Comments by "AM" (@AM-rd9pu) on "How We Faked The Moon Landing With Bart Sibrel | Candace Ep 124" video.

  1. Your skepticism is correct. Sibrel is a proven liar.
    7
  2. Sibrel deliberately omits that context because he’s a grifter and a liar. Owens’ research was likely so poor that he had no idea.
    7
  3. No, Sibrel is not credible. He’s a demonstrable liar and Owens did zero work vetting his claims. The Van Allen Belts were discovered in 1958 and largely mapped by the end of the 50s. The Ranger and Surveyor programs also helped gain a better understanding of the radiation environment before sending people. James Van Allen himself said the radiation belts weren’t a barrier to human space travel. People like Sibrel lie and overstate the danger of the Van Allen belts to instill personal incredulity.
    7
  4. To those who think Aldrin punching Sibrel means Sibrel was right, here’s more context for the situation. Sibrel lied to Aldrin to arrange an in person meeting under false pretenses. Sibrel was already known for harassing astronauts. Sibrel proceeds to harass Aldrin. Aldrin tries to walk away from the confrontation but Sibrel follows and continues to harass Aldrin. Sibrel ultimately backs Aldrin up against a wall, gets in his face, and calls him a liar, a coward, and a thief. Only then does Aldrin punch Sibrel. Does that not seem like Aldrin was provoked and at least was partially acting in self defense? Imagine if someone harassed a veteran who had served in multiple combat deployments and got in their face and called them a liar, a coward, and a thief. Do you not think that person may react in a similar way to Aldrin?
    7
  5. Sibrel is a grifter and proven liar. You fell for his narrative. He preys people’s personal incredulity and antiestablishment bias. His claims have been thoroughly debunked.
    6
  6. You love that she platformed a grifter and proven liar?
    6
  7. Could you not be bothered to look up that the camera was mounted to the outside of the lander?
    6
  8. There were 6 moon landings. And a multimillionaire wouldn’t be able to finance a trip to the moon. It costs billions per mission. Also, not going back (after 6 landings) is a terrible argument against the moon landings. Since we no longer have supersonic passenger jets, does that mean the Concorde never existed?
    6
  9. Sibrel is the one lying to you here. The evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened.
    6
  10. If you always wondered, why didn’t you try to look it up? Ed Fendell at mission control was remotely operating the TV camera on the lunar roving vehicle. He made predetermined inputs based on a timer to account for the delay. The video was broadcasted back to earth via radio signal.
    6
  11. ⁠ @kaone3151  Why would Sibrel lie? Because he’s a grifter and makes a living by preying on people’s antiestablishment biases. There are answers for your questions about the G forces and radiation. The maximum G force was about 6. A trained person can withstand that. The radiation wasn’t enough to be acutely dangerous. And are you suggesting that the pictures from lunar satellites from multiple countries are fake?
    6
  12. To the human eye, the earth viewed from the moon looks bigger than the moon viewed from earth. Camera lens focal length and zoom will be make objects appear to be different sizes.
    6
  13. You’re probably better off taking a break from her content considering she fell for and platformed an obvious grift in this video.
    6
  14. You’re thanking her for platforming a grifter and proven liar?
    6
  15. She platformed a grifter and proven liar. That doesn’t sound like good journalism to me.
    6
  16. Correction: He lies that the moon landings didn’t happen. He is not a flat earther.
    6
  17. I suggest you do some research into the Apollo program (not just blindly listening to people like Sibrel). There were 6 more Apollo missions after Apollo 11, with 5 landing on the moon.
    6
  18. There’s nothing sensational about that and it doesn’t pander to an antiestablishment bias so I doubt Owens is interested in that.
    6
  19. The moon landings can be verified independently of the government.
    6
  20. Sibrel is a grifter and proven liar. Anyone able to do some basic research can see that.
    6
  21. The evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened.
    5
  22. Bringing on a grifter was great? Sibrel is lying to you and you’re applauding it.
    5
  23. This isn’t a bombshell. Sibrel has been on this grift for two decades now and Bill Kaysing was on the same grift before that. Sibrel is a proven liar.
    5
  24. I like how the supposed out take is actually just from a TV broadcast. That’s how gullible he thinks his audience is.
    5
  25. Sibrel is not the person to be learning from. He’s a grifter and debatable liar. The evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened.
    5
  26. You’re appreciative of a grifter who is actively lying to you?
    5
  27. Candace Owens is not the person you should be asking. She’s demonstrated that she is highly susceptible to conspiracy theories peddled by the likes of Bart Sibrel. He is a demonstrable liar and his claims fall apart under even light scrutiny but she fell for his narrative hook, line, and sinker. Astronauts are aboard the ISS literally right now and that space station has been continuously inhabited for over 2 decades.
    5
  28. No he didn’t.
    5
  29. Have you considered the possibility that the moon landings actually happened and the note is an effort to help prevent people from falling for misinformation?
    5
  30. The facts clearly show that the moon landings happened. The narratives preaching moon landing denial aren’t factual. They’re appeals to incredulity and antiestablishment biases.
    5
  31. Based on your numerous claims, I have deduced that you have done no actual research. In 1961, the US launched Ham, a chimpanzee, into space and he returned safely. In 1968, Russia’s Zond 5 mission sent animals, including two tortoises, around the moon and back. They returned safely. Also, you’re ignoring the fact that people have been going to space since 1961. Space stations have existed since the early 70s and the ISS has been continuously inhabited for over two decades.
    5
  32. He did try to sue and the case got thrown out because he was the instigator. Also, what about the three astronauts who did swear on Sibrel’s Bible that they walked on the moon?
    5
  33. Sensationalism and pandering to an antiestablishment bias drive clicks. That’s exactly why she platforms grifters like Sibrel.
    5
  34. The evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened.
    5
  35. Arranging an in person meeting under false pretenses and continuously harassing Aldrin as he tried to walk away also contributed.
    5
  36. Let’s see your structural and thermal analysis then. Oh wait, you didn’t do that. You drew a conclusion from personal incredulity. Don’t you find it odd that actual scientists and engineers don’t take issue with the lunar module? Or do you think you know better than all of them?
    5
  37. The evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened.
    5
  38. Sibrel’s grift has been thoroughly debunked. Trump also isn’t a moon landing denier.
    5
  39. This is a terrible video where Owens falls for a grift and platforms it. Sibrel is a demonstrable liar. Neither are onto the truth here.
    5
  40.  @willpower613  Such as what? And a time that Aldrin was likely concerned for his and his family’s safety was when Sibrel was following and harassing him before backing him up against a wall and getting in his face.
    5
  41. All evidence clearly shows otherwise.
    5
  42. You can get a ham radio and bounce a signal off the moon for yourself. That proves both that it is a solid object and that it is 240,000 miles away.
    5
  43. Sibrel is a grifter and proven liar.
    5
  44. She platformed a grifter and proven liar.
    5
  45. There were 6 moon landings. Then the government decided they dint want to continue paying the extraordinary expense to keep sending people to the moon. That’s why we stopped going.
    5
  46. She platformed a grifter and proven liar.
    5
  47. The first sci-fi film was made in 1902.
    5
  48. I’m glad you realize that Sibrel is a liar, but the evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened.
    5
  49. Platforming a grifter and proven liar isn’t role model behavior.
    5
  50. Multiple lunar satellites from multiple countries have taken pictures of the hardware left behind at the Apollo landing sites. Look up LRO, Chandrayaan-2, Danuri, and SELENE.
    4
  51. The government decided they didn’t want to pay for it anymore after 6 landings. That’s all there is to it. The evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened.
    4
  52.  @GilbertS-p1t  The moon landings verifiably happened. Owens fell for and then platformed Sibrel’s grift.
    4
  53. She platformed a grifter and proven liar. The moon landings happened and the evidence makes this clear.
    4
  54. Wow, Sibrel told a whole lot of lies! That’s what you’re saying wow at right?
    4
  55. Were the families of the radio operators at Honeysuckle Creek in Australia also threatened?
    4
  56. That’s patently false. It’s trivially easy to prove that the earth isn’t flat. People figured that out over two millennia ago.
    4
  57. ⁠ @randalthor6872  The surface temperature of the moon wasn’t hundreds of degrees below zero during the Apollo landings. Apollo 11 occurred during what was effectively morning. The surface had likely been in direct sunlight for days at that point. Radiative heat transfer was the primary mechanism for temperature change. Heat transfer is not instantaneous. The camera wouldn’t suddenly drop hundreds of degrees just from being in a shadow. Objects will slowly gain heat while in the sun and slowly lose heat while in the shade.
    4
  58. Congratulations. You just saw first hand that Sibrel is a grifter and nothing more.
    4
  59. This has nothing to do with supporting the government. It has to do with the fact that a concerning number of people are in flagrant denial of reality.
    4
  60. ⁠ @stevem5383  Yes. There is literally no evidence to suggest that anything was faked.
    4
  61. ⁠​⁠ @WinkyFromNorthChicago74  It’s not name calling when it’s accurate. Remember how I said “demonstrable”? That means I can prove it. And this is just another variant of the “I’m right because you said I’m wrong” argument you tried earlier. It’s just as absurd. Even if I did call Sibrel names, no amount of name calling changes the substance of my or his arguments. Why do you want to be lied to by this guy? Sibrel’s claims fall apart under the slightest scrutiny. Calling them irrefutable is hilarious because this guy has been debunked countless times over the two decades or so he’s been at this grift.
    4
  62. Lunar satellites from multiple countries have already taken pictures of the Apollo landing sites. The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, Chandrayaan-2, and Danuri are three of such satellites.
    4
  63. And yes, it would have been blatantly obvious to anyone tracking the mission if the spacecraft never left low earth orbit.
    4
  64. Slight correction: it was Aldrin that Sibrel was harassing.
    4
  65. Conversely, if you listened to Sibrel and found his arguments convincing, you need to look at your own ability to analyze evidence. Sibrel is a demonstrable liar and his claims fall apart under the slightest scrutiny. He gets people to fall for his grift by appealing to antiestablishment biases and personal incredulity.
    4
  66. ⁠​⁠ @strawberryindex  Remember how I said, “He gets people to fall for his grift by appealing to antiestablishment biases and personal incredulity”? You perfectly demonstrated my point. You provided zero evidence and resorted to the “government bad” narrative and also exposed yourself as a science denier. Science is an empirical methodology. It’s the reason we have every single bit of modern technology. The ironic thing about your comment is the projection. The way you described people reacting to being told the moon landings were faked is exactly how moon landing deniers react to being shown the evidence that the moon landings are real and that they were lied to by their internet gurus (like Sibrel).
