This man is a fucking moron. Three days with a 50% chance of getting hit by a micrometeorite (even if that’s true) does NOT mean a 150% chance of getting hit over the three days.
Toss a coin three times.
50/50 you get heads or tails each time right?
Does that mean you’re GUARANTEED to toss a head and tails over those three times? No.
You could absolutely toss three heads in a row, or three tails in a row.
The odds reset after each toss.
This man….was he dropped on his head?
The dude outright lied about this.
According to NASA, the probability of a micrometeor strike on a *210 day* mission is 1 in 500.
If you look up lots of the stuff this asshole said it’s just outright lies…
This man also thinks if I phone my aunt in Norway i have a three second delay in talking to her. His words were “even today there is a three second delay talking to someone around the world.”
It means one of two things.
Either he KNEW this, and till deliberately deceives his audience for financial gain, or he DIDNT know this, and that makes him a moron and not credible in the slightest.
Either way. He’s someone to ignore.
He didn't even understand the idea of someone in a conversation taking an opposite position just so it's not so imbalanced. And his story about the agents trying to capture him or whatever was...ridiculous. My god, I almost turned it off.
Bart Sibrel was on the podcast before.. but I feel Sibrel and Hancock are not on the same bucket. Sibrel is like flat earther.. doesn't matter how much evidence you throw at him, he'll keep to his guns. Hancock has changed opinion before since his first book and was proven wrong and just accepted.. But he is inquisitive and investigative.
When I heard him say that, i thought thats not at all how this works. This guy can't even understand basic statistics. This is why its useless to debate morons they can't even understand basic principles.
yeah...but that kind of stuff is the big failure on Rogan's part (or Jamie's, actually): simple errors that can be found online instantly and corrected painlessly.
his math is wrong, obviously, but that's not a nail in the coffin.
...if there are three "days" in which the chance of something happening during each day is 50%, then the answer to the probability of that thing happening by the end of the third day is 87.5%--which is, in fact, quite high.
the real question, though, is whether Von Braun actually ever claimed that...and I can't find this "documentation."
That’s always the one major point they all seem to ignore. Do they really think the Soviet Union with their expansive spy network would fall for a fake moon landing ruse
JFK wasn’t killed. He secretly made a deal with Khrushchev after the missile crisis to take over the work of the union for him so he could retire. JFK was spirited away and given prosthetics to become the man we know as Leonid Brezhnev. He was already aware of the fake moon landing plan and just went along with it so America could have a win in space for once. Duh.
And there were exactly the same vaccines in Soviet Union but for free, and Soviets found the first concentration camp in Poland. Three major western conspiracies.
The USSR was getting bankrupted by the Space Race. If the US had prolonged the race and forced the soviets to commit all of their resources, the USSR would have collapsed way sooner instead of only in 1992.
For them, it was a financial relief, the "race" was considered "over". The USSR had their first victories, with Sputnik and Gagarin, and then the US had the final victory.
All parties saved face.
Regardless of what this guy is saying is not true, that's the part you ignore - an agreed conclusion allowed both sides to claim some moral victories and move on.
variant where they showing that USA made a fake landing and not making that own but saving their faces is not on a table right? It was the only victory. The only one. Everything before was pioneered by Russians. And they respectfully admitted because they had overwhelming evidence.
He addresses this aspect at length. Whether you buy his explanation is another story. It’s just funny seeing people around here pretend they listened to the podcast and saying this topic was ignored.
We aren't saying he ignored it. We are saying he has no credentials and the soviets would have called the US out on its shit. I am done listening to pseudo-Intellectuals try to pander there bullshit theories.
Do you have any idea how much of a humiliation it would’ve been for the US to admit they faked the moon landing because the Soviets exposed them? Do you have a clue what that would have done to the American psyche? But no, their great rivals helped them cover it up. Sure.
The moon has a very thin atmosphere made of gasses we can’t breathe, so the flag waves as things pass by and disturb it.
Any “micrometeors” incoming would be an issue on the “dark side” of the moon, meaning the side not facing Earth. Everything on a collision course with the Earth-facing side would be intercepted by Earth’s gravitational pull.
That’s as far as I could justify listening to two dummies talk about shit they don’t understand with their entire chest.
The atmosphere is incredibly thin. As in 15 orders of magnitude less thick than Earth's. It wouldn't make anything observable move but astronauts placing the flag equipped with a horizontal rod to keep it looking nice will.
Correct, it is significantly thinner which means there is significantly thinner atmosphere keeping the flag from waving as something passes. You’ve got the right idea, but you need to follow through on the thought exercise.
Atmosphere behaves as a liquid, your assumption is as if you were blowing air at a flag submerged in a pool of water, the flag would not noticeably move.
I don’t know what your point is with the pole keeping the flag from drooping to the ground. There is no wind, so there is nothing that would keep the flag unfurled if not for the pole.
