Was The Moon Landing A HOAX? (ft. Kim Kardashian, Candace Owens, & Bart Sibrel)

Please join my mailing list here 👉 https://briankeating.com/yt to win a meteorite 💥 My response to Moon landing denial claims by Kim Kardashian, Candace Owens, and Bart Sibrel I answer all the big questions: ⇨ Why did the flag move with no wind? ⇨ Is there really no gravity on the moon? ⇨ Why haven't we gone back? ⇨ How did the astronauts survive the Van Allen radiation belts? ⇨ Why the boot prints don't match & more! - Join this channel to get access to perks like monthly Office Hours: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmXH_moPhfkqCk6S3b9RWuw/join 📚 Get a copy of my books: Think Like a Nobel Prize Winner, with life changing interviews with 9 Nobel Prizewinners: https://a.co/d/03ezQFu My tell-all cosmic memoir Losing the Nobel Prize: http://amzn.to/2sa5UpA The first-ever audiobook from Galileo: Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems: Ptolemaic and Copernican https://a.co/d/iZPi9Un 📺 Watch my most popular videos:📺 Neil Turok https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt5cFLN65fI Frank Wilczek https://youtu.be/3z8RqKMQHe0?sub_confirmation=1 Eric Weinstein vs. Stephen Wolfram https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OI0AZ4Y4Ip4?sub_confirmation=1 Sir Roger Penrose: https://youtu.be/AMuqyAvX7Wo Sabine Hossenfelder: https://youtu.be/g00ilS6tBvs Avi Loeb: https://youtu.be/N9lUceHsLRw Follow me to ask questions of my guests: 🏄‍♂️ Twitter: https://twitter.com/DrBrianKeating 🔔 Subscribe https://www.youtube.com/DrBrianKeating?sub_confirmation=1 📝 Join my mailing list; just click here http://briankeating.com/list ✍️ Detailed Blog posts here: https://briankeating.com/blog 🎙️ Listen on audio-only platforms: https://briankeating.com/podcast #universe #podcast #briankeating #intotheimpossible #science #astronomy #cosmology #cosmicmicrowavebackground #intotheimpossible #briankeating Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:00Speaker 00

  This episode is brought to you by Indeed. You're ready to level up your business, but the pressure to find the right person to make that happen is intense. Indeed sponsored jobs can help carry the load. It boosts your job post to help it reach quality talent fast. Cut through the chaos with Indeed sponsored jobs. Get a $75 sponsored job credit at indeed.com/podcast. Terms and conditions apply. Hiring now? Then this is a job for Indeed sponsored jobs.

• 0:31Speaker 01

  Low energy, unfocused, foggy? You might be dehydrated. Whether it's hot yoga, over 100 degree weather, or too much sun. Gator Light, with a specialized blend of five electrolytes, was scientifically designed to help move fluids into the body faster for rapid rehydration. Shop now at retailers nationwide. Gator Light: Hydrates Faster Than Water. Is it in you? Symptoms noted are signs of mild to moderate dehydration. Consult a healthcare professional if symptoms persist.

• 1:00Brian Keating?

  Viewer discretion is advised. Some content in this video may contain opinions or speculation or criticism that's not suitable for all audiences. Don't say I didn't warn you. Today, we're going to take a deep dive into the science behind the moon landing, providing a thorough debunking, not only of Candace Owens and Bart Sibrel, but also pushing back on the attacks from famed attorney Kim Kardashian Esquire.

• 1:25Speaker 03

  For the record, you think that we didn't walk on the moon? I don't think we did. I think it was fake.

• 1:30Speaker 04

  But here's my bone to pick with Matt Walsh. We have a long running beef on the topic of NASA and moon landings because he thinks they happened. And listen, when the guys did it, it was fake and gay. I'm sorry, Matt.

• 1:42Speaker 03

  I've seen a few videos on Buzz Aldrin talking about how it didn't happen. He says it all the time now in interviews.

• 1:49Speaker 04

  And it's time for you to admit it. It was just as bad, you just want to lie for it, okay? Homies were on the moon making phone calls before the time of cell phones like, "Hey, what's up, prez? It's me on the moon with a flag. No issues, first time we've ever flown this thing. Yeah, I don't know, we just got through the belt pretty easily."

• 2:08Brian Keating?

  What you're about to witness, people who have confused YouTube with actual physics, we're going to obliterate every single claim they make. And by the end of this video, you'll understand exactly why real scientists don't take these conspiracy theorists seriously.

