What Really Happened on the Moon?

Please join my mailing list here 👉 https://briankeating.com/yt to win a meteorite 💥 Brian Keating sits in the guest chair on Julian Dorey's podcast. This fascinating conversation dives deep into the heart of science, skepticism, and the culture wars swirling around them. Together, Brian and Julian tackle everything from wild theories about NASA, the South Pole, and the moon landing, to the challenges of scientific gatekeeping, the allure of conspiracy thinking, and the importance—and limitations—of critical thinking. You'll hear candid reflections on podcast rivalries, the pitfalls of confirmation bias, and the struggles scientists face in the public eye. Brian offers a behind-the-scenes look into debates with figures like Terrence Howard, the claims of Bart Sibrel, and the real impact of science denial. Plus, you'll get personal stories from Brian’s own adventures at the South Pole and insights into why science sometimes gets it gloriously, or painfully, wrong. - Key Takeaways: 00:00 Choosing Grad School Over NASA 07:56 Misleading Findings and Self-Deception 13:24 "Moon Rock Mystery: Colors Explained" 16:19 Nobel Laureate Show Dilemma 25:33 "Questioning Experts and Conspiracies" 31:09 Nostalgia for Past Snow Days 35:12 South Pole Tragedy: Fatal Expedition 41:16 "Exploring Uncharted Places" 45:40 Nordic Power Struggles and Empire Decline 48:44 Dark Matter or Modified Gravity? 54:55 Podcaster's Open-Minded Approach 59:53 Challenging Math: Terence Howard's View 01:06:58 Critique of Platform Misuse 01:11:10 Animal Mourning and Human Awareness 01:17:45 Debate on Science and Vaccine Misinformation 01:21:40 The Mayor's Low Threshold Dilemma - 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

  Hey Spotify listeners. When you travel with American Airlines, you'll enjoy comfort and convenience at every altitude. Before takeoff, unwind in the Admiral's Club Lounge with curated self-serve offerings of hearty bites and refreshments. In flight, stay connected with high-speed Wi-Fi. Sponsored by AT&T. Your journey is designed to feel easy from the moment you check in to the moment you arrive. No matter where you're going, American gets you there. Book now at aa.com.

• 0:27Speaker 01

  This episode is brought to you by Google Chrome. You think you know a browser, but Gemini and Chrome, that's new. It can help you with practically anything on the web, like restoring a vintage motorcycle from a 50-page restoration block, or finally break down that long article you've had open for weeks. Gemini and Chrome is here for it. Ready to make anything online make sense? There's no place like Chrome. Check responses set up require compatibility and availability varies 18+. Welcome to the special crossover episode of the Into the Impossible podcast, featuring me on Julian Dorey's podcast. I was actually the guest that got him to a million subscribers. And in this episode, we talked about a phenomenal range of topics, ranging from Terrence Howard and Wei Ping Yu

• 1:09Speaker 01

  to NASA hoaxes, to the South Pole and Antarctica, and why we hadn't gone back for 50 years before teams like the United States Navy went there in the 1950s. We also discussed my research into gravity and whether or not the actual moon landing took place. So join us and let's go deep into the impossible.

• 1:35Speaker 02

  When's this big debate with Terrence Howard happening?

• 1:38Brian Keating?

  Terrence Howard and I have been secretly communicating through about five different channels.

• 1:43Speaker 02

  Five different channels?

• 1:44Brian Keating?

  Five different podcasters. Maybe you'd be the one to make it actually happen.

• 1:50Brian Keating?

  Yeah, Patrick, that David gave me a name check while he was on with this kind of really disappointing example of a NASA physicist, this guy, Dr. Wei Ping Yu, who Patrick's team actually got his name wrong on the show notes. That was kind of funny. Like, you don't even research this guy's name, how to spell it. Uh, that was kind of embarrassing, but you know, I like Patrick. He, he's, does some good stuff. But, uh, but in this case, yeah, it was, uh, it was kind of a little bit embarrassing, I said, for Terrence because he went out to talk about his, you know, his theory, the linchpin, his theory of, um, you know, one times one equals two and his theory of, well, don't laugh, you know, he's got, he's got a lot of math, math, mathematics.

• 2:34Speaker 02

  No, it's just bringing back memories. It was an incredible podcast.

• 2:37Brian Keating?

  Memories of, you know, a couple of months ago. Uh, but now he's got this claim that he solved the three body problem, that he understands how the planet Saturn was formed. And, uh, so they bring on, so let's say that's somewhat legitimate, there's something he wants to talk about. Plus, he's talking about how he went to like Diddy parties and all sorts of crazy, or he didn't go to Diddy parties and his man.

• 2:57Speaker 02

  He wanted to [BLEEP] me.

• 2:58Brian Keating?

  His, his man card is still in effect. Uh, but the problem was he ended up, you know, having this guy on to talk about, like if you invite me on and then you have on, you know, somebody who wants to talk about the flat earth, it's really doing me a disservice, right? So I felt like he brought, Patrick brought on this guy who knows nothing about Terrence's theory and had his own theory, which is that the universe doesn't have any other forces besides electricity.

• 3:22Speaker 02

  This is what Wei Ping Xu thought.

• 3:24Brian Keating?

  This is what Wei Ping Yu, Dr. Wei Ping Yu of NASA. Don't forget, he's a NASA scientist. So, uh, to his credit, yeah, he puts on his, uh, on his resume, you know, he doesn't speak for NASA. He is not a representative on the podcast of NASA, but in reality, people seeing NASA scientists carries a lot of weight. You know, I almost worked for NASA. I did work for NASA as an undergraduate and I was almost hired by them as a, uh, as an employee after, after college. But I realized if I went to NASA after college, my dream, you know, be complete at age 21, 22. So I said, oh, let me go to grad school, let me get my PhD. And then if they want to pay me, you know, $29,000 back in 1993, they'll want to pay me $33,000, you know, in, in 2000 when I get my PhD. Uh, and by then I decided I didn't want to work for NASA, I want to do other things.

• 4:09Brian Keating?

  But, uh, but in reality NASA carries a lot of weight and for that reason, to have on someone like him, talking about his own theory, basically it's called the electric universe, that everything in the universe is plasma and currents and it sounds plausible if you have, you know, a junior high school level education in physics, but the, the, the fact of the matter is every single thing he said about science is, was discredited.

• 4:32Speaker 02

  How was it discredited? I don't know anything about it.

• 4:34Brian Keating?

  Yeah, I mean, he's claiming, for example, that the, uh, that the, the, the proton is held together by electric and magnetic forces.

• 4:41Speaker 02

  Okay.

• 4:42Brian Keating?

  Uh, he's claiming that gravity is electricity and magnetism, not actual gravitational force. He claimed, uh, so he has his own theories about how all these things are structured. Totally nonsensical, completely refuted by all of twentieth century and twenty first century physics, including quantum mechanics. He claimed that atoms don't have orbitals, quantum mechanics isn't real, they don't have spectra. Some of these things are the most accurately tested observations in all of science, not just in physics, in all of science. So if you go to like Wikipedia and you say like, what's the most accurately tested theory that we have? It's quantum mechanics. And there are different interpretations of quantum mechanics, we can get into that. But the bottom line is, we know for sure that atoms have these properties called orbitals that behave in a probabilistic function.

• 5:25Brian Keating?

  And we can determine how accurately we can measure these things to fourteen decimal places. Okay, so a decimal point, and then fourteen digits later, we have a number. Um, something like that, like the, the frequency at which interstellar hydrogen oscillates at, back and forth. It flips back and forth because it's a positive, it's just one positive charge, one negative charge. The positive and negative charges oscillate, basically, uh, are flipping their spins, uh, one point four billion times per second. But we know that, we know that accuracy of fourteen, it's not just one point, you know, four times ten, or fourteen billion, fourteen, sorry, it's one point four billion. We don't just know that to one point four, we know that to one point four two one zero zero five two seven five six, up to fourteen decimal places. Uh, that's exquisite, I mean, it's put that into, you know, language that, you know, someone could understand.

• 6:08Brian Keating?

  It's more accurate than going from here in New Jersey to the top of the Empire State Building and getting there within an accuracy of one human hair. That's, that's more, that's, that's more coarse than fourteen digits of precision and the ratio of the distances between here and there. Okay, so it's just astounding how accurate science knows things accurately. And preciseness. Accurate is how close you are to the correct answer. Precise is how many digits of precision do you have on that number? Okay, so if you're throwing darts at a dartboard and you're trying to hit the bullseye, accuracy is how close you are to the bullseye on average, but you'll never get exactly to the molecule to the quark, right? So, precision is how close do multiple estimates or multiple throws of a dart at the dartboard converge on that right answer?

• 6:51Speaker 02

  But accuracy and precision, I'm looking at this from pure Lehman's term, are dependent on the variables that you have at your disposal to come up with that. If the variables change, is it possible, and I'm not just picking out this one example, but is it possible that something that would have been perceived to be accurate down to a human hair suddenly goes up in smoke?

• 7:11Brian Keating?

  No, it won't be that something that's accurate. If it's truly accurate at that value, you're saying you've measured it to that value. Let me give you an example. You mentioned this in your podcast, which was awesome, with Claudia Durham. And you actually mentioned it as a compliment to me, so you're actually, I should be thanking me instead of thanking you. But you mentioned that we measured this thing and we thought it was worthy of the biggest Nobel Prize ever in history. That was the discovery of the quantum origin of the universe called inflation. But in reality, we found schmutz, these microscopic meteorite particles that you get if you go to my website, briankeating.com. You got one, you got yours there. This is for your producer, super producer Joey. I got one for him too, after the episode. So, we were actually measuring these microscopic meteorites that formed this twisting pattern

• 7:55Brian Keating?

  that led us to the confirmation bias, assumption that we had detected the spark that had ignited the Big Bang, okay? We actually measured that exquisitely precisely, okay? So, the measurement still stands up, that we measured this pattern to many significant figures, many digits of precision. However, we interpreted, the interpretation was that we measured this inflationary signal. In that sense, we're inaccurate. So, something doesn't get more or less accurate. It is what it is and you can calibrate it and you can become closer. So, what we had to do is build an entirely new experiment and say that experiment is only going to look for the schmutz, the dust, the crap that we don't want to see. And then by focusing in on what we don't want, then we can subtract it from the total

• 8:38Brian Keating?

  what we saw, which is cosmic signal plus the dust signal. We have a dust-only signal. So you subtract the dust-only signal from the cosmology plus dust signal, what you're left with would be the cosmic signal. When we did that subtraction, we came up with nothing. Okay? So that means that the original thing we reported as being only cosmological was actually mostly, if not all, dust. Okay? So that's an example of how you got more accurate over time, but you had to do a whole new other experiment. And that experiment can't measure the same thing that you want to detect. Okay? So you want to detect dark energy, dark matter, you have to build a separate experiment that traces and tracks out, well, how could I fool myself? How could I have effed up by making a mistake, by tricking myself into thinking that I found out about what I was trying to look for? And this is a big problem for people like the UFO hunters and stuff.

• 9:23Brian Keating?

  They never, they only propose one hypothesis, and then everything can only be used to justify and further increase confidence in a hypothesis. It's confirmation bias. So it's prone to confirmation bias. It's not saying that it's wrong, or that they're lying, or whatever, but let's say, for example, you could have an alternative hypothesis, and then you want to do an experiment on that. So let's say one of the alternative hypotheses is it's just lasers, and people are shooting lasers off of swamp gas, and that these trained pilots are seeing lasers on swamp gas, and aren't they stupid? Okay? That's a hypothesis. You can test that scientifically, and you can falsify. You could say, oh, no, no, it's not that. There's no such thing. The drones flying over New Jersey, those weren't drones. Those are something else. You hypothesized they were drones, so what do we do?

• 10:05Brian Keating?

