, we wanted it all to go as smooth and perfect as possible. People actually died in our ambitions to go to the Moon. There's nothing fake about that.
@@nattybumppo4151 Those astronauts had some extremely big balls. But hell, I would have gone if I had the chance. It's just necessary. Just like it's necessary that we will go back, soon. We can actually set up living quarters and labs there, now. I'm sorry that I won't be alive, when people can go to the Moon just to visit. But at least I got to see men walk on the Moon. Seeing Earth from space is a life-changing experience for anyone.
@@nattybumppo4151 I had a physics professor in college who was a potential astronaut. He worked for NASA, and he was on the list, but he didn't get to go. He loved to tell us the story about how they shocked the monkey. You know, they sent the monkey up, and if he didn't press the button, they would give him a little jolt. 😆😆😆
Hes not just wrong he is actively spreading misinformation. Actively deceiving people. And some people are probe to falling for this bs because they just dont understand science.
Ok then… since you understand science so much, can you please explain how in 1969 then U.S. president Nixon was able to successfully place a phone call literally out of this world, 240,000 miles away (obviously no towers there, right?) with no interruption using 55 year old technology when in 2024 we have iPhones, androids etc much better technology, yet a call always has a chance of being dropped depending on where you are ON EARTH. And you guys genuinely believe this nonsense?
I'm pretty sure that the main creationist theory for dinosaurs is that they're a hoax and the secondary theory is that they are from an earlier planet/s that were broken up and then assembled into our planet. Dinosaurs having lived on our earth just wouldn't work with the creationist 6k year (or whatever) timeline. I should also mention that not all creationists believe in that timeline nor do they all deny the contemporary scientific timeline of the earth and the existence of dinosaurs millions of years ago.
It all depends on which conspiracy theorist you're talking too / about, and sometimes which part of their theory. Bart himself has both claims that they were in LEO and a first person "eyewitness" (really 2nd hand account at best) that they were on Earth. Like many conspiracy bros, each part of their argument is self-contained, so if you disprove one of their ideas, they can jump to another without the previous disproving affecting their next claim.
Sterling work. It boggles the mind that someone could present apparent converging shadows as coming from a single artificial source. Or credibly claim that a Hatch could be changed from inwardly opening to outwardly , in a day.
They are bizarre claims but said with such conviction that people actually believe them Thanks for the support Garry, as always it's greatly appreciated
@@Bigrailindad333 That's funny because The Everyday Astronaut openly offered to go on Joe Rogan and debate Bart - Yet Bart doesn't seem to want to ... So by your own logic you have to say that Bart's arguments bear no authenticity because he won't accept a debate 👍🏻
@Bigrailindad333 I've already said I'll go on Rogan with him, he's also just been on Cadence Owens show and by coincidence I've just spent a week in Antarctica with her producer, who I told I would be happy to go on her show with him - so the ball is already out of my court
Clickable chapters: Intro: 0:00 Van Allen Belts: 14:50 Haven't been back with new tech: 21:18 Von Braun claimed its not possible: 26:19 LM Landing Practice: 32:15 Faking Moon Photos: 34:45 Only astronauts knew it was fake: 43:08 Bill Kaysing memo: 50:59 Gus Grissom & Apollo 1 fire: 54:17 Apollo 11 Press Conference: 1:08:08 Petrified wood / Moon rock: 1:14:27 They destroyed all the data: 1:17:02
Dave forgot to address the moving flag as if there was wind on it when someone walked by it, as well as the fact that camera film can not survive the temperatures on the moon (and it’s highly doubtful that those space suits could either).
Even though these claims have been debunked and proven false before these idiots keep on stating them as though they have not been disproven. This is just so tedious and dishonest.
@@nathanielcoates1486 oh yes they have. Mythbusters debunked that they never visited the moon etc. ProfessorDave debunked several stuff and now this channel has.
@@nathanielcoates1486 In this very video Dave references a video he released 7 months ago that dismantles all of Sibrel's claims. By continuing to expound them, Sibrel is simply being dishonest. You need to watch some other of Dave's videos as well. Man has most certainly been into space and walked on the moon. A professor friend of mine at Cambridge regularly has his undergrads use a laser reflector panel set up at the Apollo 11 site to bounce signals back from the moon to extremely accurately measure its distance from Earth.
Yeah, I would love to have seen Joe say "prove it" to every single statement Bart made. Everything he said was a lie and easily disproven and he needs to face somebody who wouldn't let him get away with that.
@@robadams1645 Joe Rogan doesn't care about FACTS. He loves it when idiots like this get on his show and throw crap like this out. Rogan, himself, has become a huge conspiracy theorist saying some of the dumbest shit mankind has ever said. Rogan is a clown and doesn't deserve the attention he gets - but that is where the world is now. We live in a world where FACTS don't seem to matter as much as how much money a person has or how many viewers they have. It is sad.
Even Joe himself was pressing with uncomfortable questions that bart didn't really answer well. If he debated someone who did actually research it would be a bloodbath
Short point but at 52:10 Von Braun was not "head of NASA" but only a head of Marshall Space Center. A huge difference in fact and part of the reason I tend to jump on the "Nazi's ran NASA" conspiricy idea. Putting it in perspective none of the "Nazi's" (which is what they label ALL the engineers no matter the actual fact) were anywhere close to being "in charge" let alone "in power" over NASA. But hey, why let facts stand in your way, right? :) I'm pretty sure that Bart's "facts" are wrong as they usually are. First and foremost Von Braun would have no need or actual ability to send a "memo" the Pentagon. Again he's only in charge of the team at Marshall so any communications goes through NASA HQ and the NASA Administrator (James Webb btw) not directly to the Pentagon. I'm sure there was something LIKE the memo Bart is trying to sell as the mode discussions of 1962 were making the timetable more and more questionable but keep in mind that this is before the Saturn V is even being built! It was in the design stage till late '62. But then again Bart's "timelines' have always been questionable to the say the least. Per my above assertion Bart's actually straight out lying at 57:35. The capsules used 100% O2 in flight and were designed for such use. The door was ALWAYS to open inward as it was designed to do to prevent a similar hatch malfunction that happened TO Grissom during his Mercury flight. The outward facing and opening hatches for both Mercury and Gemini (which all faced and opened outwards) had serious problems with Gemini having several times to have the hatches "forced closed" due to expansion or contraction on orbit. Both the tests with 100% oxygen and the hatch were redesigned after the fire but ALL the Apollo missions used 100% oxygen for most of the flight because that was the only way to lower the pressure in the spacesuits so they could be worked in. Bart is knowingly lying about this (no such 'oily rags' were found, and if they HAD been there no trace of them could have been left to find) as he assumes no one will check him. IIRC both Grissom's wife and son were skeptical of the NASA investigation, not because they thought he was murdered but because of the haste that NASA, (and Congress) pushed the investigation through and they felt that a lot more blame was needed for North American. This is understandable because North American did actually get off pretty easy in context and a lot was 'decided' in an very short time period but as everyone knows 1967 is two years before the assumed 'deadline' set by Kennedy. It's only later when they can't get the answer they want that the whole "the CIA was all over the place" and accusations of it being an intentional fire came about, starting in the '70s and it really looks like they had been swayed by the Moon-landing conspiracy folks into coming up with those accusations. Something to keep in mind about the Press Conference was it was after they had spent two weeks in the biological isolation trailer AND they had to go through the Press Conference before they could go home to their families. I don't know anyone who wouldn't be 'stressed' out at that point. But people like Bart will show it (and talk about it) both out of context and without taking into account the background. Oh and I would point out that the supposed "teleprompters" seem to be the mike stands. A "teleprompter' a the time was essentially a TV in a cabinet which I don't see anywhere around them. Thanks for your efforts. Bart has a grift and frankly it is lucrative enough for him to be incentivized not to drop it no matter how many times he's called out on it.
@@DaveMcKeegan Moon landing deniers? Of course not. They couldn’t intercept a message if a pigeon hit them. There is a lake that is really nice for bass and catfish nearby and I had okayish enough signal to have it playing in 64p lmao
And the Chinese.. even Russia said they went bcuz they tracked them all the way there, and listened in to the radio convos.. oh wait FE gonna tell me Russia and China works for NASA now 😂
That's because every country on Earth who claims deep space missions is lying to their population and they are all in on it. There are some really terrible Chinese Moon walk videos where bubbles are seen all over the place.
57:13 My dad worked on the LEM. He worked so many hours, it was as if I didn’t have a dad. When he was home, he was like a zombie. I recall chatter about people who bought campers and would sleep in them, parked at the space center, instead of driving the 20 minutes minimum home. NASA later implemented restrictions on overtime (including for contractors), but back then, they just were required to work any hours to get the job done.
@ You are correct, actually. My dad wanted to be a pilot and couldn’t, didn’t want kids and got them anyway. He was not a loving father, borderline abusive and emotionally distant. To work on the Apollo program was hugely rewarding for all those people, but my dad was satisfying something for his own psyche. And from his perspective, it didn’t hurt that it kept him away most of the time, for most of the years of our childhood. But we did heal our relationship before he passed; and I was always proud of what he accomplished along with his coworkers, even when I left home before I turned 18. I know you meant to just be a shlthead, but you don’t have any power over me. And that ability to hold onto my power evolved because I recognized that inducing anger, fear, or pain is used as a tool to manipulate others, and I don’t have to comply. I’d really like to know what drives you to post shlt comments to random people you don’t know. Probably something you should examine. Good luck.
A thousand coincidences with tampered pictures, transcripts, destroyed data and so on and so on but gullible idiots still rationalize it all to kiss government boots
Years ago Sibrel went around and asked Neil Armstrong to swear on a bible that he walked on the moon. Armstrongs response was "knowing u Mr Sibrel it is probally a fake bible".
Sounds to me like a terrible excuse not to swear on the Bible if it was fake it would not matter if it was true or not so why not just do it for a sign of good faith seems like he didn't want to swear on the Bible for a reason
@@archmage7813 exactly but of course it would be easier to use a real Bible than it would be to make a fake one. LMAO You notice what I did there that's the same bs argument that you guys like to use against the fake moon landing claims
@@salland12 I believe the Bible says something similar, not to mention other proverbs from various cultures and religions, but I can't help myself sometimes I just can't believe some of the crap people use to justify their beliefs. I know that it is possible that I could be wrong in any of my beliefs but I would never use such incongruous examples as reasons for believing anything.
You are 100% correct. People need to stop giving people spouting OBVIOUS B.S. a platform. But Rogan loves conspiracy theories so he loves to move them along. It is sickening. Rogan is not a dumb person, he just lacks basic common sense and is greedy. The only FACTS he cares about are the numbers in his bank account.
“…or else steel will become flammable…” (he means aluminum) Armstrong crashed in the simulator “six weeks before the launch” (it was more than a year) “…he hung up a lemon the size of a grapefruit…” He even lies about easily provable facts.
cant bring myself to listen to bart in this video. him saying that apollo 1 was orchestrated especially. absolutely repulsive how he's trying to turn a tragedy into a conspiracy theory to fuel his "career."
Worth noting as well for EFT-1, Orion was deliberately sent through the most intense region of the belts near the equator and lingered in there near apogee for a higher dose than Apollo received from the belts by avoiding the most intense region. *Edit sorry I see you did touch on this around 19.5 minutes
As an Aerospace Control & Simulation Engineer: Most of the control/simulation techniques we use, were developed during the Apollo Program. Why would they develop these techniques, if it wasn't to actually use them? If they wanted to fake it, it would've been so much simpler to use the tools they had at the time, and not make it more complicated for themselves by introducing anything new.
Devils advocate here, but what if tgey designed it all but couldnt execute the act mission? I dunno, the american govt stinks. I dont believe anything that spews from them anymore. I really dont know what happened, but there are valid reasons to question this.