• 2:21Speaker 04

  If you're like somebody who's like, "It had to have happened, the moon landing." What you can do is look up... Uh, I'm calling this the firmament.

• 2:31Brian Keating?

  This is gonna be a lot of fun. Candace made some dramatic errors and show her limited understanding, not only of the Apollo landings, but of the entire history of science itself.

• 2:42Speaker 05

  I see them faking being halfway to the moon. If I can go from being the biggest fan to the biggest critic, it's not something I say lightly. Means they didn't go to the moon. Technological milestone couldn't be replicated 50 years later, when it should be 1,000 times greater. We have an eyewitness who confessed to a homicide. How much more proof do you need?

• 3:20Brian Keating?

  Before I begin this systematic destruction, let me establish something important. I'm not gonna be polite to these two people. When people like Bart and Candace spread scientific misinformation to literally millions of people, politeness becomes complicity. Candace Owens has over 10 million followers on social media alone. When she spouts physics nonsense with the self-confidence of someone who can barely get through "Goodnight, Moon", she shows her dangerous misunderstandings of things ranging from the Apollo landings to thermodynamics. It's dangerous. And Bart has been peddling this nonsense for decades, convincing people with huge platforms, like Joe Rogan, that one of humanity's and America's greatest achievements was a fake, a fraud. For what reason? Well, listen to Candace's reason.

• 4:02Speaker 04

  That there's something that you've accidentally landed upon that they don't really want to be exposed. It feels strange, it feels wrong. When you look further in the history, they just keep lying and getting away with it. What I said was that science has become a pagan faith. Yes, that's what I actually believe. And I said, "If I don't get it from the Bible and I can't observe it with my own eyes, I don't stand it as the truth."

• 4:26Brian Keating?

  Let's buckle up, because we're gonna perform a physics autopsy, just the facts, on one of the most spectacular scientific pieces of ignorance I've ever encountered. And I've seen a lot as a professor for over 21 years. And trust me, this is gonna hurt them a lot more than it hurts us. Let's start with one of Candace's recent appearances, which begins with her literally calling the Van Allen belts "the firmament", before catching herself.

• 4:51Speaker 04

  Um, what you can do is look up...

• 4:55Speaker 04

  Uh, I'm, I'm calling this the firmament, but it's the, um, uh, what is the, uh, belt that, uh, 200 miles out, you hit the asteroid belt? The Van Allen belt.

• 5:06Brian Keating?

  Okay, so maybe Candace is guilty of loving the Bible too much, but she just accidentally revealed where her cosmology actually comes from. For those who don't know, the firmament is the biblical term for the solid dome that flat-earthers believe separates Earth from heaven. Now, this may have been a Freudian slip of the tongue, but her brain defaulted to her pseudoscientific terminology before remembering she was supposed to sound all proper and scientific. This portion hinges on the fact that she supposedly has discovered, thanks to Bart presumably, that NASA overlooked the fatal exposure that astronauts would receive from the Van Allen belts. She confidently claims the Van Allen belts start at 200 miles. Sorry Candace, the inner Van Allen belt actually begins at around 400 miles up

• 5:51Brian Keating?

  and extends to the outer belt about 8 to 36,000 miles in altitude. But why let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory? She's off to a great start, off by only a factor of two on one of the most basic parameters she claims is a fatal flaw in NASA's claims of a moon landing. Yet she's confident enough to lecture NASA engineers and even people like Elon Musk about radiation physics. It only gets worse from there. Candace now ventures into territory where fools should fare to tread. She says the Van Allen belts can reach up to 3,000 to 30,000 Kelvin, so that any spacecraft would melt. She says, "Look up what these spacecraft are made of, it's just aluminum."

• 6:33Brian Keating?

  That's true Candace, if the Van Allen belts were a thermal bath that was capable, with sufficient heat capacity, to heat up any object within it to 30,000 Kelvin, of course that wouldn't exist. But, the electrons in this plasma globe are actually heated to a temperature of 10,000 Kelvin. Shouldn't that be melting the glass? And it's true, the individual electrons have a lot of kinetic energy. But plasma physics is just one of the many subjects that Candace is completely ignorant about. It's not the temperature of individual electrons, or even the electrons themselves. It's about their ability to impart thermal agitation to materials within it. So in this case, they're gas inside the plasma globe as well, but it's not getting heated up to more than room temperature. How is that possible?