  We built a whole bunch of FLIR systems, and we saw all these things doing flip-flops on TikTok, and, no, no, that wasn't, that wasn't a drone. So now you've excluded one hypothesis. But because you excluded that one hypothesis, cat lasers, swamp gas, and drones, that doesn't mean that the alternative hypothesis is true. That's right. You have to do another experiment, see, how could you mislead yourself to think that these are UAPs? And that could be other things. It could be, well, there's actually much more complicated phenomena, or called social science engineering, where the government's effing with the minds of these people in an order to root out who's being loyal to the US government. That's a hypothesis, right? And in fact, it may be the true one, that they are actually, the Pentagon was misleading people. They're tricking the pilots, they're doing this and that. That's actually thousands of times in terms of probabilistic space more likely.

• 10:50Brian Keating?

  It doesn't mean that they're right or these people are lying. It just means that like, what's more likely? Interstellar beings are traveling across interdimensional distances in order to do almost nothing on Earth and hide, slightly hide their behavior on Earth. Or, or that these things are figments of people's imaginations or injected into them or hypnotized or whatever, those are much more likely. It doesn't mean they're wrong. It doesn't mean that they think that they're lying and that they know that they're lying. It's just that, is that a more simple explanation? If so, we have to consider it.

• 11:20Speaker 02

  Right, and I, I think that this is, obviously this goes well beyond just science. This is kind of in life when we look at people with opinions and, you know, the, I guess, like pure consensus that people come to, but it's like, you could have scenarios where 99.9% of the time, the explanation is the simpler explanation. And then the 0.1% of the time, it's actually not, and you could prove it. The problem becomes the people who protect, quote unquote, the 99.9% of the time. Then every time you bring up one example, we'll be like, well, this is definitely in that. And they never have the example where they're like, yeah, this might be in the 0.1%.

• 12:00Speaker 02

  And I think this is where like, you know, I, I actually really enjoyed listening to Terrence Howard. Obviously, a lot of it was a leap upon a leap upon a leap upon a leap. And I think most of what he says is, is very disprovable. But what I can appreciate about a guy like that is that maybe he went too far with it, but if you push the boundaries of saying, well, science is about, for example, like, science itself is about asking questions. So let's ask these questions and let's try to, let's try to relitigate some things in the past just to see if we got it all the way right. I, I think that could, or wrong, that could be a positive impact in a space.

• 12:39Brian Keating?

  It could be, but you have to look at the preponderance of something, right? And so there's nothing that's entirely 100% good or bad. Religion is not entirely good or bad. Uh, you know, a democracy, not entirely good or bad. It's, we can go on and down the list. Relitigating stuff for the sake of relitigating stuff without a purpose. Say the moon landing and this guy Bart Sibrel, you know him well, right? So, so, so having, you know, people that really truly believe that the moon landing did not happen. Okay, so that's a claim, that's a, that's a science-based claim. So you could bring up Bart Sibrel. I did a video about Bart Sibrel and how- Did you ever have him on? He won't debate, it's weird. I thought, didn't you have him on? No. You didn't? Somebody- Danny had him on. Oh Danny, your buddy Danny had him, yeah. Who, I thank you for introducing me to Danny.

• 13:24Brian Keating?

  So Danny had him on, they mentioned me and- Danny Jones, we're talking about. Yeah, Danny Jones. And he, so Bart told me something which I didn't know. Cause after he was on Joe Rogan's show, I wrote to Joe Rogan, I was like, Joe, hey, you remember I gave you this moon rock? Not only did I give him a meteorite, sorry Julian, sorry Joe, but I gave him a moon rock and I actually gave him a Mars rock. Cause I was like, holy crap. You gave him a moon rock and a Mars rock? Get the fuck out, Brian. Okay, fine, see you guys. When you hit a million on this episode, I will bring you a Mars rock as a birthday present. I brought you a magic crystal. Then we're gonna talk about the magic crystal and we're gonna talk about that. Alright, I'll take the crystal. The crystal comes with me. But the point is Bart claims this for some, let's just say the moon landing didn't happen, okay, whatever. But what's the reason for the conspiracy?

• 14:09Brian Keating?

  Oh, just close the loop. So he told, so I told Joe, what the hell's going on? I, I told you all this stuff about the moon landing, I even brought you a moon rock, you know, what happened? I hope, you know, nobody smoked it or whatever, but like, where, you know, where's the moon rock? You can see, cause Bart was saying, oh, the moon is, in the pictures doesn't look white like it should. If it's, if it was truly there and not a camera artifact, it would look- And I said, the moon rock I gave you actually looks pinkish-orange and you can just take it out if you still have it, Joe. And you can prove to yourself that, no, the moon isn't pure white. It's not like a piece of pure white, you know, ivory snow. It is in fact, has all these different colors, cause it's made of multiple different materials, Joe. And we know that because the materials they brought back are the same as the moon rock materials and that I gave to him in terms of chemical composition, the same as the spectroscopic images.

• 14:54Brian Keating?

  And we know the distance to the moon exquisitely accurately, cause the moon landing astronauts, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin, put down these retro reflecting little reflectors on the moon's surface that bounce light back with this precise property that one of my colleagues and neighbors at UCSD, he's retired now, Tom Murphy, measures the distance to the moon to within one millimeter. Every single second that he's doing these measurements with 10 to the 14th photons per second in a burst, the reason that he's doing it is not to prove the moon landing occurred, that's an incidental discovery courtesy of the fact that we did go to the moon. He's actually trying to test gravity, theories of gravity that have different modifications at long and short distances that could be a sine qua non gravity. So in other words, he's doing something totally different. Oh, he happened to confirm that the moon landing happened.

• 15:39Brian Keating?

  That wasn't the main goal of what of what he was doing and is doing in his research. Likewise, other people have done other types of experiments with seismology of asteroids and moons and things like that to see if moons have quakes. What is the moon's core like? They have all sorts of instruments that were left exclusively, claimed to be left by the astronauts, can be seen from photographs of the moon's surface by our enemies like the Russians and scientists that would like nothing better than to prove that, hey, actually, wait, something is a big conspiracy and a fraud. You've got to remember, scientists want to prove conspiracies, you know, of nature wrong all the time. That's what we want to do. We want to uncover quantum gravity, want to understand the big bang, want to understand if life exists outside the earth.

• 16:19Speaker 02

  If the universe is inflationary.

• 16:20Brian Keating?

  If the universe is inflationary, if there are multiple universes. We are obsessed with disproving the narrative. And remember what Feynman said. Feynman said, "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts, but not the malevolence of experts." In other words, we say that we go to the moon not to say how great we are and give us more money and that's what people like Bart Saber will claim. NASA is an evil organization. He actually got punched in the face by Buzz Aldrin.

• 16:45Speaker 02

  It's a funny video.

• 16:46Brian Keating?

  It's a funny video. And out of these reasons, I told Joe, I'm happy to come on and debate him. Apparently Joe did get in touch with him according to the interview he did with Danny.

• 17:20Brian Keating?

  They talk about me interviewing, getting in, and he's like, "Well, I don't want to talk to anyone besides the scientist. Like, I feel bad about the scientist, you know, because they're getting tricked by big NASA." And I'm like, "Well, I'm a scientist. I'm happy to debate you." But, you know, I didn't want to just have him on my show, and I don't think that really does me any, you know, great... Why not? If I want to have on, you know, the next, I've had on 21 Nobel Prize winners. Next week will be 22. If you were to see a channel, and you've been to Stockholm, you've actually won the Nobel Prize, unlike Brian Keating, you go there, you have this, you know, sort of scientific credibility and legitimacy to want to maintain. If you go on a show, and it's Billy Carson, and Terrence Howard, and Bart Sibrel, and

• 18:02Brian Keating?

  then, oh, every now and then, it's, you know, it's Eric Weinstein, or Michio Kaku, or, you know, and then you're like, "Whoa, what is this guy? Like, what is he doing? Does he do Nobel Prize winning, or is he out for clicks?" And so, you know, I'm considering talking with Terrence, because we've been approached, both of us have been approached by Patrick Bet-David, and by Piers Morgan, and their people, but, you know, the reason I'd want to do something with Terrence is because I have an actual laboratory that he could come, you know, we both live in Southern California. He claims he has a laboratory, and he'd love to show me his stuff, show me his, the linchpin, like this incredible copter that assembles itself in midair, that has these weird geometric properties. And he does have patents and so forth, that I'd like to, kind of, you know, because you

• 18:45Brian Keating?

  can get a patent tomorrow, you know, I always say, like, a patent is not necessarily proof of genius. Like, there are things you can't get patented, if you attempt to violate the laws of physics. Second law of thermodynamics, or famously, people try to get perpetual motion machines patented, so, but, but more than that, I mean, if I say, "Look, here's this magic crystal," which we're going to talk about, "and here's a meteorite," and I say, "Well, you can't patent the meteorite, because it's a naturally occurring phenomenon, you can't patent the crystal, because it's naturally..." But if you somehow embedded this in here, and claim that, you know, it vibrates a certain frequency, which it does, and those frequencies, you know, on your chakras here, and I hope you don't clip this, you know, so, like... Physicist is the shock. I don't even know what a chakra is, to be honest with you. But but the point being, you can patent that. Yeah.

• 19:28Brian Keating?

  Because you can patent combination. You can patent, you can't patent a pencil lead and you can't patent an eraser, but you put the eraser on top of the pencil. I have two patents. That's what I heard. I never made a penny off any of them. So the fact that Terrence has patents is not this positive that he's right or wrong. Doesn't really mean that much. We have to investigate. What do they actually do? Have they been used? Have they been applied? Has anyone commercialized them? Because the market is a damn good, you know, capitalism always wins at some level. Despite what the future mayor of the of the city across the That's a sore subject. Across the the river here might might say capitalism always wins. So in the end, the marketplace told me that my two patents, which I thought were really cool sophisticated things I invented at Caltech and UCSD.

• 20:06Brian Keating?

  No, nobody wanted it. Nobody commercialized it. They sit there. They'll probably never be used. That's okay. You take certain swings and you and you and you miss on on most of them. But the the the thing I'm trying to get across is having on a claim about something scientific, that's fine. But if your motive is to discredit NASA and and discredit the the one organization that can, you know, conclusively that makes life better for every single person that ever gets on an airplane. I told you, I almost worked for NASA after graduation. Yeah. Was offered a job at NASA after working at NASA for a summer between my junior and senior summers in college. At NASA Langley Research Center, which is where they used to train, you know, when when they landed on the moon, they had a practice in like zero G. You know, but they couldn't get zero G, almost zero G or one third G on Earth, right?

• 20:51Brian Keating?

  So they built this enormous contraption at NASA Langley. I got to see it. And it was like bungee cords and it was a real eagle lunar lander like object. And it was flying and and it could almost simulate the the low amount of gravity. But also these retro rockets. It was one of the coolest things I ever saw. Neil Armstrong actually had to abort and eject from it. Almost died before the moon launch attempt was made in 1967. Anyway, that's where I was working and I was working on the following problem. When you get on an airplane, every single plane you've flown on has on average about 22,000 hours of flight time. Let that sink in for a second. Twenty, you're stepping on a thing that's older than you, by far is older than you. I mean, most of this, except for the brand-new ones, which have their own problems, right?

• 21:32Speaker 02

  Yeah. But even they- Made a few documentaries on those.

• 21:35Brian Keating?

  Planes have to fly about ninety-five percent of the time. You drive your car about five percent of its lifetime, if you, if you have a car. Planes are exactly the opposite. They have to fly to make money. So that means almost every hour of the day, they're flying fifty-five minutes, or whatever, of every hour of every day of every year, of every, since they were built, okay? Say twenty thousand hours on it. That means, uh, they've probably had about ten thousand pressurization cycles, if the average flight time is about two hours. So they've cycled the pressure to, uh, you know, twenty, ten thousand times, over that twenty, thirty, forty-year period that they've been in service. Totally safe. Why? Because they check, every single, you know, inspection they do for the airlines, checks what's called non-destructively. The airline is actually, you ever look at the airplane's skin? I advise all your listeners, before you get on a plane-

• 22:19Speaker 02

  Airplane's skin?

