Latest / The Joe Rogan Recap / Bart Sibrel (2024) - Questioning the Moon Landings

Transcript

Bart Sibrel (2024) - Questioning the Moon Landings · The Joe Rogan Recap

• 0:00
  Welcome to the Joe Rogan recap. Today we're diving deep into a
• 0:03
  truly captivating and, let's face it, controversial topic,
• 0:08
  the moon landing. Yeah, definitely controversial.
• 0:10
  And for this deep dive, we're thinking about our listener, the
• 0:13
  learner who, you know, wants to get up to speed quickly, but
• 0:16
  also wants the depth, those aha moments without getting totally
• 0:21
  swamped. Exactly.
• 0:22
  And we've got a really interesting source today.
• 0:24
  It's excerpts from Joe Rogan's podcast featuring Bart Sibril.
• 0:28
  He's a pretty prominent figure known for his work arguing the
• 0:31
  moon landing was faked. Right so our goal here isn't to,
• 0:35
  you know, prove or disprove anything ourselves.
• 0:37
  It's really to unpack Sibril's arguments, look at the evidence
• 0:40
  he talks about just in this conversation and try to
• 0:43
  understand the core of this well, this long running debate
• 0:46
  we'll. Look at how Sibril himself went
• 0:48
  from being apparently a big NASA fan as a kid to, well, a leading
• 0:52
  voice arguing it was all a hoax. We'll cover his main claims, the
• 0:55
  support he offers based purely on this discussion.
• 0:57
  OK, so where do we start? You mentioned him being a fan as
• 1:00
  a kid. Yeah, he talks about having
• 1:01
  Apollo pictures on his wall, that whole thing.
• 1:03
  So what was the turning point? What shifted him from
• 1:06
  enthusiasts to skeptic? Well, the key moment, several
• 1:10
  highlights seems to be when he came across Bill Casing's
• 1:13
  claims. Casing worked at Rocketdyne,
• 1:15
  which built the engines, and several says Casing had a memo
• 1:19
  supposedly from Verner von Braun himself back in 66.
• 1:23
  A memo. What did it say?
• 1:24
  According to Sybril, it basically said the chances of a
• 1:27
  successful landing on the very first try were incredibly low,
• 1:31
  like one in 10,000. One in 10,000 and 66, and then
• 1:35
  just three years later, they supposedly managed not just one,
• 1:38
  but six successful landings. That's the discrepancy.
• 1:41
  Several points to Yeah, it seems to be a core part of why he
• 1:44
  started questioning things. OK, so that planted the seed.
• 1:47
  Let's get into his main arguments then.
• 1:49
  The first, the big one, seems to be about the technology itself,
• 1:52
  that it was just impossible back then, right?
• 1:55
  He makes this argument about today's tech.
• 1:57
  He says, look, now we have way better rockets, way better
• 2:00
  computers, right? But NASA is still only sending
• 2:02
  astronauts or even just mannequins recently about one
• 2:05
  thousandth the distance to the moon.
• 2:08
  Mostly because of worries about radiation, he says.
• 2:11
  Exactly, so symbols question is well how could 1969 tech
• 2:16
  possibly have been 1000 times better than today's tech to
• 2:19
  actually land people there and bring them back?
• 2:21
  It just doesn't track for them. It does sound a bit backward
• 2:24
  when you put it like that. More advanced now, but we can't
• 2:27
  go as far. He also mentions a NASA
• 2:29
  employee, Kelly Smith. Yeah, in 2014, Kelly Smith
• 2:33
  apparently stated, according to Sybro, that the technology
• 2:36
  needed to get astronauts safely through the Van Allen radiation
• 2:39
  belts to the moon and back It hasn't actually been invented
• 2:42
  yet. Not invented yet, but they
• 2:43
  supposedly did it 50 plus years ago.
• 2:45
  That's the implication several draws from that statement.
• 2:48
  It definitely throws a wrench in the timeline if accurate.
• 2:51
  And this ties directly into his points about those Van Allen
• 2:54
  belts. Right, the radiation, that seems
• 2:56
  like a huge piece for him. A very big piece.
• 2:59
  He hammers on that Kelly Smith statement again about the
• 3:02
  danger. And then he talks about the
• 3:04
  shielding on Apollo 11. Just what was it?
• 3:07
  An eighth of an inch of aluminum.