    4
  67. She fell for an easily debunkable grift from a proven conman and liar. She’s clearly not that smart.
    4
  68. Their N1 rocket kept blowing up every time they tried to launch it. They kept trying until November of 1972, just before the US was about to perform its 6th moon landing. The Russian program was hemorrhaging money and had been thoroughly beaten to the moon. It was only then that they gave up.
    4
  69. It goes to show how deceptive Sibrel is that he doesn’t include the context of lying to meet under false pretenses and then proceeding to harass Aldrin.
    4
  70. The truth is that the moon landings happened. Sibrel’s a liar.
    4
  71. Sibrel lied to Aldrin to arrange an in person meeting under false pretenses. He then proceeded to harass Aldrin and ultimately cornered him. Was it not reasonable to act in self defense? As for the press conference, performing an armchair psychoanalysis on a few second segment of an hour plus long conference means nothing. Did you know that this press conference happened right after the astronauts got out of a three week long quarantine?
    4
  72. Sibrel is a grifter and proven liar. He makes money by peddling a narrative that seems believable to people who are largely ignorant on the moon landings. He preys on personal incredulity and antiestablishment biases.
    4
  73. Sibrel doesn’t like to talk about Apollo 12-17 because it’s harder to lie about them. And multiple countries have sent satellites and autonomous landers to the moon but none claim or have even attempted to send people.
    4
  74. James Van Allen begged to differ. Can you please cite your sources that show humans would receive a lethal dose of radiation from traveling though the Van Allen belts?
    4
  75. @PaleRider-j7i Many people harbor antiestablishment biases and want to blindly reject anything government affiliated while thinking they’re smart for it. Grifters like Sibrel prey off their ignorance and biases and feed them the confirmation bias they’re looking for.
    4
  76. Sibrel likes to hide the fact that he lied to Aldrin to arrange an in person meeting under false pretenses then proceeded to harass him. There was literally nothing about that meeting that was in good faith.
    4
  77. Because that side of the earth was facing the moon when the astronauts landed.
    4
  78. She platformed a grifter and a liar. But even he doesn’t think the earth is flat. The people telling you that the earth is flat are the ones that are lying to you.
    4
  79. Sibrel is a grifter and proven liar. His claims have been thoroughly debunked.
    4
  80. Weird how James Van Allen explicitly said the Van Allen belts weren’t a barrier to human space travel. Also, do you really think only 15 people would have needed to pull off such a fake?
    4
  81. The money went to paying the salaries of over 400,000 people working on the program and to building hardware. And multiple countries have independently verified the moon landings.
    4
  82. Evolution objectively exists and has been directly observed.
    4
  83. The evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened. And if you automatically assume notes and warnings actually mean the opposite is true, then you have very unhealthy levels of paranoia.
    4
  84. No he didn’t. Here’s the quote. Former President Bill Clinton in his 2004 autobiography, My Life, states: "Just a month before, Apollo 11 astronauts Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong had left their colleague, Michael Collins, aboard spaceship Columbia and walked on the moon...The old carpenter asked me if I really believed it happened. I said sure, I saw it on television. He disagreed; he said that he didn't believe it for a minute, that 'them television fellers' could make things look real that weren't. Back then, I thought he was a crank. During my eight years in Washington, I saw some things on TV that made me wonder if he wasn't ahead of his time." He’s effectively saying don’t just blindly trust the tv.
    4
  85.  @dw3164  Wikipedia actually has pretty good moderation. Sure, anyone could go and mess with a page but it usually doesn’t stay that way for long.
    4
  86. Certain people (e.g. conspiracy theory grifters like Sibrel) do in fact have a stupendous track record of lying.
    4
  87.  @ThePlantageNot  Try refuting something they said.
    4
  88. If you’ve been convinced by people like Sibrel, then you clearly didn’t have an open mind. You fell for a grifter who preys on personal incredulity and antiestablishment biases. The actual evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened.
    4
  89. Owens platformed a grifter and proven liar. It takes only a tiny amount of research to realize that Sibrel is lying.
    4
  90. Yes
    4
  91. You fell for Sibrel’s lies. It takes only a small amount of scrutiny for his claims to entirely fall apart. There are mountains of evidence showing that the moon landings happened.
    4
  92. The scam here is the narrative Sibrel is peddling. He’s a demonstrable liar and he preys on personal incredulity and antiestablishment biases.
    4
  93. You’re mixing up your conspiracy theories and frankly, it’s an insult to the people who lost their lives.
    4
  94. The flag moved because the astronauts made it move. You know that there was a horizontal crossbar to hold the flag out right?
    4
  95. It doesn’t take much research to find the extensively documented technological progression from Mercury to Gemini to Apollo.
    4
  96. The evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened.
    4
  97. People have landed on the moon and probes have gone to other planets. Sibrel is lying.
    4
  98. What evidence led you to that conclusion? What technology was lacking by the end of the 60s? Sibrel’s arguments have already been debunked.
    4
  99. You’re entirely dismissing people’s ability to evaluate evidence for themselves. I don’t need the government to tell me that the earth isn’t flat or that the moon landings happened. I can verify that for myself.
    4
  100. There are numerous examples going both ways, so your “rule” doesn’t hold true. You’re looking for an arbitrary qualifier as confirmation bias. But in general, it’s the side of the pseudoscientific grifters (flat earthers, moon landings deniers, “alternate” historians) who are most likely to threaten others.
    4
  101. A crossbar held the flag out and it waved because the astronauts moved it. Do you really think scientific experts wouldn’t have noticed an issue that glaring after half a century?
    4
  102. There were 6 moon landings. Then the government decided they don’t want to keep paying the extraordinary cost to continue sending people to the moon.
    4
  103. There are countless videos from space. Could you not be bothered to look this up first?
    4
  104.  cinereus3601  The missions were tracked via radio signals in multiple countries. They all would have to had to have been in on it.
    4
  105. You can see the space station rather easily. There are plenty of trackers online that will tell you exactly when and where to look. The flag on the moon on the other hand is much, much, much harder to see. Unsurprisingly, seeing a football field sized, reflective object from 250 miles away is a lot easier than seeing a flag that’s a couple feet across from 240,000 miles away. But, lunar satellites have seen the flags at the landing sites.
    4
  106. No, this was entirely worthless because Sibrel is a grifter and demonstrable liar.
    4
  107. It was great that she platformed a grifter and a liar?
    4
  108. Why are you thanking her for platforming a grifter and proven liar and spreading mis/ disinformation? I hope your family has the ability so see through Sibrel’s lies and calls you out for falling for a conspiracy theory.
    4
  109. Sibrel likes to avoid all the evidence that shows he’s a liar.
    4
  110. Sibrel is a grifter and proven liar. Why are you thanking him for lying to you?
    4
  111.  @BigVin6588  Do you have any idea what kind of calculations needed to be performed or what level of computing power was necessary? Also bringing up nuclear technology is silly because we figured out how to split the atom in 1932 and just a decade later, the first nuclear reactor was made. Nuclear technology predates spaceflight.
    4
  112. Nixon called Houston and the call was patched to radio signal. It’s the same technology as call in radio. Fortunately, there is nothing between the earth and moon to stop a radio signal. Radio signals were first bounced off the moon in the 1940s. It also helps when you use large antennas.
    4
  113. The “we can’t rescue astronauts” narrative is entirely fabricated. One new spacecraft had an issue and it was decided that the astronauts not take it back out of an abundance of caution. The spacecraft returned autonomously and it ended up being fine. The astronauts were safely aboard the ISS so there was no need to have them come back immediately. The plan to have them return around now was formed immediately after it was decided they wouldn’t come back on Starliner. It has simply been a matter of scheduling. A new spacecraft had to arrive with two empty seats and the astronauts had to wait until the end of the mission that was already planned to take that craft back. Also, a largely experimental rocket blowing up doesn’t mean we are incapable. While starship has blown up multiple times, SpaceX is averaging over two launches per week. The Falcon 9 has launched over 450 times with only 3 failures. Don’t let personal incredulity and cherry-picked headlines sway your views.
    4
  114. Sibrel is a grifter and a proven liar. He preys on people’s personal incredulity. The technological build up leading to the moon landings is extensively documented. They had the necessary technology.
    4
  115. You’re effectively invoking the “I’m right because you said I’m wrong” argument. Whether or not the moon landings is an objective matter, not a matter of opinion. People like Bart Sibrel are dishonest grifters and deliberately mislead people for their own personal gain. Some people lack the ability to effectively evaluate the evidence for themselves and end up falling for grifters who appeal to personal incredulity and antiestablishment biases. Some of us are here to combat the lies being told by Sibrel.
    4
  116. False fact checking? Would you like to provide evidence to refute the legitimacy of the over 800 pounds of samples brought back by the Apollo missions?
    4
  117.  @gives_bad_advice  The fact that Sibrel’s first reaction was to look at the camera and ask if they captured it shows that he was just looking for content.
    4
  118. I find it unlikely that Sibrel would agree to that. He doesn’t even allow comments in his YouTube videos. He’s not going to want to have someone who can actually push back on his claims.
    4
  119. It’s blatantly obvious that Owens did no legitimate research and completely fell for a grift. Bart Sibrel is a demonstrable liar. To put it bluntly, you fell for lies. Grifters like Bart Sibrel appeal to personal incredulity and antiestablishment biases. The reality of the situation is that the evidence clearly shows that Sibrel is lying and that the moon landings happened.
    4
  120. “Looks fishy to me” is not valid evidence against the moon landings. They stopped going because they had been there, done that, and the government didn’t want to pay for it anymore.
    4
  121. The moon is about 240,000 miles away. The signal delay is approximately 1.3 seconds each way.
    4
  122.  @molly4539  Glad you realized he’s a hack. As @paulbeardsley said, most grifters are smooth talkers. That’s how they get people to fall for the lies they peddle.
    4
  123. They used the same technology as call in radio.
    4
  124. They employed many of the best minds in science and engineering during the Apollo program. Those are the worst people to have involved if you’re hoping no one catches on. Don’t you find it weird that no scientific expert has come forward to denounce the moon landings? It’s as if they all know the moon landings can be verified.
    4
  125. Many were combat and test pilots. Regardless of your moon landing denial, they weren’t cowards.
    4
  126. Sibrel’s claims fall apart under the slightest bit of scrutiny. I really hope you don’t fall for his lies.
    4
  127. Sibrel is a grifter and proven liar. His arguments have been thoroughly debunked. Don’t listen to what he has to say about the moon landings.
    4
  128. There’s nothing in space to block a radio signal. It also helps when you use a giant antenna. There are a lot of things to block your internet or WiFi signal, especially when the antennas are tiny in comparison. The first radio signal moon bounce was performed in 1954 and ham radio operators can perform moon bounces.