• 22:21Brian Keating?

  The airplane's skin is a tiny bit of aluminum, thinner than this meteorite. It's about, uh, a couple hundred mils, which is a couple hundred thousandths of an inch. That's all it is. If it was much thicker, it would be too heavy to fly. It's aluminum. Aluminum has, uh, properties that it will tolerate some amount of expansion and contraction. And, uh, but most of the plane is held together, you see the plane is held together. How do you think a plane's skin is held together? You ever look at the skin of a plane?

• 22:44Speaker 02

  I try not to think about that shit, Brian.

• 22:46Brian Keating?

  Okay, well, you should think about it.

• 22:47Speaker 02

  I get a little nervous.

• 22:48Brian Keating?

  That's why you don't come to me in California, you stay here in New Jersey.

• 22:51Speaker 02

  I'm completely powerless up there in the sky.

• 22:53Brian Keating?

  So you see these rivets. They're rivets, which are expansion joints that hold things together, like bolts or whatever. Those only have the following purpose. Their job is to hold the two surfaces of the airplane's wing together, while the glue, which is actually holding them together, is setting and bonding. So use a glue surface. I didn't know this before I worked at NASA. Um, NASA-

• 23:12Speaker 02

  I don't think I want to know this, but keep going.

• 23:15Brian Keating?

  So the plane's held together by glue. It looks like it's held together by rivets, but the rivets, again, just keep it in place. You ever build, like, you know, models when you're a kid, and you get the, you know, or rockets, SD's glue, or whatever? You have this glue, and that's what holds it together. Well, the glue can only survive so many expansions and contractions, too. Okay? So you're not going to come out to visit anymore.

• 23:33Speaker 02

  Um, yeah, I mean, when I lived in Italy, and we'd take the flight from, like, Rome to Sicily, I swear to God, there was fucking duct tape on the wings. This is sounding a lot like that. That was scary, like-

• 23:44Brian Keating?

  That's because they don't have NASA, right? Well, they do have NASA.

• 23:46Speaker 02

  They have an S.

• 23:47Brian Keating?

  They have an S. It's a spicy logo. They actually call the logo the meatball.

• 23:52Speaker 02

  All right, watch it.

• 23:54Brian Keating?

  So the, um, no, they do. They call it the meatball. So that's, again, so they have to have a way of inspecting it. But how do you inspect something that's glued together to make sure the glue hasn't broken apart? That's a physics problem. How do you inspect? Two surfaces are laminated together. They're held by bolts. You can look at the bolts, but they don't tell you what's really doing the tensile, the strength that's holding it together is the glue. So we invented this type of, of what's called non-destructive evaluation, NDE, that use thermal imaging, ultrasonic imaging. So you don't have to take it apart to see inside. It's like an X-ray for the plane, but you can't shoot up a giant X-ray machine on every single airplane surface. But you can scan it with a laser or with a thermal imaging sensor. And so we built simple devices like that back. So every, any person who gets on an airplane, including Bart, to get to, from wherever he

• 24:39Brian Keating?

  lives, to go see Joe Rogan, or to go see Danny in Florida, he had to get on a plane. He's trusting his life to the very organization he's trying to discredit. You see the hypocrisy.

• 24:48Speaker 02

  Oh, that's interesting.

• 24:49Brian Keating?

  And so for that reason amongst many, I don't think it is worth debating every single person who wants to criticize. Now, Terrence is doing something else. Terrence is saying that like mathematics and big physics and all sorts of things are trying to suppress his knowledge because it provides infinite energy and all sorts of other things. Well, we actually already have an infinite energy source. It's called the sun. It floats up every day above us. It doesn't charge money. It doesn't go on vacations. It doesn't quit or call in sick. And we could have effectively infinite Carteshev level two, whatever it is, energy sources for the whole planet if we had. And we have the means to do it. You know, China's making really cheap solar panels. We could buy them. So the thing that, and we get, we actually are a net exporter of oil here in America. So it's not like we need the Persian Gulf and we need, you know, Iran and we need all these other countries.

• 25:34Brian Keating?

  We actually produce more oil than we can sell and consume within America. So the, the, the claim that what's happening is that Terrence's ideas are being suppressed about his ideas about math, his ideas about physics and his ideas about energy and so forth, are being suppressed, I find to be completely without merit because there's no incentive to do that, nor is there any organization of professional physicists. The reason that people criticize NASA... This is because it's the closest to kind of a pristine reputational organization of scientists that there is. Candace Owens being completely unscientific and it shows when she uses things like wifi to say how bad science is and how bad the inventions out of NASA were that actually literally are giving her the mouthpiece that she has to speak ill about NASA. I mean, it's

• 26:19Brian Keating?

  it's on many different levels. It's probably like a badge of honor to be criticized by her lately. But um, but to say things like these, these things, it was impossible to get to the moon because you had to go through the Van Allen Belt. It's such preposterous nonsense. And yet, and yet, I did this reaction video to Bart Sibrel and people are like, oh Bart crushes you and Bart's nose. People want to believe that there's a vast conspiracy of, you know, a cabal of people manipulating and and this and and, you know, kind of oppressing them as a way to explain their own, you know, tawdry failures in their own lives.

• 26:51Speaker 02

  So there's, there's a few important things we should talk about here. Number one,

• 26:59Speaker 02

  when it comes to the fact that something like the moon itself is now being questioned as a conspiracy, it's a part of, and I understand this psychologically, it's a part of throwing the baby out with the bathwater phenomenon in society because you had quote unquote, experts, and I'm using that as the broadest term here, right? Really kind of fucked people over in the pandemic and and people realized that some of the very things that they were suppressed for saying ended up being true. Not everything, but a lot of things were. So now everyone that's an expert has a degree from insert university here and is in insert industry here is now no longer trustable. I think there's a lot of truth in the mindset

• 27:43Speaker 02

  of like even Joe Rogan. I don't know Joe Rogan. I've never talked with him, but you know, when he has that bit where he's like, before the pandemic, I would have told you that, you know, vaccines were the greatest thing ever invented, ba ba ba ba ba ba ba. After the pandemic, I'd tell you, I'd tell you, it's all fucked and we didn't go to the moon. I think there's some feeling there of legit reaction anger in his part. This is a guy who's made his career talking to all different types of people and felt like he was duped and then was attacked for being right on a lot of things too. So I get that. And so now it's opened up the door for people like Bart Sibrel to come in and make these claims. Now, if we're just, let's just start with the actual claim right there. First of all, my, even before I get to science, right?

• 28:23Speaker 02

  And some of like the equations you said your friend was making on the moon and proving exactly where it was and what the coloration was and how the light hit and everything, even before that. I'm like, think of every ally we have in the world, starting with Britain. There is not one country on earth that would have not wanted to disprove that we went to the moon when we did it, because it was like, you know, it was like a, it was like a talent show competition. So if we didn't do it, someone was going to come out and say that. That's number one. Number two, though, and this goes to where people like the Bart's and people who will back someone like a Bart, bring it up, where I'm like, there is an interesting question here. People say like, we've had enormous exponential technology growth over time.

• 29:06Speaker 02

  And yet the one thing that we seem to not have exponentially grown on is going to the moon, which we did in 1969. So as a scientist, how, how do you reckon with the fact that we haven't like prioritized really doing that and exploring that as far as we know?

• 29:20Brian Keating?

  Let me take you back really far. I've been to the South Pole, Antarctica, twice. It's an amazingly boring place. It makes New Jersey look like, no, no, it's, it's.

• 29:31Brian Keating?

  I'm just kidding. I can't tell. I can't tell. The, the South Pole is, imagine going out into the middle of the Atlantic. Go out like four or 500 miles. You can't see land. You can't see boats. You can't see anything. Freeze it, paint it white. That's what the South Pole looks like. It's just frozen snow. It's 9,000 feet of snow that have accumulated over millions of years of just snowflow. Every year, snow just comes down.

• 29:54Speaker 02

  But what, what about the Nazi bases?

• 29:56Brian Keating?

  Well, the pyramids.

• 29:57Speaker 02

  And the pyramids.

• 29:58Brian Keating?

  Exactly. Right. I know you're gonna clip that.

• 30:01Speaker 02

  You're covering up for all this stuff now, Ryan.

• 30:03Brian Keating?

  That's right. I'm covering up for Big, Big Pharaoh.

• 30:08Brian Keating?

  It was actually once a tropical paradise, that is for sure. So we went there, I've been there twice. And each time I go there, I kind of somewhat regret it. The first time you get there, it's like, ah, cool. This is great. Take a selfie. And then within a couple of hours, you're bored. And all you can do is work, which is the reason that we go there is because it's one of the best places on earth to do astronomy of the kind that we do, where it's dark half the year. Sun doesn't come above the horizon. From March 21st, it goes below the horizon, comes up September 21st. And because of that, and it's cold, high altitude nature, it's very good for looking at microwaves because water absorbs microwaves. This coffee can be heated up because it has water in it, in addition to the vodka and whiskey that Joe put into it.

• 30:48Speaker 02

  That's right.

• 30:49Brian Keating?

  It can be heated up because water vibrates at a certain frequency stimulated by microwaves, and that causes rotational energy, converts the energy into heat, thermal energy. And that's how, so, but the lesson is, water absorbs microwaves. So you'd like to be in space where there's no water. If you're looking for photons from the Big Bang that have traveled for 13.8 billion years to get to your telescope, right? You don't want to get absorbed in a water molecule. Here in New Jersey, or in San Diego even, if you go, if you took a glass, and you extended it to space, and you said, "How much water is in that glass on a very humid day, in a very humid place?" It would be almost this much water. It's about 10, 10 centimeters or so of water. It could be that high, okay? 100 millimeters of water.

• 31:27Speaker 00

  Hey Spotify listeners. When you travel with American Airlines, you'll enjoy comfort and convenience at every altitude. Before takeoff, unwind in the Admirals Club Lounge with curated self-serve offerings of hearty bites and refreshments. In flight, stay connected with high-speed Wi-Fi, sponsored by AT&T. Your journey is designed to feel easy from the moment you check in to the moment you arrive. No matter where you're going, American gets you there. Book now at aa.com.

• 31:52Brian Keating?

  In San Diego, which is a desert, it's called a coastal desert, on average, it's about 1 centimeter. So it's maybe 10 times less than it would be in the Amazon jungle, okay? So that's if you extend, and it doesn't matter how wide the glass is, you just extend it to space, it will always come up to this level. If you go to the South Pole, it's less than 1/3 of 1 millimeter, 300 microns of water, condensed water above the South Pole up into space. So it's almost like being in space. But even those, you know, and it's still trillions of molecules of water, don't get me wrong, but, and it's still not as, nowhere near as good as being in space, but it's still much, much better. That's why we go there.

• 32:27Speaker 02

  It's hard to think about that, though, because you're thinking about glaciers, you know, like-

• 32:32Brian Keating?

  There's no glaciers there, yeah, yeah. It's just pure ice. It's just pure snow. Yeah, it's like a snow desert. But it's so cold. Remember when you were a kid, when I was a kid, and I lived in Westchester and Long Island, it would, sometimes we'd listen to the AM radio, "Oh, you know, Dobbs Ferry School is closed because of snow days," right? Like nowadays, unfortunately, because of global warming, global climate change, definitely not a hoax, the, the amount of snow days you get is almost negligible here compared to when I was a kid. We used to get 10, you know, 10 feet of snow a year, easily around here. Now you don't get it so much. But that was the greatest sound on Earth, when you heard, like- Dobbs Ferry, you know, school is canceled. It was great. Um, the reason that you don't, uh, sometimes it wouldn't, it would be so cold and there would have been snow, but the snow actually condensed out of the atmosphere, uh, because it will cold air holds

• 33:17Brian Keating?

  less humidity and therefore less water and less precipitation possibility than does warm air, which is why the tropics and places like, uh, the jungle and Amazon, those are much more moist, uh, places, right? Um, so we go to the South Pole because it's dry. It's almost like going to space. Now, the reason that it was first discovered, you know, it wasn't discovered until 1911. December 1911.