• 7:18Brian Keating?

  It should be melting it, right? Well, according to the Owens theory of physics, it should. But Candace, I have to tell you, temperature in a plasma refers to the average kinetic energy of individual charged particles, not of the ability to transfer thermal energy to macroscopic objects. The particle density in the Van Allen belts is extremely low, maybe a few particles per cubic centimeter. Even if those particles are individually hot, there aren't nearly enough of them to impart any meaningful heat to a spacecraft. And Candace, you don't dispute the fact that humans are in space right now, do you? Because if you do, you're truly an ignorant fool. But if you don't, you must realize that these astronauts are exposed to plasma in the form of the auroras, which could also reach tens of thousands of Kelvin. How come they don't melt, Candace?

• 8:02Brian Keating?

  Is there something special about the Van Allen belts? It's like claiming you'll get burned by standing in a room with three really fast-moving BBs. The BBs have high kinetic energy, but they can't heat up your entire body. Let me make this so simple that not even a political commentator or grifty conspiracy theorist can understand. Your kitchen oven at 500 Kelvin, about 450 degrees, will absolutely roast you, but a 10,000 Kelvin plasma in near-rackum conditions, in a plasma globe, in the aurora, and in the Van Allen belt, won't even measurably warm a piece of toast. And just like your arguments are toasted, heat transfer depends on how many particles can actually hit the surface and transfer their energy. In space, there's essentially nothing there.

• 8:46Brian Keating?

  This is basic high school physics. The fact that you've confused particle kinetic energy with bulk thermal heating to mix up with the scientific-sounding jargon of the melting point of aluminum disproved the existence of the apollo missions is ridiculous. And again, the Apollo spacecraft weren't just aluminum cans sitting naked in space, like a beer can. They used multi-layer insulation, phenolloic resin, stainless steel mylar, and capton foils, a sophisticated thermal protection system. They had to worry more about cold in some cases than they did about heat. Second, even if they were pure aluminum, the thermal flux from sparse plasma in the Van Allen belts, just like in the Aurora, not melting the International Space Station, they don't generate nearly enough heat needed

• 9:27Brian Keating?

  for the phase transition from solid to liquid. Heat transfer is flux times time, not just "big number, temperature, scary." The astronauts were exposed to a mere 0.18 to 1.14 reits per trip. That's less than you get in a chest x-ray, Candace. You get more radiation flowing coast to coast on a commercial airline. Now let's destroy Candace's claim that Apollo spent 59 to 90 minutes in the Van Allen belts. This is either a deliberate deception or inexcusable ignorance. The actual Apollo trajectories were specifically designed to minimize radiation exposure. They spent less than 30 minutes traversing the belts. They went at the weakest parts. They avoided the densest regions entirely. You've inflated

• 10:11Brian Keating?

  the exposure time by a factor of 2 or 3. This isn't a rounding error. This is an absolute fabrication. And it matters. Science matters, Candace, because radiation exposure is cumulative. Double the time, double the dose. So at worst, they might have gotten the equivalent of 3 chest x-rays. But let's not exaggerate it. It's nowhere near fatal, and it's not a fatal impediment to getting to Mars or getting back to the moon. So what Candace doesn't understand, because she apparently skipped most every physics class available, is that orbital mechanics allow you to choose your path through space. NASA didn't just dream up the Apollo mission straight through the densest region of the Van Allen belts. But even if they did, it likely wouldn't have been fatal. It might have caused excess genetic damage, but it wouldn't have been fatal, certainly, as Candace claims, and

• 10:54Brian Keating?

  certainly not insurmountable back in the 1960s, let alone now. NASA scientists calculated precise launch windows, orbital inclinations, and transfer trajectories to minimize radiation exposure while still reaching the moon. This is called engineering, Candace. It's what competent people do when they want to solve problems instead of just complaining about them for a political agenda. Now, let's talk about Candace's claim that NASA said astronauts would need cement shielding to survive the Van Allen Belt. This is one of the more dishonest misrepresentations of her entire rant. What I think she's referring to is NASA's 2005 research into deep-space, long-duration shielding concepts for potential Mars missions. These looked at studies for months-long interplanetary voyages, not 30-minute belt transits.

• 11:37Brian Keating?