@@BottleOfCokethen WHY didn't they pack how powered telescopes. At the time it would've yielded pictures IMPOSSIBLE to see from earth.( Because they didn't go)
I absolutely cannot believe that this Sibrel claim of “faking a distant earth with window insert” is still making the rounds. Not a single thing about it works or makes a shred of sense, and it has been thoroughly shredded to pieces a million times over. I think Joe Rogan is an entertaining podcast host, and, to his credit, he at least is able to admit when he has little knowledge of a subject, but I can’t stand how a core component of his brand is to give oxygen to idiotic, smooth-brain piffle like Bart Sibrel’s Apollo claims. Just stop it, already.
Another thing I'd like to add about how we got to the Moon on more primitive technology and we can't (yet) with more advanced technology is because it's more advanced. A typical Ryzen or Intel Core CPU is on average 4x4cm and typically contains 3.5 billion transistors. Any radiation damage will take out at least a few thousand, and there goes an essential piece to the computer. The Apollo missions were mechanical and manual configurations. The astronauts were literally completing all the circuits manually with switches and knobs. Radiation damage to those capsules would be the equivalent to a nick in a wire. We can send modern technology through, but it needs FAR more protection than the Apollo missions.
1:01:43 His patience and respect notwithstanding, Dave's Superpower is giving clear everyday examples of "exotic" practices. This may be the all-time best: "just try putting two front doors on your house that both open outward and see how easy it is to go outside."
It pisses me off to no end that people watch charlatans like that, believe the obvious lies they spew, and then go around thinking they're smarter than everyone else. Truly a stunning example of the dunning-Kreuger effect
This is what pisses me off so much about Joe Rogan - he actually has had some smart people on his show, but he also has complete morons, and he nods and agrees with them, and validates them just the same as if he was talking to an expert.
Sibrel also claims that the Cannon Air Force Base website *used* to list that guard as part of their personnel, but now it's not there. And yet it doesn't show up in any internet archive, and Sibrel apparently didn't bother to download the page or even take a screenshot of it. Riiiiight.
I work at Cannon AFB. It's a realy run down and doesn't have a place were you could do this stuff regardless. Where do they think it was filmed, on the flight line?
If it was faked why did they send 24 people? That’s 24 men that could blow the lid off the conspiracy. If it was faked they would have only gone once and minimised the amount of people that knew the truth.
Exactly! Each succeeding mission was longer and more complex, with the 3 "J" missions having hours and hours of LIVE broadcasts on TV to millions of people (I can remember watching them find the orange soil on TV in my classroom in 2nd grade!). They would have to create a life-sized set of the Hadley Rille! And of the at least scores of people it would take to fake that footage, not ONE has ever bragged about it in fifty years?? Bart need to be strapped to the outside of the next rocket that flies to the Moon!
Funding and technology aside... NASA was able to do what they did in the 60's because safety was not their #1 concern. Getting man into space and subsequently, to the moon was the priority and often, brute force was used. Nowadays, it takes committees, councils, and 100's of people months/years to debate the best way to do something.
@Yepbutno-yl5bx "they have 100% success rate... what more safety do you need?" They don't, no. Three people died and Apollo 13 failed to land. Did you forget? Or were you just intentionally lying?
@Yepbutno-yl5bx "Because you are living a lie, not me" "Perspective makes things disappear bottom first" "Cranes debunk globe earth" "AEP bs maps are a hoax..." "I'm a mechanical engineer by degree but no longer working in that field" "I am a mechanical engineer in black forest"
Bro they let soldiers die everyday in battles and missions that have nothing to do with the USA you really think they are worried about the lives of anyone
Honestly, as much as I adore space exploration and find it very noble, I don't believe for a second that not sending manned crafts has anything to do with the safety concerns. Lets say there was some extremely valuable resource to be gathered from exploration...EVERY country with space program would be up there tomorrow.
My favorite way to prove that the earth is not stationary or flat (and pretty good evidence on its own as to the shape of the world) is the humble gyroscope, specifically the gyrocompass. A device patented in Germany 50 years prior to the formation of NASA, mechanical and electric versions exist. The drift (precession) not only is 15 degrees per hour, but if you were to look at the gyro, the axis of rotation would vary according to your latitude. All of it debunks flat and stationary earth.
A device in Germany that proves we are not stationary OR flat? No, little fluffer. There is NO single way to gyro out a globe. Plus; we have stuff in Germany that proves we're stationary. So now you see that there is no easy way out of this argument that you have already closed your mind to. You; fliaffal, have already decided. Have fun over there.
@@WCDavis-cl7si I should mention, it's a device patented in Germany in 1911 or so. But it's used around the world on various ships and submarines, not just Germany.
Nope, the theory is that USSR agreed to play the part in conspiracy in exchange for some lucrative trade deals. And that's not American conspirologists saying but Russian ones, the same that so fervently believe in the "Moon hoax" because they don't want to accept that USSR lost the Moon race fair and square. You won't believe how they smear Alexey Leonov (one of the first USSR cosmonauts, who later participated in Soyuz-Apollo mission, seen the tech firsthand and always publicly stated that the Moon landing was real). Crazy people...
All the thousands of workers (Government and Private) involved loved the prank so much....they kept complete silence.... All the ten thousands of images taken by numerous lunar orbiter missions doing reconnaissance were fake. Republicans and Democrats split the cash and kept zero whistleblowers....damn. For once in US history Liberals and Conservatives got together and stayed quite.... Russia also didn't have any KGB agents to use the fakery in order to embarrass America. Of course the Soviets lied about their numerous Venus Landers too.... Apollo 13 was also a fake.... especially those fake moon rocks researched by numerous different scientists from numerous different countries....and not one of them wrote a research paper claiming "moon rocks are a deep state fakes." A grand, multi level conspiracy handled by the same goofs that can't run a efficient tax department.
What a total obliteration of his story. Most people Dont ever watch space documentarys. But they do watch UA-cam and listen to people's guesses at things that they actually know nothing about at all.
Anyone with a semblance of a brain who watched the 3 astronauts at their return press conference KNOWS THEY ARE LYING . They should've been ECSTATIC,but each one looks like they just got the news that their favorite dog died ...no way.
I’m not a fan of Joe, but I love his extremely sarcastic remarks to this guy saying: “I have an eye witness” “Well I have an eye witness of someone who was raped by bigfoot” And him always asking after this guy makes a ridiculous claim: “Von Braun said it couldn’t be done” “What year was that?” “Oh, like 1958” (years before any rockets were even in production)
If it was all fake it would have been pointed out years ago by the Soviets who were watching very closely use a little common sense when people start talking like this and you know
You ASSUME the bankers who control the US are not the same as the bankers who control the Soviets Why? Do you know who financed the Bolshevik revolution?
If they came out right now, and said it was fake, would you believe them? Of course not. So why would you, or anyone else, have believed them back then? That's the reason they didn't and haven't tried to claim it. They don't have any more proof than we do now, and you don't even believe Americans that doubt it.
It has always really bothered me that some peoples only desire and intention is to rubbish others achievements, cast doubt on others accomplishments. To deny others their correct recognition and place in it, is spiteful, mean spirited and dishonest. They dress it up as just asking the hard questions and wanting proof whilst ignoring proof and asking no real questions.
Well since it’s the US government, scepticism is actually justified. The US government lied to the whole world multiple times. The murder of JFK could have been a CIA coup. The claim of WMD in Irak was proven a lie. The topplling of the Chilean government by Augusto Pinochet was orchestrated by the US government. The Taliban were enabled and financed by the US government. Saddam in Irak and Reza Phalavi, the Shah in Iran were both funded by the US government before they „broke contract“. The US government schemed and lied in so many cases, that initial distrust should be the reasonable thing. Of course in the case of the moon landings, all the evidence actually indicates that they really were up there. But given the US governments habit of lying about things, it’s understandable that people are sceptical. I think this has, in most cases, absolutely nothing to do with jealousy or wanting to diminish the achievements of others. It’s just scepticism towards a government that’s lying notoriously.
Crabs in a bucket. If you examine the personal lives of the big flerfers and moon landing deniers, you'll see that they're all losers who have done nothing remarkable in their lives.
@@The_real_Arovor *_"The murder of JFK could have been a CIA coup."_* Could have been? - righto then. *_"The claim of WMD in Irak was proven a lie."_* Actually it was United States led inspections later found that Iraq had earlier ceased active WMD production and stockpiling. And there was reason for suspicion. The Halabja massacre authorised by Saddam Hussein was was the largest chemical weapons attack directed against a civilian-populated area in history, killing between 3,200 and 5,000 people and injuring 7,000 to 10,000 more, most of them civilians. Incidentally, I think that you mean Iraq. *_"The topplling of the Chilean government by Augusto Pinochet was orchestrated by the US government."_* The United States worked to end the presidency of an elected Marxist and, in turn, helped usher in an authoritarian right-wing dictatorship. *_"Saddam in Irak and Reza Phalavi, the Shah in Iran were both funded by the US government before they „broke contract“._* Until the fall of the Shah in 1979, Iran was one of the United States' closest allies. After this Saddam Hussein was given substantial support as a bulwark against Iran. *_"The US government schemed and lied in so many cases, that initial distrust should be the reasonable thing."_* Of course the US government has deceived and conspired in the past - no one in their right mind would suggest otherwise. But simply because they have that does not then logically follow that claims of fake moon landings by online grifters like Sibrel or any random internet conspiracy theory of one's arbitrary choosing, devising or consequence of personal bias/agenda should automatically be assumed to be true. A lazy syllogistic logical fallacy.
@@Gigi-xr3qs Your childish and meaningless obsession with freemasons is not, and never will be a vallid argument. Nothing you say is ever a valid argument.
Bart: If they didn’t fake the moon landing, why do they keep putting out thousands of videos to convince people it happened? Also Bart: By the way, here are books I wrote and hundreds of videos I made to convince you “they” faked the moon landing.
What did your grandfather say about the shuttles raining body parts from the sky for my whole childhood? They made it on the first try in a tin can??? 😂😂😂😂😂
If u think Rogan is a half brain or whatever then how is he able to be extremely successful in everything he’s ever done? Have long, meaningful conversations with a seemingly infinite variety of topics with people who are highly educated experts in said subjects…what makes u so smart to be in a position to insult a famous, rich, multi-talented and authentic man like Rogan?
Visit ground.news/davem for 40% off their Vantage subscription.
Ground news is biased itself. They call independent outlets "right wing".
Or he is lying an u an yr closest friends won't experience it to 😮
Note: The radicalizer algorithms don't necessarily push what you want to see. They push what gets a rise out of you. This can be completely faked opposition. Usually their goal has nothing to do with your opinions or understanding but only to keep you engaged.
It was a very great technical achievement by the US. As a software engineer who appreciates the challenge scientists and engineers faced, it's a minor miracle that they managed to do it without fatality. _(PS don't trust my software.)_ 😂
I don't trust the premise of that site. It seems more geared towards using political alignment to shift what's viewed as fact so that you end up with a more centrist worldview which allegedly means more correct, instead of using fact as their lynchpin. You should get the evidenced fact first, then choose which political party or politicians will get your vote for yourself based on it. News is more than just politics, but it seems this is _more_ centered on politics than most and that informs what gets reported. Their ads seemed to be based on the idea of avoiding any reporting that might disagree with your political views, whY with that upfront political grading graph of varioud news outlets in their ads. That's dangerous.
And what criteria does it have for what they consider equal reporting? It seems like a "my opinion means just as much as your knowledge" situation. During the pandemic would it have reported on the "benefits" of hydrocholriquine and drinking mercury as just as valid as the science behind vaccines, because right wingers were heavily pushing pseudoscience and distrust in medical science as much as the left wing was pushing basic hygiene, pandemic procedures and vaccinations? Would they have propped up the view that climate change activists are alarmists just as much as they reported on the actual facts of climate change which are dismal and scientifically valid?
Nah, this seems like just taking advantage of a cultural trend of distrusting the reporting, which itself was caused by political propaganda. Capitalizing on the market instead of providing any needed solution to a real problem.
"I read a German book and it didn't make sense and therefore, English is the only language on earth because if I can't read it, no one can because it is unreadable."
They also burned the 3 guys who were going to read it next!
I knew it.
Agreed. English only. Other languages are conspiratorial lies.
