Astrophysicist Debunks the Moon Landing Conspiracy Theory

In 1969, Apollo 11 was the first crewed mission to land on the Moon.

Or was it?

According to conspiracy theorists, it's obvious that the moon landing was faked. Now, I don't usually pay much attention to such claims, but a few days ago Joe Rogan published a new episode of his podcast, in which he hosted none other than Bart Sibrel himself, giving him a platform to spread his anti-science nonsense to millions of people around the world.

So, as a scientist, more specifically an astrophysicist, I feel that it is my duty to debunk his claims one by one and to explain the science behind the Apollo 11 mission.

Tune in!

Key Takeaways:

00:00:00 Intro
00:01:26 Getting the terminology right
00:03:11 Wind on the Moon
00:04:57 Magnetic fields and radiation
00:08:48 Going to Antarctica
00:10:50 Let’s look at the evidence
00:17:00 Why are so many people defending the moon landing?
00:20:14 The science behind the Moon landing
00:33:37 Back to the Moon!
00:39:23 Outro

References:

SEISMOGRAPH

INDIA AND CHINA

• Independent Verification

The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) has taken high-definition photos of the Apollo landing sites, capturing the Lunar Module descent stages and the tracks left by the astronauts. This provides independent verification of the landings, as the LRO is a separate spacecraft not involved in the original Apollo missions.

Additional resources:

➡️ Follow me on your fav platforms:

Into the Impossible with Brian Keating is a podcast dedicated to all those who want to explore the universe within and beyond the known.

Make sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode!

#intotheimpossible #briankeating #joerogan #bartsibrel

[DrBrianKeating]

Who has the stronger argument: me, or Bart?

[SimonLee-yj]

You've lost me. The paperclip conspiracy was no conspiracy...it happened!

[alistairproductions]

How's it pathetic to call it electrical light? You know, like a lightbulb. Why wpuld there have to he a specific thing he calls it? Makes no sense

[mfkh]

It was about radiation not magnetic force. Obama himself said that "we are trying to develop technology, friendly to astronauts, to be able to cross the radiation belt".

[wbaumschlager]

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

[stanleyhampton]

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

[alvarobustillos]

Its hard for me to listen to your counter arguments when you begin by insulting Joe and Bart right away. It is weird that people like you get so emotional about this topic.i dont think you would be a good fit for a discussion with Joe and Bart, not because of your intelligence but because you are being disrespectful. Not a good idea to start clowning joe either because he is a professional comic who would do really good at clowning you back and it would not be fair. Nevertheless i will try and get through the rest of this video. Off to a bad start already though

[gregwelte]

POINT 1. If you are the same Keating who is a professor at UCSD, then your university's web site says that your research is funded by (1) NASA, (2) the NSF, (3) United States Antarctic Program, and (4) others. What would happen to your funding if you agreed with Bart Sibrel ? Don't you have a conflict of interest ?

POINT 2. Sibrel wrote a book entitled "Moon Man." It is available from an on-line seller whose name is similar to "Amazing." That on-line seller posts reviews. One reviewer, named "Z8, " claims to be a 24-year veteran of the USAF. Z8 states, in paragraph 5, that (1) liftoff from the moon, plus (2) subsequent docking with an orbiting command ship, is a process he calls "rejoining." Z8 states that he has practiced "rejoining" in aircraft. Z8 states that "rejoining, " on the moon as described by NASA, is "beyond ridiculous." Z8 states: "Six times, without a hitch. No."


POINT 3. There are web sites which set out images taken by spy satellites. The spy satellites orbit at about 100 miles above the earth, but they must look through the atmosphere. One site, named 38north, followed by org, shows an impressive satellite photo. You can distinguish semi-trailer trucks from pick-up trucks and from ordinary cars.
NASA's LRO, Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, orbits at 31 miles above the moon, and there is no atmosphere. NASA claims that the LRO has found the landing sites of the Apollo craft, but the images are ludicrously crude, in view of those demonstrated by 38north. Restated: 38north demonstrates that discernable photos are available from the LRO, but NASA apparently fails to provide them.