    4
  129. Have you considered the possibility that the moon landings did happen and that Sibrel is just lying?
    4
  130. A camera was mounted to the outside of the lander. That why the lander takes up a large portion of the frame. Regardless of the fact that you could have easily googled this, could you not have figured that out just from watching the broadcast of Armstrong’s first steps on the moon?
    4
  131. ⁠​⁠ @ValentinKostadinov  His main point doesn’t hold its own. His central claim is that the Apollo missions never left low earth orbit. This is debunked by radio tracking. If the spacecraft was in low earth orbit, and ground stations had their antennas pointed towards the moon, they’d get a signal coming in and out on a roughly 90 minute cycle. Instead, multiple ground stations on different parts of the world all pointed their antennas towards the moon and received a continuous signal. The Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station in Australia was the primary station, but simultaneously, the Bochum Observatory in Germany picked up the same signal. Additionally, the German station only picked up the transmissions from the astronauts and not capcom, indicating that two way communications were going on. The spacecraft could not have been in low earth orbit. It would have been blatantly obvious to every tracking station. I’m an aerospace engineer and have studied the Apollo missions and spaceflight in general great deal. The evidence makes it abundantly clear that the moon landings happened. Again, Sibrel is a grifter and a proven liar who preys on his audience. This was just one debunk of his claims and there are plenty more.
    3
  132. ⁠​⁠​⁠ @ValentinKostadinov  The point was to explain how Sibrel’s core claim is patently false. There is further evidence to show that people actually landed with the Apollo missions. I can discuss that if you’d like. Also, plenty of people do deny the fact that unmanned satellites and probes have been sent to the moon.
    3
  133. How was America being fleeced? The money spent went to a litany of American contractors and paid the salaries of American people. Taxpayer money went into the economy and into the pockets of Americans working on the program.
    3
  134. ⁠ @KGTheProducer94  I hold a healthy distrust of the government like most people do. Why did you assume I was blindly believing the government? The moon landings can and have been verified independently of the government.
    3
  135.  @KGTheProducer94  It was largely dust, rocks, and craters. There is plenty of documentation on what the astronauts saw and did on the moon. And life elsewhere probably likely, but not on the moon.
    3
  136. The government does lie. Everyone knows that. The thing is that the moon landings can be verified independently of the government.
    3
  137. You’re parroting a lie. Nothing was lost.
    3
  138.  @stoneysauce  Sibrel’s arguments have been thoroughly debunked. He’s a grifter and proven liar.
    3
  139. That money went to paying 400,000 regular people and to building real hardware. The moon landings objectively happened. Sibrel is lying.
    3
  140. You’re thanking a grifter? Sibrel is a proven liar but I’m sure he appreciates your support.
    3
  141. You’re not on a list for denying the moon landings.
    3
  142. Saying “never ever” doesn’t overrule the mountains of evidence that show the moon landings happened.
    3
  143. The evidence shows otherwise.
    3
  144. They have both put robotic landers on the moon.
    3
  145. Owens clearly can’t be bothered to look up the obvious evidence that the moon landings happened. Sibrel is a grifter so he deliberately avoids that evidence.
    3
  146. The evidence makes it clear that the moon landings happened. Because Bart Sibrel is a dishonest grifter, he deliberately leaves out the context of his interaction with Aldrin. Sibrel lied to Aldrin to arrange an in person meeting under false pretenses. Sibrel then began to harass Aldrin as Aldrin tried to walk away. It was only when Sibrel backed Aldrin against a wall and got in his face, calling him a liar, a coward, and a thief that Aldrin ultimately punched Sibrel. Aldrin was a fighter pilot in the Korean War where he flew 66 missions. He earned PhD and developed orbital rendezvous techniques that made the Apollo program possible. He risked his life going to space multiple times. It should be no surprise that he didn’t take kindly to Sibrel harassing him and getting in his face. Do you think any combat veteran would respond kindly to being called a coward? So no, Sibrel didn’t just ask Aldrin a question. He harassed him and Aldrin had no interest in partaking in the stunt because he knew Sibrel would call him a liar regardless. With that context established, does that change your outlook on the encounter between Sibrel and Aldrin?
    3
  147. Guess she only had room for one moon landing denial grifter.
    3
  148. The spacecraft deliberately oriented itself to face sideways and slowly spun. This was called barbecue mode and was a form of passive heat control. Each part of the hull of the spacecraft would have even heating and cooling.
    3
  149. The moon is big and so are the craters you can see. Want to know how to verify the distance for yourself? Get a ham radio and perform a moon bounce. Time how long it takes for the signal to come back. I guarantee that it’ll show that the moon is about a quarter of a million miles away.
    3
  150.  @jif8802  Check out the video titled “Exposing the lies of Bart Sibrel” by Dave McKeegan. He goes through pretty much Sibrel’s entire appearance on Joe Rogan and demonstrates how Sibrel is lying. One of the easiest debunks of Sibrel’s claims is the fact that it would have been blatantly obvious to every tracking station if the spacecraft never left low earth orbit.
    3
  151. Everything adds up. Grifters like Sibrel lie and prey on people’s ignorance and personal incredulity. Why do you think the space suits needed to shield from x-rays? Do you know the dose of x-rays the astronauts would receive on the moon?
    3
  152. Sibrel loves to omit the context that he lied to Aldrin to arrange an in person meeting under false pretenses then proceeded to harass him before backing him against a wall and getting in his face. Goes to show the kind of grifter and fraud that he is.
    3
  153. Sibrel is a liar and he almost certainly hasn’t been targeted by the CIA.
    3
  154. You’re choosing to deny the moon landings based off no evidence. Why?
    3
  155. An even simpler way to debunk his low earth orbit claim is to point out the fact that it would be blatantly obvious to any tracking station if the spacecraft never left LEO.
    3
  156. She’s not spreading truth. Sibrel is a grifter and demonstrable liar.
    3
  157. Incorrect. The earth is verifiably not flat and the moon landings happened. The evidence makes this quite clear.
    3
  158. You seem to be misunderstanding an already cherry-picked quote. NASA has never said they haven’t gone to the moon.
    3
  159. Yes, the SpaceX launches are real.
    3
  160.  @eclecticinspiration5064  Why are you fixating on one rock with poor traceability when over 800 pounds of samples were brought back over 6 missions. The samples have been studied all over the world. If it was that easy to identify the rock in the Dutch museum as petrified wood, then it would also be abundantly obvious to geologists if the samples were fake.
    3
  161. She platformed a grifter and proven liar. Sibrel isn’t telling the truth here and his claims have been thoroughly debunked.
    3
  162. ⁠​⁠​⁠ @jaymac1355  You can easily find the schematics for the LM. It had an aluminum hull and the “foil”is non structural insulation. Calling it duct tape and curtain rods is nothing more than an expression of personal incredulity. What do you think the engineers at Grumman were doing when designing it? Were they all in on it or was an entire team of engineers just utterly clueless. As for the Van Allen belts, why do you believe NASA that they exist but don’t believe NASA that they aren’t a barrier to human space travel?
    3
  163. Sibrel is a grifter and demonstrable liar.
    3
  164. They do. They saw the landing sites with Chang’e 2.
    3
  165. Owens was entirely uncritical of Sibrel’s lies.
    3
  166. Belief is irrelevant here. The evidence shows that the moon landings objectively happened.
    3
  167. The technology of today has sent multiple satellites to the moon that have taken pictures of the hardware left behind at the Apollo landing sites.
    3
  168. Sibrel is a grifter and proven liar.
    3
  169.  @LunazulBaraka  Likely because she had no idea that some astronauts had sworn on a Bible for Sibrel. Owens demonstrated some time ago on a podcast with Bill Maher that she’s done absolutely no actual research into the Apollo program. She didn’t even know that there were more Apollo missions after Apollo 11. She fell for Sibrel’s grift hand over fist, likely because she likes the antiestablishment narrative he peddles and knew much of her audience would like it too. She didn’t question Sibrel at all because she didn’t want to.
    3
  170. You know that there were 135 space shuttle launches right? The Challenger disaster was entirely preventable, but no one was trying to get people killed. That would defeat the purpose of the program.
    3
  171. The evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened. You’re letting biases lead you to fall for lies.
    3
  172.  @DeanShankly  So who should I trust instead? The random people on the internet feeding people personal incredulity fueled confirmation bias?
    3
  173. Aldrin corrected O’Brien that the actual landing was not broadcasted. The broadcast began after the LM landed and as Armstrong was preparing to step onto the surface of the moon.
    3
  174. Everyone knows the government lies. The moon landings can be verified independently of the government.
    3
  175. Sibrel is just lying to you. The evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened.
    3
  176. The Apollo missions took an inclined trajectory to only pass through the weaker outer belt.
    3
  177. People literally do that for their job. Even college students do it for class projects. I worked on a project where we had to do a link budget for a mission to mars. There were no issues with being able to communicate with a spacecraft on the moon. All the info you’re looking for is publicly available.
    3
  178. ⁠@marisawoods It’s clear that you have zero idea what faking a moon landing would actually entail. Mixing in your political beliefs does nothing to disprove the moon landings. Geologists all over the world have studied the samples brought back by the Apollo missions and can tell that they could not have come from Earth. The radio signals were independently tracked by multiple countries and individuals. Lunar satellites from multiple countries have taken pictures of the landing sites. Real people went to work every day and designed real hardware that over a million watched launch. Real people aboard the USS Hornet watched the capsule reappear in the sky with clear signs of atmospheric reentry. If you don’t have evidence showing how all of this could have been faked using 60s/ 70s technology and is still convincing to experts today, then all you have is a baseless belief. Everyone knows the government lies, but there are mountains of independent evidence that show that the moon landings were not faked.
    3
  179. They saw it on live TV and it was a technological achievement that led to a lot of national pride. It shouldn’t be a surprise that they’re not happy when someone baselessly tells them it didn’t happen.
    3
  180. “It doesn’t make sense to me, therefore it’s fake” That’s the “argument” you’re making here. Can you really not accept the fact that you don’t know everything?
    3
  181. Why are you thanking her for platforming a grifter and proven liar?
    3
  182. It is trivial to prove that the earth isn’t flat. That was figured out over two millennia ago.
    3
  183. They wouldn’t have been fooled. Not only would it have been blatantly obvious to any radio tracker if the Apollo missions never left low earth orbit, but the Soviets also had their Luna 15 mission in orbit around the moon when Apollo 11 landed.
    3
  184. He’s a liar. That’s all there is to it.
    3
  185. The truth is that the moon landings happened and that Sibrel is a grifter.
    3
  186. Politely? I encourage you to look up the video of Bart Sibrel harassing Buzz Aldrin and reconsider if you still think he was polite. And note that he lied to Aldrin in the first place to arrange an in person meeting under false pretenses. Funny now he likes to leave out that context.
