Moon Hoaxes, Real Physics: Brian Keating on Evidence, Lasers, and the Van Allen Belts

26:07I treat him respectfully if he came on my show or if he came on Joe Rogan's show or Lex Friedman. And also Lex Friedman, I think, asked him to go on his podcast and debate me. And he just, you know, for some reason he doesn't want to. His main piece of, he's got a couple pieces of main evidence. And some of that, you know, Joe Rogan will parrot back. But most of it is, you know, reliant on what he claims are the physical and biophysical limitations to impediments to human traversing the distance between the moon and the earth. And what's this evidence that the Van Allen radiation belt would be so radioactive that it would kill, you know, by the way, the rockets going to the moon and any rockets going into space have the heat shield so they can come back in.

26:53They're, you know, to some extent impervious to a high amount of radiation, as we know. So what's evidence that this radiation belt is so intense that it would kill anybody crossing through it? So his argument is that these papers from NASA, he finds like one paper, which he claims from NASA, that, you know, speaks about the level of radiation, but he's a selective synthesis. He's only reading to get the aspects that he claims are, you know, complete slam dunks that you couldn't even set, you know, one inch into these Van Allen radiation belts. And in reality, you know, when you think about the atmosphere, James, it's not like a solid layer of constant density, just our Earth's atmosphere, okay?

27:32it has an exponential decay. The amount of oxygen here at the surface of the Earth in Florida, in San Diego, in Atlanta, is twice as thick oxygen, twice as much oxygen, as I feel when I go to 18 ,000 feet in Chile to go to the Simons Observatory. That level of atmospheric pressure is about half the atmosphere. That's why we wear oxygen. But if you go between 18 ,000 feet and 36 ,000 feet, it goes basically to zero, even though you've doubled it. it doesn't go linearly. It goes exponentially declines, but it never goes to zero. There's no such thing as like zero atmosphere. There's particles of the Earth's atmosphere that extend tens of thousands of miles into space.

28:15And certainly things like the Earth's magnetic field extend into space, but they typically have either a 1 over R squared fall off or they have an exponentially decaying fall off. So too do these radiation belts. They truly exist. Anyone who's ever seen Aurora, they know that they exist. Now, what he'll claim is that there's some temperature of these things and that they would fry and melt aluminum, which the spaceships are made of. And then to defeat that, you'd have to make the spaceship so heavy that it could never get off the launch pad. And the proof there is that we haven't gone back to the moon.

28:47He said, everything's gotten easier since the 1960s. Computers have gotten smaller. Cars have gotten faster and better. Everything's gone easier since the 1960s. So the evidence that we haven't gone back is proof that we never went in the first place because things get easier over time, right, James? It's certainly logical, right? I mean, if we couldn't go now, and he claims people like Elon Musk say we can't go now, but for some reason Elon's building a spacecraft to go to Mars. So apparently he thinks he's smarter than Elon Musk as does Candace Owens, which is completely... Okay, but let's deal with this point though.

29:21You know, I'm not trying to play the devil's advocate, by the way. That's fine. I think it is so insane to not believe the moon landing happened. I don't think he's insane. No, I'm not saying insane, but I think the idea that I almost question his motives. That's what I'm saying is that I don't think anyone— I think his motives are clear. He likes attention. He gets a lot of attention from the most famous podcaster and media outlet in the world. So he gets that. He goes on. He gets to confront people. I think he feels like he's suffering from the Stockholm Syndrome or something. Like, he loved NASA so much.

29:55He was an evangelist. Again, I haven't found it. Maybe it exists. Maybe Bart can send it to me, somebody can send it to me. But I haven't found any pro-NASA from the before times and then anti-NASA. So the Van Allen radiation belts, he claims, because of that, there was no way to go in the 1950s. NASA knew it, and so they would never put their astronauts in danger. But he's also saying that NASA lies all the time, is a corrupt and malevolent organization, and has had people murdered. So he actually claims that astronauts, like, murdered other people in the Air Force to keep the secret that the Apollo mission was filmed, presumably, I think he's claimed by Stanley Kubrick, and that they had all his backup footage, and then they had to, like, whack people.

30:36And he actually talks about, like, Air Force people that then commit suicide. And then it's just, like, it's so incredibly, you know, it's obvious that he could make this into a movie with his filmmaking, you know, skills. So, but I want to touch on this claim that because we haven't gone back, which is true, we have not gone back since 1973, I think. We went in space many, many other times. We lived in space for hundreds, you know, I've talked to Chris Hanfield. You know, he lived on the space station for, you know, six months. People stay in space all the time. And the amount of time that you go through the radiation belt to get to the moon, assuming it was, even if it was a constant thickness, and it was the most high dose you could possibly go through, you would still be totally fine.