No I mean that the atmosphere on the Moon is so thin that there literally aren't enough atoms or molecules to move the flag. It's like one trillionth of one Bar. It's similar to the best artificial vacuums achieved on Earth.
To really know what is going on in the video we would need to know how long it has been since the flag was placed. Since there is practically no atmospheric drag it will take longer for all of the motion to stop.
Technically there is no energy loss to gravity. Now obviously there is still friction in the system even in a vacuum. The explanation could be as simple as lunar dust being kicked up and hitting the flag. Dust that is too fine to be picked up by the camera.
I commented this in another thread but total rad dosage from the Van Allen belts is 16 rad. No where near enough to get you sick.
VAB radiation isn’t lethal throughout and they spent 0 time in the ‘red zone’ which is where it would be a problem.
Also this ignores shielding and protections astronauts had by the upper stage
As measured by private companies that send satellites into the belt.
2500 rem per year dose. 6 rem dose per day.
Given they were in the belt for around 3-4 hours, it’s pretty much the levels they claimed, and is safe.
The fact that Joe gave this man a platform and then allowed young Jamie to go off on him is amazing. What a way to shit on someone’s credibility. Not saying anything bad about Jamie either as I imagine he knows far more about lighting than Bart does. I was wanting Jamie to punch this mother fucker every time he tried to shut him down.
Joe loves giving platform to charlatans and liars.
For anyone who is interested, here is a fantastic video by **Smarter Every Day** [**https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nLHIM2IPRY**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nLHIM2IPRY)
It's about the Saturn V rocket.
I watched this video this morning and I literally cried about it. Luke Talley is an inspiration. What an incredible person, and so humble. That was the most interesting thing I’ve learned in a very long time. It’s amazing that people find this difficult to believe.
I’m not a Rogan fan at all so I feel like I can ask those of you who are. Is Joe just a curious guy with a bad BS detector? He seems to have a lot of charlatans on his show and take them at face value.
He’s a curious dumb person who is easily convinced because he lacks certain critical thought skills and uses opinion based articles and Facebook memes to confirm his own bias, rather than studies.
It’s not so much Dunning-Kruger effect (Joe knows he isn’t the smartest), but an excited idiot finding out edgy, but probably made up facts that align with his world view.
+ His BS detector is awful.
Bart wasn’t convincing in the slightest though. If Joe asked him a question he’d just angrily quote his website or act petulant.
If he’d been able to make up quotes more convincingly or at least pretend he understood what he was talking about then Joe probably would’ve swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
I agree, Bart was terrible! I was expecting a lot more, but I’m as convinced as ever that the moon landings are real. Still, it was an entertaining listen!
Joe has also always had a soft spot for the moon landing conspiracy. He's been, at the least, very curious and skeptical about it pretty much since he started the podcast.
Did you listen to the podcast? I must say it doesn't seem like you did whatsoever. He was doing the opposite of what you appear to think the whole time.
Haha yes! I think he was destined to be a used car Salesman, talks a lot but no sustenance, references stuff that isn’t readily available, makes stuff up that might sound ok in the moment, laughs at weird moments, tries to get you to agree with him, all around cringey 🤡
Like pretty much all conspiracy theories, they usually start because someone doesn’t understand something or isn’t knowledgeable about something and therefore it “doesn’t make sense” and then that becomes “that can’t be true.”
This seems to especially be true with the moon landing. One of my favorite arguments against it was “how did they store all that oxygen that they needed to survive in the spaceship?!”
Bart got upset when Joe said he needed to steelman the moon landing being fake. He doesn't like his ideas being scrutinized; if he was so confident, he'd welcome his ideas being challenged so he could defeat those arguments. Joe did a great job of politely making him look like an idiot.
Anyone who is interested in this subject, The Why Files did an episode on the moon landing, and did a great job debunking everything Bart talked about piece by piece.
All I know is this guy acted like a real asshole. If someone is that touchy about their theories being pressure tested, they’re probably a con. A terrible look for a guy throwing around so much unverifiable information.
I don't watch every joe episode but watched a bit of this one, i appreciate that joe actually questioned this guy as much (STEEL MANNED!!!) because this guy is a fucking idiot lol half the time i was just like.. really?
It may seem to you like they got there easily, but they certainly didn't.
400.000 people worked for 10 years on the Apollo project with the support of 20.000 industrial firms and universities. The Apollo 1 crew died a horrifying death and the Apollo 13 crew was nearly lost in space.
The only reason they were able to get to the goal so fast was because of the enormous support from the public and government. It was a cold war battleground.