My girlfriend is Filipina and speaks English as a "second language". I knew she was trying to cover up her learning disability with fake words from a language that doesn't exist! I've been bamboozled!!! (In reality she's very smart and knows more languages than me and I respect her too much to even be that sarcastic without this boring disclaimer😭)
And my wife is Korean, she seems to know more about my country than I do and probably more about me than me😮
Buzz Aldrin never actually punched Sibrel. It was all a Hollywood illusion filmed by Quentin Tarantino this time instead of Stanley Kubrick.
I knew it!
B.S. I think there were several witnesses. Why on earth 🌎 would Aldrin lie about punching 👊 some dude!! Ha. Hardly his most prestigious moment. I'm sure he has better to boast about!
If it was Tarantino, he would have used a sword.
Just like Will Smith slapping Chris Rock was a Hollywood illusion? Buzz Aldrin doesn't have Will Smith's training though 😏
@@mrtambourineman6107 those witness were just paid actors. You can clearly tell that they extras from Kill Bill Vol 2
Bart Sibrel getting punched by Buzz Aldrin will always be funny.
Not as funny as the judge saying Buzz had the right to do it, 😂🤣
@@ShionWinkler Do you have a source for that? (Not contesting it, just want to save it somewhere if you do!)
It was self defense; Sibrel not only had arranged the meeting by fraud (being a coward and a liar) but was actively preventing Buzz and his family from leaving (which at best is wrongful imprisonment).
Buzz shoulda kept swinging 🤣
AstroNots running away from Bart’s bible is even more funny and AstroNots threatening to get Bart whacked by the CIA is pathetic!
This reminds me of the huge effort to convince people 911 wasn’t controlled demolition.
💯 Barts rite - everyone knows the moon landing was faked.
🎯
The harder they try, the more the whole thing collapses in on itself.
Interesting you say that because buildings 1, 2 and 7 infact collapsed on themselves in perfect free fall. Go figure@@david6ravy
When you know you know
"Why do they feel compelled to keep defending the moon landing?" - a man who has dedicated his entire life to proving the moon landing didn't occur, unsuccessfully
And there's the giveaway. The unnamed "they".
Because we always defend anything we know to be true. To answer that question
@@SuV33358but we don’t know them to be true?. Unless we were there.
We'll know the moon landing is real when the astronauts we are watching shoot a flare gun back at us. Duh.
@@WCDavis-cl7si Is there any conspiracy you aren't inadequate enough to pretend to believe in?
He says "on the first try" and I'm sitting here shouting "DUDE! You realize it was called 'Apollo 11'?!?!" 🤣
well, tbf, they did land on the moon on the first mission where the goal was to land on the moon, but yeah
@@therookiegamer2727 Well, they did use Apollo 10 as a trial for almost landing, so unless he absolutely insists on catastrophic failure, that also counts as "try" IMHO. And not forgetting the Apollo 1 thing, which was certainly a point of "we need to fix a bunch of stuff NOW" call. He makes it sound like they built one rocket, pushed a button and were on the moon.
@@atkelar which ironically is what they did with the space shuttle. Too complex for partial system tests, and not fully automated. So the very first launch was the full stack, and crewed.
Yeah, this line makes me want to punch anyone who says it. I’m sure most don’t realize that Apollo 11 was the summation of the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo Programs, more than 11 years of work, and engineering taking one tiny careful step after another, and studying and documenting each careful step along the way nearly to death.
“They got there on the first try,” while it may be accurate, in a sense, is one of those statements that’s intended to deceive despite being justifiably true.
Dumbest post of the year
The "can't go beyond the Van Allen" belts is my favourite argument. So they believe scientists that say the Van Allen belts exist, but don't believe the same scientists that say we can avoid most of them, that the craft provides protection, that we can limit our travel through them, and completely miss the worst of them.
The way they act you would think it was a naked man without craft spending 20 hours in the worst part of the belts. If that was the case it wouldn't be the belts they would have to worry about!!
Yep. It's like saying the seas don't exist because experienced seafarers warn you it's cold.
@@0LoneTechexactly, or you can't survive the artic if you were abandoned there in a t-shirt, therefore no one has been to the artic. Or if you tried to swim the atlantic you would die therefore no one has ever travelled it
That’s been my exact argument for years. So Nasa send up a probe, discover deadly belts, tell the whole world there’s these deadly belts we can’t pass through then just pretend to send astronauts through them anyway. Nuts! I have a Moon landing denier (plus every other conspiracy going) friend who quotes the Van Allen belts all the time. There’s absolutely no reasoning with him. In the end I told him the van Allen belts don’t exist, it was just a lie to throw the Russians off from going to the Moon. Using hIs nonsense logic back on him 😂
They are all nonesensical people with straw arguments, but pretty much as you say, why made up a magnetic belt to have to solve an extra problem for the "imaginary" lunar landing.
Its like, if I am going to lie, I would make it as easy as possible. And then you have the problem of well, trusting when a scientist says something that works for them and not the other 99% , and a lot of times they just out of context quotes also like seen on the video.
It's taking cherry picking to the next level
Yes. We went to the moon. On the first try, before the microwave was made and we haven’t figured out how to go back 😂😂😂
The first microwave oven was sold in 1947. That's 11 years prior to NASA even being established.
Care to try again? Perhaps you can also explain how Apollos 8 and 10 didn't happen?
@@critthought2866Explain something?😂😂😂
No they can't explain how it could have been faked without contradicting themselves on a flatearth level.
All they can do is JAQ off.
Thanks for your expert opinion waffle waitress
@@jojobar5877 Dude have some respect, she also shoves dollar bills into little purses.
@@critthought2866
To be fair, microwaves didn’t enter our homes until the late 1970s/early ‘80s.
"The brakes on my 68 Dodge Dart worked, so why do they have to test the breaks on my 2024 Honda?"
I went into a Ford dealership and wanted to order a Model A. Suspiciously, they said it couldn’t be done…
@@petermcgill1315 Therefore: cars are fake.
@@RideAcrossTheRiver well, the Model A at least. Damn that guy Ford!
@@petermcgill1315 To be fair, Ford did make a Model A not that long ago, so in theory if you had Musk levels of cash, it could feasibly happen.
Why did they destroy the technology and not preserve/evolve/document the technology on the 68’ Dodge Dart, instead of recording over the HISTORICAL DATA, forcing us to have to reinvent the wheel and accomplish the same task 70 years later using a more complicated/risk-saturated process for the 2024 Honda?!
Stupid comparison. Cars are evolved from hundreds of years of evolving engineering and manufacturing processes. It’s almost commonplace for people to make them in their own garage.
Go in your garage and make a Saturn Rocket. I will wait.
In the span of 13-15 years, we made the most advanced vehicle on the planet, which accomplished the most sacred task in human history. Oh- but we lost the technology, not only that- we lost the blueprints, data, telemetry, video, and we destroyed all of the tooling.
I worked from floor to plant manager at a very large aerospace company, as well as 3 others, including a powerplant manufacturer. All of them STILL have tooling from some of their first models, made almost 100 years ago. Not just one, ALL OF THEM. But NASA is different. They didn’t keep anything. 🙄
In all of human history, name an instance where this occurred, when humanity was moved forward, but they misplaced the engineering/data/tooling “way to make it” other than the space program?
HASN’T HAPPENED.
So forgive a MF for asking questions, and doubting things.
I would rather question things than blindly accept any narrative, especially based on the track record or lying that ALL GOVERNMENTS have done, including this one.
Funny how landing deniers dismiss any and all photographic evidence and first hand accounts but will accept the son of a former Air Force member telling anecdotally about their father witnessing something but all the evidence was suspiciously destroyed. That they accept as definitive proof. Wow.
Bro! It was a deathbed confession, those are automatically true! In fact, it was a deathbed confession of a deathbed confession. A double deathbed so double true!
These people believe whatever they want to believe, not what's actually true. It's no different than any other sort of fanatic zealot...
And funny that they suddenly have no issue with the original tape being destroyed.
I had the same thought but about the widow telling him the CIA murdered her husband. The discrepancy between the amount of evidence they're willing to deny for something they don't want to believe and the amount they're willing to accept for what they do want to believe is just incredible.
@@danwilson17 Is there even any proof directly from NASA or the CIA that the CIA were directly involved in the construction of any of the modules? The only thing I found from a brief search about CIA involvement with NASA was just that the CIA was tattling to NASA about what the Soviets were doing. So it just seems like it’s a case of everyone blaming the CIA, because they’re a more or less classified government agency.
The best thing Bart Sibrel ever did was drop like a sack of potatoes when he was decked by Buzz Aldrin
With Rogan being such a fan of MMA, you'd think he'd consider Bart a bad person to listen to based purely on his inability to take a punch from an 80 year old man.
you go you freemason lover kiss them butts they love it
@@glenwiley6032 Isn't it past your bedtime child?
@@glenwiley6032 you know for years hearing from tin foil hat morons about free masons being bad I have yet to see anything that you would call actual evidence that there is something sinister about the free masons.
That was him, was it? I'm a nonviolent person myself, but I'm not going to criticise Buzz for that. 👊🏼
This dude is a masterclass in fallacy arguments.
Dave, right?
@ Uh, no? I thought that was obvious I was referring to the conspiracy theorist.
@@mackenzieblair8135 ... that we went to the moon...??
Dude saying that if we went to the moon, then we should have reached another solar system by now is insane, lol. Complete lack of understanding of the scale of space.
And physics.
Aww; tell us all about scales in space, Wad.
He ignores the fact that we have reached another solar system with Voyager 1 and it took 35 years to do so. There is no need to send any humans and its quite impossible to do so until we develop interstellar flight.
@TheZodiacRipper We haven't reached another solar system. Voyager 1 has simply left our own.
@@WCDavis-cl7siThe next solar system is 4 trillion kilometers away. That's 3.78x10^13 km. The moon is 380.000 km away. It takes roughly 2 to 3 days to get to the moon, it takes 75,000 years to reach the nearest solar system. The universe is huge, way too large to even comprehend these distances.
The other side of Brandolini's Law (the Bullsh1t Asymmetry Principle) is that when someone is confronted with something they don't understand, it takes an order of magnitude to figure out the "truth" than it takes to just make something up. Throw in a lack of good faith, and you get Idiocy As Doctrine.
Well said. I hadn't considered the inverse of the law, but thinking it over, it does hold true.
It's worse. Since bullshit doesn't require experiment or truth, it can be produced at will. The bullshit evangelist can therefore produce more bullshit at any pace you can attempt to feed them facts, never needing to pause to assess any validity. Notably, the bullshit doesn't even need to be fresh; they can and do just keep repeating a single piece of bullshit no matter how disproven.
Bullshit only requires a lack of care for truth. Conspiracy kooks actively avoid truth, seeking out fanciful nonsense to hold over facts. This adds on another layer; you can't convince them of what's true, because when you state something true, they use that truth (which they claim falsehood) to claim you're in the (however non-existent and unrealistic) conspiracy.
Could you publish a treatise on this and call it "Martin's Law" so I can cite it frequently?
People like Bart are very important imo, without his questioning, I who had vaguely similar doubts wouldn’t have learned as much as I did.
@@hotmess9640 I can understand the idea that there's a silver lining of proper learning hiding behind debunks of people like Bart, but it's a bit much to say that he's "very important". Learning can still take place without them, and without them there are less people believing untrue things and then acting on those false beliefs. A lack of people confidently spreading misinformation (intentionally or otherwise) would just simply make for a better world. And we can and should encourage learning in as many people as we can. School is....really not good about that, most of the time. Definitely needs improvement on that front. Which, funnily enough, goes hand in hand with eliminating grifters, since those who thrive on lies are the most determined to hamstring the school systems. Proper learning robs them of their power, and of future victims, after all.
There are few people I despise as much as Bart Sibrel. He creatively edits interviews, mislabels sources, switches audio tracks around, arranges interviews using deceptive cover stories then uses the target's discomfort to character assasinate them ; And worst of all, plays the opressed victim in all of this.
I do, however, salute your seemingly superhuman ability to address his claims in a calm and civilized manner.