    3
  187. Sibrel is a demonstrable liar. The evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened.
    3
  188. This is disinformation. Sibrel is a grifter and proven liar. The evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened.
    3
  189. Why are you thanking her for platforming a grifter and proven liar?
    3
  190. They looked pretty excited while talking to President Nixon aboard the USS Hornet to me.
    3
  191.  @Cletus-y5u  You know there was more than one mission right? Please tell me you don’t think the 800+ pounds of samples were brought back in one go.
    3
  192.  @Cletus-y5u  If you’re going to deny the moon landings and you want people to take you seriously, at least get a better clue of the “official narrative”. You’re just going to get laughed at if you say “the moon landing is fake because I can’t believe they brought hundreds of pounds of rocks back in one go”. It just shows that you’re ignorant. The “official narrative” is that there were 6 moon landings where they brought back a total of over 800 pounds of samples. You’re welcome.
    3
  193. You know that the vast majority of the budget went to things like building hardware, buying materials, facility operational costs, and paying regular people’s salaries right? The money is accounted for and it would be blatantly obvious if it was just being stolen or embezzled.
    3
  194. Sibrel is a demonstrable liar. He preys on people’s personal incredulity and antiestablishment biases.
    3
  195. ⁠ @plusmalin  Skepticism is good in a healthy doses. But don’t do a complete 180 and fall for grifters like Sibrel. He’s a demonstrable liar. The moon landings objectively happened and there are mountains of evidence to prove it.
    3
  196. Sibrel is a grifter and a proven liar. The moon landings verifiably happened.
    3
  197. This comment only shows that you have no idea how science works.
    3
  198.  @JohnIonnes  The moon landings aren’t a matter of belief. They objectively happened and the evidence clearly shows this.
    3
  199. You’re in love with Owens despite the fact that she platformed a grifter and proven liar?
    3
  200. “Thorough research”. Sibrel is a demonstrable liar and actual thorough research completely dismantles his claims.
    3
  201.  @dansv1  She did send one of her producers though. Owens has proven to be quite gullible to a lot of science denial, but I don’t think she’s gone quite far enough down the conspiracy theory rabbit hole to fall for flat earth. We’ll see though. She may be a young earth creationist and that’s pretty much one step above flat earth.
    3
  202. He’s a grifter and proven liar. His claims aren’t scientific and have been thoroughly debunked.
    3
  203. Blindly believing a grifter and denying one of America’s greatest technological achievements isn’t very patriotic.
    3
  204. ⁠ @DanFreeman723  Your initial comment is self defeating because Sibrel takes every opportunity he can to get his spiel platformed. He has to utter his grift over and over again.
    3
  205.  @MAL-p4h  It’s not surprising that you deny multiple fields of science.
    3
  206. The truth is that the moon landings happened and that Sibrel is a liar.
    3
  207. Just because it doesn’t make sense to you doesn’t mean it’s fake. The evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened.
    3
  208.  @breather7070  How do you propose the rocket “felt” when gas particles that are no longer connected to it strike another object? You don’t feel when a ball you threw hits something. You don’t feel when water from a hose hits the ground. Rockets work because of the third law of motion. It takes a force to eject the exhaust. That force comes from the rocket. In accordance with the third law of motion, the exhaust mass exerts a force back on the rocket. It would be a violation of the laws of physics if rockets didn’t work in a vacuum.
    3
  209. The evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened.
    3
  210.  @cathyclark5272  Baselessly dismissing anything associated with the government because of an antiestablishment bias doesn’t make you a free thinker. It makes you susceptible to become a victim of grifters like Bart Sibrel.
    3
  211. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to not like Musk. But he has nothing to do with the Apollo landings. The evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened.
    3
  212. ⁠ @DonRaesworld  YouTube’s comment section is terrible in general. Its issues affect everyone equally. The best way to see if comments are actually showing is to sort by new and scroll to the thread.
    3
  213. You’re on the right track. There were far too many very smart people working on the program for no one to realize they were working on something fake.
    3
  214. Sibrel is a grifter and a proven liar. His arguments have been thorough debunked numerous times. Owens did her audience a disservice by bringing in a guest who lied to them.
    3
  215. He used hyperbolic language to describe how the same thing that happens to every discontinued car model happened to the Saturn V after the Apollo program was cancelled.
    3
  216. Sibrel lied to Aldrin to arrange an in person meeting under false pretenses. He then proceeded to follow and continuously harass Aldrin as he tried to walk away. It was only when Sibrel backed Aldrin against a wall, got in his face, and called him a liar a coward and a thief that Aldrin punched Sibrel. Funny how Sibrel omits that context.
    3
  217. The charges were dropped because the LA County DA office realized that Aldrin was both provoked and acted in self defense. Sibrel was actively harassing Aldrin and backed him against a wall before getting in his face. You’re willfully ignorant of the actual context here.
    3
  218. Little object has little gravity. Big object has big gravity. You should have learned that in middle school. The water falls off the little ball and stick to the gigantic ball beneath your feet. And there are plenty of pictures of the earth from space. You just baselessly reject them.
    3
  219. Sibrel is a demonstrable liar. The evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happen. Sibrel’s grift relies on appealing to personal incredulity and antiestablishment biases.
    3
  220. Sibrel is a proven liar. The moon landings objectively happened and the evidence clearly shows this.
    3
  221. You are drastically underestimating the technical competency of the scientists and engineers involved. Many of the best and brightest minds were working on the Apollo program. It would have been blatantly obvious to many if they weren’t actually working on something meant to go to the moon. If experts were designing a rocket and spacecraft to get people to the moon and back, why not actually go through with it. Also, radio tracking and receiving stations all over the world were pointing their directional antennas at the moon and picking up the same signal at the same time. That means the signal was coming from the moon. No amount of compartmentalization would prevent the operators in Honeysuckle Creek in Australia from noticing if a signal wasn’t coming from the moon. Sibrel present lies like the compartmentalization claims to fool people who don’t know how engineering actually works.
    3
  222. You should question Sibrel’s claims.
    3
  223. Bart Sibrel is a grifter and a demonstrable liar. Billy Carson is also a grifter and complete quack. Both prey on people’s antiestablishment biases and personal incredulity.
    3
  224.  @Snowman374th  Why do you believe NASA that the Van Allen belts exist but don’t believe NASA that they’re not an impenetrable barrier to human spaceflight?
    3
  225. Did you perform a thermal analysis of the heat shields? Because the engineers who designed it did.
    3
  226. We have been to space and people are in space literally right now. Grifters and conmen are lying to you by saying space travel isn’t real. All evidence clearly shows that space travel exists.
    3
  227. The Van Allen belts aren’t an impenetrable barrier. That has been known since the 50s. People like Sibrel lie about the belts to fool people who are ignorant about them.
    3
  228. Sibrel preys on people’s antiestablishment biases and personal incredulity. Please watch any of the videos that address Sibrel’s claims. Dave McKeegan has multiple that clearly show how Sibrel is lying.
    3
  229. So that means you also question the veracity of Sibrel’s claims right?
    3
  230. The moon landings happened. Sibrel is a grifter and a proven liar.
    3
  231. The rest of the body of evidence proves that the moon landings happened though.
    3
  232. Yes, both Chang’e 4 and 6 landed on the far side of the moon.
    3
  233. The evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened.
    3
  234. What Sibrel is claiming is verifiably not the case. He’s a grifter and a proven liar.
    3
  235. They don’t say that. You fell for lies that came from cherry-picked quotes.
    3
  236. Aldrin is a devout Presbyterian. He took communion on the moon. He just didn’t want to oblige the guy who was actively harassing him.
    3
  237. I suggest you look up what money laundering is because NASA would be an abysmally terrible money laundering scheme.
    3
  238. Sibrel only presented lies.
    3
  239. If you were a truth seeker, you’d easily be able to tell that Sibrel is lying.
    3
  240.  @everadocisneros2528  Do you really think NASA/ the government is actually handing out paychecks for people to comment here?
    3
  241. She fell for Sibrel’s grift and let him spread his lies here. The moon landings objectively happened.
    3
  242.  @benyosef639  We landed 5 more times after Apollo 11. The evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened and Sibrel’s claims have been thoroughly debunked.
    3
  243. ⁠​⁠ @agm8088  Got any evidence it’s all fake or is it fake just because you say so and have no idea what you’re looking at? It was daytime on the moon. Why are you expecting to see stars? The camera exposure was set for daytime light levels. If you went to a dark sky park and tried to take pictures on a camera with the exposure set for daylight, you’re not going to see anything. You’re the one falling for nonsense because you place your personal incredulity over evidence.
    3
  244.  @michellemorgan3862  Remember that denying everything is just as intellectually lazy as believing everything.
    3
  245. You’re correct in realizing that Sibrel’s story doesn’t add up. He’s a grifter and proven liar. There’s also more context to the Aldrin encounter that Sibrel will never acknowledge. He lied to Aldrin to arrange an in person meeting under false pretenses. Sibrel then proceeded continuously harass Aldrin as Aldrin was trying to walk away. Sibrel eventually backed Aldrin against a wall before getting in his face. Sibrel called Aldrin a liar, a coward, and a thief. Only then did Aldrin punch Sibrel. Regardless of the moon landings, I don’t think many combat veterans would take kindly to being called a coward.
    3
  246. Personal incredulity isn’t a valid argument.
    3
  247. There are plenty of issues with the US, but the evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened.
    3
  248. Moon landing denial is a conspiracy theory. The evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened. Grifters like Sibrel prey on people’s ignorance and antiestablishment biases.
    3
  249. Glad you were able to see that Sibrel is the one lying here. He peddles a grift that can be quite appealing on the surface, but more research, like you did here, shows that Sibrel is a liar.
    3
  250. Sibrel is the one lying to you here. He preys off the antiestablishment biases of his audience.
    3
  251. She platformed a grifter. I wouldn’t call that good work.
    3
  252. Sibrel and Owens lied to you here. You should be astounded by how much you’re being lied to. You just don’t realize who is lying to you.
    3
  253. Sibrel is a grifter and is actively lying to you. His claims have been thoroughly debunked.
    3
  254. Referencing a cherry-picked and misrepresented quote is a very poor argument. No NASA scientist or engineer has said people have never gone beyond the Van Allen belts. You’re talking about the quote by Kelly Smith in “Orion: Trial by Fire”. He’s talking about how they needed to test the shielding to make sure modern, more sensitive equipment holds up. The video was made before Artemis 1 launched. The Orion spacecraft shielding performed as intended during Artemis 1.
    3
  255. The video you linked does an excellent job of debunking Sibrel’s claims. He’s a grifter through and through. However, I don’t think Owens cares. She likely knows enough of her audience is receptive to antiestablishment narratives.