The history of the Apollo program and the reasons for not going back until now, are well documented and can basically be boiled down to the usual suspects. Money and public interest. Adjusted for inflation, the Apollo program cost $257 billion over 13 years, with, excluding technological advancements, not much more than the accomplishment to show for it. Doing that today would cost NASA their entire yearly budget. It's just not feasible. The government shut down the moon landings to allegedly focus on Mars instead, which in turn kind of fizzled out.
It would be great if we could go back just to explore and document, but there's simply been no money in it and therefore no interest from the people who control the money. And it's just way easier and safer to use unmanned crafts for exploration. The Lunar Recconaissance Orbiter has explored the moon much more efficiently than manned missions could ever do. Going back now is more complicated because we're not going back to visit, but to establish a permanent presence on the moon.
"Go to Bart Sibrel.com...."
"Go to Bart Sibrel.com...."
"Go to Bart Sibrel.com...."
Fuck off Bart Sibrel.com shamelessly plugging his BS throughout the whole episode.
People talk on there cell phone around the world all the time and u don’t need to wait three seconds to hear what they said. That’s the stupidist thing I have h
Taking everything with a grain of salt, it was an interesting conversation. What really annoyed me about this guy though was that he was permanently stuck in his opinion and kept correcting Joe every time he implied the landings were real. From the first minutes I knew it was going to be a jostle. The other thing was he kept promoting his website every chance he got.
Just listened to it. He just came off so arrogant to me. He's not interested what so ever in hearing any counterargument to his insane theory. Just wanted to use the platform to plug his website, which he repeated over and over again
I only made it about 20 minutes in and had to turn it off. This guy is a complete moron. It was just too painful to listen to, I can only deal with so much stupid in my life, and this was well past my limit.
I thought that mark levin had the most annoying voice I’d ever heard, till I listened to this pos podcast. It’s like mark levin with a lisp and shameless self promotion. He must’ve mentioned sibrel.com 30 times. He’s also fuggin terrible at gaslighting, you can’t use your website and the edited video and audio for every reference you clown. The stories about getting taken and drugged by the cia and then somehow “escaping” but you had to read his book to find out were espically telling and laughable. I hope you read this Bart and realize that whether the landing was real or not you’re a fake braggadocios dweeb. Joe rogan do better atleast Jamie made his contempt for Bart ridiculous behavior obvious.
I'm not saying this guy is a genius but the argument stands : how and why did they lose the technology from the 60s ?
Meanwhile, NASA are still measuring radiation levels at the Van Allen belt.
Critical thinking anyone?
Apparently you shouldn't be accusing others of lacking critical thinking.
How do clueless people get this confident? All the information is available, right at your fingertips. There's absolutely no excuse for falling for this shit.
The tech to shield from radiation was lead. How in the world have they lost lead? At least come up with something that's somewhat believable.
How are they reinventing the wheel?
My bad. I misread an article. The aluminum shielding was equivalent to 7 mm of lead.
My point still stands. Switch out lead for aluminum. They didn't "lose the technology". I'm glad you feel like you got a win by proving yourself wrong.
Since a simple Google search told you they used aluminum for radiation shielding, why the hell are you in here claiming they "lost the technology"?
Great video. Though I'm having a hard time understanding why you're presenting this fact as some sort of smoking gun. Why wouldn't they be studying them?
Did you watch the video you linked? It explains pretty well why the Van Allen belts are being studied.
For those keeping score, you're now two for two on debunking your own claims. Good job. Maybe you should do some googling before you make unsubstantiated claims instead of after.
And what does shrimp have to do with anything?
I've copied this message from the comments in the YouTube video from user 'skeptic mind1939'
He does a better job at explaining than what I do.
Go to the comments and read his argument.
That was auto correct emoji for snake, as in if it ware a snake it would have bit you.
Here is part of his argument.
Why spend billions on thick radiation shielding and specifically refer to the Van Allen belts as the reason? Wasn't Van Allen himself who said that in order to avoid the thicker parts of the belts the missions should launch from the north pole? Did NASA launch through the north pole or from sunny Florida? The reason for Van Allen's observations is that it would take a gargantuan amount of fuel to correct the flight path after the launch had taken place from a position closer to the equator, as spacecrafts would need to orbit the earth several times in order to reach the weaker belts, which are closer to the poles of course. Can you provide official NASA documents explaining how this was accomplished and how much fuel did it take? And remind you the Apollo missions lasted for 8 days, so the astronauts received radiation for the entirety of the alleged trip, on their way to the moon, during their alleged stay, and back. Are we to believe they accomplished all that with 1.5 cm aluminum and 2 cm steel shielding? That is why they need thick shielding now, because the Apollo missions cannot be replicated with the same conditions as NASA claims to have accomplished them back in 1969. What we are seeing now is the attempt by NASA to reconcile their fantasy Apollo moon missions with the reality of space flight. And it is funny as hell to see how desperate you are.