Never went to the Moon. Deal with it.
@@Gigi-xr3qsIf that's true, why does Sibrel have to manipulate his evidence?
@@paulzuk1468 This is one of Sibrel's weakest points. Why did NASA tape over all the moon landing Apollo tapes? Why did they donate a piece of petrified wood to the Dutch Museum and claim it was a moon rock? Why are they all Freemasons that go into space? Why could they take more pictures than is what is physically possible using a Hasselblad camera that were extremely sharp and showed no signs of radiation? How could their space suits physically absorb the hundreds of degrees temperature changes between shadow and light on the moon? Why is it the astro NOTS couldn't remember if they saw stars from the surface of the moon when they got back?
@@paulzuk1468 I have researched this subject for a long time and Sibrel is a very suspect character who brings up some of the worst and most easily debunked points as his main points, which leads me to believe he is a controlled opposition character. It would have been much, much easier for them to simply use a glowing transparency to mimmick the earth in that shot, and not even be in space.. his entire window theory is just dumb, the guy I think is controlled opposition, kind of like the "flat earth" people who tried to take over moon landing skepticism... oh and Rogan also who used to believe it was faked then suddenly changed his mind.
@@Gigi-xr3qs _Why did NASA tape over all the moon landing Apollo tapes?_
They didn't. They taped over backup tape of _one_ landing.
_Why did they donate a piece of petrified wood to the Dutch Museum and claim it was a moon rock?_
They didn't. The rock you're thinking of didn't come from NASA and wasn't donated directly to the Dutch museum.
_Why are they all Freemasons that go into space?_
They're not.
_Why could they take more pictures than is what is physically possible_
We know the exact time each and every photo was taken. It's certainly physically possible.
_using a Hasselblad camera that were extremely sharp_
The benefits of the wide angle lens.
_and showed no signs of radiation?_
The _Apollo_ photos do show signs of radiation.
_How could their space suits physically absorb the hundreds of degrees temperature changes between shadow and light on the moon?_
They couldn't, and they didn't have to, because there were no such temperature changes.
_Why is it the astro NOTS couldn't remember if they saw stars from the surface of the moon when they got back?_
Because "astro NOTS" are made up.
The real astronauts, on the other hand, said that they couldn't see stars from the surface of the Moon, and they didn't see any stars while photographing the solar corona.
It's really interesting that everything you've said is factually incorrect in one way or another.
That desert photo you have does not do a 90. Your explanation of shadows does not work
That is relevant.
I'd really like to point out something that really goes to show how terrible a liar Bart Sibrel is. He mentions in the podcast that the video he shows was supposedly "outtakes", found "by accident". He doesn't explain in the podcast, but this is one of Bart's oldest claims - it's arguably the start of his grift.
When discussing the creation of his film "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon", Bart claims he obtained this footage by, and I'm being 100% serious:
Emailing NASA asking about the footage, and some intern accidentally sent him the "outtakes" in the reply.
Let's just take a moment to break this apart. In order for this to be true:
-NASA not only filmed and recorded incriminating evidence, but then kept it in storage.
-Said incriminating tapes were then, once digitization technology came around, converted into a digital file, since otherwise it would not have been possible to send via email.
-At no point did anyone look at this tape and mark it as "do not watch" or destroy it, and in fact made it so accessible that a random intern was able to send it to a stranger on the internet.
Bart Sibrel thinks so little of his audience that he thinks they'll actually believe this... and he's right. They do.
Please keep talking on Glober channels. Really. This is all absolute gold. God bless you.
@@WCDavis-cl7si Bro you have over 100 comments whining on this channel alone, I don't think you have any ground to stand on here
Not certain how he got the footage, but has NASA denied the footage is authentic? The evidence you lay out leads me to think he may have been given the footage on purpose.
@@williamsaling9648 the footage is genuine, as Dave explains. It was never secret and Bart never "found" it. It was already around, Bart just pretends it secret so that his "explanation" seems more plausible to a gullible audience
@@WCDavis-cl7siGlover channels? You mean scientific reality? You have strange names for reality.
I am so surprised the people who cant get past 2d thoughts, don't understand orbital mechanics.... Come on it's not rocket science....Wait....
I don't understand orbital mechanics, but I understand history. These people seem to believe that Apollo 11 was one thing that happened just once, that one day everybody woke up, watched on TV that Americans had gone to the Moon, saw a few fuzzy images, and everybody just believed it. The whole historical and scientific context is absent. However, presenting moon landings in that way to their public is an unbeatable statement for everybody who have the conspiracy mentality already settled in their heads: starting from the immovable principle that ""they lie,"" any proof of reality will not be accepted by them.
Ever noticed that believing in one conspiracy theory of any kind (evil vaccines, fake climate change, QAnon, antisemitic tropes, etc.) multiplies the possibilities of believing all of them, no matter how preposterous? Talk to an antivax guy, tell him about the silliness of flat Earth. You'll see him taking notes to "make his own research."
the moon is plasma no man will ever walk on the moon the whole world knew this before nasa
@@glenwiley6032are you telling us the moon is a cosmic fart
@@glenwiley6032😂 well that's a new one!
@@glenwiley6032 If the moon was plasma, it would be a star, as the sun consists of plasma. Therefore, night would look like day, except due to the proximity it would be lethally hot and we would be boiled alive by the moon:)
I say this because I genuinely don't know if this is satire or not
Sibrel has comments turned off on every single video on his channel. I wonder why… 🤔
So round earthers and landing believers don't fill it with nonsense
That’s what all con channels do.
Fox usually has the comments turned off also. Ridiculous religious channels too.
NASA turns off comments on all their videos as well.
@@AddisonJamesHoward touché.
@@4500KneeGrowtroll
I enjoy how credulously they suggest NASA spent all these millions to fake some footage, then released the wrong video/photo.
This is because Bart Sibrel the cabdriver is big smarter then all those scientists!
Happens all the time. After all we are talking about a military complex spending 1 trillion a year and not being able to win a war since 1945.
Because we know the federal government wouldn’t launder money 😂
@@kaliver517 yeah... you think a government could fake fake footage in 1960s that would be impossible to detect with 2020s technology?
That's because you're not a scientist.
Going to space (real space, not "near Earth") is waaaay harder than people actually realize.
Which is where the doubt comes from : 1960's technology was able to do what 2024 Musk can't.
It is weird.
I can't even imagine my life's work being debunked in 1 hour, 23 minutes, and 14 seconds.
McKeegan didn't debunk anything. What a waste of almost 1.5 hours.
@@salvation4all313saying he didn't debunk anything when in reality he debunked everything only serves to make you a fool.
@@archmage7813 Hogwash! You've been duped!
@@salvation4all313 says the person who has been duped.
@@salvation4all313>>> And you are a troll. Or a bot.
It’s a little sad that people dedicate their life to such nonsense…
Well a lot of people dedicate their lives to different gods... Delusion is very human.
hard to fatham that there are quite a few who think the Earth is flat.
He makes a lot of money from a near endless supply in idiots to sell his nonsense to.
@@ludwigvanzappa9548 Especially when you consider he was literally begging for donations a few years ago because he claimed UA-cam cut his only source of income (his youtube channel, of course...)
what truth you would rather believe you live on a ball and come from a monkey ill go with bart
I also noticed in all of that, there was never anything brought up about how the Soviet Union and China or any of the U.S.A.'s other Cold War adversaries ever once questioning the Apollo manned lunar landings. Not once. In fact, quite the opposite.
They could easily track the spacecraft as well as receive the voice and telemetry transmission, thus knowing whether Apollo spacecraft were just circling the Earth or on their way to the Moon, etc.
Well Bart said that he believes Russia and China are blackmailing the US and they know we faked it.
Of course be literally had 0 evidence of this claim
Of course. They would of outed the lie years ago. 😮
They all fake the missions. It's about seeming powerful to the population. Ever seen the Chinese "moon walks" where there are bubbles all over the place?
Don’t you know? NASA owns Russia and China. That’s why they’re the only other countries with space programs (🙄)
So very much this. If they thought it was even a little bit credible to claim it was fake, they probably would have tried, too. Both the Soviet Union and the United States thought they were in an existential fight with each other. Prestige was very important to both sides (getting allies and support), and in fact was arguably the reason the US even tried to get to the moon (to make up for the lost prestige from not getting to space first).
I once brought this up to a moon landing skeptic. He claimed that the US _paid off the USSR_ to not expose the lie. All I could do in response sputter and mentally add "doesn't understand the Cold War" to my list of conspiracy theory blind spots
"They reversed the door, the day before ..."
It's NASA, Bart ... _nothing_ happens overnight.
Tells you this guy has never had any job even remotely related to any kind of engineering lol
Or government. I literally need 6 signatures to buy a roll of toilet paper. My signature, my bosses, the division secretary, acquisitions, my bosses again, and finally mine again. Plus that only applies if the purchase is less than $3,000. Over that and you need a lot more signatures.
It's Schrödinger's NASA - both hyper-compenent _and_ pathetically inept at the same time, depending on the argument 😂
@@Jan_Strzelecki
Hehe 😂 Good one, I like that. I might borrow it
😁🌏☮️
These are people are either paid to help sell this lie or useful idiots. This video purposely avoids key point of Barts video and deflects to trivial statement he happened to make in conversation. Classic tactics used by a losing argument. @@Jan_Strzelecki
Re: Van Allen radiation tests of the Orion. The electronics of today are far FAR more susceptible than those of the Apollo era. This is mostly because of the size of individual circuit components. The 'integrated circuit' of Apollo were thousands of times less densely packed with circuitry. A modern microprocessor, with mask sizes in the nanometer range is much more sensitive to radiation damage, and so their performance must be tested. Of course, deniers don't want to look into this sort of detail, they'd rather just spout off platitudes about 'Van Allen belts are deadly... and they know it'.
Not to mention that it’s simply a different vehicle. Like, we still crash test new cars.
And analogue instruments are way less susceptible to interference than modern Micro processor based because of sample rates.
It's not just size; it's the operating principles too. AGC used wired rope ROMs for their core programs; flipping a bit in that requires physical rewiring. In contrast, modern computers use flash and DRAM memories which amplify minuscule charges, including changes.
They (deniers) know they don’t want to know all of the facts. But what they _don’t_ know is that they are also as thick as mince.
Quite easy to shield other than gamma and xray but thats true of all electronics
Is it just me, or is anybody else expecting Bart’s closing statement to be “Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line!” 🤣
That's inconceivable!
Nah. Bart has none of the charm, charisma, or character of Wallace Shawn.
actually. if bart wanted to get everyone . all he would have to do is say, "sike " , You were right.. hahaha
@@ericturnbull9780 Yeah, but then he wouldn't be able to grift money by selling books and videos, and his fame would evaporate.
nice
Sibrel is clearly lying when he says Kaysing worked for NASA for 6 years,,,He was working for Rocketdyne as a tech writer and librarian..He resigned in 1963...He may have been involved in work that was being done for NASA...but that is not the same thing...
You could have just stopped after the word "lying"
@@fluffskunk True..But the Hoax Believers have to be given the details...to avoid them coming back with "Yes, but what about.....etc" ..They are relentless in their stupidity....
Explain why NASA was trying to figure out the radiation problem in 2016, when they had already done so in the 1960s. ???
@@noellesherman4824 I am guessing you are referring to statement about having to deal with radiation problems with the Artemis missions, and future missions, by a NASA spokesman..
First, the missions in the future will be much longer than the Apollo missions therefore protection needs to be better.
Second, the electronics, computers etc are much more sensitive to radiation than the old Apollo equipment. And therefore needs better shielding, and as they have not been used in space before they need to be tested..as they will be also used on much longer missions such as to Mars.
You do understand that new equipment needs to be tested ?Boats have been built for thousands of years but they still need to test new designs to see that they are waterproof !
@@deldelahaye3811 ALL missions, past, present, and future, need to pass through the 25, 000 miles of intense radiation that comprise the van Allen bets. Where they are heading, whether to the moon or Mars, is irrelevant to this problem.