• 3:09
  Yeah, something like that. And he contrasts that with, say,
• 3:12
  the lead shielding you need for a dental X-ray.
• 3:15
  His claim is that the Apollo shielding was nowhere near
• 3:18
  enough. He calculates it would have
• 3:20
  exposed the astronauts to like 100 * a lethal dose of
• 3:25
  radiation. 100 times lethal, That's quite a claim.
• 3:28
  Does he offer anything else on the radiation front?
• 3:30
  Well, he mentions Operation Starfish Prime.
• 3:32
  That was AUS nuclear test, way up in space back in 62, Cibro
• 3:37
  speculates. Maybe that test actually made
• 3:39
  the Van Allen belts even worse, more radioactive.
• 3:43
  Interesting speculation. And he also throws in this
• 3:45
  detail about NASA supposedly classifying a radiation readings
• 3:49
  from some civilian mission as a military secret.
• 3:52
  For him that hints at a cover up.
• 3:53
  Like they knew how bad the radiation really was.
• 3:55
  OK, so the radiation argument is definitely central.
• 3:57
  What comes next? He talked about some smoking gun
• 4:00
  footage, didn't he? Yes, the footage.
• 4:03
  This is probably one of his most dramatic pieces of evidence.
• 4:07
  He says he has outtakes from Apollo 11.
• 4:10
  Outtakes. Like stuff that wasn't
• 4:12
  broadcast. Exactly.
• 4:14
  And he claims these outtakes show the crew faking the view of
• 4:17
  Earth. They were supposed to be halfway
• 4:19
  to the moon, but he thinks the footage shows they were actually
• 4:22
  still just in Earth orbit. How would they fake?
• 4:25
  That he describes a setup with the camera looking through a
• 4:29
  circular window, and behind that window maybe a transparency or a
• 4:33
  partial model of earth was positioned to make it look like
• 4:36
  they were far away. So the iconic photos of the
• 4:39
  distant Earth, he thinks those were staged inside the capsule
• 4:42
  while close to home. That's precisely his assertion,
• 4:45
  and he adds another layer. He says the audio from these
• 4:47
  outtakes catches them being told, sort of coached to fake a
• 4:51
  four second radio delay. To make it sound like they were
• 4:53
  further away. Right.
• 4:54
  To simulate the signal travel time to the moon, he argues that
• 4:57
  you can see lighting changes in the raw footage that give away
• 5:00
  the artificial setup. If what he's describing is
• 5:03
  accurate. I mean, that would be huge.
• 5:05
  Yeah, huge is an understatement. OK, beyond the footage, he also
• 5:08
  had issues with the photos taken on the moon, right?
• 5:11
  The shatters and the flag. Correct.
• 5:13
  The photos were another big area for him.
• 5:16
  He points to pictures where shadows from different objects
• 5:18
  seem to point in slightly different directions.
• 5:21
  They intersect weirdly. He argues this wouldn't happen
• 5:24
  with a single distant light source like the sun.
• 5:28
  He says it looks more like they used a closeup electrical light,
• 5:31
  like a spotlight on a set. He even brings UA National
• 5:34
  Geographic attempt to debunk this where they use the
• 5:37
  spotlight and Sabrel says, well, that actually proved his point
• 5:40
  about needing an artificial light source.
• 5:41
  So the shadows don't look right to him.
• 5:43
  What about the flag? The famous waving flag.
• 5:46
  Yeah, the flag appearing to wave in a vacuum.
• 5:48
  Now we know there was a horizontal bar to make it look
• 5:51
  unfurled, right? Right to hold it out.
• 5:52
  But Sabrel shows footage. Whereas an astronaut walks past,
• 5:57
  the flag seems to ripple like there's a breeze.
• 6:00
  He argues that movement isn't consistent with just being held
• 6:03
  up by a static rod in zero atmosphere.
• 6:05
  It looks to him like air movement.
• 6:09
  OK, and wasn't there something about a moon rock given as a
• 6:12
  gift? Yes, that's another point he
• 6:14
  makes. He talks about a supposed moon
• 6:16
  rock given to the Prime Minister of the Netherlands.
• 6:19
  Apparently years later it was tested and turned out to be
• 6:23
  petrified wood. Petrified wood.
• 6:26
  Seriously. That's the claim, and Sabrel
• 6:29
  uses this example to suggest, well, maybe none of the moon
• 6:32
  rocks are genuine. It casts doubt in his mind on
• 6:36
  all of them. Another piece of supposed
• 6:38
  evidence for a fabrication. Did he mention other photo
• 6:41
  issues? He did.