    3
  256. You thought it was amazing that she platformed a grifter and proven liar?
    3
  257. Lunar satellites have taken picture of all 6 landing sites.
    3
  258. No belief is necessary. The moon landings objectively happened and the evidence clearly shows this.
    3
  259. You can literally see satellites with your own eyes.
    3
  260. The government didn’t want to keep paying for it. That’s all it boils down to. Owens is not seeking the truth here. She fell for a grift because she was being fed confirmation bias they preys on personal incredulity and antiestablishment biases.
    3
  261. That should serve as an indicator for how truthful the rest of his claims are.
    3
  262. ⁠ @louiscantu6461  James Van Allen himself said the belts that bear his name are not a barrier to human space travel. The instances of NASA supposedly saying they have never gone through the Van Allen belts or still need to figure it out are all either misrepresented or taken out of context.
    3
  263. The money pays the salaries of regular people and into the economy by giving contracts to American businesses.
    3
  264. The moon landings really happened. The evidence makes this fact very clear.
    3
  265. You can literally see it with your own eyes. It’s even possible to determine its altitude and speed for yourself.
    3
  266. You’re correct about Sibrel being slippery with facts. Think about how that affects the integrity of his claims about the moon landings.
    3
  267. Not about the Apollo program. It was extensively documented and we still have that information.
    3
  268. Sibrel is a grifter and proven liar. His claims fall apart under the slightest scrutiny. For example, his central claim that the Apollo missions never left low earth orbit is debunked by the multiple radio tracking stations that picked up the same signal by pointing their antennas at the same point. Also, you know that Sibrel isn’t a space travel denier right? He just says people haven’t gone beyond low earth orbit.
    3
  269. No it doesn’t. You got deceived.
    3
  270. Hopefully you were able to realize that Sibrel is a liar.
    3
  271. Sibrel’s explanations don’t make sense because he’s lying about verifiable history.
    3
  272. Actually educated people aren’t the ones denying the moon landings and other science.
    3
  273.  @andrewworth7574  He doesn’t even allow comments on his videos. That’s how much of a coward he is when it comes to avoiding criticism and confrontation.
    3
  274. Nothing was lost. You can go look up all the video recorded from the moon lamfings
    3
  275. They passed through the outer belt but avoided the stronger inner belt.
    3
  276. The problem with that idea is that the vast, vast majority of people don’t feel insignificant because of the scale of the cosmos. It is only a tiny minority of people that think humanity cannot be special unless the earth is flat and the center of everything. There are powers that be that try to repress common people, but to do that by lying about something as easily verifiable as the shape of the earth so just silly.
    3
  277. What dose of radiation do you think the astronauts would have received and why do you deny the dosimeter measurements from the Apollo astronauts? Also, the ISS is about 250 miles above the surface of earth. The typical altitude cited for the beginning of space is 62 miles. The ISS is in space. There just happen to be a handful of atmospheric particles also whizzing around up there.
    3
  278. Sibrel is a grifter and proven liar. His arguments have been thoroughly debunked.
    3
  279. ⁠​⁠ @richardkalmwater5996  Nothing was actually destroyed or lost. The original designs still exist in microfilm and are stored at Marshall Space Flight Center. The infrastructure wasn’t maintained because it makes no sense to keep supply chains and equipment up for a vehicle you’re never going to build again. The technology got incorporated into later programs. Temperature in space works differently than on earth. When there’s no air, heat loss or gain can only happen radiatively. Heat loss and gain aren’t instantaneous. Things heat up and cool off slowly. Heating and cooling systems can keep things at the proper operating temperatures. There are mountains of evidence that clearly show that the moon landings happened.
    3
  280. NASA literally still has the original designs. There’s nothing to rediscover. Apollo technology got used in later missions.
    2
  281. What about him?
    2
  282. ⁠@DavidRae-s6t It’s not a matter of not being able to. We just haven’t tried to since Apollo 17. Traversing the belts is largely a matter of having some shielding and passing through quickly. That was figured out back in the late 50s/ early 60s. Artemis 1 demonstrated that we currently have a spacecraft that can get through the Van Allen belts. There’s no reason to go through the belts if you’re not going to the moon.
    2
  283. ⁠ @michaelcavallaro5217  What do you not understand about the fact that the money went to paying real people to do real work? Over 400,000 people worked on the Apollo program under the impression they were sending people to the moon. Thats where the money went. No one was just pocketing it.
    2
  284. There is no dome. If there was, why can’t we see or detect it?
    2
  285. Sibrel also lied to arrange an in person meeting under false pretenses.
    2
  286.  @michaelcavallaro5217  You’re choosing to believe Sibrel and Owens because they’re feeding you confirmation bias. You’re falling for a grift.
    2
  287. ⁠​⁠ @michaelcavallaro5217  Props for a fairly clever reference, but that doesn’t change the fact that Sibrel is a demonstrable liar. You’re choosing to believe him over facts because he’s feeding you confirmation bias.
    2
  288. Because the same people responsible for getting people to the moon are the ones fixing the pipe right?
    2
  289. I’m curious, what’s the 1% that you think is real?
    2
  290. We don’t have a passenger jet capable of traveling at Mach 2 anymore. Does that mean the Concorde never existed? Of course not. There were 6 moon landings and then the government decided it wasn’t worth it to keep paying for them anymore.
    2
  291. Whistleblowers like who? What information did they reveal?
    2
  292. Are people just supposed to take your word for that? And how is that relevant to whether or not the moon landings happened?
    2
  293. Sibrel is a grifter. He threw out any shred of integrity decades ago when he decided to peddle moon landing denial lies. I think he has no qualms rejecting the hard work of over 400,000 Americans that went into the Apollo program.
    2
  294.  @OdinWarrior514  It is trivial to prove for yourself that the earth isn’t flat. You lack the basic knowledge required to do so. That’s why blindly believe what others tell you. It is nothing more than projection when you say others are believing the tv.
    2
  295.  @BTFREEDOM1776  But you decided to declare that the moon landings are fake on a public forum. If you didn’t want to discuss or debate anything, then why post?
    2
  296. Apollo 12 was just 4 months after Apollo 11. Also all the moon landings happened within a 3 year span. What do you think was missing in the latter half of 1969 that they had by 1971 or 1972? Lastly, lunar satellites from multiple countries have taken pictures of the Apollo 11 landing site.
    2
  297. You shouldn’t draw conclusions from personal incredulity. We stopped going to the moon because the government didn’t want to pay for it anymore.
    2
  298. The deception here is coming from Sibrel. He’s a grifter and proven liar.
    2
  299. He didn’t say that. He was talking about not going back. And how would he think no one was listening when he was doing recorded interview. That interview was 17 minutes long by the way. There’s a whole lot of context that gets left out by the short clips moon landing deniers like to share.
    2
  300.  @IamTheMom  The evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened. Bart Sibrel is a grifter who preys on people’s personal incredulity and antiestablishment biases.
    2
  301. You should be questioning Sibrel’s claims. His entire grift depends on preying on people’s personal incredulity and antiestablishment biases.
    2
  302. There’s no reason to be anxious or sad. Sibrel is the one lying here. His claims have been thoroughly debunked. The evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened.
    2
  303. Because song lyrics can’t make things up right?
    2
  304.  @solasunny8965  Unmanned landers were sent to the moon to study the environment. Also, the surface temperature was at neither extreme while the Apollo astronauts were there.
    2
  305. What exactly is brave about falling for a grift and then platforming it?
    2
  306. Owens platformed a liar. Sibrel’s claims have been thoroughly debunked. There are mountains of evidence showing that the moon landings happened.
    2
  307. Where did you read that and why do you think it is a credible source? Also, how does an NDA explain the fact that over 800 pounds of samples were returned and the fact that lunar satellites from multiple countries have seen the hardware left behind on the moon?
    2
  308.  @Mjg_00  The Soviet Union wouldn’t refrain from putting out the statement just because they thought the American public wouldn’t buy it. Your argument makes no sense.
    2
  309. ⁠ @Mjg_00  Please provide an example of a contradiction. And that’s a nice strawman that you claim I’m blindly believing the government. Everyone knows the government lies. The moon landings can be verified independently of the government.
    2
  310.  @Mjg_00  You seem to be forgetting about the fact that other countries and independent research groups have tracked and studied the moon landings. Samples have been studied all over the world and no geologist has said they’re all fake. Multiple countries were involved in tracking the missions via radio signal. Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station picked up the signal from the first broadcast on the moon. Bochum Observatory in Germany picked up the same signal. Lunar satellites from Japan, China, South Korea, and India have all verified the moon landings. The camera on the US’s LRO was designed and built by Arizona State. I could keep going but it’s clear that you just want to stick to “It’s all government and government bad. Therefore moon landings fake”.
    2
  311. The evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened.
    2
  312. The moon landings objectively happened. Sibrel is a grifter and proven liar.
    2
  313. Sibrel is a grifter and he preys on people’s ignorance and antiestablishment biases. Sibrel’s arguments have been thoroughly debunked.
    2
  314. Multiple people have gone through and debunked every single one of them. Also, people shouldn’t be looking for earth science information from a yoga instructor. Dubay is a grifter.
    2
  315. A telescope capable of doing that would be absolutely absurdly large. Multiple lunar satellites have taken pictures of the landing sites though.
    2
  316. So do you look at the warning labels on the bottles under your kitchen sink and go, “This is proof that I should drink these”?
    2
  317.  @ruby7741  Good job entirely missing the point of my comment. It’s almost like some warnings are in place for good reasons.
    2
  318. ⁠ @andrewworth7574  I see two replies. And I found Sibrel’s appearance on Bob Frantz’s show. I didn’t hear him directly say he didn’t want to debate an expert yet, but he was really beating around the bush as Frantz was talking about a debate. Also got an absolute gem of a quote from Sibrel. He called anyone making videos to convince people that the moon landings did happen and idiot. He managed to forget that he makes a living making videos trying to convince people that the moon landings didn’t happen and that it’s the other side of the same coin.
    2
  319. Regardless of the moon landing aspect, in general, I don’t think many combat veterans would take kindly to being called a coward.
    2
  320. ⁠​⁠ @laurenavaneale1364  No one wants to pay the money to fast track a crewed mission back to the moon. The Artemis program is working with a fraction of the budget that the Apollo program had and nowhere close to the level of national priority. That’s why it’s moving slower. And the astronauts weren’t stuck or abandoned. That claim comes from a politicized narrative. Once the call was made to not have the astronauts return aboard Starliner, they were then assigned to be part of the Crew 9 mission. Starliner had to first undock from the ISS to open up a docking port that Crew 9 could use. Crew 9 launched with 2 astronauts instead of 4. The Crew 9 mission ran for its entire intended duration. Crew 10 has now arrived to the ISS. There is a few day handoff period between crews. Then the Starliner astronauts will return home with the two Crew 9 astronauts. This was the plan all along after the call was made for them to not return on Starliner. Hopefully this context is helpful.