31:20You would be like getting like 100 chest x-rays in a year, which is not great, but there's no way you would die the next day. I mean, do you think you'd be able to go to your dad? I mean, my dentist, the medical tech, doesn't have a bachelor's degree and she fires up the x-ray machine at my skull. Do you think that that, you know, they would allow her to do that if there was a one in a hundred chance that I might die from that? Of course not. But okay, so you're saying this because you know what the Van Allen radiation is. I'm saying assuming the worst case of the Van Allen Belt, which is in no way NASA knew exactly, it's much more dense at the poles.

31:50That's why it's called the Aurora Borealis because boreal means north, north pole. That's why you see these auroras much more near the north pole. That's where the concentration of the Van Allen Belts, the Earth's magnetic field is much stronger there. The auroras are much brighter. NASA knew that. That's why they launched from Florida. And they go out near the equator where the Van Allen Belts are the most diffuse and the weakest. And they at most would spend less than an hour, perhaps only 45 minutes in it. And this equivalent radiation exposure, according to NASA scientists, including Van Allen himself, is totally harmless.

32:24In other words, Bart says that the proof is this Van Allen belt. The guy Van Allen says that Bart's wrong. I mean, his research approved of the transition through the Van Allen belts to go to the moon. The fact that Elon is planning to go to Mars, which you certainly have to go through there. That NASA's launched many spacecraft through. By the way, as you said before, these spacecraft have to go up and come down. So even if it was unoccupied, right, and they send something around the moon. I mean, we've taken pictures. The Chinese have taken pictures of the Apollo landing sites. The Indians have taken pictures of it.

32:58No one would have been happier to prove that we didn't go than the Soviets. They never once did it. They had their own Soviet space program that impacted the moon the same day as the Apollo 11. And they did that on purpose because they knew we were going to go there. Can you imagine like our arch enemies that they would say, yeah, we would agree instead of exposing us as total frauds during the height of the space race that almost bankrupted that country, that they wouldn't like expose the fact that there's no evidence for people being on the moon. But you also said one other thing. You said that the spacecraft has to come back.

33:29And that's true. So even if it was empty, let's say they sent three dummies and they had animatronic robots and they had remote control cameras. The spacecraft, the computer chips on the spacecraft, they could not survive this according to BART. In other words, if it's instantaneously deadly to a human being, it's instantaneously deadly to a tiny little fragile microchip. And that's his biggest piece of evidence, is that it's so deadly, we couldn't go there in the first place. The second piece of evidence, we haven't gone back. So none of that's scientifically valid, right? The fact that we haven't gone back doesn't mean that we didn't go in the first place.

34:03The way I prove that, just on a logical basis, the first person to ever go to the South Pole, where I've been twice, was named Roald Amundsen. He was Norwegian. So he arrived in 1911, December 1911. You know when the next Norwegian to get to the South Pole was, James? Never again. It was in 1996. So imagine Bart in 1995 saying, oh, we never went to the South Pole because we haven't gone back in 80 years. It's even longer than the time we have not gone back to the moon. It's so ridiculous. but that's the same type of logic. So if you believe that, you would have to say that, yes, because we didn't go for 80 years, then we never went in the first place.

34:46So it's completely a rational, illogical argument and that's one of his best pieces of evidence. And he has other pieces of evidence. So there's the psychological thing that Joe Rogan brought up that they looked like they were lying or they weren't being truthful or something like that, the Apollo astronauts. And despite all this, they, you know, maintain this ruse and this conspiracy. Again, the conspiracy number is extremely high. There was something like hundreds of thousands of people involved in this project. They would all have to keep it secret. And the other countries, including our enemies in China and in Russia, they don't dispute that we went there.

35:26So those are the psychological kind of objections and refutations of these claims. But they make many, many other ones. and they're just like a lot of them are just laughable. You know, one of the things Bart says is that the pictures that they took on the moon were like impossible. A lot of people like Kim Kardashian and Candace Owens say, look at the flag on the moon. The flag was, looked like it was waving in the breeze. And this is like one of the dumbest things you could possibly say as an objection. Like if I was playing devil's advocate, those aren't any of the things that I would say to refute the moon landing.