• 6:42
  He claims some photos supposedly taken miles apart on the lunar
• 6:45
  surface actually show the exact same background details.
• 6:48
  Mountains, craters, etcetera. Like they were using the same
• 6:51
  backdrop. That's his interpretation, yeah.
• 6:53
  Like a movie set backdrop. And kind of fascinatingly, he
• 6:56
  also mentions Google's AI. He claims their neural network
• 7:00
  flags Apollo photos as potentially fake, but doesn't
• 7:03
  flag images from, say, the Chinese lunar Rovers.
• 7:06
  And AI thinks they look fake. That's certainly a modern twist
• 7:09
  on the theory. Now moving on, he talks a lot
• 7:12
  about the fact that we haven't been back, that the text seems
• 7:14
  lost. Exactly.
• 7:16
  This is a major pillar for him. He finds it deeply suspicious
• 7:19
  that with all our advances since the 60s and 70s, we haven't sent
• 7:23
  humans back to the moon. He points to people like Elon
• 7:27
  Musk planning multiple fuel trips just to get there now.
• 7:30
  Whereas Apollo apparently did it with one big rocket, the Saturn
• 7:34
  V6 times. Right.
• 7:36
  So for Sibrel, it just doesn't add up.
• 7:39
  How could we have had that capability, then supposedly lose
• 7:42
  it and now find it so incredibly difficult?
• 7:45
  It suggests to him the original capability might have been
• 7:48
  exaggerated or fabricated. And this ties into the lost
• 7:52
  data, the blueprints. Yes, he claims NASA deliberately
• 7:56
  destroyed or says they lost, but he believes destroyed all the
• 7:59
  original Saturn V blueprints, the Apollo hardware specs, the
• 8:02
  original telemetry data, tapes, everything.
• 8:05
  Why would they do that? Well, Seabrail argues that's
• 8:07
  exactly what you would do if you were trying to cover up a
• 8:09
  massive fraud. You wouldn't carefully preserve
• 8:11
  evidence of something that never actually happened the way you
• 8:13
  said it did. You'd get rid of it.
• 8:15
  It does sound odd, just been all that historical tech info.
• 8:18
  Yeah. He also talks about the
• 8:19
  astronauts themselves, their behavior.
• 8:21
  He does. He points to Neil Armstrong, who
• 8:23
  became famously reclusive after the mission.
• 8:25
  Didn't really like talking about it much.
• 8:27
  Sybril interprets that not as humility, but maybe as
• 8:31
  discomfort with perpetuating a lie.
• 8:34
  And the press conference? Yeah, the first press conference
• 8:37
  after they got back. Sybil describes the Apollo 11
• 8:40
  crew as looking nervous, shifty, not like triumphant heroes
• 8:45
  returning from the greatest journey ever.
• 8:47
  He finds their demeanor suspicious.
• 8:49
  What about Michael Collins? He mentions Collins to, noting
• 8:52
  some apparent contradictions and what Collins said over the years
• 8:55
  about whether or not he could see stars from the command
• 8:58
  module while orbiting the moon. Small inconsistencies, perhaps,
• 9:02
  but several sees them as potential cracks in the official
• 9:05
  story. So interpreting behavior.
• 9:07
  Then there's the more direct testimony.
• 9:09
  He presents some pretty dramatic stuff.
• 9:11
  Extremely dramatic. He talks about an alleged
• 9:14
  deathbed confession a former head of security at Cannon Air
• 9:17
  Force Base supposedly confessed right at the end of his life.
• 9:20
  Confessed to what? To witnessing the filming of the
• 9:23
  fake Apollo 11 landing footage back in 1968 and even more
• 9:28
  shocking, confessed to murdering a Co worker who was apparently
• 9:32
  planning to blow the whistle on the whole thing.
• 9:33
  Whoa, that is incredibly serious.
• 9:36
  Is there any corroboration? Sybil claims the man's son
• 9:40
  confirm the story later, and that the son then faced threats
• 9:43
  and intimidation from government types.
• 9:45
  It's a very explosive claim, obviously.