    2
  321. She didn’t do you any favors with this episode. Sibrel is a grifter and demonstrable liar.
    2
  322. No, Bart Sibrel is the one lying to you.
    2
  323. You can verify for yourself that the earth isn’t flat. People figured that out over two millennia ago.
    2
  324. The classic dismissal tactic of, “Anyone that disagrees with me is a paid shill for a group I don’t like.” Try refuting arguments instead of name calling.
    2
  325. The story is almost certainly entirely made up. It’s not even an original claim. Bill Kaysing, the original main moon landing hoax proponent, claimed the CIA was after him but he died at the age of 82 in 2005.
    2
  326. You clearly haven’t properly looked at the evidence and instead drew a conclusion from personal incredulity.
    2
  327. Sibrel is a grifter and proven liar.
    2
  328. It doesn’t mean anything. Anyone saying it does is lying or is parroting a lie.
    2
  329. No “they” didn’t. Sibrel is objectively lying about Apollo 1.
    2
  330. Sibrel is a conman who lies to his audience.
    2
  331. The astronauts joined the crew of the next mission that came aboard the ISS, worked for that mission’s full intended duration, and returned home with that crew when the mission ended. They weren’t stranded and they didn’t need rescuing. There was a spacecraft they could have returned home aboard incase of emergency.
    2
  332.  @RobMathMiller  What do you not understand about the fact that Butch and Suni joined the crew of the following mission and returned home when that mission concluded? There was a craft they could have returned home aboard that entire time in case of emergency. It would have cost upwards of $100 million to launch another Crew Dragon just to get Butch and Suni back from the space station. Why spend that kind of money when they can just catch a later ride home for no additional cost? Please explain how they were stranded when they could have returned home in case of emergency. The Dunning Kruger levels are off the chart with you.
    2
  333.  @56fairbank  The thing is that there was no way to fool the radio tracking station operators. They pointed their antennas at the moon and got a signal. That means there was a signal coming from the moon. This is solid evidence for anyone who is being honest with themselves.
    2
  334. You’ve got the right idea, but got some details incorrect. Ironically, the nut job conspiracy theorist you mention is none other than the very same Bart Sibrel interviewed here. But it was Aldrin, not Armstrong that he has confronted and harassed. The other important point is that Armstrong has successfully flown the lander trainer multiple times before an error nearly killed him.
    2
  335. Have you considered that the note may be right and Sibrel is lying?
    2
  336. ⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠ @WinkyFromNorthChicago74  I really wish I could show you the unchecked thumbs up I’m looking at right now. Also, I like how thats what you decided to jump on instead of actually addressing what I said. Is it really so unfathomable to you that someone else liked my comment that you had to tell yourself that I liked my own comment? But now back to Sibrel. Being blunt, if you actually think Sibrel is presenting a scientific argument, then you’re just plain gullible. @randyschissler shared a great debunk of Sibrel. I doubt you’ll watch it so I’ll debunk a few for you. The Van Allen belts aren’t a barrier to human spaceflight. James Van Allen himself said that. Also, Polaris Dawn recently entered the Van Allen belts and the people were fine. If the Apollo missions never left low earth orbit, it would have been blatantly obvious to every radio tracking station. Plenty of clips from the broadcasts that Sibrel doesn’t like to talk about show both the earth and the moon clearly without a cover. The earth rotates an amount that is consistent with being far away. The samples brought back show that they have never been exposed to oxygen or water, meaning they cannot have been collected in earth. It’s a verifiable fact that the Apollo missions didn’t just stay in low earth orbit. So I’ll reiterate. Sibrel is a grifter and demonstrable liar.
    2
  337.  @WinkyFromNorthChicago74  Of course you just parroted a list of stock misunderstandings and personal incredulity and hardly addressed what I said. I’ll reiterate. James Van Allen himself said that the radiation belts weren’t a barrier to human space travel. You’re just referring to cherry-picked quotes. You have no idea what the radiation levels in a the belts are, how long the astronauts in them, or what kind of shielding they had. If you can’t cite a specific dose the astronauts would have received, then you don’t have an argument. Sibrel deliberately never gives a dose. I’m not at all surprised you brought up the rock in the Dutch national museum. A US ambassador (J William Middendorf) gave a rock that was supposedly from the moon to the former Dutch prime minister Willem Drees as a personal gift. The rock was pulled from Drees’ personal collection after he died and displayed without any vetting. It turned out to be a piece of petrified wood. There was next to no traceability for the rock. It did not come from NASA or the government. The US gave goodwill lunar samples to many countries, including the Netherlands. This rock was separate from that goodwill gift. This story only shows that geologists can definitely tell if a sample came from the moon. Also, this story is exactly how I know you’re just parroting things you’ve heard with zero research into them. You can’t even get the basic details right because it’s just a bad game of telephone. 30 seconds of googling and you’d know you’re not recounting the story correctly. The rest of your comment is nothing more than personal incredulity. You have zero clue what we were technologically capable of back in the 60s. Just because we didn’t have advanced computers yet doesn’t mean technology was primitive. Here’s something I bet you didn’t know. The U2 spy plane first flew in 1955 and the SR-71 first flew in 1964 (and its direct predecessor, the A-12, first flew in 1962). We had jets capable of flying faster than Mach 3 in the early 60s. You could easily look up the thermal control systems the Apollo missions used. You could easily look up how the space suits were developed. You could easily look up how they accounted for radiation and micrometeorites. You chose not to. Sibrel knows that people like you won’t be bothered to do any actual research and will unquestioningly believe his lies because they appeal to personal incredulity and antiestablishment biases.
    2
  338. Your holiday was made by being lied to by a grifter?
    2
  339. Sibrel isn’t presenting real evidence. He’s a grifter and a proven liar.
    2
  340. So when you see warning labels on the bottles under your kitchen sink, does that make you think you should drink them?
    2
  341. She never thought that much into it. She just heard a guy spouting antiestablishment claims and ran with it.
    2
  342. That doesn’t account for the over 800 pounds of samples returned by the Apollo missions or the pictures of the landing sites taken by lunar satellites from multiple countries.
    2
  343. Just because something looks fake to you doesn’t mean it is. Images from lunar satellites from Japan, China, India, South Korea, and the US have all confirmed the moon landings. If you think the pictures are wrong, can you please share how they should look?
    2
  344. If only you could see the irony in your comment. Evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened. No belief is required. You can reach the conclusion that the moon landings happened from actual data. You’re the one who is gullibly parroting a narrative. You’re just regurgitating Sibrel’s claims about not being able to leave low earth orbit. You have no understanding of the radiation environment of the Van Allen belts or the delta v requirements for reaching lunar orbit so you blindly believe what people like Sibrel tell you. He is preying on personal incredulity and ignorance. You say tapes were lost but do you even know what tapes you’re referring to? Some backup tapes were recorded over. No information was lost. Do yourself a favor and reconsider your sources of information. You’re being played for a fool by grifters.
    2
  345. The evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened.
    2
  346. The budget went to paying the salaries of over 400,000 Americans working on the Apollo program as well as paying utility bills and buying materials. Are you going to track down engineers from the 60s and demand compensation?
    2
  347.  @theeraphatsunthornwit6266  You can literally see the ISS with your own eyes.
    2
  348. Over 400,000 people were involved in the Apollo program. Do you really think all of them were in on it? Some of the most tangible proof for the moon landings comes from lunar satellites and the samples returned. Satellites from multiple countries have taken pictures of the Apollo landing sites. And over 800 pounds of samples were brought back from the moon and studied all over the world yet no geologist has said they’re fake.
    2
  349.  @LunazulBaraka  The answer is because Sibrel is a grifter and a liar.
    2
  350. The greatest bit of irony here is the number of people who have fallen for conspiracy theory lies that recite that quote. At this point, it must be a prerequisite for every grift to include telling the audience that quote.
    2
  351. Sibrel is one of those liars.
    2
  352. I’m glad you get Aldrin’s motives to not oblige Sibrel. However, the evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened.
    2
  353.  @LOADING...o.o.o  You just found out that there were six times as many moon landings than you previously thought and your next reaction was to say “that’s all???”
    2
  354. Three Apollo astronauts did.
    2
  355. Funny how he likes to omit that context. Shows just how much of a dishonest grifter he is.
    2
  356. No they’re not. James Van Allen explicitly said they’re not a barrier to human spaceflight. The quotes in the videos you’re talking about are being cherry-picked out of context.
    2
  357. Dubay is not the guy you should be getting your info from. He’s a grifter and a lair.
    2
  358. Aldrin is a devout Presbyterian. He took communion on the moon.
    2
  359.  @56fairbank  Being deceitful is a feature for Sibrel, not a bug.
    2
  360. No. But multiple lunar satellites have taken pictures of the hardware left behind at the Apollo landing sites.
    2
  361. In a storage bay in the descent stage. There are schematics showing how it was packed and videos of the astronauts unloading it on the moon.
    2
  362. Because she doesn’t actually care about the truth. She likes the antiestablishment narrative that Sibrel peddles.
    2
  363.  @dirtroadscholar  Most moon landing deniers either don’t know there was more than one moon landing or deny all of the Apollo missions. There is only a small minority of people who think Apollo 11 was faked but the others were real.
    2
  364.  @DaRKHuNTeRMK  The people saying it is impossible to land on the moon don’t actually understand what it takes to go tho the moon. The evidence makes it abundantly clear that the moon landings happened.
    2
  365.  @Jgall71  It can be proven that Sibrel is lying.
    2
  366. The Soviet Union acknowledged the success of Apollo 11 in Pravda.
    2
  367. Can you really not distinguish between reality and fiction? You’re telling yourself that “they” are putting things in plain sight so you can pretend you’re smart for catching on. First off, why would that make any sense? Why would “they” spill the beans on an international conspiracy lasting over half a century by making a movie? And why have no actual experts in science and engineering caught on? They all say the moon landings happened.
    2
  368.  @NormaJean213  I’ll ask you the same question I asked the original commenter. How does it make any sense for “them” to put out a movie blowing a half century long, international conspiracy? And why do you think you, but no experts in science in engineering, picked up on that movie actually being an admission of fakery? There are plenty more questions I could ask, but I’ll start with this.
    2
  369. @marisawoods Sibrel is a demonstrable liar. His claims fall apart under the slightest scrutiny. Owens did her audience a disservice by bringing him on the show.
    2
  370. The red chevron on the logo is actually intended to represent a wing and flight. Why would it make any sense to put supposed symbolism of deception right in the logo?