  For missions lasting 6 to 18 months in deep space, engineers considered all kinds of exotic shielding options: water tanks, regolith barriers, polyethylene layers, yes, even concrete concepts. But that's for months of exposure, not for the mere minutes that were required to go to the moon. Apollo only requires short-term shielding for brief irradiation exposure. The spacecraft's aluminum hull, plus the mission duration management and trajectory management, was perfectly adequate. This is like saying you need a hazmat suit to walk past a microwave oven because nuclear workers wear protective gear. The fact that Candace can't distinguish between short-duration and long-term radiation exposure requirements shows she's either cherry-picking or has no business discussing space medicine or radiation protection.

• 12:18Brian Keating?

  Now, this is all meant to discredit the NASA astronauts' courage in what was one of the world's, and certainly America's, proudest moments. I thought Candace was America first, but here she believes that no one's been back historical in America. Now for a personal bit of stupidity. We've never gone beyond the Belt. Excuse me? Every single Apollo mission from 1968 to 1972 went beyond the Van Allen Belt. You know what else went beyond the Van Allen Belt? Every single Soviet mission, Indian missions, Chinese missions. While they didn't have on them astronauts, they had sensitive equipment, which you also claim Candace and Bart cannot survive the Van Allen Belt. How do you explain that? You don't deny that the Russians sent spacecraft to the moon, do you? Maybe you do.

• 13:03Brian Keating?

  What would explain the fact that the Russians archived the fact that the Apollo landing missions were a success? They were our enemies at the time. Nothing would have given them greater thrill than to prove the moon landings didn't happen and actually were recorded by Stanley Kubrick in a sound studio because he had access to special cameras. We'll get to that later. But we have the radiation measurements. We know about the film badges that were recorded, the medical records, the post-flight examinations. Why are you trying to take away from the greatest accomplishment of humankind? What would make you want to do that? Especially when it occurs to an America firster, right? The astronauts didn't die of radiation sickness. They all lived long, healthy lives well past their moon excursions through the Van Allen Belts. The reason humans haven't gone back to the moon isn't because it's impossible, it's

• 13:48Brian Keating?

  because there's been no political will or funding for it. We stopped going to the moon for the same reason we stopped going to Antarctica after it was landed upon in 1911 and 1912 for over 40 years. Was that a conspiracy too? Have we never been to the South Pole? I've been there, Candace. You should go sometime. You can see your beautiful auroras. They're over 10,000 Kelvin, I hear. Now, high-altitude satellites, interplanetary probes, and robotic spacecraft traverse the Van Allen Belts routinely. The Voyager probes, launched in 1977, are still functioning after passing through the Belts and traveling for 45-plus years through deep space. How is that even possible? But Candace thinks the Van Allen Belts are an impenetrable barrier. This is historic ignorance masquerading as scientific skepticism.

• 14:33Brian Keating?

  Now let's eviscerate Bart Sibrel's contribution to this scientific catastrophe. We'll get to what Bart claims is the most important and damning evidence that proves we didn't go to the moon in just a bit. But with Danny Jones, in the interview, in many of his interviews and his feature films, he quotes NASA engineer Kelly Smith from 2014 saying, "We must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space."

• 15:03Speaker 06

  Orion is getting ready to launch. My name is Kelly Smith and I work on navigation and guidance for Orion. Orion is NASA's next-generation spacecraft. Built with versatility in mind, it can take astronauts deeper into space than we've ever gone before: to an asteroid, or even, onto Mars. For these missions, Orion has to be one tough spacecraft, withstanding high speeds, searing temperatures, and extreme radiation. Before we can send astronauts into space on Orion, we have to test all of its systems. And there's only one way to know if we got it right: fly it in space. For Orion's first flight, no astronauts will be aboard. The spacecraft is loaded with sensors to record and measure all aspects of the flight in every detail.

• 15:48Speaker 06

  It all begins with launch, aboard a Delta IV heavy rocket.

• 16:16Speaker 06

  As it punches into Earth orbit, Orion will jettison its launch abort system. The abort system is a safety feature, designed to pull Orion and its crew out of danger if there were a problem with the rocket during ascent. Orion's journey is just beginning.

• 17:03Brian Keating?

  Bart presents this as a gotcha, like we haven't done it before. But it demonstrates his complete ignorance of spacecraft engineering and what Smith is talking about. Smith is talking about the Orion program, which involves completely different mission profiles than Apollo, and even speculating on what it would take to go beyond the moon and land on the surface of Mars.