• 33:37Speaker 02

  The South Pole wasn't?

• 33:38Brian Keating?

  Nobody reached the South Pole for all of humanity's history until 1911. And then two teams of people reached it within three weeks of each other. The, uh, Norwegian team led by this guy, Roald Amundsen, uh, who had tried to get to the north. This guy was a stud. He and his team tried to get to the North Pole first. They were beaten by some, uh, team whose name I can't remember. It's, it's interesting because he's more famous for reaching the South Pole. And the North Pole's not on a continent. There's no continent underneath the North Pole, but there is a continent underneath the South Pole, Antarctica. And he immediately turned around in the middle of, so this would have been the northern, um, this would have been the northern summer trying to, and he went and he tried to reach the South Pole and be the first person to reach the South Pole. He didn't know there was a British team, which was also trying to do it much more methodically. And they had already kind of reached Antarctica, but they were waiting their turn to get to

• 34:23Brian Keating?

  the South Pole for waiting through the winter, which is the northern hemisphere summer when he failed to be the first to the North Pole. Amundsen turns around epic guy.

• 34:32Speaker 02

  In the winter.

• 34:32Brian Keating?

  Got to the South Pole. He beats the British team by three weeks.

• 34:35Speaker 02

  Whoa.

• 34:36Brian Keating?

  Because he used this team of dogs. So what you're looking at on screen.

• 34:40Speaker 02

  They were probably big mad.

• 34:41Brian Keating?

  Is Amundsen's team. So this is the Amundsen's team, uh, picture, but this is taken by, I think this, uh, picture, it says below, uh, pictures, they arrive in December 1911. Uh, so that's, uh, Roald Amundsen and his team. So this is a selfie of them at the South Pole.

• 34:55Speaker 02

  A selfie?

• 34:56Brian Keating?

  This is a basic, yeah, it's just a picture taken by an old fashioned camera. Yeah, they had an Insta 360. It was amazing. No, um, I forgot how they did it. But see that, see how like, it's hard to tell in the picture, but the background's completely flat and white. So three weeks later, this British team who doesn't know this team is there.

• 35:11Speaker 02

  Careful with that word, flat.

• 35:12Brian Keating?

  What, flat? Careful with that word, flat. Flat Earth, yeah. When we're talking about poles. It looks flat, yeah, exactly. Uh, but, you know, it's true that they, the Flat Earth Society has, you know, members all around the globe. Uh huh. Um, so as the British team was coming up, you can see things for about ten miles away. They saw this flag sticking out of the ice, okay? They saw it about ten miles before they got there, it was almost half a day. So they realized, wow, we just got screwed. Imagine like, and this would be like, and I'm gonna make the analogy. Neil Armstrong stepping out of the eagle, you know, sipping on some Tang. And then all of a sudden, he lands and he looks down, it's a Soviet Union's flag that he crashed on, okay? Imagine that crushing disappointment. And all the more so, because not seen in the selfie picture there, was about ten sled dogs. And the reason they're not seen, they pulled them from the coast of Antarctica where they arrived by ship.

• 35:58Brian Keating?

  The reason is because they're inside their stomach right now. They ate the dogs. They ate the dogs, they ate the cats. No. The people that live, I swear. They're eating the dogs, they're eating the cats. They literally- They're eating everything. They literally ate their sled dogs. That's fucked up. And the British would not use it. So if you look up the British team, they didn't use sled dogs. British knew that they wouldn't, they couldn't bear to eat their own dogs. So they didn't even bring dogs, which made it things much worse for them. I respect that, yeah. Now they had to carry all the food and fuel for themselves. They were also picking up meteorites and stuff like that. There's their team, so that's their selfie. Three weeks later, see, that's January nineteen twelve. So it's only three weeks difference. So that would be like, the Russians landed on the moon three weeks after us. Now- God, look at their skin.

• 36:42Brian Keating?

  They're all roasted because it's so sunny down there, you get sunblinded and burned. And then all those guys died. They all died in March of, of, uh, nineteen twelve. Because they had took too long to get there. That three week difference was the difference between life and death. But why? Because the weather changes so fast at the South Pole as it approaches sunset, which is in the end of March, March twenty first. That they're, um, they got bitterly cold, incredibly windy. They ran out of food and fuel and they basically froze to death on the ice. Wow. Uh, they were about ten miles away. They had left, they had to leave these caches, you know, C A S C H E. Of, of, of food and fuel and stuff. And they were only a few miles away from their final cache that would have certainly caused them to survive. Uh, but they didn't. And then eventually, the next summer, their, their team was still stuck in Antarctica.

• 37:27Brian Keating?

  On the coast, a place called McMurdo, which is where we go, is from the US base that's there. And we, and they sent their team out in the next summer, like five or six months, you know, six months after they died, and collected their frozen bodies and brought them back to Britain.

• 37:40Speaker 02

  How do you even get to Antarctica? You take a ship?

• 37:43Brian Keating?

  Well, now, you can take a ship. I wouldn't do that. I get pretty badly seasick. You can take one, like Neil deGrasse Tyson, I just saw him after, he was, he was there over Christmas break. He took a ship from Chile, a place called Punta Sarenas, which is in the southern tip of Chile. And you sail there, but you're really going to like barely the Antarctic, you know, it's like, there's a big peninsula of Antarctica that sticks up north, a part of it goes north of the Antarctic Circle. So it's, in other words, it's lower, it's like 60 degrees south latitude instead of 66 degrees south latitude, which is where the sun never sets or rises beyond a certain point, just like the North Hemisphere has the same thing. So you can take a boat there. No, scientists, the only way you can get to the South Pole is if you're a scientist or support staff.

• 38:28Brian Keating?

  You do carpentry, plumbing, dentist, not dentistry, medical, you could be a doctor there. That's the only reason you can get to the South Pole.

• 38:35Speaker 02

  So you can't just go?

• 38:36Brian Keating?

  You can't be militarily, you can't, you can buy a ticket, and rich guys were doing that once when I was there from Forbes magazine. Some guy, there's a thing where you can land at 90, sorry, 89 degrees south latitude, so it's one degree, which is 60 nautical miles from the south geographic pole. And then they ski that 60 mile leg, it's called Ski the Last Degree. But they're not really allowed to spend much time in the station, or like sleep there or whatever, so they get picked up by a ski plane.

• 39:03Speaker 02

  That's, that sounds miserable.

• 39:04Brian Keating?

  Ah, so that's one of the, one of the worst ways you can get there. But nowadays, no, we go from Los Angeles to, to Christchurch, New Zealand, through Auckland, New Zealand. You fly commercially to each one of those places. And then in Christchurch, the US has a base, you know, that they share supplies with the New Zealand, the mighty New Zealand Air Force, whose logo is a kiwi bird, which is a flightless bird. You get on a C-130 cargo plane and you fly there, it takes 11 hours. The first time I went there, in 2005, we attempted it, we get, they go more than halfway to this, to the Antarctic coast from New Zealand. And that's to wait for the weather to turn around or if it's going to change, they don't want to have. And then they can't, they don't have enough fuel to make it back to Christchurch.

• 39:47Brian Keating?

  So they landed in Dunedin, which is the very most southern tip of New Zealand. Then they refuel and then come back. It's called a boomerang. When you fly all the way out, it took 13, 14 hours to go nowhere. I just came back, woke up 5:30 in the morning, came back 7 o'clock at night and that was, that was my day. And then the next day we made it to the coast. From there, you take another plane. This is one of the planes like the F-22 or the B-2 that the US Air Force does not allow to be exported. It's called an LC-130. So Joey can look up LC-130.

• 40:17Speaker 02

  Oh yeah, we've had guys talk about that.

• 40:19Brian Keating?

  It's a really cool plane. It's flown by New York Air National Guard and my homies up there in New York.

• 40:23Speaker 02

  Hey guys, if you haven't already subscribed, please hit that subscribe button. It's a huge, huge help. Thank you.

• 40:28Brian Keating?

  It's one of the few planes that's not exportable by law to any other country because it's too valuable strategically. So you get on that and it's, and it's operated by the National Science Foundation and the New York Air National Guard. And they operate six flights a day at the south, to the South Pole from the coast of McMurdo, which is where.

• 40:46Speaker 02

  Six flights a day?

• 40:47Brian Keating?

  Six flights a day, except for Sunday. Yeah. Well, oh, the other cool thing that they do, this plane has enough fuel for about 10 hours of flight time. It's only three hours to get to the South Pole. But the South Pole runs on JP-11, which is the type of jet fuel that these planes run on. They use the jet fuel, they pump it off the jet, off the turboprop. They pump it into a storage container and they use that to power the station. So they use a diesel generator. Diesel's basically like jet fuel. That's kerosene, very similar to it. That's how all the electricity is powered. So the plane flies up, let's say it's got three thirds, it's got 100% of its fuel. Takes off from McMurdo, flies to the South Pole. That took three hours of its, of its capacity. Then they pump off about two or three hours of its remaining capacity, leaving about four hours left maximum.

• 41:29Brian Keating?

  Then it flies back with three hours, lands with one hour. So what it's doing is it's using it as a basically one of the jerry cans. So these planes, that's why you need it so many times a day. Plus, there's a lot of people that come in and out during the summer. During the winter, no one flies. You can't fly because the fuel would freeze.

• 41:43Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 41:43Brian Keating?

  And the plane gets destroyed. It's a hundred million dollar aircraft. That's pretty rare. So they don't fly it. So you can't get in or out. There are people that have been rescued. You know, but only after a long period of time, it was a very dangerous operation. They had to hire commercial pilots. There was one time that happened in the past 50 years, but why did I bring this up, Julian? Are you worried about this tangent that I've been on for the last 10 minutes?

• 42:03Speaker 02

  I love your tangents because they got good stories to them. I gotta let you weave.

• 42:06Brian Keating?

  Yeah, so you asked me, well, isn't it kind of suspicious that the US didn't go back? Well, I have an example of why this is not unusual at all. The second team to get to the South Pole occurred in 1912. As I said, the British team led by Robert Falcon Scott. They all died. The next people to get there was in 1956. Something called the Antarctic Treaty. Now, before that, that was a continent. No one had ever been to that place on the entire continent. That was a huge thing. I mean, there weren't many things that were undiscovered on Earth and unexplored by human beings, even in 1912, 1911. It was like the last blank spot on the map, so to speak.

• 42:42Speaker 02

  But that's also, that's also that we know of.

• 42:47Brian Keating?

  What do you mean? There's like secret places?

• 42:49Speaker 02

  Sure.

• 42:50Brian Keating?

  I mean, there are places that have been climbed or some mountains.

• 42:52Speaker 02

  Yeah, like, but were there expeditions that were made there that, you know, just weren't talked about? It's not like we had cameras down there saying, oh, we got, got them on security feed.

• 43:00Brian Keating?

  There's still probably some place that no human being, I mean, I'm sure there's places you've been that, you know, very few of them maybe know people about. I mean, I felt like that when I was at the South Pole, you know, for sure. I was like, did anyone ever go to this exact square inch of the South? But is that really what matters? I mean, it's kind of sort of like, the South Pole is important because it's, it's geographically important to the Earth. There's only two poles on Earth and only one of them has a continent underneath it, right? So you can build a base there that won't melt away on iceberg the next year. But the reason I'm bringing it up, you have to take yourself back to that time. In 1911, 1912, it was as big a deal to get to the South Pole as it was 50 years later to get to the moon.

• 43:35Speaker 02

  Really?

• 43:36Brian Keating?

  Yes, it was a huge source of national pride. In fact, when they died, the guys that died, they knew they were going to die in freeze to death. They wrote it like, we did it for God, for, for, for England and for our families or something like, and he said, please, God, take care of our families. Like, his order was family, God, and England. That was what he was doing it for. It was national pride. It was a huge source of national pride. Think about all the things that we have in, like, why is New York so? Important to the whole world because it's a source of commerce, it's a source of of of transportation. It's an international city. It's it's a source of pride to the country, right? It's the biggest city on on on uh in in America, not not in the northern uh North America, but it's the biggest city in uh in America.