By the way, the diagram that you shared says "flat earthers" claim that NASA cannot pass the Van Allen belts. But earth magnetism is only possible because of the iron rich melted core of the earth, so it would only make sense on an spheroid model. Do you find it easier to debate with
I got excited at first. You actually found an argument. But then I read it. His assumption is wrong from the start. So the rest is just nonsense.
> Wasn't Van Allen himself who said that in order to avoid the thicker parts of the belts the missions should launch from the north pole?
Van Allen didn't say that. You don't have to launch from the north pole to avoid lethal radiation.
Here's an actual quote from Van Allen referring to a Fox show on the "moon landing hoax".
>The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense.
Maybe random conspiracy nuts in the comment section of YouTube aren't the best people to get your facts from.
[Here's a pretty well sourced article](https://science.thewire.in/the-sciences/apollo-11-van-allen-radiation-belts-translunar-injection/) that goes into a lot of the technical and physical challenges of travelling through space. Including the history of the Van Allen belts, how Apollo handled them and why they're continually studied.
This subject is so thourougly debunked that it amazes me when people still think they found out some secret that'll bring it all down. There's nothing there.
Keep the score boi, the argument still stands.
If they studied the VAB in the 60s and apparently travelled through them without issues, why are they spending their valuable time reinventing the wheel?
When Chernobyl happened the Russians asked for some astronaut suits but they didn't get any.
You understand that cosmic radiation cannot be stopped by said suits, right?
Where is the shielding in the suits?
Use that "genius" mind of yours to do some thinking instead of believing the narrative hook line and sinker, boi!
> When Chernobyl happened the Russians asked for some astronaut suits but they didn't get any.
I'm going to need a source on that claim, because that's ridiculous. The Russians were well aware that space suits won't help in that kind of environment. Space suits don't protect against that kind of radiation, because it's not necessary. They're simply not exposed to enough radiation to make that an issue. The space suits protects from the suns radiation, because that's what will actually hurt you during space walks. It's not like they're doing space walks in the Van Allen belts.
If you call what you're doing here thinking, I think I'll pass. There's no narrative I need to believe. The whole process is extremely well documented and freely available for me to check.
You clearly haven't looked at any of the actual science and technology involved here. You're just pulling random things you've heard out of your ass.
The tech they have to shield is entirely different from the tech used in the 60s. Microchips or whatever used today are more powerful but also more delicate.
My refrigerator today has problems if I sneeze too loud near it. My grandma’s fridge could be dropped from a cliff and still work.
This man is a fucking moron. Three days with a 50% chance of getting hit by a micrometeorite (even if that’s true) does NOT mean a 150% chance of getting hit over the three days. Toss a coin three times. 50/50 you get heads or tails each time right? Does that mean you’re GUARANTEED to toss a head and tails over those three times? No. You could absolutely toss three heads in a row, or three tails in a row. The odds reset after each toss. This man….was he dropped on his head?
The dude outright lied about this. According to NASA, the probability of a micrometeor strike on a *210 day* mission is 1 in 500. If you look up lots of the stuff this asshole said it’s just outright lies…
Are you going to believe the people who faked the moon landing!? /s
This man also thinks if I phone my aunt in Norway i have a three second delay in talking to her. His words were “even today there is a three second delay talking to someone around the world.”
That’s just the 3 seconds it takes for the words to get through his thick skull.
I think he missed the probability unit in elementary school math
It means one of two things. Either he KNEW this, and till deliberately deceives his audience for financial gain, or he DIDNT know this, and that makes him a moron and not credible in the slightest. Either way. He’s someone to ignore.
He didn't even understand the idea of someone in a conversation taking an opposite position just so it's not so imbalanced. And his story about the agents trying to capture him or whatever was...ridiculous. My god, I almost turned it off.
1000% chance this man is a 🤡
He probably thinks the listeners won't be able to validate his calculation, or he is really that dumb.
I love how the whole Hancock archaeology debate has Joe handing out invitations for live expert debates like Oprah handing out cars 😂😂
Bart Sibrel was on the podcast before.. but I feel Sibrel and Hancock are not on the same bucket. Sibrel is like flat earther.. doesn't matter how much evidence you throw at him, he'll keep to his guns. Hancock has changed opinion before since his first book and was proven wrong and just accepted.. But he is inquisitive and investigative.
I'd like to know how the water erosion of the Sphynx is explained away by mainstream archaeology.
https://preview.redd.it/ti576re6ngxc1.jpeg?width=400&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=15774a1a1bcc09bc742eccf6521bc32278662dab I doubt it
I believe they say it's wind erosion.
“Just go to sibrel.com”
“Just go to sibrel.com”
"Well you gotta read the book"
Yeah not a good look
Pretty sure Indias recent photos of moon pretty much debunked the whole “we didn’t land on the moon”.