36:01I mean, there's a lot other things, but they're all circumstantial because it actually occurred. Yeah, so, okay, so why did she say this thing about the flag waving? The flag, if you look at the moon, it has a flag on it, you know, where we are. And it looks like this. It looks like, you know, if you're watching, it's like a pole. So what they did, they knew the moon's gravity is not zero. According to Candace and Kim Kardashian, it was zero, but of course it's not. It's one-sixth of the Earth's gravity. So it would not stay erect like this. So NASA knew that and knew it had no wind in it. But imagine a flag picture that just looks like, you know, like here's the flag, you know, some country that's pure black.

36:38Imagine like this. So there's just a piece of cloth I'm holding attached to this flagpole. They knew that would look horrible. And, of course, they wanted to show American exceptionalism. So they put wires and rods in it to make it permanently stand like this. And actually, some of the spacecraft, you can almost see the shadow of it. So they had these wires and structures in it that held it out rigidly to make it look like it was being blown in the breeze. But you think NASA could launch a rocket, get it to the moon, and then not know that there's one-sixth of gravity and no atmospheric support for a flag?

37:10What was the argument? I've heard this argument, which is, it's ridiculous, but I want to hear your reasoning. Who took the pictures? So they had a tremendous amount of remote-controlled cameras up there. The one thing Joe talks about, Rogan talks about, in a lot of his things, is like, oh, it's so ridiculous. Like, when the camera launched, they just exactly matched it. They don't see any flames shooting out the back. And then the camera perfectly pans up, tilts up, and gets to see the perfect line. So again, these are like calculations that a freshman in high school could do if they were smart enough to know exactly what the trajectory is going to be, to set up a camera on a single axis mount that's remote controlled.

37:49I mean, we had spy plane, the SR-71. We had all these incredible, you know, remote controlled, like when the planes would fly over Vietnam at exactly the same time, there wasn't like a guy with a camera taking pictures. So this is like complete idiocy to think that we don't have remote-controlled cameras that are controlled electronically and to be controlled from either the capsule itself or from Houston itself because there's only a second and a half delay that's more or less in real time. That's a completely trivial thing. There was no photographer there to watch it. It was not necessary. The technology existed.

38:26But they think it was actually, all of it was filmed and everything was filmed on a soundstage, you know, in Burbank. And somehow they maintained that conspiracy, even though Kubrick, you know, never would have admitted to that. Nobody has come forward to say that. That's their theory is that, well, they had to have a backup in case the astronauts died and the astronauts didn't die, but then they just used the backup footage. So a lot of Joe's criticism is about like a couple of pieces of NASA PR footage that were put out and spliced in and other things that are, again, it may prove that they were clumsy in terms of social media.

39:04Sorry they don't have 20 million followers, Joe Rogan, like you do. And maybe they didn't have the social media chops 56 years ago. But what was Joe doing 56 years ago? He was soiling his mom's diapers that he should put on him, right? So I don't believe that any of these things are to a credible person who's actually going to look at the data to say that this is like proof that the one of the greatest, again, I'll say the greatest accomplishment of humankind, that it didn't happen. And why does Joe want to believe it? It's very, very, you know, concerning that this is getting so much attention.

39:38And of course, it's a hundred times harder to refute bullshit than to prove, you know, to just assert it, right? Why does, when it's so easy to prove that it did happen. And I 100 % agree with you on that. And let's assume good intentions by everybody. Why do conspiracy theorists believe that the moon landing was a hoax? When it's so obvious, you will destroy your credibility right away when you say the moon landing was a hoax because it has so obviously happened. Well, I think that there's a lot of, there's so many threads here. Like one of the things Joe talks about in the interview with Jesse was that this astronaut named Gus Grissom, who was the second American to go into space, that he died the day after he complained that the Apollo 1 capsule was a lemon.

40:32So according to Joe, Gus Grissom hung a lemon on the capsule, on the actual capsule, and then the next day, after this public humiliation of NASA, he burned to death in this 100 % oxygen-driven fire where CIA agents, according to Joe, were roaming around on the launch pad. And that, what Joe's saying is that he was assassinated for knowing that Apollo was a fake. So that's what Joe's claiming. Now, okay, let's say that happened, okay, which is complete fabrication. And it's even a distortion of the facts. I'll get to what the actual facts were and how this occurred. But let's say it did occur.