• 17:23Speaker 07

  Ten, nine, ignition sequence starts. Six, five, four, three, two, one, zero.

• 17:34Speaker 06

  As it punches into Earth orbit, Orion jettison its launch forward system. Your forward system is a safety.

• 17:42Brian Keating?

  These are completely different missions. We haven't sent people to Mars. No one claims that. But why not fake that if you're all about conspiracy duping the American public? They have no answer for it. Now, modern spacecraft have vastly more sensitive electronics than 1960's technology. Apollo's guidance systems were radiation hardened. By their primitive design, they were essentially electronic bricks compared to today's sensitive microprocessors. So, we do have to do some more extra engineering work, but it's soluble. We can solve this problem, too. Protecting a 2014 computer from radiation requires different solutions than protecting a 1969 computer. It's like asking, why do modern cars need catalytic converters when the 1960's cars didn't? The requirements have evolved.

• 18:23Brian Keating?

  And, and a Model T is much more radiation resistant than a modern Ford Mach-E Mustang. Now, let's get back to the inherent inconsistency. That's completely laughable.

• 18:34Speaker 05

  Imagine, 55 years later, no one can fly across the Atlantic.

• 18:39Speaker 04

  Or they say it's too expensive. It's just too expensive, is what they say.

• 18:42Speaker 05

  Well, that's just not the case. The government doesn't care about expenses at all, otherwise they wouldn't be sending all that money. James Van Allen, okay? We have a clip at subrell.com, just uploaded it, where he says, originally, it was published in Scientific Journal, 1959. He says, "The radiation surrounding the Earth that you have to go through to the moon is 100 times greater than a lethal dose."

• 19:06Brian Keating?

  Essentially what Bart and by extension his protege Candace are claiming is that NASA knew about the dangers of the Van Allen belt and claimed to lie about it. But the fatal flaw is that NASA is the organization that predicted and measured the behavior of the Van Allen belts themselves. James Van Allen belt, according to Bart, said that radiation doses were 100 times greater than a lethal dose. This is complete and utter nonsense, or perhaps it's a misquote. I'll just give him the benefit of the doubt. Van Allen's 1959 research was measuring peak radiation intensity in specific belt regions, not declaring space travel impossible. Van Allen himself used early NASA satellites and supportive of the Apollo program, never

• 19:49Brian Keating?

  suggested that the radiation belts were insurmountable. He wasn't a medical doctor either. The fact that Bart takes a measurement of peak radiation and extrapolates that to show the impossibility for humans to survive shows that he either doesn't know or doesn't care about dosage rates, exposure time, or radiation biology. This is credibility suicide. Bart's using NASA data to prove that NASA is lying. He cites NASA research, NASA measurements, NASA publications, and NASA medical diagnostics as assessments all supporting his evidence, but they're all NASA materials. If NASA lacks all credibility, and they would if they lied about the lunar landing for the last 55 years, then they have no credibility. But they do have credibility, right Bart?

• 20:34Brian Keating?

  Because you trust Van Allen's measurements from NASA data where the radiation exposure limits came from, which forms the foundation of Bart's entire argument. This is entirely unreliable. He's created a performative contradiction that destroys his own credibility. This is like someone claiming a witness is a pathological liar while also relying on their testimony as your primary witness. It's not just bad logic. It's a self-own, the likes of which I haven't seen very much of. Which forms the foundation of Bart's entire argument. This is entirely unreliable. He's created a performative contradiction that destroys his own credibility. This is like someone claiming a witness is a pathological liar while also relying on

• 21:19Brian Keating?

  their testimony as your primary witness. It's not just bad logic. It's a self-own, the likes of which I haven't seen very much of. So let me give you the actual numbers that Candace and Bart are too incompetent to understand. Apollo astronauts received total doses of 0.18 to 1.14 rads permission. For comparison, people that work around radiation, like nuclear technicians, are allowed some four to 20 times as much exposure per year, not just once in their life. A single CT scan gives you about one radiation exposure unit. The threshold for acute radiation sickness is around 100 radiation units. Received rapidly, Apollo astronauts received less radiation in a mission than your radiologist

• 22:03Brian Keating?

  gets in a typical work year. The idea that they would be killed by Van Allen belt radiation is medical nonsense. The solutions weren't science fiction. NASA used straightforward engineering. They chose trajectories that minimized exposure time and avoided the densest radiation region. They used spacecraft materials that provided adequate shielding for short-term duration exposure and would also be lightweight enough to carry into trans-lunar orbital injection. This isn't magic, people. It's the same kind of engineering that lets us fly commercial aircraft through cosmic radiation at 40,000 feet or operate nuclear power plants safely. Maybe that's all fake and gay. The difference is that airline pilots and nuclear engineers actually understand radiation physics, unlike conspiracy theorists and political commentators.