    2
  371. Owens platformed a grifter and proven liar. There’s nothing great about that.
    2
  372. The moon landings are a great topic to research. Bringing on a grifter and proven liar and letting him peddle his narrative without criticism is extremely poor work on Owens’ end though.
    2
  373. You should be offended that grifters like Bart Sibrel think you’re stupid enough to fall for their easily debunkable lies.
    2
  374. That’s a patently false narrative. You’re choosing to believe a baseless story over the objective evidence that the moon landings happened.
    2
  375. Then who did win WWII?
    2
  376. ⁠ @jobloggs8022  You could argue that for WWI, but that argument really doesn’t hold up for WWII. The US entered 2 years in on a 6 year long war. I’m not trying to downplay the efforts of all of the other Allies, but the US’s efforts were invaluable to an allied victory of WWII.
    2
  377.  @jobloggs8022  Yes, but that doesn’t change the fact that the US’s efforts were invaluable. I’m not sure why you’re trying to downplay that. And again, the US didn’t enter at the end as you claimed.
    2
  378. Sibrel is the liar here. The moon landings objectively happened.
    2
  379.  @Cashrock  Your entire “argument” is nothing more than personal incredulity. Scientifically literate people can evaluate the evidence and see that the moon landings objectively happened.
    2
  380. It’s a chevron intended to represent aviation. What sense would it make to broadcast evil intentions in your logo?
    2
  381. What label should they put instead?
    2
  382.  @ThePlantageNot  You are yet to provide any evidence for your claims. Why should anyone believe you?
    2
  383. Then what are they? They hire real people who design real hardware and perform real research.
    2
  384. That’s why Sibrel’s claims are so ridiculous. If the CIA really was after him, he wouldn’t be able to be hopping from podcast to podcast to tell everyone about it.
    2
  385. Aldrin is a devout Presbyterian. He took communion on the moon.
    2
  386. Apollo era technology wasn’t better than what we have today. Apollo era funding was better than we have today. The technology developed by the Apollo program was incorporated into later developments. Also, there is literally no evidence for a lost, advanced civilization. Archeological evidence for material culture goes back over two million years. It shows that the use of metal emerged around 9000 years ago and there was a steady progression of technology developed since then. There is quite literally no evidence for there ever being a disproportionately advanced civilization.
    2
  387. Sibrel made that story up.
    2
  388. There were some issues with the new spacecraft they had used to get to the space station. Instead of taking the risk with returning on that spacecraft, it was decided for them to get a ride back on a different spacecraft. The spacecraft with the issue made it back fine.
    2
  389. The hardware left behind at the landing sites has been photographed by lunar satellites from multiple countries.
    2
  390. That’s a good indication of just how truthful the rest of his claims are.
    2
  391. ⁠ @xpnkxpacx  You call the sites Google shows propaganda but can you prove that to be the case? It sounds like you’re just labeling them that because they don’t agree with your preferred narrative. What sites do you think are more credible and why? How do you know that they’re not just lying and preying on people’s antiestablishment biases?
    2
  392.  @PatriceSerapiglia  You could have just posted this one time. Also, you said the exact same thing people have said in complete seriousness. Poe’s Law is in full effect here.
    2
  393.  @PatriceSerapiglia  Like I said, people have said the same things in all seriousness.
    2
  394. Moon landing denial comes from willful ignorance fueled by an antiestablishment bias.
    2
  395. It simply wouldn’t be feasible. It would be blatantly obvious to so many people if the missions were faked.
    2
  396. Sibrel is a grifter and proven liar. His claims have been thoroughly debunked. Examine the actual evidence and you’ll clearly see that the moon landings happened. Don’t fall for Sibrel’s grift.
    2
  397.  @RandomVideoWatcher7  Did you not read the context I just provided? It was a combination of self defense and provocation.
    2
  398. Platforming a grifter constitutes crushing it?
    2
  399. There was no honesty to be found here. Sibrel is a grifter and demonstrable liar. Owens fell for the grift. The evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened.
    2
  400. What Sibrel is saying is misinformation. His claims have been thoroughly debunked.
    2
  401. She and the rest of the challenger crew were headed for low earth orbit.
    2
  402.  @charlenequigley5557  The space shuttle had already flown 24 times before the Challenger Disaster. Some of the primary objectives of that mission were to deploy a satellite and study Halley’s Comet. None of this was out of the ordinary for space shuttle program objectives.
    2
  403. ⁠ @charlenequigley5557  The space shuttle program was far more expensive than originally anticipated. While it still ran for three decades, it was never going to become a feasible way for the public to access space. Even if it did, there would still be so much more to learn and experience in space.
    2
  404. The evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened.
    2
  405. ⁠​⁠ @lookituplive  Sibrel wants you to ignore the fact that he lied to Aldrin to arrange an in person meeting under false pretenses then proceeded to harass him. Aldrin tried to walk away but Sibrel followed. It was only when Sibrel backed Aldrin against a wall and got in his face that Aldrin punched him. Does that change your outlook at all? Also, the Apollo 1 astronauts weren’t set to be the first to go to space. By the beginning of the Apollo program, 24 Americans had already been in space. Also, two of the three crew members of Apollo 1 had already been to space.
    2
  406. No, moon landing denial isn’t turning out to be true. Bart Sibrel is a grifter and proven liar who feeds confirmation bias to his audience by preying on their personal incredulity and antiestablishment biases. The moon landings have been verified numerous times and by multiple countries.
    2
  407. Why are you thanking her for platforming a grifter and proven liar?
    2
  408. The game of telephone is getting really bad. Some people were trying to find some backup tapes in hopes of using them to create a better quality video than the original copies of the broadcast. They found that the tapes had been recorded over as part of standard procedure. No data was actually lost.
    2
  409. A certain July, 1969 issue of Pravda begs to differ.
    2
  410. The moon landings can be verified independently of the government. Denying them isn’t deprogramming. It’s just reality denial in favor of an antiestablishment narrative.
    2
  411. It’s not the biggest lie just on the basis that it’s not a lie. The moon landings objectively happened.
    2
  412. That crew is launching on Blue Origin’s New Shepherd. That rocket doesn’t send spacecraft into orbit. They’ll basically just go straight up and down.
    2
  413. The US was firmly in the lead of the Space Race by the mid 60s. When Apollo 11 launched, the Soviets were trying to steal one last first by sending a robotic lander to retrieve samples. It was still in lunar orbit when Apollo 11 landed and it ultimately crashed just hours after Apollo 11 left the moon.
    2
  414. You couldn’t be bothered to look up that Apollo 12-17 happened?
    2
  415.  @andrewworth7574  I’m well aware. Just figured I’d give some friendly pointers at how to be less bad at science denial.
    2
  416. ⁠ @charlenequigley5557  Well first off, this isn’t an expose. This is a grifter peddling lies. The transmissions were coming from the moon, not low earth orbit like Sibrel claims. If the spacecraft was in low earth orbit, the signal would have come in and out on a roughly 90 minute cycle. Instead, receiving stations got a continuous signal by pointing their directional antennas right at the moon. And what kind of calculations are you looking for? The power requirements, signal delay, something else?
    2
  417. ⁠​⁠​⁠ @charlenequigley5557  Multiple stations around the world pointed directional antennas towards the moon and got the same signal at the same time. There are two possible explanations. Either you expand the conspiracy and say they were all in on it or they were actually picking up a signal from the moon. Occam’s razor certainly favors the latter. Perhaps the best independent verification showing the legitimacy of the broadcast comes from the Bochum Observatory in Germany. It was able to pick up signals until the moon set indicating that it was in fact picking up a signal from the moon. And, it only picked up the transmissions coming from the astronauts. It did not pick up capcom, proving that there was in fact live two way communication going on. The moon landings were extensively documented and have been extensively studied ever since. You’re asking good questions, but all the info is already out there. It’s people like Sibrel that this level of scrutiny needs to be applied to.
    2
  418.  @jamesking4225  The evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened. Have you considered that maybe your 6th grade teacher was wrong and that actual engineers may know better?
    2
  419.  @jamesking4225  Do you not see the irony in the fact that you’re calling others sheep when you’re just blindly believing a narrative?
    2
  420. Your nose is right here. Sibrel’s story is bullshit.
    2
  421. Do try to keep up with the news. Multiple probes have landed on the moon within the last year.
    2
  422. Space programs and private companies are trying to put landers on the moon with a minuscule fraction of the budget that it would normally take. That’s the difficulty.
    2
  423.  @christinapowell1072  Sibrel is a proven liar. He actively spreads disinformation and Owens platformed it. Why are you praising Owens for this?
    2
  424. Have you ever considered that the information on Wikipedia may be right and that you have biases that could make you want to reject that information?
    2
  425. That sentiment was true for a while. There wasn’t much to be gained by just repeating the Apollo missions. We had to wait for space exploration technology to develop further for more worthwhile and ambitious missions to be possible. The Artemis program is much more advanced than the Apollo program.
    2
  426.  @ShamelesslyRed  SpaceX launches verifiably happen and you can see Starlink satellites with your own eyes. You’re the one who is blindly believing what they’re told. You parroted multiple claims that have been thoroughly debunked.
    2
  427. Why are you thanking Sibrel for lying to you?
    2
  428. Sibrel is not credible. He’s a grifter and proven liar. His arguments have been thoroughly debunked.
    2
  429. What things do you think NASA is faking? Also, lunar satellites from multiple countries have taken pictures of the Apollo landing sites.
    2
  430. Elon didn’t rescue the astronauts. It was the plan ever since the call was made to not return on Starliner for the astronauts to join Crew 9 and return when that mission ran its full duration. And for more context, Starliner was a Boeing made spacecraft that had issues.
    2
  431. The moon landings can be verified independently of the government.
    2
  432. They brought tanks of liquid oxygen. Do you really think the best minds in engineering at the time would either forget about that or not be able to figure it out?
    2
  433.  @thebarberfrombrampton5404  There was dust. You can see it being blown in the onboard video of the landing and Aldrin mentions it with his communications with CAPCOM. Pictures from lunar satellites also show the disturbances in the dust.
    2
  434. You can literally see satellites with your own eyes. You’re in denial of reality if you deny the existence of spaceflight.
    2
  435. Same with the South Koreans and Indians.
    2
  436. Why are you thanking her for platforming a grifter who is actively lying to you?
    2
  437. The note offers helpful context. Sibrel is a liar and the moon landings verifiably happened.
    2
  438. Bart Sibrel is the one lying to you here. He’s a grifter who preys on people’s personal incredulity and antiestablishment biases. His claims are easily debunked and all the evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened.
    2
  439.  @Isaiah53Rmcgrath97  The Soviets never landed people on the moon though did they?