41:09Like CIA killed Gris. And Joe hates the CIA. And a lot of times he'll say this MKUltra thing where people have been for decades drugged and tortured and then used to assert all. He claims that the existence of things like these secret programs is proof that almost any secret program or any conspiracy is plausible, not just possible, but fundamentally plausible, likely to do it. Maybe it's his, again, his countercultural, anti-authoritarian. Maybe he is very patriotic. I mean, I wouldn't like to think that an astronaut was killed for claiming it was a lemon. But of course, what happened was it wasn't on the actual capsule.

41:53Gus put this lemon on a simulator far away from the actual capsule itself. And what happened was it was clear that they were using pure oxygen. They should never have been using it. But that was the standard not only in spacecraft, but in aviation to use 100 % oxygen, which is now obviously not done but that was typical of the time. That's how they would do stuff in the past. There's no evidence that there was any CIA involved in it. That's just, I don't know. Apparently that's where Bart Sibrell comes into this conversation where Bart talked to allegedly, again, I have to say allegedly all this stuff because I don't believe Bart in 99 % of what he says but he says that he talked to Gus Grissom's widow who's not alive but not anything contemporarily and she told him this.

42:41So it's secondhand, you know, eyewitness or not even eyewitness. I mean, she wasn't on the pad. So now why would you want to have a cover-up, a conspiracy to kill an astronaut if your goal was, right? Like I don't know what Joe and Bart think NASA's goal was. I mean, let's say they were in a – there was a conspiracy. They wanted to, you know, fake going to the moon. They were never going to go to the moon. That's one possibility. and they had to like, you know, justify the expenditure for the military industrial complex or whatever it was. But why would they want to do it? If they did this and they did kill somebody, it would trigger a huge delay.

43:20There was congressional hearings. It was like 18 months later, the Phillips report came out and it had major design overhauls that exactly what you don't want to do if you're running a fake program is get extra attention. Right, James? Yeah. Well, The key is, from what I remember of that, not that I was around them, but from what I remember reading about it, is the door opened from the inside. So once there was no oxygen, I forget which direction it was opening. There was some issue where the pressure on the outside was so much different than the pressure on the inside, they couldn't escape the capsule when the fire started.

43:54That's right. Three astronauts that died. So it was like Ed Walker, the first guy to walk in space. I think that's his name. He was one of the astronauts who died, and there was another one, a third guy, Roger, or something. Yeah, and, you know, look, I've met these astronauts. I've met the mission controllers. Again, there's just a sheer amount of people involved in this conspiracy. For what purpose, I don't know. I mean, I actually have to confess, I don't know what BART claims would be NASA's reason for doing it. I mean, I can speculate. Like I said, military-industrial complex, that's a CIA kind of cutout thing.

44:28But again, because COVID has happened so recently, and because of these things like MKUltra and things like, you know, disclosure of UAPs and stuff, and there's just complete distrust of, you know, any American institution, which goes from like, you know, critical things like the CDC. And now it's down to NASA. Like, you have to ask, like, what is NASA? Like, is it some, you know, huge corporation? Do they get like trillions of dollars of tax money? No, they get maybe$20 billion total per year. And of that, less than like one or 2 % goes to manned spaceflight programs right now. A lot of it's going to SpaceX.

45:09Are they faking it too? I mean, you think like if it's permanently fatal, like there's just no argument, there's no universe in which Elon Musk would be risking his entire fortune, which is predicated on SpaceX, not Tesla as most people think, but on SpaceX, by saying like, we're going to end up with a space colony on Mars because he would know, according to Bart, the genius of the Van Allen belts, that is a permanent impediment. There's no physics solution to that. It's impossible and we'll never go to the moon at all because it's fundamentally impossible. It's too deadly. So that means that Elon is proceeding down this path to bankrupt himself, to go to Mars.

45:53And I've talked to Elon. I don't think Bart ever has or Candace ever has, but that he is committed to landing on and living on Mars and dying on Mars, as he said. I said, I hope not on impact. The next sort of claims are like, again, kind of just conspiracy tropes like NASA destroyed the data, the high-quality videos, and that's what you do if it was fake. And they're just completely factually wrong. They claim all the telemetry, which is the position and the orientation of the spacecraft is gone. That's totally wrong. There is some mission data that was overwritten, but it wasn't overwritten for decades after the mission.

46:32So it's like, do you keep the package of seeds, you know, two years after you've gotten your crop harvest? I mean, okay, so like, why would you necessarily, this wasn't like they destroyed the moon rocks. That's another favorite thing of BART's. BART's claims, you know, the moon rocks are all fake and that they actually came back and tried to pass off petrified wood as meteorites. And Neil Armstrong was in on this cover-up. And these are other, you know, trumps that they put. It's all these cover-ups. See, James, that these people like Joe and like Bart are trying to prevent us from being hoodwinked by our government.