• 44:18Brian Keating?

  And so it's a capital, financial capital, population count. It's an incredibly important place. We take pride in it. That's why it's is controversial when you have a mayor who wants to do certain things and maybe take down the prestige of the city or whatever, the economic base. So that's people get upset about it. It's a source of pride for you, right? You don't want to see it go bad. Your team, your Philly, Philadelphia, Philly, the source of pride, like it's a city, it's something that you do, it's it's sort of nationalistic, it's built into human beings as a tribal species. Yes. Getting to the the moon was just like that. I mean, you you can sort of also uh glean that fact from the from the observation that there was only one other country that plausibly could have gotten there around the same time.

• 44:57Brian Keating?

  And that was the Soviets, right? The the former Soviet Union, they were the only ones that had the capability when they were uh kind of depleted economically at the end of the Cold War.

• 45:07Brian Keating?

  And just by virtue of being a communistic bloated country, on the verge of eventual collapse just 20 years later, I mean, they collapsed 20 years later. And that was on the downswing. They realized that part of what why the US wanted to go there is to bankrupt them, you know, it's basically forced their hand. They were so na- um and a lot of people think this was a legitimate conspiracy, you know, all conspiracies are wrong, like you and I can conspire to go go to dinner tonight, that doesn't mean that they're evil or whatever. Part of the uh US military's conspiracy was like, we can outspend them into bankruptcy by making it so important to their source of national pride and what communism and all these things mean, like SOEUs and Union. And it's like their national flag was the name of their first uh, you know, Sputnik and and so forth. Those are all the names of very important concepts in socialism and communism.

• 45:52Brian Keating?

  So for them, it was not only their country, but it was the whole notion, economic notion of communism and spreading that kind of doctrine worldwide and the hegemony of the communist society around the world.

• 46:03Speaker 02

  So force them to have to try to do that.

• 46:07Brian Keating?

  Our chess move, you know, like the worst thing that you can have in a battle, according to our mutual friend that you connect me, Andrew Bustamante, is to psychologically allow your enemy to force every single move that you do. Like right now in Iran, Israel is so far in their heads, they can't even use like the internet or email. They can't use anything electronic or communicate on paper like that. And Israel knows that. And so they know there's going to be a lag between when an order is given and when the order is not, you know, actually enacted upon. So they can now operate at any level that they want. They're actually controlling the enemy, even though they're not like forcing them with a gun to their head, to Ayatollah's head, they're still able to control exactly what they're doing, more or less. And that's why they didn't mount any kind of attack. They knew exactly what they were going to do in the attack on the Qatar base and stuff. Right?

• 46:51Speaker 00

  Hey, Spotify listeners. When you travel with American Airlines, you'll enjoy comfort and convenience at every altitude. Before takeoff, unwind in the Admiral's Club Lounge with curated self-serve offerings of hearty bites and refreshments. In flight, stay connected with high-speed Wi-Fi. Sponsored by AT&T. Your journey is designed to feel easy from the moment you check in to the moment you arrive. No matter where you're going, American gets you there. Book now at aa.com.

• 47:17Brian Keating?

  US was in the Soviets' head, just like that. And they had people operating in our government. They had spies that stole the nuclear technology for the A-bomb, for the hydrogen bomb. You know, they did both ways. I mean, it wasn't just like we were the only ones that aren't a spy. Obviously, we fought this 50-year-long Cold War with them, but eventually they collapsed, right? So part of this was the, the search for national grandeur. And back then, by the way, Norway wasn't like some country the way it is now and like part of NATO or whatever and just like a trade. They were kind of like a vassal of the Soviet Union in some ways and... And they had their own kind of designs on power in the Nordic, you know, countries over Sweden.

• 47:55Brian Keating?

  Sweden's also, you know, is a huge economic, it's actually bigger than Norway now, but, but back then it was kind of like one giant country and they, they had sort of aims on becoming an economic superpower themselves. And so to, for England, the world's only, you know, the biggest superpower, the master of commerce and trade and country that established, you know, the sun never sets on the British Empire, for them to lose, this is the first real battle that they lost. And it kind of, if you look back historically, it kind of marked the descendancy of their imperialistic, you know, kind of dominance over the planet, over commerce, which then affected the South Pole, losing the race to the South Pole. So this is a long-winded way of saying it's entirely plausible

• 48:36Brian Keating?

  that the, and actually it was easier for them to reach the South Pole than to reach, go to the moon. I mean, there were other countries involved that could have gotten, the US could have gotten to the South Pole. In fact, we flew over the South Pole, Admiral Byrd flew over the South Pole in a plane, you know, only a couple of dozen years after a plane was invented. You know, so we could have done it probably. So there are other countries, but the moon landing, only two countries could have done it. One was being economically crippled by the other one. And by its own policies and communism in general tends to do that. And because of that, they, it's entirely plausible to me that they didn't reach it. And the fact that they also had these lunar probes, remember I said my friend Tom Murphy shoots lasers or did shoot lasers to measure the distance to the moon, the precision of one millimeter in order to test theories of gravity.

• 49:20Brian Keating?

  See, Julian, there's a concept called dark matter. You've probably heard of it.

• 49:24Speaker 02

  Yes, we're gonna talk about that.

• 49:25Brian Keating?

  Yeah, we should talk about that. Dark matter is this mysterious substance, or perhaps, remember you always have to have an alternative explanation. You can't just go so deep into your explanation that it could only be UFOs, or it can only be quantum gravity, or it can only be a theory of everything, or it can only be dark matter. Right now, the leading candidate that explains why galaxies behave in the certain peculiar way that they behave. Is that there's a cloud of massive particles that don't interact with photons. And there's examples of those that we already know about that we detect called neutrinos. Neutrinos are massive, they have tiny, tiny masses, the lightest masses of the elementary particles, the 17 elementary particles. Three of them are neutrinos, they have masses below .1 electron volt,

• 50:10Brian Keating?

  where the electron is the most massive, the least massive particle whose mass we know. We don't know the exact mass of the neutrino yet. We hope to do that with the Simons Observatory and other projects. We can talk about how we're gonna do that. But it's not like this chunk of meteorite that you get at my website. Because this meteorite is dark in space. If there's no sun or light around it, it appears dark. And it affects gravitationally the trajectory of other objects around it, via Newton's laws of gravitation, right? It has mass and it can affect things gravitationally. Well, dark matter is just like this, except you can't see it. It should really be called invisible matter. Because it's massive, but it's transparent. You really can't see it, you can't see through it, you can't detect it, you can't do anything with it. It's not like this, it just doesn't glow in its own accord.

• 50:54Brian Keating?

  So that's dark matter, what we call dark matter. But there's an alternative explanation for dark matter. Which is that, no, no, no, there's no such thing as dark matter. Because a lot of people believe it's nonsense because we haven't seen it. And we're claiming that it makes up 85% of the mass of the universe in the form of matter. And you idiot physicists are claiming that this exists. And there are legitimate physicists who say, no. What actually is happening is that at incredibly large scales, the scale of a galaxy, that gravity actually has to be deviated from the way that Newton taught us that things behave as inverse square. It's actually a little bit different from an inverse square law. Or that F doesn't equal ma. So the force on an object normally equals its mass. This crystal, magic crystal that we still need to talk about,

• 51:39Brian Keating?

  has some mass, maybe 100 grams. And it's in an earth's gravitational field. It will accelerate 9.8 meters per second every second. No, they say no. Actually, at very low accelerations, far below 9.8 meters per second squared, we're talking like fractions of a billionth of a meter per second squared. Because these things operate on such large scales that if the gravitational force were much stronger than that, the modification were stronger than that, they would be going faster than the speed of light given the age of the universe. So these have to be very low accelerations. But we can't test low accelerations on Earth. Because the mass of gra-- the Earth is too big, even though it's weak, gravity is weak, it still is too big to see this microscopic trillionth of the gravitational force field on Earth. But they

• 52:21Brian Keating?

  say, no, if you modify Newton's laws, not Einstein, forget about Einstein, you modify Isaac Newton's laws, you can actually account for dark matter without any new particle. You get the behavior of these galaxies and clusters of galaxies that astronomers have reported for the last hundred years. So, that's an alternative. Now, that's partially why colleagues are shooting lasers at the moon. Because they want to test, not on Earth, because the Earth's gravity is too strong, and not on the moon, because the moon's gravity is too strong, but in the spacetime between the Earth and the moon, and look for small deviations between the Newtonian behavior and this proposed modified Newtonian dynamics called MAND. It's sort of, it may have some relevance to what Claudia de Ramme talked about here, with the gravity has a mass.

• 53:04Speaker 02

  That blew my mind.

• 53:05Brian Keating?

  It is. It's actually much more plausible, in fact, that gravity is modified on intergalactic distances than that gravity has a mass.

• 53:14Speaker 02

  Can you say that in English?

• 53:16Brian Keating?

  Okay. So, Claudia's claiming is that on the entirety of the entire cosmos, gravity may not propagate at the speed of light. Gravity may propagate slower, because it's not actually caused by masses, particles called gravitons. It's a modified version of that, that propagates, because anything that has mass cannot travel at the speed of light. Therefore, in her mind, these grav-- claudions, or whatever the particles are in her, in her model, they travel slightly slower than the speed of light. It's harder to test that, because you essentially need the entirety of the cosmos to test that. Whereas with dark matter, the claim is it's in, it's in this room right now. Like, the gravity, the dark matter, yeah, it's in the room with you right now. It's calling from you.

• 53:55Speaker 02

  It's here.

• 53:56Brian Keating?

  It's calling from your living room.

• 53:57Speaker 02

  Where did it touch you?

• 53:58Brian Keating?

  Exactly. Right.

• 53:59Speaker 02

  Put it to the spot on the titty bed.

• 54:00Brian Keating?

  Where did the dark matter hurt you? So because of all these features, it's actually easier to falsify, which is a good thing, the dark matter hypothesis. That said, we haven't falsified it yet. But these people are shooting lasers at the moon. Again, I'm trying to come back to why do we believe the moon landing happened? Not only do the, you know, does, is it true that, that people are testing the precision with thinner than this to accuracy, better than the thickness of this meteorite, they're actually testing it for reasons to prove this prevailing model wrong. In other words, there are also kind of conspiracy theories. They want to prove that, no, gravity is not what Newton said it is. It has to be modified from what Newton said it was. It's a good thing. But to do that, they're actually accidentally proving that the moon landing happened. As is the, the fact, you made a psychological kind of

• 54:43Brian Keating?

  appeal or sociological appeal. You said, isn't it weird that no one went back in 50 years? Okay. Well, here's an example. So from society where we, the exact same thing happened. Immense amounts of resources were expended. Lives were lost. People, you know, economies were diverted to doing this whole project.

• 54:58Speaker 02

  Wait, lives were lost? Oh, oh, yeah.

• 54:59Brian Keating?

  Yeah, and the moon too. We lost, you know, a lot of astronauts died. Right? Not, you know, not, not too many thankfully, but, but, and then all these things were, were made. And even things they don't dispute, like, again, they're using telecommunications. We have satellites. We have things that are on the moon that were placed there. They won't dispute that. So this is a long-winded way of saying that the more different directions you have to explore a scientific claim, the harder it is to falsify it. And, but that's a good thing. You should ask people to, so when they say the moon landing didn't happen, the only things that they'll usually point to are the, oh, Van Allen belts are too toxic to human being, which again, is using the principles of science and physics and physiology.

• 55:40Brian Keating?

  They're using like basic notions of it to try to refute the scientific endeavor itself, which claims beyond a reasonable doubt that the moon landing did occur. I find that very disingenuous.