Dave treating us to a full-length feature presentation because human incompetence is seemingly endless😂
"Only two things are infinite: the universe, and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the first one."
Albert Einstein, i guess
Yep, used to be my Xbox gamer strap line. The thing is, it's not incompetence, that's too kind. It's actually ignorance or refusing to listen to reason, and in the internet age where it's never been easier to learn. I used to have to walk 40 mins to my local library as a kid, then went to university and walked to the library. This is not what we thought would happen when we invented the internet/www. My bad, people are stupid apparently, Oh wow I despair
It’s not incompetence. It’s men wanting attention and lying to get it. This man doesn’t believe the moon landing was fake, he *wants* to believe it was fake, that’s why he keeps waiting for Joe’s head nod to continue.
@@davisdf3064it was newton. I read it on his blog. 😊
@@Jedbullet29 The internet has made showcasing human stupidity easier. Unlike written publications, there are very few editors to filter out the most egregious stupidity.
Basically, the internet has given stupid people an echo chamber and a place to feel special. This is Bart.
True as no-one could be arsed if they had to write a letter stamp it and post it , plus all it takes is 1 like to give a twat a dopamine boost and a sense of acceptance.
I think Joe Rogan in particular is responsible for 75% of bs conspiracy theories, and I say that as a believer in several bs conspiracy theories.
You sound fully vaxxed and boosted.
Oh, so easy labelling people STUPID. That is STUPID.
Were you there?
Why do the Barts of the world lead such sad and angry lives trying to gain notoriety; trying in vain to convince the world of their confusion and their deception? All they do is bleed away what’s left of their lives while preaching to the choir of other Barts. What a waste . . .
Couple things, for starters he makes money so there's profit motive, but that's the easy answer. Still, guys like him must get exposed to the answers to these questions regularly so I'd assume there *must* be some level of dishonesty. But -- and more importantly -- there's the other side of this, the people that believe him and literally believe it. Here's only one of many anecdotes when I went down this road:
I would regularly hear that you could get a consumer grade telescope, and look at the moon landing site. I thought this would be great evidence so I went looking for it, and what I found instead was astronomy clubs saying you couldn't. So I went back and would ask them to give me videos or something of normal people using their telescopes and seeing this site. Instead of giving me any links, the only thing I've EVER received is people calling me a flat earther and mocking me. Anyone who expects I'd walk away from that assuming the video must exist and I'm just a crazy guy would be incredibly wrong, it reinforced what guys like Bart were saying. Because these people are PRO moon landing, they were never called on their BS. To this day I don't know if that BS was claiming you can view it with a telescope, or the BS was through a failure to provide a video, all I know is something didn't add up.
So if you want to help when it comes to these types of things a) be very careful about the claims you make, and b) call out people that agree with you when they make claims that don't fit the evidence -- and if they DO fit the evidence, then encourage them to provide proof or provide it yourself. Remember that even when a person responds with something silly like "Ohhh, I guess you just trust everything your government says" that doesn't mean what you've said hasn't had an effect. Another tip is to try to get people to ask their group very basic questions, things can get very clear when the group you're in starts turning on you for asking about simple contradictions.
1. con for money and limited fame by tricking stupid people as any evidence is always ignored and puts too much time into it to not be correctedby fake or
2. pathetically stupid beyond belief.
.... could be searching for the truth.
@@davidmclachlan6592 Guys like that aren't searching for truth any more than the televangelists are expecting to go to heaven.
@@filipferencak2717..... In the 60's and 70' we accepted what we seen on tv as real and didn't question anything, looking at the 'moon landings' today they all look phoney and ridiculous.
I can't believe these arguments are still used today even though they have been debunked a thousand times and make no sense to begin with. It's so disrespectful toward all those people who actually worked (and sometimes died) to make it happen and produce science.... what a sad and spiteful old man....
Anyway, that was a great video to watch. As always I really enjoy your calm demeanor, and fully clear and comprehensive way of presenting the facts. Thanks.
It's because they want to believe it's fake. And if someone debunks their claims (while most of the time they will just shout FAKE), then they forget that instantly and spout their bull**it to the next person, who did not see them getting debunked and hope they will be believed without evidence
Grifters don't care about their arguments being debunked as long as there are idiots who would believe them, to make profit off.
And idiots don't care about arguments being debunked because they want to believe in some crazy conspiracies, they think "knowing the secret truth" makes them very special or smart.
That's why you hear the same tired old shit from them again, and again, and again.
It's a religion... their faith in the idea that the moon landing was fake convinces them that any evidence to the contrary is fake and anything that might be misrepresented to support their claims is undeniable proof.
And scaler didn't bring down Challenger right Havana syndrome is real and Russia did bring it down
debunked a thousand times? WTF has been debunked, cartoon boy? SCIENCE has to be repeatable. So go repeat something on the moon. Then you can talk.
If they wanted to silence Grissom or prevent him from going to the moon they could have simply removed him from the program. He was a respected member of the program, an engineer himself. He overcame the suspicion from his lost gemini capsule. Killing him and 2 other good men along with him at the cost of setting the overall mission back and the loss of the capsule, is just a ridiculous thing to do.
These lying pricks are disgusting, casting dispersions on brave honorable heroes from the past to make a little bit of money for themselves is a low form of life.
Also, if they did decide to "unalive" Grissom, why did they still proceed to implement a lot of the fixes he suggested?
If they wanted to stop him going to the moon all they had to do was move him to some other job. Simples. "New orders, Grissom, you're now team redesign technical flight coordinator in charge of paperclip recovery operations in Alaska."
Quick note - Dave had been previously caught lying and deceptively editing his videos...
So do you hate all liars or just the ones with a differing opinion?
@@ianirving1033 Well that's a bold assertion with no evidence presented to back it up. When? Where? How? Or is this just a bit of baseless name calling?
@@ianirving1033 Can you be more specific?
Flerfers: "why don't they launch rockets straight up? Isn't space UP, why do they launch and fly to a diagonal?
Also flerfers: they can't pass the Van Allen Belt, because then they'd have to launch from the poles, and not around the equator like they do. They'll fly straight into the belt!
Good catch
Moon landing deniers aren't always the same as flat earthers. And they will likely just use this argument as a smoke cloud to try and "disprove" actual science. They don't care about making a coherent argument.
I caught that too. Bart claims you'd have to launch at the poles to avoid the belt.... Even if directly launching out, we can launch at any angle we want... But it is my understanding that we launch into earth orbit and then make our final trajectory launch from orbit.... So this seemed an idiotic claim to me.
@@capoman1 they probably think that rockets act like fireworks and only the way it's pointed, since they have the scientific understanding of a toddler.
Thanks!
Rogan should have Dave on the show. The amount of research it took for you to make this video is astounding. Much respect to you for putting in all that effort!
Way more research than Bart bothered to do. 😂
@@Jeffy888 research would have ruined the grift.
we gotta make this happen somehow
Rogan loves conspiracy. He rarely likes to hear actual FACTUAL comments and opinions.
Why would Rogan suddenly break form and start having people on his show who aren't liars and grifters?
Does Uncle Fester think for a second that the Soviet Union would ever let us get way with faking the moon landing?
So I'm not the only one who sees Uncle Fester when I see Bart Sibrel :-D
If the USSR had said anything about Apollo being fake (they already had a lot of achievements in space, and they had other things to do), US media would have ignored or twisted the information anyway. Americans would have NOT believed it anyway.
I think that’s the give away on the generation who believes the moon landing is real 😂😂🤡🤡🤡
Let the US get away how? By alerting the authorities? Would any American believe the Soviets who would cry wolf?
@@luckylimbo4816 - In other words, just because you don't understand the science and engineering required to get men to the moon you say it's fake :-)
21:28 Humans have thousands of years of experience cooking meat, but my dad still burns hot dogs on the grill.
That’s a false equivalency. A more accurate statement would be your dad made hotdogs 50 years ago but now can’t figure out how to make them again.
I don’t claim to understand everything but one thing I can’t wrap my head around is the simple fact of “we can’t go back”… logically that makes no sense. Everything and I mean everything has advanced yet space travel has regressed… Interesting…
@@K3NZO_
Bingo.
@@K3NZO_ Do you think it's impossible for someone to forget something? No one is saying we can't go back. If you actually watch the video they have 40% of the budget (inflation adjusted) to achieve a much bigger final goal, so of course it will take time. They should be taking their time because we don't want to kill people again.
The soviet union would have had a propaganda field day if they even suspected it was fake
Not if There spacemissions were alsofaked...And didnt that to be exposed..
The Soviets were paid off with victory in Nam, didn't you know?
They are most likely the source of this conspiracy
😂😂😂 All these governments are in the same club…you think Russia and China with all their “integrity” would miss out on billions of dollars from blackmailing the US making up this moonlanding? Heck no. They not exposing anything. They’re going to get paid
Or they've been using it for blackmail ever since.
small correction, von Braun was never head of NASA but director of the Marshall Space Flight Center in Hunstville up till the first Apollo missions. He became Deputy Associate Administrator for Planning in 1970.
He started NASA
@@matildamarmaduke1096 not correct. He was instrumental in starting the US space program, when he was the director of the Development Operations Division of the US Army Ballistic Missile Agency (ABMA) and with his team modified a Redstone rocket to launch Explorer 1 on 31 JAN 1958. NASA was established several months later by the Eisenhower administration (1958 Space Act) to combine all space efforts under a civillian umbrella (before Explorer 1, the US Navy had to endure ridicule when the Vanguard rocket which was supposed to launch the first US satellite blew up during launch). While NASA was established on 29 JUL 1958, the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) was opened two years later and only then was the ABMA team moved there. In 1960, von Braun insisted that he would only transfer with his team to MSFC if his brain-child Saturn would be developed by NASA. For more on this, i'd recommend the 1979 book "Stages to Saturn" by Roger E. Bilstein which is freely available on the web.
@@matildamarmaduke1096 That is complete lie
@@matildamarmaduke1096 NASA's formation predates him joining it.
@@matildamarmaduke1096 No he didn’t. President Eisenhower started NASA. Von Braun was a director.
Please stop entertaining nonsense and lies, conspiracy theories are lies.
Accusations that Apollo 1 was an intentional assassination are utterly despicable
Agreed. Of course so is everything else Bart claims. The man is not just an idiot, he's a despicable human being.
and even if they were true. that doesn't prove that we didn't go to the moon.
And lying through his teeth about "them" changing the hatch opening direction the day before the test/fire.. Just completely despicable! And an outright lie! (Makes me want to land a punch in his face.. like Buzz's.)
And moronic. We're supposed to believe NASA murdered those 3 guys with a fire caused by lax safety precautions, to silence them because they had been critical of NASA's SAFETY PRECAUTIONS?
Well, his podcast is generally a parade of the mentally ill.
Fun fact: Sibrel as well as being a conspiracy nut is also a taxi driver. Two years after his run-in with Buzz, Sibrel physically assaulted a woman he claimed took his parking spot and narrowly avoided jail. He is, in short, insane.
Alec Baldwin gets in fights with people over parking spots all the time and you libs love him, so what's the difference?
Why did my comment about Alec Baldwin get censored?
@@Gigi-xr3qsdude you're so obsessed 😂😂
@@Gigi-xr3qs maybe because it has zero to do with this video?
@@MegaDudeman21 It was about people taking parking spots freaking out and a double standard.
Absolutely Amazing video! I was crushed after I saw Candace Owens have this loon on her show. I fell for every bit of it. Thank God people like you make videos like this!
If you still belive the moon landing was real I feel sorry for you. If the moon landing was real the government wouldn't go through great lengths of getting rid of evidence or people's that go against that.
I just watched it a few hours ago. It’s very easy to deceive people when there’s only one side. After 45 minutes, even I started questioning, so don’t feel bad. 😊
@@katherineseve777How have other countries landed on the moon? Are they all in on it, too? 🙄
@@OnlyJalenPhd nobody has landed on the moon! NOBODY! I'm 100% certain of that. The CIA is the most evil most corrupt organization that has ever existed they're basically legal terrorists and I don't trust them one bit!