47:04And our government here is a stand-in. NASA is a stand-in for our government. But you should never trust the U.S. government. They're fundamentally evil. They should always be questioned. And the more kind of sensational and titillating it is, the better.

47:32and so i wonder with someone like candace owens if she hops onto this because she sees that our audience is kind of conspiracy minded and more extreme the conspiracy the better and it's just a money grab for her. Yeah, she literally will say, using her microphone, which is transmitting via audio signals via Wi-Fi and video signals, she'll say that, you know, science, the internet, she says that NASA is fake and gay. Like, that's literally what she said. She said it's fake and gay. We never went there. She says the homies were talking on the moon to Nixon with a cell phone. We didn't have cell phones back then.

48:09So she thinks they were on a cell phone call because Nixon picked up a landline, she believes that that proves that it's totally hooked. Like, first of all, if it were true that we didn't have that technology, then why did NASA, you know, show that they were talking to the Apollo crew after they walked on the moon with Nixon? Why do they do that? That's the first thing. So NASA didn't know that they couldn't do that back then. I mean, it's like complete nonsense, but that's how almost every single transcontinental signal is transmitted, either by satellites, which existed long before the moon landings took place, or by, you know, undersea cables that eventually get, I mean, does she think there's like a string between two tin cans?

48:51Like, that's the only way you could communicate is if you have physical, like there's no cell phones which didn't exist, which they did actually exist in the late 1960s. So this is all just like, again, they just, for whatever reason, I think it's sensationalism. I won't like kind of impugn their motives, but they certainly want to do that for NASA and our governments as well. And I should say, part of the reason I'm so chuffed about it is because I used to work for NASA in Virginia in 1992. Really? What were you doing there? So I was on a summer program as a junior in college at Case Western, and I won one of these prestigious National Science Foundation summer fellowships where you go somewhere for 10 weeks and you do research.

49:32So I went to NASA Langley, which is in Virginia, and I was assigned to work on what's called non-destructive evaluation, NDE. So ways to check airlines, airliners, from developing potentially fatal flaws in the hardware that they have in the skin of the aircraft before they break apart and cause death and devastation. So in 1988 or 87, I forget when it was, there was an airliner, Aloha Airlines in Hawaii, and the roof of the first class section ripped off. It failed due to microscopic stress cracks that occur when the airplane gets pressurized and depressurized. Imagine, like, taking a piece of tinfoil and, you know, crinkling it back and forth 20 ,000 times.

50:14That's like 20 ,000 takeoffs and landings, which many planes go way beyond that. Like, you've been on planes that have taken off and landed more than 20 ,000 times. So that means it's been pressurized. So NASA wanted to find out, because part of their mission, as I said, is to make aviation safer for commercial reasons. And that's why BART is an ingrate, because every time he gets on a plane to fly to see Joe Rogan or Danny Jones or Candace Owens, he's benefiting from NASA, which he believes is a fundamentally corrupt, pernicious, mendacious organization. So I think he's an ingrate and a hypocrite because if he really thinks that they're willing to kill astronauts to recruit the CIA, according to him, according to Gus Grissom's widow, which nobody else conveniently has substantiated, but they want to do...

50:59So would you get on a... Let's say you had Taliban Airlines, James. Would you like to take a nice flight on Taliban Airlines? Do you trust their safety protocols, James? Definitely not, no. Right, so anyway, so I worked for NASA, and our job was to make sure that these planes wouldn't rip apart again, and part of the way we do it is use different types of technology like infrared radiation and ultrasonic vibrations and predict when a crack would occur, because actually, when you look at these planes, they have all these rivets in them, like they're aluminum skin attached to other pieces of aluminum over these ribs of aluminum, and they're just bolted in with these rivets, and you think the rivets hold it in, but the rivets don't hold it in.

51:35They're actually glued. Every piece of metal that you see on the outside is glued to another piece of metal. And then the rivets hold it in place, these like little bolts, they hold it in place while the glue sets. That's basically their whole job. But eventually after a lot of pressurization, it builds up stress at the points where the rivets are and you can delaminate the surface and that's what happened and then ripped it apart. So we thought of ways and we worked on ways using different types of technology to assess whether or not a panel of the plane would break apart without having to disassemble it.