• 55:49Speaker 02

  And, you know, it's also one of those things, like, I know. In America, we have our problems and, you know, we've done things in the past that that aren't great for sure. But there's so much great that I'm so proud to live in this country for. And I think something like getting to the fucking moon is incredible. So when it becomes like mainstream to be like, yeah, that shit never happened. I'm almost like, you know, can we take this anger like out on the CIA or something? It's like, you know, more deserves it more.

• 56:17Brian Keating?

  And it's always the same people, the anti Semites, the people that, so no one says like, you don't hear Candace Owens saying, oh, actually Charles Lindbergh, who's a rabid anti Semite. Uh, we actually removed his name from the San Diego airport. It used to be called Lindbergh Field. It's not called, it's called San Diego Airport. Uh, because of his support for Nazi, you know, propaganda, at least himself, he wasn't like going around killing Jews. Um, but no one ever said, like, I don't see Candace saying, well, like, there's much less proof that he made it all the way across the Atlantic. Actually, that's much less probable that that he made it across the land Atlantic with no other help.

• 56:47Speaker 02

  It's what gets clicks though, too. That's, that's, that's very, that's unfortunate. Now, I want to go back to though, your point of of you personally weighing like, well, can I bring on someone like a Bart Sabra or something like that? Obviously I haven't invited on Bart Sabra. I'm, I'm gonna be honest, I'm not that interested in it. I've seen his other podcasts before, but like, I wouldn't say like, he's not allowed on my show or something like that. Like if one day I wanted to do it, I'd be like, okay, I'll do it. The difference between you and me, and this is where I see it from your perspective, is I'm not a physicist. I'm a fucking podcaster. I sit in an armchair that doesn't even have fucking arms on it, you know what I mean? And so when I get these perspectives, it's kind of my job and a part of my being as someone who's not the expert on one set thing. Sure. To get all the different perspectives and talk about it.

• 57:32Brian Keating?

  An enormous platform. You're a million subscribers, strong, just on YouTube. I mean, think of how many other million might be listening to it, might be seeing it, might be seeing clips, um, all sorts of things. You've probably, you know, at some level influenced, you know, a fraction of the earth's surface that's not insignificant. Okay. So you have a much bigger, you know, people that listen to my podcast, very different demographic than listen to your podcast.

• 57:53Speaker 02

  Yep.

• 57:53Brian Keating?

  But.

• 57:54Speaker 02

  I I see what you're saying, but if I get all the perspectives covered and I make it clear that like, hey, I know less about this thing, or maybe I know more about that thing right there.

• 58:03Brian Keating?

  Right, that's just asking questions.

• 58:05Speaker 02

  Sure.

• 58:06Brian Keating?

  But I, look, I don't have a problem. You can invite whoever you want. I can invite whoever I want. It's not been a problem. I mean, I have people that have problems with this, people that I've had on who are legitimate PhDs in in science, right? So, um, no, I'm not saying you shouldn't have them on. I'm not even saying like I would punch a guy in the face if I saw him like Buzz Aldrin did. I just think his motives are questionable, Bart, speaking of Bart in particular.

• 58:29Speaker 02

  That could be fair.

• 58:29Brian Keating?

  I think Terrence legitimately believes that he is being suppressed. I believe that he's been traumatized psychologically by Hollywood, by certain contractual things. I know he's had, he's involved in various lawsuits and so forth. I don't think he does his self a favor when he criticized, challenges people like this guy, Professor Dave. You know, he challenges, he wants to have a duel with him.

• 58:50Speaker 02

  He wants to have a duel.

• 58:51Brian Keating?

  That's what, that's what Dave said on his podcast.

• 58:53Speaker 02

  Like a legal duel under Texas law kind of thing?

• 58:55Brian Keating?

  No, like a gun duel, like a battle of knives.

• 58:57Speaker 02

  Yeah, yeah, that's like a legal duel.

• 58:58Brian Keating?

  Legal, okay, I didn't know.

• 58:59Speaker 02

  I'm pretty sure it's legal in Texas.

• 59:00Brian Keating?

  Yeah.

• 59:01Speaker 02

  Right? They'd be doing that Aaron Burr shit down there.

• 59:03Brian Keating?

  Yeah, Dave did a video about that.

• 59:04Speaker 02

  You should do that in Brooklyn, Joe. See how that works out.

• 59:07Brian Keating?

  So, you know, I, I, I consider Terrence not to be a friend, but, uh, but we've communicated. He's friendly. Let me say we're friendly.

• 59:15Speaker 02

  He seems like a really good guy.

• 59:16Brian Keating?

  And, and again, I think he's, he's, I love him as an actor. I think he's done incredible work. And I think he's a genuinely creative individual. And so for that reason, the only reason I say, well, you know, I, you know, should I have him on my podcast or should I be versus Bart Sibrel or whatever? It's just like, there's only so much time in the day. As you said, I'm a professor of physics. I've got, uh, you know, 30 undergraduates. I've got four graduate students. I have to mentor them, postdocs. I have to shepherd their career. I spend a day a week on the podcast. Um, for me, it has to be a pleasure. Like if I'm not enjoying what I'm doing, I'm not going to do it. I'm not doing it to sell books.

• 59:53Speaker 02

  You wouldn't enjoy it if you could talk with someone in a fair way, not to do gotcha shit, but to sit down and have a discussion. In that discussion, be able to get across points that are going to maybe win over people who previously would have thought something that you view as objectively wrong.

• 1:00:10Brian Keating?

  Do you think Bart is capable of being won over? Like, do you think any amount of evidence that-

• 1:00:14Speaker 02

  No, not him.

• 1:00:15Brian Keating?

  Okay, so fine. So you agree, so we're not debating him.

• 1:00:18Speaker 02

  No, debating the people that could be listening.

• 1:00:20Brian Keating?

  And then like Terrence, for example, Terrence was on Joe Rogan with Eric Weinstein.

• 1:00:24Speaker 02

  That was a very good episode.

• 1:00:25Brian Keating?

  It was a very good episode. Millions of people saw it. And then afterwards, Terrence went on Patrick Bet-David and talked about Eric and how he was, you know, concerned and thought Eric, you know, did some disrespectful things to him. And in fact, it didn't seem like Terrence was all that happy with that, with that interview with, on Joe Rogan. He felt like Eric was, you know, not giving him what he called a peer review. And Eric said, "It's not going to be a peer review. I'm not his peer, or he's not my peer." And I think, you know, Terrence maybe considered that to be, you know, offensive, or I don't want to speak for either one of the guys, but, but the point being, what's the upside? Like, is it going to be enjoyable to like debate one times one equals two? Which I did. So, so here's my alternatives. I did reaction videos about Bart.

• 1:01:07Brian Keating?

  I demonstrated how completely fallacious all of his points are one by one. Maybe I, it was about a year ago. If I had to do it over again, maybe I wouldn't be so, you know, snide or condescending or just snarky about it. And I've, I've improved how I do that. Like I did a reaction video to this other guy, Eric Lerner, who claims the Big Bang didn't happen, or this channel Astrium, who's like promoting Stephen Hawking in a way that's illegitimate. So I moderated that, or when I did-

• 1:01:31Speaker 02

  You're leaving a lot on the bone here. Keep going.

• 1:01:34Brian Keating?

  Yeah. So then, yeah, I did a reaction to Terrence Howard. I went through, why is, why are we 100% sure that one times one equals two? All these different things. Here's the, here's the bottom line. You can't, you can't prove anything in science. Science is not about proving something. I can't prove to you that this thing has a mass of, you know, 13 grams or whatever it does, right? I can't prove to you it's, it's going to go down exactly at the very- Because science is not about proof in the way that people use the word proof. People use the word proof in one of two different ways. Mathematical proof, which is certainty, which by the way, Terrence Howard doesn't believe in, right? So he's saying that one times one equals two, which means he violates all the laws of arithmetic, basic laws of rational and irrational numbers. And I went through that on my show, The Piano Axioms.

• 1:02:17Brian Keating?

  There's laws of mathematics that go through it. It's complicated to show that one plus one equals two, and that one times one equals one. It takes hundreds of pages of abstruse math, but you can do it. You can prove what math can prove. There's a certain set of laws that can't be proven. That's Gödel's incompleteness theorem. I'm not far from here in Princeton, New Jersey. Gödel's grave. You can go visit it. One of the greatest.

• 1:02:38Speaker 02

  We'll do that right after.

• 1:02:39Brian Keating?

  What's that? Yeah, maybe we'll do it, you know, before lunch. And so you can prove what's not provable, but in science, you can't prove anything. The job of a scientist is not to prove, it's to falsify.

• 1:02:49Speaker 02

  Yes.

• 1:02:49Brian Keating?

  It's to prove things wrong. It's to prove that your claims are incorrect. It's, but again, I could say this, this meteorite weighs exactly 13.0 grams and I'm wrong. But if I say it's less than 100,000 grams, I'm right. That's, that's inaccurate. Sorry. That's accurate, but it's imprecise. Remember what I said before? Accuracy is how close. It's true, it's less than, but who cares? It's not precise. I want to say it's less than 14.007, whatever. But so the point is you can't prove a physical fact about anything. Therefore, you can't convince someone whose only standard is that I prove something to you. Because it's not possible. And even for people like Terrence, it's not possible to convince him using laws that are provable, the laws of logic, axiomatic set theory. I can't prove it to him because he won't accept it.

• 1:03:31Brian Keating?

  I could say to him, look, the studio promised you, if you do another episode of Empire, they'll pay you twice as much as you got last time. And he says, okay, well, two is one plus one. So now it's going to be two times two, which is going to equal to four. And so now you're going to actually pay. No, they would say this is total nonsense. Like, we're not going to pay you, you know, $4 million. We said we're going to pay you $1 million for you one to any, he'll use terms like an action times an action reaction is.

• 1:03:52Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 1:03:53Brian Keating?

  That, that, none of that is mathematical. So therefore.

• 1:03:55Speaker 02

  Cause he's an artist.

• 1:03:56Brian Keating?

  I don't know if it's because he's an artist, to be honest with you.

• 1:03:58Speaker 02

  I, I, I think there's a big piece of that because like when he.

• 1:04:02Brian Keating?

  My brother's an artist. He believes one times one is one.

• 1:04:04Speaker 02

  But hold on. When he, I'm talking about how his brain ways work. Because one thing I will say about Terrence Howard and listening to him, he's not dumb.

• 1:04:11Brian Keating?

  Oh, no.

• 1:04:11Speaker 02

  He's a very smart guy. It's just like.

• 1:04:14Brian Keating?

  He's one of the top people I'd like to just, you know, just spend some time talking about acting with.

• 1:04:17Speaker 02

  That doesn't mean that he's right, obviously, which is what we're getting at. But the way he was thinking about that, where he's like, when does an action with another action not have a bigger action? It's like, in theory, that's right.

• 1:04:31Brian Keating?

  There's no common lexicon. Like if, there's this famous, you know, notion, it's precursor to the Turing test. You've heard of Turing test.

• 1:04:36Speaker 02

  Of course.

• 1:04:37Brian Keating?

  Something is artificially generally intelligent. Right? There's another one called like a Chinese room, where you're basically, you and I are in two different rooms. We both speak English, but the guy between us is Chinese. And and he's translating for us from me into English into Chinese, back to English for you, or something like that. He doesn't actually have to know anything about what I'm talking about. I'm talking about dark matter. I'm talking about the moon landing, some guy named Carl, you know, called Kurt Godel and Candace. I mean, can you imagine that transcript? Like how wild, just like pick some peasant, you know, some uneducated person who knows the language, who can speak, he's, he's, he's not illiterate, or she, or whatever, in China, put him in the middle, put her in the middle, and they're just translating back and forth. They don't know what the hell we're talking about. They don't have to know what we're talking about. But there's a law, and you can encode everything mathematically,

• 1:05:20Brian Keating?

  and see if it makes sense, you know, in terms of logical consistency. You can't do that with certain things. You can't, again, you can't, you have to have inputs from the external physical world that you and I have to agree upon, right? If we agreed to meet at a certain time and place, and your definition of time is, is something from like, the Navar, Choctaw Indians had a different notion of time than, than say, Western, you know, colonizers had, or whatever, right? So, okay, so when you say we're gonna meet at a certain time, like, that didn't make sense. It doesn't mean that they're late or not, but you have to give the external inputs. Then we can agree on something. That's calibration. I can't, you know, see the actual benefit. Yes, I'll get a lot of views, but judging from you two, I mean, first of all, that's not a huge goal of somebody in life, right?

