re: Joe Rogan Podcast with Bart Sibrel - who here believes the Moon Landing was a hoax?

quote:

---

I would think that anything placed on the moon would either be severely degraded, damaged, or not in the same location it was 60+ years ago.

---

Jesus.

quote:

---

Keep in mind it would have been a relatively simpler task to simply launch a rocket into orbit, wait a few days, then have two dozen people in a studio in New Mexico shoot the footage. Don't need hundreds of people to lie for that.

---

Yeah, it sounds simple… until the ship blows up on re-entry and you have to kill OJ and Jack McCoy.

quote:

---

Joe Rogan Podcast with Bart Sibrel - who here believes the Moon Landing was a hoax?

---

The Sibrel guy sucks and is a terrible representative for that movement or whatever you want to call it.


The most damning evidence IMO isn't even direct evidence. It's just the very simple fact that no other country has put a man on the moon. I just can't grasp the logic in that and haven't heard a logical explanation for that, though I'd be happy to hear someone give one.

The only 2 reasons legit make zero sense:

- Other countries just don't want or feel a need to go to the Moon? That's not believe, there's just zero chance that every other country in the world has no interest in doing so

- We figured out how to do this on 54 years ago technology but other countries and the additional 54 years of tech still can't figure it out. Again, just not at all believable



A lot of the other stuff Sibrel presented it seems like there could be logical explanations for, which Rogan gave for a few of them(some of Rogan's retorts were a bit much for me)

I just can't shake the idea that no other country has ever figured this out 54 years later, it just does not seem to make any logical sense then how we did it 54 years ago.

quote:

---

The shadows from the pictures of the moon landing seem to contradict the moon landing and how true Sun shadows run parallel to each other vs different directions.

---

Mythbusters busted this myth

quote:

---

I think we did it but our country was really different.
Back then we didn't shun science or ridicule people that were part of it.
I think more that we had a "us vs them" mentality.

---

We didn't do those things then because science was still a field that placed integrity above feelings and politics. I've lived the change that began in the 1970's and is now completely out of control.

"Science" became a big money business, and left its origins as the realm of borderline-impoverished gentility, where its possession of greatest value was its integrity and soundness of method above all else, behind. It's very much in parallel to what college football has become in the NIL era. There are no longer any guys playing out of a lifelong love of the school that wouldn't bail in a heartbeat for more NIL $$.

Between NGOs funneling money and the press to bring in ever more research $ (compare what any national university brings in from research compared to the "billions" college sports makes. Sports pales in comparison) researchers will say whatever their funding wants them to say.

quote:

---

Someone probably stole it and replaced it with petrified wood...or the ambassador gave them some bs as a memento..

---

This is what Rogan said.


The moon rock to the Dutch president or whoever it was is definitely curious and makes you think, but it's not definitive proof.


That's why the Sebril guy did a really bad job. He wouldn't concede anything like that to Rogan every time Rogan mentioned something isn't 100% proof. He also didn't even want Rogan to speak from a standpoint of thinking about it from the opposite side. He clearly just wanted Rogan to go along with everything he said with no pushback.


I could be, actually hope I am wrong here. But at the end Rogan said he wants to get someone on the other side to go point by point to debunk Sebril and offered Sebril to come back and debate whoever that person may be, and Sebril said he would. But he seemed like the type of dude that doesn't want that smoke and wouldn't actually want to debate someone who knows what they're talking about.

quote:

---

India launched a moon orbiter that took a photo of the Apollo 11 site in 2021.


Also, the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has been orbiting the moon for years now and has photographed all the landing sites.

You can also reflect a laser back from multiple reflectors placed on the surface during the Apollo missions.

---

Would all of this prove prove that man was on the moon or just that spacecrafts were on the moon?

I don't think any, or many dispute that we have gone to the moon, just if man has gone to the moon.

quote:

---

who here believes the Moon Landing was a hoax?

---

quote:

---

The only 2 reasons legit make zero sense:

- Other countries just don't want or feel a need to go to the Moon? That's not believe, there's just zero chance that every other country in the world has no interest in doing so

- We figured out how to do this on 54 years ago technology but other countries and the additional 54 years of tech still can't figure it out. Again, just not at all believable

---

You're clearly a very non-technical person, which is perfectly OK. I need a realtor, a banker, and an insurance rep too. Let me break it down for you:

1. Other countries - there is no political value in being 2nd. As the great philosopher Ricky Bobby put it, it just makes you the first loser. The USSR destroyed a good portion of their spaceport and killed an untold number of their top people trying to beat us, costing them hundreds of billions or more in today's dollars. That was a lesson learned for the rest of the planet. Also, until the rise of China, who else has had the economic HP and political will to do something like this? No one. Even if our allies in Asia and Europe wanted to, we would have not taken a pleasant stance on this until recently. China is at least a decade away, and the USSR is long bankrupt. Doesn't take a PhD in geopolitics to figure this out.

2. Tech advances - what has advanced in spacecraft propulsion since then? Exactly nothing fundamentally. We still use an exothermic chemical reaction using vast quantities of highly combustible, extremely nasty liquids and solids to propel rockets. Making parts at that scale is just not something that can be done without decades of test and development, a process that has been sped up greatly by advancing tech in CAD, CAM and CAE, and it still took Elon's boyz what, a decade or more and a bunch of blown up hardware to do it again?

Lay people don't get the scale of the Saturn until they see one in person. 6.5 MILLION pounds at liftoff, with five F-1's screaming at 1.5 MILLION pounds of thrust each. The world's most powerful jet engine, the GE9X, is over 11X less powerful @ max power than a F-1. Each pump for those F-1 engines ran at 42,500 gallons per minute. That is totally draining an average swimming pool in less than 30 seconds, and those fluids were COLD coming in and HOT going out.

Anyone who's ever manufactured anything of even moderate complexity will tell you that processes to make anything are darned hard to copy off perfectly. This is why our semiconductor tech perpetually stays a decade ahead of China, as one example of many.

A mind-boggling number proprietary methods and processes were developed for Saturn, not everything was documented - ISO 9000 didn't even exist then - and the guys who knew all the little things about the black arts of heat treat, part fits, surface microfinish, ad infintum, are long dead now. You can, for example, take a US Timken or Japanese NSK bearing, and run them to failure vs the best Chinese knockoff, and you will find that despite being identical in every measurable respect, the Chinese/Russian/Whatever bearing will last maybe 1/3rd as long. I know, i've done it. I could write all day on this topic. I've had enough of this thread for now.

Given it hasn't been done in 50 years, I do not agree that there is no value in another country getting back there before the US. I just don't believe that.

Also, the ability for an extended type stay and research, etc. If someone like China could do that now or 3 years ago, there's rather obviously advantages to doing so.


I just don't buy the notion that there is no reason to do it. My question would be, the US is planning to go back, why? Does that not run counter to or disprove your entire reasoning then for not needing to go back?