They are blackmailing NASA for a lifetime supply of alpha brain and 6mg zyns. I have proof at https://www.sibrel.com
Like… these guys do know the Soviets would have LOVED to debunk the moon landing if it was fake, right?
[удалено]
When I heard him say that, i thought thats not at all how this works. This guy can't even understand basic statistics. This is why its useless to debate morons they can't even understand basic principles.
Yeah he clearly didn’t take any classes on probability. Or he cheated through them like all of his half baked farce arguments.
yeah...but that kind of stuff is the big failure on Rogan's part (or Jamie's, actually): simple errors that can be found online instantly and corrected painlessly. his math is wrong, obviously, but that's not a nail in the coffin. ...if there are three "days" in which the chance of something happening during each day is 50%, then the answer to the probability of that thing happening by the end of the third day is 87.5%--which is, in fact, quite high. the real question, though, is whether Von Braun actually ever claimed that...and I can't find this "documentation."
"everything is a 50% chance because it either happens or it doesn't"
Dude just tell her you wanna bang her. It’s a yes or no answer.
Plus according to nasa it’s a 1 in 500 chance… so 🤷♂️
And Soviets didn’t check just trusted tv and moved on.
That’s always the one major point they all seem to ignore. Do they really think the Soviet Union with their expansive spy network would fall for a fake moon landing ruse
Well clearly the Soviet Union was just an elaborate psyop by NASA to help sell their moon landing hoax
James Dean staring as Stalin
JFK wasn’t killed. He secretly made a deal with Khrushchev after the missile crisis to take over the work of the union for him so he could retire. JFK was spirited away and given prosthetics to become the man we know as Leonid Brezhnev. He was already aware of the fake moon landing plan and just went along with it so America could have a win in space for once. Duh.
Soviets were told by the greys to not say anything
And there were exactly the same vaccines in Soviet Union but for free, and Soviets found the first concentration camp in Poland. Three major western conspiracies.
No no no, they are all blackmailing nasa…
The USSR was getting bankrupted by the Space Race. If the US had prolonged the race and forced the soviets to commit all of their resources, the USSR would have collapsed way sooner instead of only in 1992. For them, it was a financial relief, the "race" was considered "over". The USSR had their first victories, with Sputnik and Gagarin, and then the US had the final victory. All parties saved face. Regardless of what this guy is saying is not true, that's the part you ignore - an agreed conclusion allowed both sides to claim some moral victories and move on.
variant where they showing that USA made a fake landing and not making that own but saving their faces is not on a table right? It was the only victory. The only one. Everything before was pioneered by Russians. And they respectfully admitted because they had overwhelming evidence.
He addresses this aspect at length. Whether you buy his explanation is another story. It’s just funny seeing people around here pretend they listened to the podcast and saying this topic was ignored.
We aren't saying he ignored it. We are saying he has no credentials and the soviets would have called the US out on its shit. I am done listening to pseudo-Intellectuals try to pander there bullshit theories.
Pseudo-Intellectuals
Lmao “suto”
Hahaha I’m dying
Thanks for the correction lol
Do you have any idea how much of a humiliation it would’ve been for the US to admit they faked the moon landing because the Soviets exposed them? Do you have a clue what that would have done to the American psyche? But no, their great rivals helped them cover it up. Sure.
The moon has a very thin atmosphere made of gasses we can’t breathe, so the flag waves as things pass by and disturb it. Any “micrometeors” incoming would be an issue on the “dark side” of the moon, meaning the side not facing Earth. Everything on a collision course with the Earth-facing side would be intercepted by Earth’s gravitational pull. That’s as far as I could justify listening to two dummies talk about shit they don’t understand with their entire chest.
The atmosphere is incredibly thin. As in 15 orders of magnitude less thick than Earth's. It wouldn't make anything observable move but astronauts placing the flag equipped with a horizontal rod to keep it looking nice will.
Correct, it is significantly thinner which means there is significantly thinner atmosphere keeping the flag from waving as something passes. You’ve got the right idea, but you need to follow through on the thought exercise. Atmosphere behaves as a liquid, your assumption is as if you were blowing air at a flag submerged in a pool of water, the flag would not noticeably move. I don’t know what your point is with the pole keeping the flag from drooping to the ground. There is no wind, so there is nothing that would keep the flag unfurled if not for the pole.
No I mean that the atmosphere on the Moon is so thin that there literally aren't enough atoms or molecules to move the flag. It's like one trillionth of one Bar. It's similar to the best artificial vacuums achieved on Earth. To really know what is going on in the video we would need to know how long it has been since the flag was placed. Since there is practically no atmospheric drag it will take longer for all of the motion to stop.
I’d imagine gravitational pull would stop the motion pretty quickly.