52:03That's called destructive evaluation. You know, if I have to take this apart to see if it's still bonded together, that's very expensive, very time-consuming, and it can also induce failure in future operations of the plane. So I worked on a team to do it. So I was actually at NASA Langley, where it turns out Neil Armstrong trained in a mock-up of the Eagle Lander to land on the surface of, they had this huge contraption, like bungee cords and cables, because they had to simulate 1-6 gravity with a rocket engine pushing up and then the 1-6 gravity pulling down. And that's very technical. I saw the launch pad and Neil Armstrong almost died there.

52:41So he had to eject and bail out of this thing and he learned how to land on the moon at that time. And so that's another thing. So NASA was putting all these people through these just like complete theatrics. Like you're never going to land. Like it's rumored that the 9-11 pilots, you know, they were taking flight lessons here in San Diego and allegedly they said, oh, we don't need to know how to land. We just want to learn how to take off. Why would you put these people in this extreme danger? It almost killed America's greatest hero of all time. But of course, not according to Bart or Joe, maybe.

53:08But it's certainly according to me. So these are some of the other ones. What's been the reaction to your video? You put this video out, like, kind of describing all this stuff. Has anybody reacted seriously? Well, I made a mistake. The first time I made a reaction to Joe Rogan hosting Bart Sibbrell, I was a little bit too ad hominem because I was pissed off in the recording because I'd given Joe Rogan a sample of the moon and one of the, here's a sample of it here. So you can't get a moon sample. I don't have many of them, but I do have some of them. According to Bart, me having this is a felony and that's because he doesn't understand the basics of law as associated with space that you're not allowed to own any of the fragments of the moon rocks that were collected by the Apollo astronauts or any NASA mission.

53:57That is a felony. But this one came courtesy of eBay and was landed in Northwest Africa. It came from a meteorite that hit the moon and then eventually made its way to the Earth because of our gravitational influence. And it turns out that this meteorite, so you would have to like have this incredible conspiracy because the exact rocks that they claim came back from the moon's surface. They have the exact same chemical and optical properties as this sample that I'm holding in my hand. So they had to somehow coordinate with this guy on eBay who got it in Africa that I paid all this money for. And I gave one of these to Joe Rogan.

54:32I keep like wondering, like, what did he do with it? And he put it in one of his, like, did he smoke it? Or I don't know what he did with it, but he doesn't seem to have it anymore because he didn't show it to Bart. So I made this video where, you know, I'm just like going after, like Bart says all these, you know, completely factually erroneous things. And I'm just going through it. And one of my favorite things that Bart does is he kept using, he has this like verbal tick and he'll keep saying the same thing. I think he's smart or he's clever, but he has these weird like, you know, like on the spectrum somewhere, maybe, I don't know.

55:06But he keeps repeating the same thing. And one of the things he kept repeating over and over again in this interview that he claimed was the proof is that there was evidence of electrical light. So I don't know if you've ever heard of electrical light. Like I had to look up, what is electrical light? Is it light from electricity? I didn't think of that. Yeah, I mean, what is it? And he says it like 80 times in this interview. Like I put together in the beginning of my video, I have a montage of him saying electrical light, electrical light, electrical light, electrical light. And I think he means like artificial light.

55:36And there's a huge distinction between electrical light, which may or may not be electrical, right? I mean, I can make a light source from many different ways that's not electricity, Bart, including using sunlight indoors. I can actually get indoor sunlight and organize. He claims the shadows prove this is not true. I mean, one of his pieces of evidence is so laughable. There's a photograph that one of the astronauts left on the moon. I think Neil Armstrong did. He took a picture of his son that died before the Apollo 11 mission even, and he left it on the moon. But anyway, Bart says that they took a picture of the picture, and the picture would be destroyed completely by the incredible temperature.

56:15They don't understand basics of physics, what's called heat capacity. like here in San Diego, if I'm in the sun, it's super hot. But as soon as I go in the shade, even though the temperature doesn't change from 75 and perfect, when I go in the shade, it gets freezing. It's really cold. And that's because there's no heat capacity, because there's no humidity in San Diego, because we're a desert. Well, the moon is a desert also. It's a better desert than here in San Diego, even. And so because of that, he claims that the picture would be fried and destroyed. It's just, again, basic physics. I'd love to just sit down calmly and refute it.