• 9:47
  Absolutely. And wasn't there something about
• 9:49
  Gus Grissom too, one of the Apollo 1 astronauts who died in
• 9:52
  the fire? Yes, Sybil brings up the belief
• 9:55
  held by Grissom's widow and son. They've long maintained that Gus
• 9:59
  Grissom didn't just die in an accident, but that he was
• 10:01
  murdered, possibly by the CIA. Why would they think that?
• 10:05
  Because according to them and Sybril Grissom was becoming very
• 10:09
  critical of the Apollo program, famously hung a lemon on the
• 10:12
  capsule simulator because he thought it was so bad.
• 10:14
  The theory is he was opposed to faking the landing and was about
• 10:17
  to expose it so he was silenced. They point to things like
• 10:21
  alleged CIA presence around the launchpad before the fire.
• 10:24
  Wow, these are really, really heavy accusations layered on to
• 10:29
  the technical arguments. OK, finally, why?
• 10:32
  Why would they fake it? What were the motivations
• 10:35
  according to Sybil? Well, the big one is the Cold
• 10:37
  War. The space race against the
• 10:39
  Soviets was absolutely intense, Sybil argues.
• 10:42
  The US was desperate for a win. A huge PR victory and landing on
• 10:46
  the moon first would be the ultimate prize.
• 10:49
  So national pride and geopolitical advantage.
• 10:52
  Exactly. And money?
• 10:53
  He emphasizes the sheer cost of Apollo.
• 10:56
  Maybe $200 billion in today's money, a huge investment that
• 11:01
  needed to show a spectacular result.
• 11:02
  Any other motivations he mentions?
• 11:04
  He throws in a couple more provocative ideas.
• 11:06
  He claims former President Bill Clinton privately expressed
• 11:09
  doubts about the landing after leaving office.
• 11:11
  Really, Clinton? That's the claim several makes
• 11:13
  and maybe the most far reaching idea.
• 11:16
  He suggests that Russia and maybe even China now know the
• 11:18
  landings were faked. And what they're keeping quiet?
• 11:21
  Worse, according to Cibro, he speculates they're using that
• 11:24
  knowledge as blackmail leverage against the US and NASA even
• 11:27
  today. Blackmail on a global scale
• 11:29
  based on a decades old secret? That's quite the conspiracy
• 11:34
  theory. OK, let's unpack this.
• 11:36
  That was a lot to take in. It really was a deep dive into
• 11:39
  Bart Several's perspective, his arguments for why the moon
• 11:42
  landing might have been faked, all coming from that Rogan
• 11:44
  interview context. Yeah, and here's where it gets
• 11:47
  really interesting, right? We've gone through so many
• 11:50
  different angles. He presents the tech
• 11:52
  impossibility, claims, the radiation fears, the weird
• 11:55
  photos, that alleged smoking gun footage, the eyewitness stuff.
• 11:59
  Right right from intersecting shadows and waving flags to
• 12:02
  petrified if I would and lost blueprints.
• 12:04
  Not to mention the really serious claims about murder and
• 12:07
  cover ups. So what does this all mean for
• 12:09
  you, the learner? Look, whether you listen to all
• 12:12
  that and find several points compelling or maybe you think
• 12:15
  they don't hold water, that's really up to you.
• 12:18
  But what this deep dive does show, I think, is just how
• 12:21
  persistent this particular controversy is.
• 12:24
  It really highlights the human tendency to question big,
• 12:27
  established narratives, doesn't it?
• 12:29
  Especially things that happened a while ago involving complex
• 12:31
  tech and, you know, governments. Definitely.
• 12:33
  So hopefully this gives you that thorough overview of one side, 1
• 12:37
  prominent voice in the debate, packed with the details, several
• 12:41
  uses, those potential aha moments.
• 12:43
  Or maybe really moments. Yeah, it's a comprehensive look
• 12:46
  at his case based on this source.
• 12:48
  And it leaves us with a pretty big question to chew on, I
• 12:51
  think, when you consider just how much information is out
• 12:54
  there now on both sides, and the really strong feelings people
• 12:58
  have and just the sheer passage of time since 1969, what
• 13:02
  actually makes a society collectively believe or
• 13:06
  disbelieve something so huge, so significant?
• 13:08
  How does that consensus form or fracture?
• 13:10
  That's a heavy one. What does it take?
• 13:12
  Evidence. Trust.
• 13:14
  Repetition. Something else entirely.
• 13:16
  Exactly. It's definitely something to
• 13:18
  really Mull over long after you're done listening.