• 22:48Brian Keating?

  And here's something Candace and Bart conveniently ignore. Apollo missions were tracked by multiple countries, including the Soviet Union, who had every incentive to expose the hoax if one existed. Independent radio operators tracked the missions. Multiple countries detected the spacecraft's signals. The retroreflectors left on the lunar surface are still used today by my colleagues like Tom Murphy and others to do so-called lunar laser ranging experiments to measure the moon's distance to within the thickness of a paperclip. And these are historic accomplishments, and American scientists and scientists around the world should justifiably be proud. But no, Candace and Bart want to destroy that. For what purpose? I don't know. Somehow, they think that NASA fooled everyone with aluminum foil and movie lights.

• 23:32Brian Keating?

  I took that on in the previous video. We talked about electrical lights that Bart seems to be fascinated by. Now, the narcissism required to believe that you've discovered what thousands of international scientists missed is staggering.

• 23:44Brian Keating?

  So what we've witnessed today is not just scientific ignorance. It's motivated reasoning elevated to an art form. Candace and Bart demonstrate every classic feature of conspiracy thinking. Cherry picking data that supports predetermined conclusions. Applying different standards to the same sources. Creating impossible competence paradoxes. Misunderstanding basic scientific concepts that they could easily be shown to be completely ignorant of. They don't follow evidence to conclusions. They start with their conclusions and hunt for evidence. This isn't skepticism. It's confirmation bias with a physics vocabulary. Candace's confidence while talking about thermodynamics and Van Allen belt radiation is a perfect example of the Dunning Kruger effect.

• 24:26Brian Keating?

  Someone like her with a minimal understanding of only the vocabulary perhaps are often the most confident because they don't know enough to recognize their own ignorance. A real physicist would say, let me check the thermal conductivity coefficients, particle flux densities. But Candace says hot means melt with the confidence of someone whose only experience with thermodynamics is her kids' easy bag of. The internet has democratized access to information. That's great, but it's also democratized the creation of misinformation. Anyone can cherry pick points to support virtually any claim if they're sufficiently motivated and scientifically illiterate. The solution isn't less information. It's better science education and more critical thinking. We need people who can distinguish between plasma temperature and thermal flocks,

• 25:10Brian Keating?

  not YouTube personalities who confuse the Van Allen belts with biblical firmaments. But I want to get into the most troubling aspect. I want to turn now to the final showdown where Bart admits that he was afraid or unwilling to debate me, even at Joe Rogan's behest. But when Bart spoke with Danny Jones, he also displayed an incredible amount of ignorance about lunar geology and even the acquisition of meteorite.

• 25:35Speaker 07

  This is allegedly, this was given to me by Brian Keating, who came on the podcast about a year ago. This is allegedly a piece of the moon.

• 25:46Speaker 05

  Well, then he just violated a federal law because you're not supposed to have a moon rock in your possession. And one of the things that's in my book is how a grandmother who had the tiniest fleck, their speck of alleged moon rock in this, you know, solid plastic, wanted to sell it to help, you know, pay her mortgage. And she was surrounded by the FBI and held in custody without being allowed to go to the bathroom because she had a speck of a moon rock. Because it's a federal crime to be in possession of a moon rock. So either he violated the law, you're violating the law, or it's a fake moon rock.

• 26:22Speaker 07

  Let's just go with fake.

• 26:24Brian Keating?

  Here's one right here, Bart. This is lunar material. It's lunar regolith. It's .230 grams. You claimed I've committed a federal crime, but it shows that you're actually ignorant about how the sample was actually acquired. This was acquired on eBay. Do you think there's an international federal felony creating cartel that is selling moon rocks on eBay? Or could there possibly be another way that I could have come into possession of this moon meteorite? And Danny Jones, you're welcome for giving it to you. This meteorite came from a collector. I purchased it legally. It's a fragment that came to Earth and landed in northwest Africa. In fact, that's its name. You seem to claim that the only way to get moon rocks is by committing a felony, robbing

• 27:09Brian Keating?

  it from a museum or stealing it from an astronaut. It shows you don't understand basic geology. There are many ways to get to a conclusion, Bart. You just cherry pick the ones that make America and NASA look horrible.