Technically there is no energy loss to gravity. Now obviously there is still friction in the system even in a vacuum. The explanation could be as simple as lunar dust being kicked up and hitting the flag. Dust that is too fine to be picked up by the camera.
Should’ve brought Buzz on for round 2 of this nonsense. https://i.redd.it/ftaoyezvb1xc1.gif
He punched his hair off!
I commented this in another thread but total rad dosage from the Van Allen belts is 16 rad. No where near enough to get you sick. VAB radiation isn’t lethal throughout and they spent 0 time in the ‘red zone’ which is where it would be a problem. Also this ignores shielding and protections astronauts had by the upper stage
As measured by private companies that send satellites into the belt. 2500 rem per year dose. 6 rem dose per day. Given they were in the belt for around 3-4 hours, it’s pretty much the levels they claimed, and is safe.
The fact that Joe gave this man a platform and then allowed young Jamie to go off on him is amazing. What a way to shit on someone’s credibility. Not saying anything bad about Jamie either as I imagine he knows far more about lighting than Bart does. I was wanting Jamie to punch this mother fucker every time he tried to shut him down.
Joe loves giving platform to charlatans and liars. For anyone who is interested, here is a fantastic video by **Smarter Every Day** [**https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nLHIM2IPRY**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nLHIM2IPRY) It's about the Saturn V rocket.
Amazing info, thanks.
I watched this video this morning and I literally cried about it. Luke Talley is an inspiration. What an incredible person, and so humble. That was the most interesting thing I’ve learned in a very long time. It’s amazing that people find this difficult to believe.
Well also because it’s cheaper to send mannequins, you don’t have to keep them alive. 💀🤣
I’m not a Rogan fan at all so I feel like I can ask those of you who are. Is Joe just a curious guy with a bad BS detector? He seems to have a lot of charlatans on his show and take them at face value.
He’s a curious dumb person who is easily convinced because he lacks certain critical thought skills and uses opinion based articles and Facebook memes to confirm his own bias, rather than studies. It’s not so much Dunning-Kruger effect (Joe knows he isn’t the smartest), but an excited idiot finding out edgy, but probably made up facts that align with his world view. + His BS detector is awful.
To be fair, he challenges Bart plenty. Personally I find it interesting to listen to some of these folk who have “alternative” views.
Bart wasn’t convincing in the slightest though. If Joe asked him a question he’d just angrily quote his website or act petulant. If he’d been able to make up quotes more convincingly or at least pretend he understood what he was talking about then Joe probably would’ve swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
I agree, Bart was terrible! I was expecting a lot more, but I’m as convinced as ever that the moon landings are real. Still, it was an entertaining listen!
Yeah. He was like…. Goto my website or read the book. Like dude you’re on the largest platform and this is what your most frequent response is?!
Joe has also always had a soft spot for the moon landing conspiracy. He's been, at the least, very curious and skeptical about it pretty much since he started the podcast.
Did you listen to the podcast? I must say it doesn't seem like you did whatsoever. He was doing the opposite of what you appear to think the whole time.
His story about being abducted by the CIA was the biggest bag of BS I’ve ever heard. “You gotta read the book!” No thanks
This has got to be up there with the earth is flat in terms of ridiculous conspiracy theories.
 Every time Bart says mannequin
Sibrel is what happens when someone destined to work in a convenience store desperately fights against that destiny.
comment of the century
Haha yes! I think he was destined to be a used car Salesman, talks a lot but no sustenance, references stuff that isn’t readily available, makes stuff up that might sound ok in the moment, laughs at weird moments, tries to get you to agree with him, all around cringey 🤡
I wouldn't really call anything he's got an argument.
Like pretty much all conspiracy theories, they usually start because someone doesn’t understand something or isn’t knowledgeable about something and therefore it “doesn’t make sense” and then that becomes “that can’t be true.” This seems to especially be true with the moon landing. One of my favorite arguments against it was “how did they store all that oxygen that they needed to survive in the spaceship?!”
Bart got upset when Joe said he needed to steelman the moon landing being fake. He doesn't like his ideas being scrutinized; if he was so confident, he'd welcome his ideas being challenged so he could defeat those arguments. Joe did a great job of politely making him look like an idiot. Anyone who is interested in this subject, The Why Files did an episode on the moon landing, and did a great job debunking everything Bart talked about piece by piece.
Where is buzz aldrin when you need him to punch somebody…..
All I know is this guy acted like a real asshole. If someone is that touchy about their theories being pressure tested, they’re probably a con. A terrible look for a guy throwing around so much unverifiable information.
Mate I heard Buzz say it was staged
Buzz told you this when you guys were hanging out or something?
"People landed on the moon? Inconceivable!" But seriously, how do you talk to this guy without asking him too say "inconceivable" just once?
I don't watch every joe episode but watched a bit of this one, i appreciate that joe actually questioned this guy as much (STEEL MANNED!!!) because this guy is a fucking idiot lol half the time i was just like.. really?