[NotEvenAProperWordForAUserName]

Sorry, you doing this has lost you credibility in the way you handled debunking them.. i thought science was about facts, you clearly address each point with a pre determined bias. This wasnt well done, its a thumbs down from me and you havnt convinced me and moved the needle one little bit Im sorry

[Simply-AI-Solutions]

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

[jasondelano]

At 24:15, you start talking about how the moon rocks have proved the moon has a magnetic field. That immediately made me think of an article I read from Popular Mechanics. Here are some excerpts that completely contradict what you are saying:

"...scientists say they can show the moon hasn’t had a magnetic field for at least the last 4 billion years—chipping away at a longtime argument over whether the moon ever had a magnetic field at all. Their evidence comes via specimens gathered during the Apollo missions decades ago."

"So scientists used samples gathered from the Apollo missions decades ago, made of the right kind of material to register magnetic activity, like the car paint or nail polish. The Apollo samples, formed  at ∼3.9, 3.6, 3.3, and 3.2 billion years ago, don’t show any evidence of core dynamo activity—the telltale behavior indicating the presence of a magnetic field. (A dynamo is a spinning electrical generator, like the spinning, iron core of the Earth.)

There’s a second step to the research, too. That’s for scientists to show that the moon’s surface shows evidence the moon has been consistently blasted by solar winds—something the magnetic field would protect against."

So who is correct on this particular issue then? You in your so far WILDLY inaccurate and misleading video? Or them over at Popular Mechanics? If the magnetometers claim a lunar magnetic field, but the rocks don't, doesn't that warrant scrutiny? I assume you'll say not. Your video just gets worse as it goes on...

[samuelemeryjiujitsu]

I think you're under appreciating how good Rogan is at getting his guests to be comfortable and give their point of view. Why are you trying to insult the dude by joking about him smoking a moon rock? He openly suggested having a debate with someone like you. Be cool Dr.

[getit]

I appreciate your intellectual prowess, love consuming your content, but this missed the mark. You seem far to personally aggrieved on this topic. You can enlighten the public on facts without constant childish insults.

[kevinalmiron]

What do you mean you dont know what an electrical light is? The light from your aparment or home? Thats electrical light. Is different from the Sun

[T_D_B_]

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

[Onebuggy]

Brian i would like you to explain about the radiation and what measures were taken to protect the astronauts and also please explain how much fuel was needed for the trip.

[nicecriminal]

How much of the podcast did you listen to?

[timmacwilliam]

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

[marcusedvalson]

Brian, first off, this is coming from a huge fan. I first saw you on JRE, and have been a follower ever since. Great channel, great content. But I want to share some feedback.

If Bart or Joe do take you up on your offer, it is imperative that you approach the debate in the right way. Flint Dibble was so successful in his debate with Graham Hancock because he refused to make it a personal thing. He went in prepared with facts upon facts. He responded to Graham's claims on a factual basis. You may notice that what Graham did was try to drag Flint in to the mud of personal attack; but Flint didn't take the bait. This is the master level approach. Do not make it personal. While Bart's claims may be ridiculous, he may be besmirching the name of Nasa and well meaning scientists, don't make it about that. Make it ONLY about the scientific claims. It is too tempting to assume that he is a fool, or he is a charlatan, or ridiculous. All those things may be true, but as soon as you dip your argument in to talking about him in any way, you cede ground. You give him ammunition to make it about being silenced, etc etc. You drag the argument exactly where he wants it: unprovable ground. You are a principled scientist who cares about the facts; Bart is not. He only cares about proving his conclusion. So, he will say anything and take the conversation in any direction that keeps you from disproving his conclusion. Make it about the facts, facts, facts. Flint took 2 weeks vacation to prepare for his debate with Graham. He talked to other experts who helped him assemble his refutation. He came with slides upon slides. He made it a stipulation of his coming on JRE that he was able to go first, and present his case. It is my recommendation to you to do the same thing. This conversation has too much reach to be taken lightly. It is important.

My 2 cents on the matter. Good luck brother.

[jeremybenson]

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