56:46But because I made this video reaction originally, I just kept saying, like, you claim to be a filmmaker, and your biggest piece of evidence, Bart, is something that you don't know the correct technical term for. And all these people in my audience that were trolls, you know, from friends of, you know, that love him and worship Bart Sibrell or Joe Rogan, they're like, oh, you're just making an hominem of text. You didn't address the big picture things like the Van Allen belt. So now when I talk about, like, Van Allen belt's like a joke the fact that we didn't go back in 50 years that's another proof like even smart like my older brother's super smart guy he's like well why didn't we go back i'm like so i give the south pole example but even logically that's not also by the way you know there was a lot of political pressure against nasa back in 1974 that hey the research that we're getting back compared to the cost of going there was not sufficient let's focus on sky lab which is how to create a living space station in space, which is a very successful program that led to the space shuttle, which then ultimately after that, the next program, there was no next program.

57:44It was Elon going into space, you know, decades after that. So there really wasn't an opportunity. There was political pressure to shut down the moon program. And then you can't just restart it. There was no, there's no rockets that you would have to start from, from scratch almost. And they were working on other things, Skylab. Yeah, they're completely different technology now. The missions that Elon's making. I mean, they don't even have boosters anymore. And again, nobody disputes that we went into space for months at a time, you know, on Skylab. I mean, no credible person. Even, I think, Joe Rogan wouldn't do that.

58:15So then there's a couple other things, like they claim that they were halfway to the moon, and then Bart looks at the picture, and it's like a cardboard cutout. And, you know, that's, again, does that prove they didn't go? Let's say they did totally fake that part of it. Let's say they showed the American public between the Earth and the moon, they showed fake footage of them training on Earth in a soundstage in Hollywood. Does that prove that they didn't go to the moon? Of course not. It has nothing to do with the fact that they went to the moon. You could go to the moon, like, in other words, you could assassinate Kennedy, but you could also have a single shooter.

58:51You could have multiple shooters, but only one of them hit Kennedy. I mean, these things don't affect the actual fact pattern, which is that Kennedy was shot. He was killed. Lee Harvey Oswald was there. And the overwhelming evidence that we have is that most conspiracies, the actual evidence for them is that they occurred. And the human mind hates conspiracies. I mean, they hate unresolved conspiracy. They hate uncertainty. So the only way to get perfect certainty is to make something up and make conjecture, whether that's a theory, whether that's a fact or something like that, to make up things like that.

59:24And again, I would love to talk with Bart. He's rational enough that you can have a conversation with him. But again, he keeps claiming these things. And I, you know, for my benefit, for the benefit of your audience, my audience that will watch this, the most significant claims they make is that the Van Allen belts are lethal and that we haven't been back in 50 years. I mean, leave a comment below if there's other pieces of evidence that you really think are dispositive. I mean, they claim that they're 150 times more what humans can tolerate. No animal has gone through it and lived. Van Allen said you can't do it, which this is completely false.

1:00:00And their computers would have been fried as well as the, you know, so again, you have to then say, well, the radiation that exists in the low earth orbit, or even on the way to space is not enough to destroy the spacecraft or an animal, but it would have killed instantly. And this just completely ignores physiology, exposure, and the fact that they were chosen on the trajectories that they went through to go through the skinniest parts of these belts and go through them very quickly. And the constructions of these things and the actual readings that they took, they all wore these sensors that calculated how much radiation exposure they had.

1:00:33And they all live pretty long. I mean, Buzz Aldrin is like 99ers and he's very old. Well, the worst case is you would just come back and turn into the Fantastic Four or something. They got exposed to that radiation and one became the thing and the other became invisible and the human torch. So that's their best evidence. I have some incredible evidence of my own that it did happen, including the fact that the first thing that astronauts did, they had two major missions. One was to bring back samples of the moon and explore the moon's surface. They brought vehicles there. Why would you just keep making...

1:01:07They went six times. There was one mission, Apollo 13, that failed and they came back early and nobody disputes that they went around the moon. I mean, they went through the Van Allen belts. You know, it's the exact same thing. The failure occurred halfway to the moon. It didn't occur in low-Earth orbit. Everyone agrees on that. And the fact, okay, so that the Americans were rivals with the Soviets. Let's take people back that might not know it. It was far worse than a rivalry right now with, say, China or Russia. But the Soviet Union was our chief rival. They spent, you know, we had spent billions, trillions of dollars on a Cold War, which we eventually won in part because we forced them to try to keep up with us and innovating to build a mission to go to the moon, they tried to do it too.

1:01:48They weren't able to send humans there, and they never have. No one has besides us, but there's a mission. The Chinese have sent astronauts to go to the moon and establish a base on the moon. They're going to be kind of trying to replicate what we did, but it's very challenging. So he also thinks they can't do it. The Chinese are incapable. Elon's incapable. Only Bart knows the truth that this is impossible. The other thing is that scientists left mirrors there, James. So we went there, and one of my friends uses these mirrors that were placed on the moon. The second thing after they collected rocks is they put these mirrors on the moon that were pointed back towards the Earth.