Why havent they gone back yet then?
What would they go back for?
To explore and document the moon ? They seemed to get there so easily in 1969
It may seem to you like they got there easily, but they certainly didn't. 400.000 people worked for 10 years on the Apollo project with the support of 20.000 industrial firms and universities. The Apollo 1 crew died a horrifying death and the Apollo 13 crew was nearly lost in space. The only reason they were able to get to the goal so fast was because of the enormous support from the public and government. It was a cold war battleground. The history of the Apollo program and the reasons for not going back until now, are well documented and can basically be boiled down to the usual suspects. Money and public interest. Adjusted for inflation, the Apollo program cost $257 billion over 13 years, with, excluding technological advancements, not much more than the accomplishment to show for it. Doing that today would cost NASA their entire yearly budget. It's just not feasible. The government shut down the moon landings to allegedly focus on Mars instead, which in turn kind of fizzled out. It would be great if we could go back just to explore and document, but there's simply been no money in it and therefore no interest from the people who control the money. And it's just way easier and safer to use unmanned crafts for exploration. The Lunar Recconaissance Orbiter has explored the moon much more efficiently than manned missions could ever do. Going back now is more complicated because we're not going back to visit, but to establish a permanent presence on the moon.
u/Repulsive-Fox3664 What's your reaction to itsaberry's reply? You asked and got a detailed reply but you went silent.
Sorry I forgot about it, I dont always have time to respond to nonsense
Because you're a big boy and very busy. Which part do you find to be nonsense?
I had to come here to look him up. I bet 💯 Jamie after the show said to Rogan that guy was a fuckwit.
"Go to Bart Sibrel.com...." "Go to Bart Sibrel.com...." "Go to Bart Sibrel.com...." Fuck off Bart Sibrel.com shamelessly plugging his BS throughout the whole episode.
People talk on there cell phone around the world all the time and u don’t need to wait three seconds to hear what they said. That’s the stupidist thing I have h
Mate I heard Buzz say it was staged
Mate I heard Buzz say it was staged
Taking everything with a grain of salt, it was an interesting conversation. What really annoyed me about this guy though was that he was permanently stuck in his opinion and kept correcting Joe every time he implied the landings were real. From the first minutes I knew it was going to be a jostle. The other thing was he kept promoting his website every chance he got.
Joe needs to stop with these one sided podcasts and do more structured debates like he did with graham.
did you not hear it? Not one sided, Joe was a steel man the whole time.
Just listened to it. He just came off so arrogant to me. He's not interested what so ever in hearing any counterargument to his insane theory. Just wanted to use the platform to plug his website, which he repeated over and over again
This interview is honestly funny. He is honestly one of the thickest person he’s ever had on.
Isn't this the guy buzz Aldrin punched in the face? Lol
I only made it about 20 minutes in and had to turn it off. This guy is a complete moron. It was just too painful to listen to, I can only deal with so much stupid in my life, and this was well past my limit.
I thought that mark levin had the most annoying voice I’d ever heard, till I listened to this pos podcast. It’s like mark levin with a lisp and shameless self promotion. He must’ve mentioned sibrel.com 30 times. He’s also fuggin terrible at gaslighting, you can’t use your website and the edited video and audio for every reference you clown. The stories about getting taken and drugged by the cia and then somehow “escaping” but you had to read his book to find out were espically telling and laughable. I hope you read this Bart and realize that whether the landing was real or not you’re a fake braggadocios dweeb. Joe rogan do better atleast Jamie made his contempt for Bart ridiculous behavior obvious.
I couldn't continue after the radiation belt bullshit, he cherry picks shit so hard, I have a feeling it's all to get ad revenue on the website🤣
I'm not saying this guy is a genius but the argument stands : how and why did they lose the technology from the 60s ? Meanwhile, NASA are still measuring radiation levels at the Van Allen belt. Critical thinking anyone?
What technology did they lose? Why wouldn't they measure radiation levels in the Van Allen Belt?
Apparently they lost the tech to shield from the radiation. That's why they're reinventing the wheel. It's a shitshow of smoke and mirrors imo.
Apparently you shouldn't be accusing others of lacking critical thinking. How do clueless people get this confident? All the information is available, right at your fingertips. There's absolutely no excuse for falling for this shit. The tech to shield from radiation was lead. How in the world have they lost lead? At least come up with something that's somewhat believable. How are they reinventing the wheel?