@@OnlyJalenPhd And its even easier to deceive people when theres multiple sides to a story. How many times have conspiracy theories sounded so far fetched only to come mostly true to an extent or totality.
We watch the debunking videos not because we believe on FML or Flat earth but because lets us know how stuff actually worked and learn form that.
For me, the big appeal with Dave's videos is I always learn something new and interesting. The debunking is just kind of the framework he uses to hang all kinds of interesting knowledge on.
This is why i don't really watch other flat earth debunk channels. They don't do it like Dave
Also, because seeing stupidity corrected is fundamentally cathartic.
Or maybe that's just me.
@@MegaDudeman21 Agree.
@@SuperZergMan heck yea lol
I'm not a huge Joe Rogan fan, but I love his retort to Sibrel's supposed eye witness account. "Yeah, and I have eye witnesses who were raped by Bigfoot."
Just comes outta nowhere lol
There are some really, really strange folks in Bigfoot circles.
Same type of person in the big foot circles are in the flat earth and moon landing deniers…
All morons !!
@@Green_Tea_Coffee Does not change the fact that Bigfeet have been recorded on video and audio combined with hundreds of independent witnessed sightings. Does not matter wtf witnesses' beliefs or political associations are about other things, because that would be Ad Homming them. Only a stupid antiscientific person does not understand that about science and history.
Come on, man... #believeallwomen
@@JohnMitchem-e2k awesome
One of my favourite parts of the podcast is around 1hr40mins in, where he mentions that when on the moon, there is a 50% chance of dying from a micrometeorite in a given 24hrs. He says they were there for 3 days, so had a 150% chance of dying???
Bro does NOT understand how percentages work 💀
Guess not 😂
He said that 6B was the equivalent of 50B nowadays... then he said that NASA received 5% of the budget and today receives 0.5%... What was the budget before and what is it now?
He's like the guy he's trying to debunk...
@@vascosantos3854Yeah 6 billion is similar to 50 billion in today's money (USD 1950-1960-2024) . In regards to budget I believe he's referring to rockets and moon missions or moon missions exclusively, saying how Nasa's 5 percent was used exclusively on the moon mission and today it's 0.5 percent on the moon mission? Maybe? I would have to rewatch it, or is it 0.5 percent of the entire federal budget and back in the day it was 5 percent of the entire federal budget, that would be true due to the increase in federal spending? I guess? Over the years?
@@vascosantos38545% of total federal spending in the 60’s, 0.5% today. Resources other than strictly financial ones were flooded into the project and monetary differences between the two eras is just another indication of heightened priority. That is a separate claim from 6 billion being around 50 billion today, which doesn’t account for inflation, which also doesn’t account for the relative cost of aerospace components, employees, and differences in project complexity.
Considering the moon's surface area is about 14.6 million square miles (38 million square kilometres), if you pick a square kilometre patch of ground, it will be hit by a ping pong-sized meteoroid once every thousand years, so the odds of an astronaut being hit by a millimetre-sized object is 1 in 1 million per hour per person. The amount of time the 6 missions spent on the Moon was about 13 days.
I can understand the appeal of having all types of characters on your show, from ex convicts to MMA fighters, to physicists, to comedians, to presidents. I do not however, understand Joe's obsession with including nitwit conspiracy theorists.
I think Bart is a couple memes away from being a flat earther. He behaves just like one. Ignores everything that doesn't support his conspiracy, non stop logical fallacies, willfully ignorant of inconvenient facts, misquotes and misrepresentations every citation, just straight up lies to people, uses the word "proof" like a psuedoscientist, jumps to illogical conclusions, any more? 😂
@Yepbutno-yl5bx Why is every flat earth image CGI?
How come no flerfers have ever presented photographic, video, or hyperspectral imagery of the edge or underside of flat earth, or the elephants that hold it up?
@Yepbutno-yl5bx Have you finally figured out how a gyrocompass can work on your pizza world?
Have you finally worked out how to accurately calculate distances between locations?
Do you even have something as simple as a functional FE based map?
@Yepbutno-yl5bx There's video footage of the ball earth at 1:20, Yep. Did you forget again?
@Yepbutno-yl5bx : Where is Sun after sunset?
@Yepbutno-yl5bx Still no proof of your 'degree' little boy?
"I'm a mechanical engineer by degree but no longer working in the field"
"I'm a mechanical engineer in the black forest"
"Perspective makes things disappear bottom first"
Let me get this straight, they killed Grissom so he wouldn't be the first to NOT walk on the moon, since they weren't really going? have that right? Lol
I had to comment when he said "That proves it in a court of law." So where's your jury of peers who agree with you? Where's your unbiased selection of individuals who, when presented with the claim, agree that it shows what you claim it does? I don't think 12 randomly selected individuals would agree that those moon photos were faked based on your claims.
Speaking as a professional photographer I also agree with you. His ‘court of law’ quote made me wince. He tells complete lies about the way shadows appear in sunlight. I can’t believe he would make such schoolboy errors as that so he is conscious of his lies. He also misses and misinforms about lighting in a number of instances.
Also if it's a matter of law, where was the trier of facts? Cross examination? Summary judgement? I mean if it were so obvious the judge could grant summary judgement to throw out the case...
@@tubecated_development as I was listening to the Rogan interview even before he mentioned “a court of law” I was thinking how pathetic he’d be if he was testifying in court.
Damn, this was an absolute slaughter 😭.
I hate the fact that just because someone has said something 70 years ago 'in writing' then it must be carved in stone... We are constantly re inventing and updating ideas. You're bang on with how narrow minded these people are.
The fact that he needs to lie and twist words says a lot
Yep, it says he knows the Moon landings did happen.
I know; those silly astro-nots are hiding something.
@@WCDavis-cl7si Oh look, it's the big brave troofer who couldn't explain which map he uses to get anywhere and runs like a simpering coward from simple questions.
@@WCDavis-cl7si Wilful ignorance must be a bliss, you really believe all things he said in the parts used in the video?
@@WCDavis-cl7siyeah, you seem smart🙄🙄🙄🤣
The Apollo 1 crew roasted to death in that launch pad accident. If we were trying to fool anyone, why would we do anything like that? Of course, we wanted it all to go as smooth and perfect as possible. People actually died in our ambitions to go to the Moon. There's nothing fake about that.
It’s called a ritual sacrifice. Grissom was an open critic of the Apollo program.
@@nattybumppo4151
Well, if you're going to make history, you have to take some chances. Those astronauts had some gigantic balls!!!
@@nattybumppo4151
Those astronauts had some extremely big balls. But hell, I would have gone if I had the chance. It's just necessary. Just like it's necessary that we will go back, soon. We can actually set up living quarters and labs there, now. I'm sorry that I won't be alive, when people can go to the Moon just to visit. But at least I got to see men walk on the Moon. Seeing Earth from space is a life-changing experience for anyone.
@@SloppyGoat lol
@@nattybumppo4151
I had a physics professor in college who was a potential astronaut. He worked for NASA, and he was on the list, but he didn't get to go. He loved to tell us the story about how they shocked the monkey. You know, they sent the monkey up, and if he didn't press the button, they would give him a little jolt. 😆😆😆
Hes not just wrong he is actively spreading misinformation. Actively deceiving people. And some people are probe to falling for this bs because they just dont understand science.
Exactly. Which is why videos like this are so important. Fighting misinformation - and in Sibrel's case it's _disinformation_ - needs to be done.
What’s more amazing is how staunchly some people defend Sibrel. They _want_ to be lied to because it fits their preferred narrative.
He's actually a horrible person and it makes me mad. How dare he accuse NASA of murdering an astronaut... how fucking dare he
A real conspiracy theorist would say Bart Sibrel is a gatekeeper
Ok then… since you understand science so much, can you please explain how in 1969 then U.S. president Nixon was able to successfully place a phone call literally out of this world, 240,000 miles away (obviously no towers there, right?) with no interruption using 55 year old technology when in 2024 we have iPhones, androids etc much better technology, yet a call always has a chance of being dropped depending on where you are ON EARTH.
And you guys genuinely believe this nonsense?
Now the Conspiracy Bros feel forced to admit that they were at least in low orbit. Like the creationists letting dinosaurs on the ark.
At first they were in Vegas, eating cheese sandwiches, going to strip joints and getting in fights.
Baby steps but we're getting there! :D
no
I'm pretty sure that the main creationist theory for dinosaurs is that they're a hoax and the secondary theory is that they are from an earlier planet/s that were broken up and then assembled into our planet. Dinosaurs having lived on our earth just wouldn't work with the creationist 6k year (or whatever) timeline. I should also mention that not all creationists believe in that timeline nor do they all deny the contemporary scientific timeline of the earth and the existence of dinosaurs millions of years ago.
It all depends on which conspiracy theorist you're talking too / about, and sometimes which part of their theory. Bart himself has both claims that they were in LEO and a first person "eyewitness" (really 2nd hand account at best) that they were on Earth. Like many conspiracy bros, each part of their argument is self-contained, so if you disprove one of their ideas, they can jump to another without the previous disproving affecting their next claim.
Sterling work.
It boggles the mind that someone could present apparent converging shadows as coming from a single artificial source. Or credibly claim that a Hatch could be changed from inwardly opening to outwardly , in a day.
They are bizarre claims but said with such conviction that people actually believe them
Thanks for the support Garry, as always it's greatly appreciated
@@DaveMcKeeganwhy not debate Bart! If not then your arguments bear no authenticity!
@@Bigrailindad333 That's funny because The Everyday Astronaut openly offered to go on Joe Rogan and debate Bart - Yet Bart doesn't seem to want to ... So by your own logic you have to say that Bart's arguments bear no authenticity because he won't accept a debate 👍🏻
@ I’m not talking about someone I don’t know! I’m talking about you debating him. If he denies your offer then I will change my opinion 180 degrees!
@Bigrailindad333 I've already said I'll go on Rogan with him, he's also just been on Cadence Owens show and by coincidence I've just spent a week in Antarctica with her producer, who I told I would be happy to go on her show with him - so the ball is already out of my court
Clickable chapters:
Intro: 0:00
Van Allen Belts: 14:50
Haven't been back with new tech: 21:18
Von Braun claimed its not possible: 26:19
LM Landing Practice: 32:15
Faking Moon Photos: 34:45
Only astronauts knew it was fake: 43:08
Bill Kaysing memo: 50:59
Gus Grissom & Apollo 1 fire: 54:17
Apollo 11 Press Conference: 1:08:08
Petrified wood / Moon rock: 1:14:27
They destroyed all the data: 1:17:02
Thank you kind individual.
Dave forgot to address the moving flag as if there was wind on it when someone walked by it, as well as the fact that camera film can not survive the temperatures on the moon (and it’s highly doubtful that those space suits could either).
1:21:45 - you know there were a chorus of "OHHHhhhhhhh :("s from control and whoever else was watching that camera get fried lmao
Or it was like "Nonononono!" Either way, by the time they saw it, it was too late.
Even though these claims have been debunked and proven false before these idiots keep on stating them as though they have not been disproven. This is just so tedious and dishonest.
It’s because it’s their source of income.
They haven't been debunked.
@@nathanielcoates1486 oh yes they have. Mythbusters debunked that they never visited the moon etc. ProfessorDave debunked several stuff and now this channel has.
@@nathanielcoates1486 In this very video Dave references a video he released 7 months ago that dismantles all of Sibrel's claims. By continuing to expound them, Sibrel is simply being dishonest. You need to watch some other of Dave's videos as well. Man has most certainly been into space and walked on the moon. A professor friend of mine at Cambridge regularly has his undergrads use a laser reflector panel set up at the Apollo 11 site to bounce signals back from the moon to extremely accurately measure its distance from Earth.
@@nathanielcoates1486 Grow up lad.
You’ll never see Bart Sibrel actually debate with someone who actually did their research. Because if he did, he’d get his ass torn a new one.
The best part was bart saying no one would debate him and that no one has given a debunk to his claims
Yeah, I would love to have seen Joe say "prove it" to every single statement Bart made. Everything he said was a lie and easily disproven and he needs to face somebody who wouldn't let him get away with that.