• 1:06:03Brian Keating?

  Getting views about science. That's something I'm proud of, right? And I'm very proud of interviewing, like I said, 21 Nobel Prize winners, top people like Claudia de Rame, and, you know, other friends and people that you and I know together. And I'm putting together sort of a university of people that I wish I had gone to. Now, there's a, there's a subset of that university which should do critical thinking. And I agree, sometimes you can have an exceptionally important and impactful conversation about the importance of critical thinking.

• 1:06:28Speaker 02

  Yes.

• 1:06:29Brian Keating?

  But how much of my time do I want to spend on that?

• 1:06:31Speaker 02

  I, I see where you're coming from, but...

• 1:06:37Speaker 00

  Hey Spotify listeners. When you travel with American Airlines, you'll enjoy comfort and convenience at every altitude. Before takeoff, unwind in the Admirals Club Lounge with curated self-serve offerings of hearty bites and refreshments. In-flight, stay connected with high-speed Wi-Fi. Sponsored by AT&T. Your journey is designed to feel easy from the moment you check in to the moment you arrive. No matter where you're going, American gets you there. Book now at aa.com.

• 1:07:03Speaker 02

  I think that as someone who is very smart like yourself, legitimately lifetime in the space like yourself as a physicist, someone who is as connected across the physics community as anyone I've ever come across, the value of, and you're a good guy too, you're fun to talk with, like the value of sitting down and having the conversation, I don't envy the fact that you have to think about your physics community as well in the sense that you're like, "Well, how will insert X physicist right here think of me having Y person on the show?" I don't think you should have to think like that. I think that bringing on, like let's stay with Bart Sibrel as an example,

• 1:07:48Speaker 02

  bringing him on, bringing on Bart Sibrel doesn't mean that Brian Keating is defined by Bart Sibrel. It means that Brian Keating is bringing on a guy who has a different perspective that he not only completely disagrees with, but also thinks he can scientifically prove.

• 1:08:00Brian Keating?

  And I have had a lot of people like that.

• 1:08:01Speaker 02

  And so that's what I'm saying, like you shouldn't, in my opinion, you shouldn't have to think like that. If you want to talk with someone whose ideas you think are bad, do it. And like if that means that like this physicist isn't going to come on your show in the future, then fuck them. You know what, like what are we doing here?

• 1:08:20Brian Keating?

  I guess you have to, it's a matter of degree. If you want to talk about, well, how much time, because again, I could spend my whole life debating, debunking, and our channels that do that and channels that do it better than I do it.

• 1:08:30Speaker 02

  Yes, they do a lot of it.

• 1:08:31Brian Keating?

  Exactly. But there's, you know, there's a limited amount of time, attention that I can devote to this while still teaching, you know, hundreds of undergraduates and graduate students and post-docs and do scientific research. And the issue is that it also... Always comes down to this fundamental thing, which Terrence accused me of, which I think is legitimate. I think he's absolutely right. I am a gatekeeper at some level, and I think we need gatekeepers, right?

• 1:08:55Speaker 02

  You think we need them?

• 1:08:56Brian Keating?

  I think, well, let me give you an example. I have a gate around my pool at home because I have young kids and they have friends that come over that can't swim. Is that a bad thing? Should I not have a gate around my pool?

• 1:09:05Speaker 02

  I don't think it's a parallel example.

• 1:09:07Brian Keating?

  Well, let me give you other examples. So we have things called peer review in science. So scientific peer review is incredibly analogous to gatekeeping. It is 100% analogous to gatekeeping. And now people will say, well, there are certain things that, you know, shouldn't go through, and there are certain people, you know, that should be allowed to get platformed, and they can't do this. It's like these campus protests, okay? So you get these campus protests, people come up and screaming about Israel is being genocide at their graduation. What are they doing? They're physically using the platform that they did not create. It's like if I came on here and I said, "Into the Impossible, Dr. Brian K..." That's all I did. Just came on here, like, "Would you air that episode?" If all I did is, and talk about your competitors, or talk about people that are in the same space as you,

• 1:09:49Brian Keating?

  "Wow, you're not that good," and like, "Oh, you suck, and you do this, and you believe that Israel's not competing in genocide." Whatever he said, okay? At some level, you'd say, "Look, this doesn't serve me. This person's using me, using my platform, to influence people in my audience to hear things that they want to hear." Now, they could be legitimate, but they didn't go out and create their own platform. They didn't go out and create Columbia University, did they? They're using the name Columbia University for the prestige to amplify some cause that they have that they believe in with great passion. Now, I don't think that's legitimate. I don't think if you invite someone to your show and they use it as a platform to only speak ill about you and to speak positively about themselves and to amplify their own credibility, I don't think it actually works. I think it turns more people off.

• 1:10:31Brian Keating?

  So, peer review, gatekeeping, legal safety, actual gates.

• 1:10:36Speaker 02

  Do you see where that goes too far, though?

• 1:10:38Brian Keating?

  So here's where it went too far. In 2020, the COVID pandemic and the lab leak suppression of voices against lab leak hypothesis, people had said it was racist to say it came from China. I said it was better to say that they eat pangolins, bats, and other shit than to say that it actually escaped from the lab inside of Wuhan, where there was no trail of things from the wet market, but there was 100% captivity of what was called, you know, what was called, what do they call the actual platform that they were trying to, they were modifying this to the fur and cleavage site. They're doing all this stuff for, you know, for basically enhancing the functionality of this possibly virus, you know, engineered virus, 100% engineered

• 1:11:23Brian Keating?

  virus that have been modified from some naturally occurring virus. Okay. There were people that spoke up about that. They were suppressed. Okay. They were kept out of journals. Their names were smeared. They were taken out of their university fundraising. They were put on probation. One of them is now the director of the National Institute of Health. He's actually one of my closest friends, and his name is Jay Bhattacharya. He was on my show during COVID, when he was still, when it was 2020, 2021, rather, when he had been called a, you know, this fraudulently fringe epidemiologist by Francis Collins, director of the NIH, and Tony Fauci, none other than our friend Tony Fauci, a great Italian American. Actually, I met a guy who went to the Italian, the high school that Tony Fauci spoke at. His name is Steve Fuller. Anyway, the point being.

• 1:12:09Brian Keating?

  We don't claim Fauci. That's right.

• 1:12:13Brian Keating?

  That's right. Italian Americans. Exactly. So, so, yeah, so can it go too far? Yes. Can it not? Can it also be an important thing for replication? You said before, science is about doing, like confronting, you know, this or that. I actually don't agree with that. I meant to kind of pause it at that point, maybe hit the WTF button.

• 1:12:39Speaker 02

  That's a new one. I haven't heard that one before.

• 1:12:41Brian Keating?

  So, there is no such thing as science. Okay, so, science is just a Latin word that means knowledge. Okay, so, anything could be nile, anything could be science, anything could be knowledge, right? Um, it doesn't mean wisdom, by the way, that's sapiens, sapienza, so, Italians had some great, great ones that we, you know, use. That's what we call homo sapiens. We're wise, we're not knowledgeable things. I mean, chimpanzees know a lot more about finding termites, you know, in a, in an anthill than I do, or in a termite mound. Um, so, they have knowledge, do they have wisdom? I don't know. Homo sapien, the man who is wise. What is he wise about? What is he not knowledgeable about? He knows that we're gonna die. Humans are the only animals that are born, know, very soon after birth, we can't walk as fast as a horse can, or we don't have claw, claws and talons like an eagle, but, we know we're gonna die. No other

• 1:13:23Brian Keating?

  animals do. Maybe, ten minutes before they die, they might know something's up, but it's very different. That's what, that's what we're not knowledge of, and in fact, that's what it says in Genesis. What are you gonna be knowledgeable if you eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil? You're, it's called the tree of life. It means that you know you're gonna die, and actually, in the Talmudic interpretation of it.

• 1:13:41Speaker 02

  I never thought about that.

• 1:13:42Brian Keating?

  That's where it comes from.

• 1:13:43Speaker 02

  Animals not knowing if they're gonna die or not.

• 1:13:46Brian Keating?

  There's only a few different animals who exhibit behavior collectively. Elephants are one, where like, some elephant's about to die, and they circle around each other, and they have some ritual, and they do seem to exhibit mourning, but it's not like, you knew you were gonna die at age seven. I'm not that you're gonna die at age seven, but you knew at seven years old.

• 1:14:02Speaker 02

  Right.

• 1:14:02Brian Keating?

  I have a seven-year-old kid. They know they're gonna die someday, they have an abstract notion of what it's like. Now, it's, let me tell you something, as you get older, it's very grave, no pun intended, on your mind that you're gonna die, because you only have so much time on the earth. Right now, it feels infinite. What are you, in thirties, something like that? I'm in my fifties, right? So, when I start thinking about like, do I wanna have Bart Sibrel, you know, do I wanna spend like, by the way, having him on means the following. He comes to my studio, he looks at my laboratory, we have a crew, we do, it's a day, okay? It's a day of my life dedicated to him. Or, do I wanna spend time with my seven-year-old? Or, do I wanna spend time with you? Or, do I wanna do it remotely? Or, do I wanna go on Danny's show, or Joe Rogan's show, or?

• 1:14:39Speaker 02

  Then why talk about him? Why talk about him? Why make videos on him if you don't wanna talk with him? That would be the rebuttal there.

• 1:14:45Brian Keating?

  I think you can also do what he's doing, which is what I'm doing now. So he went on a podcast to talk about the reasons we didn't go to the moon. Now I'm on a podcast talking about the proof that we did go to within the domains and restrictions of the word proof.

• 1:14:56Speaker 02

  And you don't think it'd be positive and like, and something you'd feel good about afterwards?

• 1:15:00Brian Keating?

  I've seen no evidence.

• 1:15:01Speaker 02

  Especially given the preponderance of the evidence you have to talk with him.

• 1:15:04Brian Keating?

  Have I shown you evidence that I've changed my mind on things scientifically? Did I not write, I mean, you said to Claudia, that was one of the impressive things that you liked about it.

• 1:15:10Speaker 02

  Exactly, exactly, yeah, yeah.

• 1:15:11Brian Keating?

  So that's a mark of a scientist.

• 1:15:12Speaker 02

  Yes.

• 1:15:13Brian Keating?

  Someone who's willing to do that. Now, he's not a scientist. Candace Owens is not a scientist. Um, Terrence Howard is not a scientist. No training, formal training, no education in that way, self-taught or whatever. Uh, but when you see people that are, um, that have done things also that are malicious, the way he treated Buzz Aldrin or was with Buzz Aldrin. Um, the aspersions that he cast upon, uh, these other astronauts that he claimed, you know, that confessed things to him and then later on sued him. I mean, Bart's, okay, so let's leave Bart out of it. I think Bart's an exceptionally kind of difficult persona. Uh, one that's easily refuted remotely.

• 1:15:51Brian Keating?

  There's no like need, there's, there's no facts that are going to change about the Apollo, uh, moon landing, laser ranging, finding instrument that I put, uh, that I told you about. The lunar seismology project, the fact that our enemies, the Soviet Union had an exact same, uh, plan called lunachad, which means, um, uh, Mars walker. They did the exact same, they want to measure the distance to the moon too, to prove their, they had a gravity.

• 1:16:13Speaker 02

  Keep that mic here, by the way.

• 1:16:14Brian Keating?