1:02:22And the purpose of that was to shoot lasers at the moon. So lasers existed for a long time before, you know, 10 years before the lunar missions. And by shooting a laser and knowing the speed of light, you can measure the position of the moon to less than one millimeter of precision. And if you do it at many different spots on the moon, they didn't just always land on the sea of tranquility. They landed on many different places. Why would you do that? Why would you fake that you landed in multiple places? It's so expensive. And it costs these military contractors are just so, you know, profligate.

1:02:52Why would you go to, anyway, you can then measure the differential properties of the moon's surface and learn what it's made up of. And we found that most of it's made up of material that was similar to the earth's crust, but it doesn't have any iron in it. And that confirms the theory of how the moon formed, which is that the moon formed from a huge impact of a planet about the size of Mars that crashed into this giant Earth-like object and broke off the outer crust of the Earth, which has no iron in it, and that's why the moon's density is what it is and its gravity is what it is. All that completely lines up with the samples that all these astronauts took, and we have hundreds of pounds of samples.

1:03:27But these laser measurements allow us to measure them back and forth. And all these astrophysicists, like me and my colleagues that rely on these data, are using it right now to test for things like modified gravity, new particles, dark matter. We're using this technology left on the surface of the moon. How did it get there? Oh, it was dropped by a rover. It was dropped by a drone. So we have the technology to do all that. At some point, it becomes harder to fake the moon landing than to actually do it. And the last kind of slam dunk piece of evidence, again, is that not only did Russia confirm the day that we landed, they actually had an impact.

1:04:04They crashed, not far. I mean, it was kind of like, it could have been very dangerous. They crashed their lander, which just had like cameras and radios on it and stuff like that. They didn't have people on it. They crashed it into the moon's surface and we picked it up on like on a seismograph or similar things have happened since then. The dark side of the moon has been measured. The astronauts have measured it on satellites either that have gone there from other countries like India and China have imaged the footprints and the rover of Apollo 11, all the lunar landing sites, and also imaged the dark side of the moon, which only person in history, you know, the first person was Michael Collins.

1:04:42He didn't land on the moon. His job was to float around the moon for the day while the two astronauts were on the surface. He took pictures of the dark side of the moon that exactly match up with unmanned satellite images that we have today. So all these, so somebody was there. Was it a remote-controlled camera? But wait, I thought you said it was impossible to have a remote-controlled camera. I mean, it's so illogical, and you have to believe so many logical fallacies For what purpose, James? I have no idea. Well, I would recommend to our listeners that A, they watch your video on this, which we'll put in the show notes, but just Google Brian Keating on YouTube.

1:05:19And yet for the opposite evidence, I would watch the classic 1980 documentary, which was really a commercial film, but I'm going to call it a documentary starring the great actor O.J. Simpson called Capricorn One. That's right. Which really told the true story of the moon landing. Exactly, yeah. You want the truth, you got to go to OJ, you know, and just think what he said about the moon landing boots, you know, if they don't fit, you got to quit. So, all right, guys. Well, Brian, thank you so much. I've never seen you so passionate. So, I love science. I love NASA. I'm not a sh**. I don't get a dime from them now.

1:05:57They offered me that job. I turned them down, James, you know, because I realized that if I took a job permanently, I'd be at NASA to this day. I never would have gotten a PhD. I never would have built an experiment that lost a Nobel Prize I never would have met you I never would have started my podcast I never would have had your imprimatur your foreward on the Into the Impossible think like a Nobel Prize winner inspired by James Altucher so thank God for NASA but thank goodness I didn't accept their job or we wouldn't be here I wouldn't know you I wouldn't know Jay thanks Brian thanks guys

1:06:54You're welcome.

1:07:06Stream blockbuster hits like 21 Jump Street, Ted, The Expendables, and so much more on Pluto TV. Stream now, pay never. Shopify's point-of-sale system helps you sell at every stage of your business. Need a fast and secure way to take payments in person? We've got you covered. How about card readers you can rely on anywhere you sell? Thanks, have a good one. Yep, that too. Want one place to manage all your online and in-person sales? That's kind of our thing. Wherever you sell, businesses that grow, grow with Shopify. Sign up for your$1 a month trial at shopify.com slash listen. Shopify.com slash listen.