@@robadams1645 Joe Rogan doesn't care about FACTS. He loves it when idiots like this get on his show and throw crap like this out. Rogan, himself, has become a huge conspiracy theorist saying some of the dumbest shit mankind has ever said. Rogan is a clown and doesn't deserve the attention he gets - but that is where the world is now. We live in a world where FACTS don't seem to matter as much as how much money a person has or how many viewers they have. It is sad.
Even Joe himself was pressing with uncomfortable questions that bart didn't really answer well.
If he debated someone who did actually research it would be a bloodbath
any waterhead named GumballAstronaut should be the ass-tearer, as such. I got 5 on it.
Short point but at 52:10 Von Braun was not "head of NASA" but only a head of Marshall Space Center. A huge difference in fact and part of the reason I tend to jump on the "Nazi's ran NASA" conspiricy idea. Putting it in perspective none of the "Nazi's" (which is what they label ALL the engineers no matter the actual fact) were anywhere close to being "in charge" let alone "in power" over NASA. But hey, why let facts stand in your way, right? :)
I'm pretty sure that Bart's "facts" are wrong as they usually are. First and foremost Von Braun would have no need or actual ability to send a "memo" the Pentagon. Again he's only in charge of the team at Marshall so any communications goes through NASA HQ and the NASA Administrator (James Webb btw) not directly to the Pentagon. I'm sure there was something LIKE the memo Bart is trying to sell as the mode discussions of 1962 were making the timetable more and more questionable but keep in mind that this is before the Saturn V is even being built! It was in the design stage till late '62. But then again Bart's "timelines' have always been questionable to the say the least.
Per my above assertion Bart's actually straight out lying at 57:35. The capsules used 100% O2 in flight and were designed for such use. The door was ALWAYS to open inward as it was designed to do to prevent a similar hatch malfunction that happened TO Grissom during his Mercury flight. The outward facing and opening hatches for both Mercury and Gemini (which all faced and opened outwards) had serious problems with Gemini having several times to have the hatches "forced closed" due to expansion or contraction on orbit. Both the tests with 100% oxygen and the hatch were redesigned after the fire but ALL the Apollo missions used 100% oxygen for most of the flight because that was the only way to lower the pressure in the spacesuits so they could be worked in. Bart is knowingly lying about this (no such 'oily rags' were found, and if they HAD been there no trace of them could have been left to find) as he assumes no one will check him.
IIRC both Grissom's wife and son were skeptical of the NASA investigation, not because they thought he was murdered but because of the haste that NASA, (and Congress) pushed the investigation through and they felt that a lot more blame was needed for North American. This is understandable because North American did actually get off pretty easy in context and a lot was 'decided' in an very short time period but as everyone knows 1967 is two years before the assumed 'deadline' set by Kennedy. It's only later when they can't get the answer they want that the whole "the CIA was all over the place" and accusations of it being an intentional fire came about, starting in the '70s and it really looks like they had been swayed by the Moon-landing conspiracy folks into coming up with those accusations.
Something to keep in mind about the Press Conference was it was after they had spent two weeks in the biological isolation trailer AND they had to go through the Press Conference before they could go home to their families. I don't know anyone who wouldn't be 'stressed' out at that point. But people like Bart will show it (and talk about it) both out of context and without taking into account the background. Oh and I would point out that the supposed "teleprompters" seem to be the mike stands. A "teleprompter' a the time was essentially a TV in a cabinet which I don't see anywhere around them.
Thanks for your efforts. Bart has a grift and frankly it is lucrative enough for him to be incentivized not to drop it no matter how many times he's called out on it.
I didn’t know Uncle Fester was still alive. 😮
Oh this is gonna be perfect to listen to while I’m fishing. Laughing and fishing are two of my favorite things to do
Please don't get them confused, you might wind up throwing your phone back in the water and be sat listening to a fish
Careful, the amount of laughing generated by such content might scare off the fishies!
@@DaveMcKeegan how’d you predict this situation I’m in? How am I posting this comment on this flounder?
Do they get good reception? 😁
@@DaveMcKeegan Moon landing deniers? Of course not. They couldn’t intercept a message if a pigeon hit them. There is a lake that is really nice for bass and catfish nearby and I had okayish enough signal to have it playing in 64p lmao
I love how your dog is constantly trying to high five you when you emote with your hands haha. Its adorable.
the one thing that makes me belive we went to the moon aside from the retro reflecters is the russians not denighing it
And the Chinese.. even Russia said they went bcuz they tracked them all the way there, and listened in to the radio convos.. oh wait FE gonna tell me Russia and China works for NASA now 😂
@markw1915 even India have landed on the moonlight 🤣are you honestly a grown adult that believes in space???
@@jamestucker9965 Are you a real Pancakian, or do you just pretend because edge lord?
@@jamestucker9965 Another troll that thinks pretending to be a flat earther is funny.
That's because every country on Earth who claims deep space missions is lying to their population and they are all in on it. There are some really terrible Chinese Moon walk videos where bubbles are seen all over the place.
great video, convincing counterpoints throughout - Rogan, etc. should have you on
57:13
My dad worked on the LEM. He worked so many hours, it was as if I didn’t have a dad. When he was home, he was like a zombie. I recall chatter about people who bought campers and would sleep in them, parked at the space center, instead of driving the 20 minutes minimum home. NASA later implemented restrictions on overtime (including for contractors), but back then, they just were required to work any hours to get the job done.
Imagine your dad would rather pretend to go to the moon than take care of you
@
You are correct, actually.
My dad wanted to be a pilot and couldn’t, didn’t want kids and got them anyway. He was not a loving father, borderline abusive and emotionally distant.
To work on the Apollo program was hugely rewarding for all those people, but my dad was satisfying something for his own psyche. And from his perspective, it didn’t hurt that it kept him away most of the time, for most of the years of our childhood.
But we did heal our relationship before he passed; and I was always proud of what he accomplished along with his coworkers, even when I left home before I turned 18.
I know you meant to just be a shlthead, but you don’t have any power over me. And that ability to hold onto my power evolved because I recognized that inducing anger, fear, or pain is used as a tool to manipulate others, and I don’t have to comply.
I’d really like to know what drives you to post shlt comments to random people you don’t know. Probably something you should examine. Good luck.
@@Mulberrysmile hey why don't you not write a dissertation and go see your dad
To lie about the tragic and horrific deaths of the pioneering astronaut Gus Grissom and his crew is beyond disgusting. I'm with Buzz regarding Bart.
Gus showed the problems of the concept, and was dealt with. I'm with Bart regarding buzz.
Attacking his wife for voicing her opinion is disgusting
@@WCDavis-cl7siyes we know you're with the side of ignorance and lies. You e made that quite clear many times. You are very proud of being ignorant.
A thousand coincidences with tampered pictures, transcripts, destroyed data and so on and so on but gullible idiots still rationalize it all to kiss government boots
I just know Dave is gonna have 1 mil subs someday. Such a great channel
all freemasons have fake views and subs
...i just realized that he didn't
thats shocking to me
And now he’s on Candace Owens
Years ago Sibrel went around and asked Neil Armstrong to swear on a bible that he walked on the moon. Armstrongs response was "knowing u Mr Sibrel it is probally a fake bible".
Sounds to me like a terrible excuse not to swear on the Bible if it was fake it would not matter if it was true or not so why not just do it for a sign of good faith seems like he didn't want to swear on the Bible for a reason
@@seanrevelle554 Never argue with a idiot they drag u down to their level and beat u with experience.
@@seanrevelle554probably because swearing on a fictional piece of literature would do absolutely nothing.
@@archmage7813 exactly but of course it would be easier to use a real Bible than it would be to make a fake one. LMAO
You notice what I did there that's the same bs argument that you guys like to use against the fake moon landing claims
@@salland12 I believe the Bible says something similar, not to mention other proverbs from various cultures and religions, but I can't help myself sometimes I just can't believe some of the crap people use to justify their beliefs. I know that it is possible that I could be wrong in any of my beliefs but I would never use such incongruous examples as reasons for believing anything.
Unfortunately, stupidity sells. We need to stop giving grifters of stupidity a platform for them to peddle their nonsense.
That isn't how Free Speech works.
Good thing too.
You are 100% correct. People need to stop giving people spouting OBVIOUS B.S. a platform. But Rogan loves conspiracy theories so he loves to move them along. It is sickening. Rogan is not a dumb person, he just lacks basic common sense and is greedy. The only FACTS he cares about are the numbers in his bank account.
@@derekcoaker6579 No, that's how it works. We have the right not to give nazi trash a platform.
@@derekcoaker6579 Free speech does not include hijacking media to peddle lies, slander, libel, disinformation, and nonsense.
@@derekcoaker6579Free speech just means that you don't stop others from speaking. It does not require you to give them a soapbox
“…or else steel will become flammable…” (he means aluminum)
Armstrong crashed in the simulator “six weeks before the launch” (it was more than a year)
“…he hung up a lemon the size of a grapefruit…”
He even lies about easily provable facts.
And keeps on repeating, decade after decade. I wonder if he admires Kent Hovind’s business model…
OK a year before. Still shows the LLRV was very unstable. Now try it going 6,000 mph at 60 miles up and try to land a top heavy rocket.😅
@@MagicRoosterBluesBand That's real convenient of you to ignore the 20 times Armstrong successfully flew the simulator.
@@Bnio Now try it 60 miles up with that crude technology.
@@MagicRoosterBluesBandThey did, and it succeeded.
cant bring myself to listen to bart in this video. him saying that apollo 1 was orchestrated especially. absolutely repulsive how he's trying to turn a tragedy into a conspiracy theory to fuel his "career."
Worth noting as well for EFT-1, Orion was deliberately sent through the most intense region of the belts near the equator and lingered in there near apogee for a higher dose than Apollo received from the belts by avoiding the most intense region.
*Edit sorry I see you did touch on this around 19.5 minutes
Apollo 14 did go through the centre of the belts and the astronauts received about six times the dosage of Apollo 11.
As an Aerospace Control & Simulation Engineer:
Most of the control/simulation techniques we use, were developed during the Apollo Program. Why would they develop these techniques, if it wasn't to actually use them? If they wanted to fake it, it would've been so much simpler to use the tools they had at the time, and not make it more complicated for themselves by introducing anything new.
Devils advocate here, but what if tgey designed it all but couldnt execute the act mission?
I dunno, the american govt stinks. I dont believe anything that spews from them anymore.
I really dont know what happened, but there are valid reasons to question this.
moon landing yes maybe
landing with human, maybe not.
landing with a giant car? suspicious
@@richard2845 That wasn't a giant car, and you can find images of how it was packed and assembled.
@@BottleOfCokethen WHY didn't they pack how powered telescopes. At the time it would've yielded pictures IMPOSSIBLE to see from earth.( Because they didn't go)
I absolutely cannot believe that this Sibrel claim of “faking a distant earth with window insert” is still making the rounds. Not a single thing about it works or makes a shred of sense, and it has been thoroughly shredded to pieces a million times over.
I think Joe Rogan is an entertaining podcast host, and, to his credit, he at least is able to admit when he has little knowledge of a subject, but I can’t stand how a core component of his brand is to give oxygen to idiotic, smooth-brain piffle like Bart Sibrel’s Apollo claims. Just stop it, already.
Except Joe Rogan does no one any good my propagating propaganda.
The video shows them doing exactly what bart claims how can you believe bullshit over your own eyes that is a true sign of indoctrination
Another thing I'd like to add about how we got to the Moon on more primitive technology and we can't (yet) with more advanced technology is because it's more advanced. A typical Ryzen or Intel Core CPU is on average 4x4cm and typically contains 3.5 billion transistors. Any radiation damage will take out at least a few thousand, and there goes an essential piece to the computer. The Apollo missions were mechanical and manual configurations. The astronauts were literally completing all the circuits manually with switches and knobs. Radiation damage to those capsules would be the equivalent to a nick in a wire. We can send modern technology through, but it needs FAR more protection than the Apollo missions.
So they should go back using the primitive method then.