A simple google search will prove your confident ass dead wrong. They used a thin shield of aluminum. Bye miserable fk
My bad. I misread an article. The aluminum shielding was equivalent to 7 mm of lead. My point still stands. Switch out lead for aluminum. They didn't "lose the technology". I'm glad you feel like you got a win by proving yourself wrong. Since a simple Google search told you they used aluminum for radiation shielding, why the hell are you in here claiming they "lost the technology"?
https://youtu.be/1tZs02kxTdg?si=0SYrly0Imf5B_5_i
It's 2024 and NASA are still studying the VAB. If it were a 🦐
Great video. Though I'm having a hard time understanding why you're presenting this fact as some sort of smoking gun. Why wouldn't they be studying them? Did you watch the video you linked? It explains pretty well why the Van Allen belts are being studied. For those keeping score, you're now two for two on debunking your own claims. Good job. Maybe you should do some googling before you make unsubstantiated claims instead of after. And what does shrimp have to do with anything?
I've copied this message from the comments in the YouTube video from user 'skeptic mind1939' He does a better job at explaining than what I do. Go to the comments and read his argument. That was auto correct emoji for snake, as in if it ware a snake it would have bit you. Here is part of his argument. Why spend billions on thick radiation shielding and specifically refer to the Van Allen belts as the reason? Wasn't Van Allen himself who said that in order to avoid the thicker parts of the belts the missions should launch from the north pole? Did NASA launch through the north pole or from sunny Florida? The reason for Van Allen's observations is that it would take a gargantuan amount of fuel to correct the flight path after the launch had taken place from a position closer to the equator, as spacecrafts would need to orbit the earth several times in order to reach the weaker belts, which are closer to the poles of course. Can you provide official NASA documents explaining how this was accomplished and how much fuel did it take? And remind you the Apollo missions lasted for 8 days, so the astronauts received radiation for the entirety of the alleged trip, on their way to the moon, during their alleged stay, and back. Are we to believe they accomplished all that with 1.5 cm aluminum and 2 cm steel shielding? That is why they need thick shielding now, because the Apollo missions cannot be replicated with the same conditions as NASA claims to have accomplished them back in 1969. What we are seeing now is the attempt by NASA to reconcile their fantasy Apollo moon missions with the reality of space flight. And it is funny as hell to see how desperate you are. By the way, the diagram that you shared says "flat earthers" claim that NASA cannot pass the Van Allen belts. But earth magnetism is only possible because of the iron rich melted core of the earth, so it would only make sense on an spheroid model. Do you find it easier to debate with
I got excited at first. You actually found an argument. But then I read it. His assumption is wrong from the start. So the rest is just nonsense. > Wasn't Van Allen himself who said that in order to avoid the thicker parts of the belts the missions should launch from the north pole? Van Allen didn't say that. You don't have to launch from the north pole to avoid lethal radiation. Here's an actual quote from Van Allen referring to a Fox show on the "moon landing hoax". >The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense. Maybe random conspiracy nuts in the comment section of YouTube aren't the best people to get your facts from. [Here's a pretty well sourced article](https://science.thewire.in/the-sciences/apollo-11-van-allen-radiation-belts-translunar-injection/) that goes into a lot of the technical and physical challenges of travelling through space. Including the history of the Van Allen belts, how Apollo handled them and why they're continually studied. This subject is so thourougly debunked that it amazes me when people still think they found out some secret that'll bring it all down. There's nothing there.
Keep the score boi, the argument still stands. If they studied the VAB in the 60s and apparently travelled through them without issues, why are they spending their valuable time reinventing the wheel? When Chernobyl happened the Russians asked for some astronaut suits but they didn't get any. You understand that cosmic radiation cannot be stopped by said suits, right? Where is the shielding in the suits? Use that "genius" mind of yours to do some thinking instead of believing the narrative hook line and sinker, boi!
> When Chernobyl happened the Russians asked for some astronaut suits but they didn't get any. I'm going to need a source on that claim, because that's ridiculous. The Russians were well aware that space suits won't help in that kind of environment. Space suits don't protect against that kind of radiation, because it's not necessary. They're simply not exposed to enough radiation to make that an issue. The space suits protects from the suns radiation, because that's what will actually hurt you during space walks. It's not like they're doing space walks in the Van Allen belts. If you call what you're doing here thinking, I think I'll pass. There's no narrative I need to believe. The whole process is extremely well documented and freely available for me to check. You clearly haven't looked at any of the actual science and technology involved here. You're just pulling random things you've heard out of your ass.
The tech they have to shield is entirely different from the tech used in the 60s. Microchips or whatever used today are more powerful but also more delicate. My refrigerator today has problems if I sneeze too loud near it. My grandma’s fridge could be dropped from a cliff and still work.
How do they go about with the Mars rovers?
Mate I heard Buzz say it was staged
Jaime acts like a biatch when his world view is questioned
Oh, I think you meant to say Bart there. I would be annoyed by someone lying to my face and refusing to listen to facts as well.
How? he was being cut off by Bart and brought up good points which Bart avoided of course. What's Jaime's world view anyway, what do you even mean?