  They had a gravity and atomic program rivaling on, they were the only country rival, right? They built the exact same thing. Guess what? We saw their, what their landers had, had, had put there, but they used the ones that the Apollo astronauts put there with actual photographs of it. And so you can go online and find pictures of the Apollo 11 moon landing site with footprints and the astronauts with the flag and, you can see it from our enemies. So what does that tell you? Is that this elaborate hoax as, as, as he's suggesting? Would it be not more difficult? Which would have been harder to go to the moon when we already had gone, I mean, he doesn't dispute that we were in the Gemini program. The Gemini program is a precursor to the Apollo landing. When they showed that Gemini meant twins, you could dock together a spacecraft in space in orbit and in the high earth orbit surrounding the earth and then bring the astronauts back.

• 1:16:59Brian Keating?

  Cause they had it land on the moon, bring the lander back up to the, uh, command module, then docked, then, then that, um, the, uh, landing module back on earth was totally different. Right? So they had this very complex, but a Gemini, he doesn't dispute that. Okay, we have like photographs and he doesn't dispute the astronauts left the earth. He doesn't, so where were they, where were they? So, and then you have to convince our enemy at the time that we, to also, on our behalf, it would be like Iran is gonna say like, actually, or Hamas, let me say it like this, Hamas coming out and saying, Israel's not committing genocide, like, that would be pretty hard to do, right?

• 1:17:33Speaker 02

  That'd be hard.

• 1:17:34Brian Keating?

  Wouldn't it be easier to create peace almost between Israeli, I mean, it's hard to do that too, between Israel and Hamas, like, that could happen, right? Trump could make it happen, right? Could be Abraham, I mean, do you think the Abraham Accords were possible 20 years ago? I didn't think that would be, that would be possible. Or do you think Iran could fall in 12 days in a war that, you know, like, nobody thought they, thought they were the most powerful military in the Middle East, 92 million people. They fell in a couple hours when a couple of B-2 bombers flew overhead, right? They're now back to the negotiating table, right? Can you imagine convincing, like, it's almost harder to get them to the negotiating table without the B-2s than, in other words, people say, oh, the B-2s were a hoax. Like, we didn't actually do it, we never dropped a bomb on them, the 4-0 is a mistake, that's just a little tiny blip on that, right? All these things point to the fact that-

• 1:18:19Speaker 02

  I wish they were a hoax.

• 1:18:20Brian Keating?

  Right, it's almost harder to make up the hoax. It would've cost more money to make up the hoax, so. A person like that is not scientific. Bart is not a scientist, he's not gonna listen to evidence, all these things are rash, he knows, I'm sure he knows them.

• 1:18:32Speaker 02

  I don't think he will, I don't think he'll listen to evidence.

• 1:18:33Brian Keating?

  So then, what is the point for, what's the upside?

• 1:18:36Speaker 02

  Because there's, there's a lot of people, there are a lot of people right now, who, again, baby out with the bathwater, and I get it, are just pissed at the entire expert class, so they are going with anything. It doesn't have to be the moon landing, it can be anything, and there's some things I'll see, I'm like, ah, they might have a point there, and there's other things, I'm like, what? What are we doing? And I think that part of the problem is the over gatekeeping. Now, I wanna go back to that point you were making. I see what you're saying, where you're like- You have to have some level of a standard. I don't disagree with that. The problem is the gatekeeping in the past 10 years in society got to such an insane level.

• 1:19:21Brian Keating?

  Sure.

• 1:19:21Speaker 02

  That it was shutting out people like Jay Bhattacharya.

• 1:19:23Brian Keating?

  Right.

• 1:19:24Speaker 02

  And stuff like that.

• 1:19:24Brian Keating?

  Which is why I had him on my show.

• 1:19:25Speaker 02

  That's right.

• 1:19:26Brian Keating?

  But he's also a legitimate scientist.

• 1:19:28Speaker 02

  Yes.

• 1:19:28Brian Keating?

  And he also believes in peer review, by the way.

• 1:19:30Speaker 02

  That's true.

• 1:19:30Brian Keating?

  He also believes in replication. He believes in double-blind studies. He believes in vaccines. He believes in a lot of things that even the more fringe people in the RFK camp, maybe, would take issue with, which is a reason that I actually have some more confidence in RFK, right? He's allowing to be, you know, into the kind of national health discussion. People, he wouldn't have been, he wouldn't, Jay wouldn't have been promoted to NAIH chair if RFK, you know, basically nixed it, right? So I give RFK some credit for that. I think he's asinine about certain other things scientifically. And I'd have him on, I'd have him on a second. I know that would make people mad. I have people from my funding agencies say, why do you have on, you know, why did you go on Rogan?

• 1:20:06Speaker 02

  Your funding agencies?

• 1:20:06Brian Keating?

  I have funding agencies like National and National Science Foundation, other things, that were upset when I went on Joe Rogan.

• 1:20:13Speaker 02

  They were upset you went on Joe Rogan?

• 1:20:14Brian Keating?

  They were upset.

• 1:20:15Speaker 02

  Where every fucking great physicist in the world has been on that show.

• 1:20:18Brian Keating?

  I don't think every great physicist.

• 1:20:19Speaker 02

  A lot of them. Not, not, not everyone.

• 1:20:21Brian Keating?

  There's been a couple of great physicists, but he's on, you know, a great number of people that are out there and completely unscientific. And I think their perspective was, look, you know, there's, that's a person who's platformed people that are anti-vax, that are, believe autism is caused by vaccines and things that are demonstrably false, that even people like Jay don't believe. Jay Bhattacharya is not, does not believe that the measles vaccine causes autism. I mean, he doesn't believe that. I don't know if RFK believes that or not. I don't know. I know that he's had these vaccines himself. I know that my kids have had vaccines, right? But, but let me get back to this point about things like the conversation and gatekeeping. So I start, every two or three hours, I get an email, Professor Keating, I've got this

• 1:21:02Brian Keating?

  great idea, and then I, you can insert them like, "Theory of Everything, A Substructure of the neutrino, New Math Proof, Alien Visitation." To me, I've experienced alien visitation.

• 1:21:16Speaker 02

  I get a lot of those.

• 1:21:17Brian Keating?

  Get all these different, and pick your theory, okay? Pick your fringe out there scientific theory. I can't get it published. I tried this archive, which is a public, you know, domain, but it's actually moderated, so it's almost impossible for non-academic, not, non, people that don't have .edu email addresses, which if you have one, you're guaranteed to win one of these meteorites. Go to BrianKeating.com. Slash edu because I love to support young academicians. I'm actually having a new book come out about, you know, how to succeed as a graduate student, as a scientist, as a scientist in training that's coming out in September.

• 1:21:49Speaker 02

  Don't talk to Bart Sabra.

• 1:21:51Brian Keating?

  No, it's nine Nobel Prize winners. Instead of talking to Bart, I talked to nine Nobel Prize winners instead. And he transcribed and annotated everything that they had to advise me and my listeners about. But, um, but so I started doing the following thing. Uh, you have this infinite energy supply. You have this way that revolutionizes physics. They always say, I'm not good with math. But if you help me, we can split the Nobel Prize. I'll keep the money. You keep the, whatever. So I said, okay, great. Great. This is what I'm going to do. Every month, one hour a month, the last Friday of the month typically, I will have an office hour. Okay. And if you want to come in, I'll talk to anybody and no judgment. You can tell me about the flat earth. You can tell me about one times one equals two. You can tell me that there's a

• 1:22:33Brian Keating?

  substructure to the quark. You can tell me all these different things, whatever you want to do. We can talk about string theory is bogus. Here's why. Um, you can talk about your favorite theory, but here's the catch. I'm going to charge you for it because my, I can get paid as a consultant to speak at, you know, not to speak, but to influence, you know, patents and so forth. I can get a thousand dollars an hour for consultation.

• 1:22:51Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 1:22:52Brian Keating?

  And so I say, um, I, but I don't even say I'm going to charge you necessarily a thousand dollars unless you want to, if you want a private conversation with a physicist for one hour, I will charge you a thousand dollars and I donate, but that has to go to charity. Okay. So I say, you have to donate to a charity of my choice, which is usually

• 1:23:06Speaker 02

  That's cool.

• 1:23:07Brian Keating?

  There's a food ban. It's terrible. At UCSD, we have people that are food insecure. In other words, students that can't afford to pay tuition and to pay, um, for food. So that's called the Triton Food Pantry. Look it up. Um, I'm a big supporter of them. So I say donate a thousand dollars to Triton Food Pantry. I don't get a penny of it. Um, or you can join for an hour, uh, if you can't come to the, you know, if you, that's too much for you. Fine. Um, uh, you can join my Patreon and so forth. You pay 1999 a month, uh, for membership on my YouTube channel and then you have an hour with me.

• 1:23:39Speaker 02

  And you gotta lock them in for a year.

• 1:23:41Brian Keating?

  You gotta lock them in. Well, I don't do it. I just say, you just do it for once.

• 1:23:44Speaker 02

  Okay. Lock them in for a year.

• 1:23:45Brian Keating?

  So we'll talk about merch later on, Julie. Okay. So, um, you know, how many people take me up on that with, remember this is world changing. Four.

• 1:23:53Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 1:23:53Brian Keating?

  Yeah, I had four people on last time. Um, and I make it totally accessible. I don't record. I don't, you know, unless they want me to record. I recorded one of them once, uh, because people have these ideas about, you know, the universe is a plasma or the big bang never happened. That's another big one that people want to talk to me about. I'm wrong about the big bang my whole life. Career is a waste of time. Um, so people won't put their money where their mouth is. Remember capitalism always wins. Despite what Zohan wants us to believe, the mayor, Zohan, has for shalom, we say. Um, so, so the point being, if we have a very low threshold, but you were so convinced of your rectitude and you just needed to have five minutes of, of, of someone's idea, someone's time, you think that they'd be willing to do it. But these are people that like, they, they really want to just get this under their belt that they talk to this physicist.

• 1:24:37Brian Keating?

  Like I had people, I put a heart on a comment they made on some video. And then they'll find my email at briankeating.com, which is not hard to find. And they'll write me and they'll be like, you know, you hearted a comment. Now can you take a look at my theory of everything?

• 1:24:51Speaker 02

  Oh, God.

• 1:24:51Brian Keating?

  I'm like, uh, okay, I don't think you understand, but if you want me to, here, sure. Yeah, I'll see you on next Friday. Just pay 1999 a month. They won't do it. You want a private audience? Thousand bucks to food pantry at UCSD. They don't do it. So I don't think these are fundamentally serious people, nor do I think they're capable of changing their mind. I've never had one. I get this a lot lately too. I've put my theory into Grok or ChatGPT and it came out. Uh, no objections given whatsoever. It's like, that's like one, it's like asking your mother. Like, did I do a good job on the podcast, mommy? You know, like, uh, no, it's not gonna-

• 1:25:23Speaker 02

  Well, my mom would be like, no.

• 1:25:26Brian Keating?

  He screwed up.

• 1:25:27Speaker 02

  My mom would be like, you did this wrong, you did that wrong.

• 1:25:31Speaker 01

  If you enjoyed this part one of my special conversation with Julian Dorey, I know you're gonna love part two, but until that's ready, enjoy my brutal takedown of Bart Sibrel's complete nonsense about denying the moon landing. Click here and don't forget to like, comment and subscribe to my channel and to Julian's as well.

• 1:25:51Speaker 04

  Now at Kroger, your points add up to more ways to save every trip. Use them your way to take dollars off groceries at checkout or save at the pump. You can even save up to $35 on your next fill-up. Same points, more choices. And with low prices on fresh, quality food, plus digital and personalized offers tailored to how you shop, your dollar goes further. Redeem your points online or in the app. Kroger: Fresh for Everyone. Restrictions apply. See site or store for details.

• 1:26:21Speaker 05

  You're listening to a quick ad. You know what else is quick? Selling your car on Carvana. Just put in your vehicle information and we'll give you an offer. Done. No hassle, no negotiation, no guy from an online listing lowballing you. Which means, by the time I'm done explaining this, you could have basically done it.

• 1:26:45Speaker 05

  Still haven't started? Hey, better late than ever. Sell your car today on Carvana. Pickup fees may apply.