@sleepingdanw Nah, that's not necessary. Some extra protection and a few more tests and we can get there on newer tech. Space X is going next year.
1:01:43 His patience and respect notwithstanding, Dave's Superpower is giving clear everyday examples of "exotic" practices. This may be the all-time best: "just try putting two front doors on your house that both open outward and see how easy it is to go outside."
It pisses me off to no end that people watch charlatans like that, believe the obvious lies they spew, and then go around thinking they're smarter than everyone else. Truly a stunning example of the dunning-Kreuger effect
So true! 👍
The charlatans are the ones who've spent decades pretending to fly at 17,000 mph in perpetual free fall. 😄
This is what pisses me off so much about Joe Rogan - he actually has had some smart people on his show, but he also has complete morons, and he nods and agrees with them, and validates them just the same as if he was talking to an expert.
@@dco8562 Weak trolling, 0/10.
@@leftpastsaturn67 lol that dude straight up doesn't understand orbits and thinks everyone else is stupid. LMFAO
Sibrel also claims that the Cannon Air Force Base website *used* to list that guard as part of their personnel, but now it's not there. And yet it doesn't show up in any internet archive, and Sibrel apparently didn't bother to download the page or even take a screenshot of it. Riiiiight.
I work at Cannon AFB. It's a realy run down and doesn't have a place were you could do this stuff regardless. Where do they think it was filmed, on the flight line?
@@Smorb42did you work there in 1968? I know people who did,and they WERE doing massive work on 2 hangars. That doesn't prove his story....but .
If it was faked why did they send 24 people? That’s 24 men that could blow the lid off the conspiracy. If it was faked they would have only gone once and minimised the amount of people that knew the truth.
Exactly! Each succeeding mission was longer and more complex, with the 3 "J" missions having hours and hours of LIVE broadcasts on TV to millions of people (I can remember watching them find the orange soil on TV in my classroom in 2nd grade!). They would have to create a life-sized set of the Hadley Rille! And of the at least scores of people it would take to fake that footage, not ONE has ever bragged about it in fifty years?? Bart need to be strapped to the outside of the next rocket that flies to the Moon!
Sibrel is a despicable liar!
Hogwash! NASA is the liar!
Funding and technology aside... NASA was able to do what they did in the 60's because safety was not their #1 concern. Getting man into space and subsequently, to the moon was the priority and often, brute force was used. Nowadays, it takes committees, councils, and 100's of people months/years to debate the best way to do something.
@Yepbutno-yl5bx "they have 100% success rate... what more safety do you need?"
They don't, no. Three people died and Apollo 13 failed to land. Did you forget? Or were you just intentionally lying?
@Yepbutno-yl5bx NASA had already put three crews on the moon. It wasn't until Apollo 15 in 1971 when the Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV) was first used.
@Yepbutno-yl5bx "Because you are living a lie, not me"
"Perspective makes things disappear bottom first"
"Cranes debunk globe earth"
"AEP bs maps are a hoax..."
"I'm a mechanical engineer by degree but no longer working in that field"
"I am a mechanical engineer in black forest"
Bro they let soldiers die everyday in battles and missions that have nothing to do with the USA you really think they are worried about the lives of anyone
Honestly, as much as I adore space exploration and find it very noble, I don't believe for a second that not sending manned crafts has anything to do with the safety concerns. Lets say there was some extremely valuable resource to be gathered from exploration...EVERY country with space program would be up there tomorrow.
My favorite way to prove that the earth is not stationary or flat (and pretty good evidence on its own as to the shape of the world) is the humble gyroscope, specifically the gyrocompass.
A device patented in Germany 50 years prior to the formation of NASA, mechanical and electric versions exist. The drift (precession) not only is 15 degrees per hour, but if you were to look at the gyro, the axis of rotation would vary according to your latitude. All of it debunks flat and stationary earth.
_"Thanks Bob"_ OK someone had to say it, it might as well be me.
A device in Germany that proves we are not stationary OR flat? No, little fluffer. There is NO single way to gyro out a globe. Plus; we have stuff in Germany that proves we're stationary. So now you see that there is no easy way out of this argument that you have already closed your mind to. You; fliaffal, have already decided. Have fun over there.
@@WCDavis-cl7si I should mention, it's a device patented in Germany in 1911 or so. But it's used around the world on various ships and submarines, not just Germany.
@@WCDavis-cl7sihahahahaha do you seriously enjoy embarrassing yourself? I mean you really just post absolute lies or ignorance one for the two.
@@WCDavis-cl7si
Liar.
I've got an idea. Let's send a new manned mission to the Moon to prove the denialists wrong. Oh wait, there is already the Artemis Program going.
There are 4 letters that prove we went to the moon; USSR. If we didn't actually make it to the moon then they would have said so.
Yep
Nope, the theory is that USSR agreed to play the part in conspiracy in exchange for some lucrative trade deals.
And that's not American conspirologists saying but Russian ones, the same that so fervently believe in the "Moon hoax" because they don't want to accept that USSR lost the Moon race fair and square. You won't believe how they smear Alexey Leonov (one of the first USSR cosmonauts, who later participated in Soyuz-Apollo mission, seen the tech firsthand and always publicly stated that the Moon landing was real). Crazy people...
Hogwash.
Or they weren't sure, since the soviets did have deep space tracking at the time, and relied on the British fornit.
@@salvation4all313
Stop liking your own comments 😂
Somewhere on Earth, 1967 I Guess?: "Yo Buzz, Mikey! I just thought of this AMAZING prank bros, it's gonna be so funny nobody will see it coming!"
All the thousands of workers (Government and Private) involved loved the prank so much....they kept complete silence....
All the ten thousands of images taken by numerous lunar orbiter missions doing reconnaissance were fake.
Republicans and Democrats split the cash and kept zero whistleblowers....damn. For once in US history Liberals and Conservatives got together and stayed quite....
Russia also didn't have any KGB agents to use the fakery in order to embarrass America.
Of course the Soviets lied about their numerous Venus Landers too....
Apollo 13 was also a fake.... especially those fake moon rocks researched by numerous different scientists from numerous different countries....and not one of them wrote a research paper claiming "moon rocks are a deep state fakes."
A grand, multi level conspiracy handled by the same goofs that can't run a efficient tax department.
What a total obliteration of his story.
Most people Dont ever watch space documentarys. But they do watch UA-cam and listen to people's guesses at things that they actually know nothing about at all.
...and that's how trump "won"
Anyone with a semblance of a brain who watched the 3 astronauts at their return press conference KNOWS THEY ARE LYING . They should've been ECSTATIC,but each one looks like they just got the news that their favorite dog died ...no way.
I Dare you to Debate him! I bet you wont!
Bart Sibrel is a proven |iar, so why should anyone want to debate him? :-)
I’m not a fan of Joe, but I love his extremely sarcastic remarks to this guy saying:
“I have an eye witness”
“Well I have an eye witness of someone who was raped by bigfoot”
And him always asking after this guy makes a ridiculous claim:
“Von Braun said it couldn’t be done”
“What year was that?”
“Oh, like 1958” (years before any rockets were even in production)
Well that last part isn't true. Rockets had been most definitely existing for quite a few decades by 1958, but it was still early in the field though.
If it was all fake it would have been pointed out years ago by the Soviets who were watching very closely use a little common sense when people start talking like this and you know
You ASSUME the bankers who control the US are not the same as the bankers who control the Soviets
Why?
Do you know who financed the Bolshevik revolution?
No,it would not have ...USA and Russia are ruled over by same master
If they came out right now, and said it was fake, would you believe them? Of course not.
So why would you, or anyone else, have believed them back then?
That's the reason they didn't and haven't tried to claim it. They don't have any more proof than we do now, and you don't even believe Americans that doubt it.
It has always really bothered me that some peoples only desire and intention is to rubbish others achievements, cast doubt on others accomplishments. To deny others their correct recognition and place in it, is spiteful, mean spirited and dishonest. They dress it up as just asking the hard questions and wanting proof whilst ignoring proof and asking no real questions.
Well since it’s the US government, scepticism is actually justified. The US government lied to the whole world multiple times.
The murder of JFK could have been a CIA coup. The claim of WMD in Irak was proven a lie.
The topplling of the Chilean government by Augusto Pinochet was orchestrated by the US government. The Taliban were enabled and financed by the US government. Saddam in Irak and Reza Phalavi, the Shah in Iran were both funded by the US government before they „broke contract“. The US government schemed and lied in so many cases, that initial distrust should be the reasonable thing.
Of course in the case of the moon landings, all the evidence actually indicates that they really were up there. But given the US governments habit of lying about things, it’s understandable that people are sceptical.
I think this has, in most cases, absolutely nothing to do with jealousy or wanting to diminish the achievements of others. It’s just scepticism towards a government that’s lying notoriously.
Crabs in a bucket. If you examine the personal lives of the big flerfers and moon landing deniers, you'll see that they're all losers who have done nothing remarkable in their lives.
@@The_real_Arovor
*_"The murder of JFK could have been a CIA coup."_*
Could have been? - righto then.
*_"The claim of WMD in Irak was proven a lie."_*
Actually it was United States led inspections later found that Iraq had earlier ceased active WMD production and stockpiling. And there was reason for suspicion. The Halabja massacre authorised by Saddam Hussein was was the largest chemical weapons attack directed against a civilian-populated area in history, killing between 3,200 and 5,000 people and injuring 7,000 to 10,000 more, most of them civilians. Incidentally, I think that you mean Iraq.
*_"The topplling of the Chilean government by Augusto Pinochet was orchestrated by the US government."_*
The United States worked to end the presidency of an elected Marxist and, in turn, helped usher in an authoritarian right-wing dictatorship.
*_"Saddam in Irak and Reza Phalavi, the Shah in Iran were both funded by the US government before they „broke contract“._*
Until the fall of the Shah in 1979, Iran was one of the United States' closest allies. After this Saddam Hussein was given substantial support as a bulwark against Iran.
*_"The US government schemed and lied in so many cases, that initial distrust should be the reasonable thing."_*
Of course the US government has deceived and conspired in the past - no one in their right mind would suggest otherwise. But simply because they have that does not then logically follow that claims of fake moon landings by online grifters like Sibrel or any random internet conspiracy theory of one's arbitrary choosing, devising or consequence of personal bias/agenda should automatically be assumed to be true. A lazy syllogistic logical fallacy.
I give people credit where credit is due. I am not going to give a whole bunch of Freemasons who never went to the Moon credit for scamming us.
@@Gigi-xr3qs Your childish and meaningless obsession with freemasons is not, and never will be a vallid argument.
Nothing you say is ever a valid argument.
I searched that dude on youtube. Surprise surprise...comments turned off for his iron clad arguments. 😂
Bart: If they didn’t fake the moon landing, why do they keep putting out thousands of videos to convince people it happened?
Also Bart: By the way, here are books I wrote and hundreds of videos I made to convince you “they” faked the moon landing.
"We'd be in another solar system by now" bro what lmao.
Well, we could've been, if NASA had the same funding through all those years.
Instead Nixon locked us down in low Earth orbit for _decades._
Sibrel seems to think Moore's law should apply to rocket technology.
@@Green_Tea_CoffeeI'm pretty sure that is very obviously outdated at current time
Joe Rogan and Bart Sibrel...
As my grandfather used to say : "two half-brains have never made a whole brain!!"
But they do make one helluva kayfabe
@@tubecated_development Being French, I didn't know the expression, thank you.
@@Apolloman01 your observations were correct. I was just adding extra detail!
What did your grandfather say about the shuttles raining body parts from the sky for my whole childhood?
They made it on the first try in a tin can??? 😂😂😂😂😂
If u think Rogan is a half brain or whatever then how is he able to be extremely successful in everything he’s ever done? Have long, meaningful conversations with a seemingly infinite variety of topics with people who are highly educated experts in said subjects…what makes u so smart to be in a position to insult a famous, rich, multi-talented and authentic man like Rogan?
Bart Sibrel is a champion of faulty reasoning.
The internet has a lot to answer for. Barts a fool. He needs to get a life. 🇦🇺🦘