• 27:21Speaker 07

  Do you think, I know Rogan was trying to get somebody to debate you. Do you think that'll ever happen?

• 27:26Speaker 05

  I think the guy who you said gave him the moon rock, what's his name?

• 27:29Speaker 07

  Keating?

• 27:30Speaker 05

  He's the guy who wanted me to debate him.

• 27:32Speaker 07

  Really?

• 27:33Speaker 05

  Yeah. So Rogan sends me an email, "Hey, I want you to debate this guy, Keating," or whatever. I haven't heard from him ever since, you know. I'm really not interested in debating anybody. I would do it as a favor to him unless Lex Friedman asked me to do it, and I agreed to do it with him. But that, to me, is like debating if the sky is blue. The sky's blue. We don't need to debate it. Plus, these people he's putting up, or Lex would put up, they're the victims.

• 28:00Brian Keating?

  I don't know what your motivation is, but I'm still willing to debate you on Joe Rogan. Don't use the excuse that I'm a victim. I'm here, I'm ready to debate you, man to man, with Joe as an impartial witness. And you claim Joe is more sympathetic to the notion the moon landing didn't happen. I gave Joe a moon rock. I'll give you one too. And don't worry, the federales won't come after you. Not at least for possessing one of these beauties. So what do you say Bart? Are you up for it? Man to man, on the Joe Rogan experience, where this whole thing was kicked off. Let me know in the comments if you want to see this happen. Let's review what we've discovered today. We've learned that two extremely prominent and well spoken voices have been peddling scientific misinformation.

• 28:44Brian Keating?

  Misinformation that discredits NASA and even American exceptionalism. Now this has real consequences, because when people with massive platforms like Candace or Bart spread physics nonsense, they undermine the public's trust in science and engineering. The same science and engineering that gives us GPS satellites and weather prediction, medical imaging that Candace hopefully is using to keep her baby healthy before it's born. All those came from technology invented by people that understood the properties of radiation, exposure, and physics as well. Sure, both Bart and Candace travel frequently by airlines. Now those same airlines use NASA technology to make sure that the very airliners that they're traveling on don't disintegrate in flight.

• 29:29Brian Keating?

  I should know, I worked at NASA Langley in 1992, developing non-invasive technology to diagnose problems like flaws or cracks in aviation aircraft aluminum skin. Not from the melting due to the auroras Candace, but instead due to the fact that stress cracks occur due to pressurization and depressurization cycles. NASA wanted to find a cheaper way to diagnose those problems before they would lead to fatal flaws like happened on Aloha Airlines flight in the late 1980s. You should be very thankful for what NASA does for you Candace and Bart. The Van Allen belts are real, they're spectacular, and they're really well understood. They're completely navigable with proper engineering. NASA didn't fake the moon landing.

• 30:13Brian Keating?

  They accomplished one of the greatest engineering feats in human history. So the next time someone with a political science degree tries to lecture you about plasma physics, remember this video. And remember that expertise matters. Facts matter. Real science doesn't care about your political views, or your agenda, your homophobia, or whatnot. Physics works whether you understand it or not. Subscribe for more scientific reality checks. And make sure you check out part one of my episode where I took on Bart's misunderstanding of including the geometry of the size of the moon as perceived from the Apollo missions, the radio signal travel time from the Earth to the Apollo command module, and many, many more egregious errors. Don't forget to like, comment, and subscribe.

• 31:18Speaker 03

  Now, more than ever, we need someone on our side. But Rob Whitman? Whitman's votes drove up costs, cut Medicaid, and risked 350,000 Virginians' healthcare to pay for tax breaks for himself and his donors. He's not on our side. Shannon Taylor will fight corruption, cut taxes, and bring down costs. This November, vote for Shannon Taylor. She's for us. Paid for by HMP, the HouseMajorityPact.com. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. How many discounts does USAA Auto Insurance offer?

• 31:51Speaker 01

  Too many to say here. Multi-vehicle discount, safe driver discount, uh, new vehicle discount, storage discount, legacy discount. How many discounts will you stack up? Tap the banner or visit usaa.com/autodisc counts. Restrictions apply.