    2
  440. The answers are all out there. The Apollo program was extensively documented wroth much of it being easily available. What questions do you think are not reasonably answered?
    2
  441.  @MAL-p4h  You’d be surprised if I know any fields of science? I have a bachelor’s degree in aerospace engineering, a master’s degree in mechanical engineering, a certificate in systems engineering, and currently work as an engineer largely in the realm of material science. Now what are your qualifications?
    2
  442. Not to mention that Aldrin was a fighter pilot in the Korean War and flew dozens of missions. Most combat veterans won’t take kindly to being called a coward.
    2
  443. You’re clearly not looking at the right sources. Ten minutes of honest research will provide a plethora of resources that clearly show that the moon landings happened. Sibrel is a liar.
    2
  444. Would you like to try again but with a coherent sentence this time? James Van Allen discovered the radiation belts that would bear his name. They were discovered in 1958 and largely mapped by the end of the 50s.
    2
  445.  @garyolsen4160  An O-ring failed on one of the boosters for Challenger. This is one of the most extensively documented and studied engineering failures in modern history. Entire offices and agencies were created (e.g. the Office of Safety, Reliability, and Quality Assurance) in response to the disaster. The “evidence” that the crew is still alive is extraordinarily poor. It only consists of some lookalikes and people with the same/ similar names.
    2
  446.  @garyolsen4160  ​​⁠​⁠ You haven’t provided any evidence. You just listed topics that there are conspiracy theories about and some coincidences. I already explained how “it looks like” is an extremely poor argument. And the people who are supposedly the crew of Challenger aren’t actually exactly lookalikes. Everyone knows the government lies. But it is a complete non sequitur to then conclude that everything involving the government is a lie. You’re solely drawing conclusions from an antiestablishment bias. I imagine you consider yourself a skeptic of everything, but the reality is that you’re accepting conspiracy theories that fit your biases with absolutely no skepticism. You’ve been provided lots of detail already about the cause of failure, and the absolute lack of sense the supposed coverup makes, and how the actions in the fallout most align with a tragedy actually happening. You reject all of that for what essentially boils down to “government bad” and “these people look like those people”. People have been going into space since 1961. People verifiably went to the moon with the Apollo program. A more permanent presence in low earth orbit was established shortly after the Apollo program and that presence continues to this day. These are all verifiable facts. People went to space aboard the shuttle both before and after the Challenger disaster. There is so much that one has to baselessly deny to believe that no one was aboard Space Shuttle Challenger on January 28, 1986.
    2
  447. ⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠ @paolorossi8470  Of course your default response is to resort to a conspiracy theory. Be real with yourself. Do you really think that it’s entirely impossible for someone to hold an opposite view as you and also be in the comment section. Is the only possibly that I’m a paid agent or shill?
    2
  448. Why are you thanking her for platforming a grifter who is actively lying to you?
    2
  449. Bart Sibrel is a grifter and proven liar. You shouldn’t be thanking Owens. She did you and the rest of her audience a complete disservice by platforming Sibrel. The evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened. Don’t blindly believe people who feed you confirmation bias. Sibrel preys on people’s personal incredulity and antiestablishment biases.
    2
  450. China and Russia (as well as India, Japan, and South Korea) have all verified that the moon landings happened.
    2
  451. You know you can see satellites with your own eyes right?
    2
  452.  @JONCHAIDEZ  I looked it up and all credible sources show that the Van Allen belts aren’t a barrier to human space travel. Now what?
    2
  453. You fell for a mockumentary.
    2
  454. Most people know the government lies. But most people also have the ability to look at the evidence and realize that the moon landings happened.
    2
  455.  @scatteredsheep  The moon landings objectively happened and the evidence clearly shows this. Your antiestablishment bias doesn’t invalidate that.
    2
  456. Don’t feel bad for him. He’s nothing more than a grifter.
    2
  457.  @pauld4992  People have been analyzing moon landing rover videos for quite some time now and no one with legitimate relevant experience has found issues.
    2
  458. Good thing there are other sources that can be used to verify the moon landings. Also, Wikipedia cites its sources, so you can go and verify with the cited sources to see if Wikipedia is accurate.
    2
  459. Bill Kaysing spouted his moon landing denial for decades and nothing happened. Sibrel has been at this for decades and he’s still running around peddling his grift. Sibrel’s story about being kidnapped is made up. He’s a demonstrable liar. The evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened.
    2
  460.  @randyschissler5791  But the footprints don’t match the space suit boot! And they’d be fried by the radiation! And why did they destroy all the technology! Why haven’t they gone back?!?! It’s beyond me how some people find those to be compelling arguments.
    2
  461. Sibrel is a demonstrable liar. He preys on people’s biases and personal incredulity.
    2
  462. Over 400,000 people worked on the Apollo program. Were all of them Freemasons?
    2
  463. That should serve as a good indicator for how truthful he’s being with the rest of what he’s saying.
    2
  464. ⁠ @paolorossi8470  As has already been said, Bill Clinton saying something doesn’t make it true. And it wasn’t hard to find the quote you’re talking about. He doesn’t say the moon landings were faked. Here’s the quote, “Just a month before, Apollo 11 astronauts Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong had left their colleague, Michael Collins, aboard spaceship Columbia and walked on the moon...The old carpenter asked me if I really believed it happened. I said sure, I saw it on television. He disagreed; he said that he didn't believe it for a minute, that 'them television fellers' could make things look real that weren't. Back then, I thought he was a crank. During my eight years in Washington, I saw some things on TV that made me wonder if he wasn't ahead of his time.” Nowhere does he explicitly say the moon landings were faked. Context points to him saying “don’t just trust the TV”. I’ll restate, the evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened.
    2
  465. Owens platformed lies here, but the earth is verifiably not flat. People figured that out over two millennia ago.
    2
  466. Why are you thanking her for platforming a grifter who is actively lying to you?
    2
  467. It’s still a fairly good summary of information and they cite their sources.
    2
  468. The video was broadcasted through space via radio signal and picked up by a 20+ meter wide radio antenna. There’s nothing about that technology that wasn’t compatible with the technology of the time.
    2
  469. Owens platformed a grifter and proven liar. She did an active disservice to her audience.
    2
  470. ⁠ @kaone3151  People correcting factual inaccuracies isn’t “being triggered” and “not believing what you’re told” isn’t critical thinking. You haven’t acknowledged any of your gotchas being addressed. You blindly deny things based only on an antiestablishment bias. You are yes to provide evidence for your claims. When you’re incapable of addressing refutations and can only make further baseless claims, how do you think you’re making a compelling argument?
    2
  471. So you want to listen to someone who platforms grifters who actively lie to you?
    2
  472. You clearly just parroted a claim without researching it at all. A singular rock that didn’t come from NASA or the government was displayed and said to be a moon rock but actually turned out to be petrified wood. All the videos still exist. How do you think we still can watch the broadcasts and recordings from the moon?
    2
  473. Well for one they were building their nuclear arsenal and showing off fancy rocket technology was a way to flex that you could get those nukes anywhere in the world very quickly.
    2
  474. It wasn’t easy for the Apollo program to get people on the moon. It took about 400,000 people working for most of the decade and over 4% of the national budget. Nothing was lost. The original design drawings are still in microfilm at Marshall Space Flight center. Also, lunar satellites from multiple countries have taken picture of the Apollo landing sites.
    2
  475. Sibrel is actively lying to you.
    2
  476. ⁠ @maggiecomerford9253  It’s all in the grift.
    2
  477. Likely because she fell for Sibrel’s grift. And Sibrel is a grifter and a liar so of course he won’t include the actual context of that interaction with Aldrin.
    2
  478. She platformed a grifter and proven liar and fell for it too.
    2
  479.  @franciscosarmiento7058  They referenced James Van Allen, the guy who discovered the radiation belts. And you’re misinterpreting the quote from “Orion: Trial by Fire”. He simply says the new spacecraft has to solve the challenge of getting through the belts, not that it has to figure it out for the first time.
    2
  480.  @SweetPea92  The existence of fake news and misinformation doesn’t invalidate the moon landings. The evidence makes it abundantly clear that they happened. What evidence do you think shows the moon landings didn’t happen?
    2
  481. Being critical of Sibrel doesn’t fit with the antiestablishment grift being peddled.
    2
  482. Bill Kaysing, the original main Apollo denier, said the CIA/ government was out to get him but he kept spewing his conspiracy theory claims until he died at the age of 82 in 2005.
    2
  483. On the contrary, it’s actually not hard to refute Sibrel’s claims. They fall apart with any scrutiny. He claims the Apollo missions never left low earth orbit, but that claim is debunked by the fact that radio tracking stations pointed directional antennas towards the moon and got continuous signals. A spacecraft in low earth orbit would give a signal that’s comes in and out on a roughly 90 minute cycle.
    2
  484.  @aetherr  I invite you to take a look at NASA’s budget through the 60s compared to now. In particular, see what percentage of the national budget went to NASA during the Apollo era. What percent of the national budget does NASA receive now?
    2
  485. Conspiracy theorists say it was to pull a fast one on Russia and feign superiority. The issue is that they would have easily noticed if the US never sent people to the moon.
    2
  486. Or maybe environmental factors made that area more prone to catching on fire and the infrastructure for battling a fire that large at this time of year didn’t exist? Doesn’t that sound more plausible?
    2
  487.  @andrewworth7574  Maybe it’s because I’m a nerd and an aerospace engineer, but I think the effort that went into getting people to the moon is way cooler than a big conspiracy theory.
    2
  488. If she had done in depth research, she’d have known that Sibrel is lying.
    2
  489. Rockets exert a force on the exhaust gasses they eject out the nozzle and the exhaust gasses exert a force back on the rocket. It’s just the third law of motion.
    2
  490. Don’t expect that level of academic integrity from Owens and especially Sibrel.
    2
  491. The thing to know is that Sibrel lied. He’s a demonstrable liar when it comes to his claims about the moon landings and he has zero proof for his claims about being captured. Logic tells us that he almost certainly just made the story up.
    2
  492. Sibrel’s claims have been thoroughly debunked. He’s a grifter that preys on people’s ignorance and antiestablishment biases.
    2
  493. You’re thanking Sibrel for lying to you?
    2
  494.  @ScottnCarol4JC  Would you like me to provide some of the evidence for the moon landings?
    2
  495. How it looks to you is irrelevant.
    2
  496. The deception here is coming from Sibrel.
    2
  497. What do you make of the fact that Japan, South Korea, India, China, and Russia all independently confirmed the Apollo landings with their own lunar satellites? Also, receiving stations from multiple countries tracked/ received signals from the missions.
    2
  498. So when you see the warning labels on the bottles under your kitchen sink, does that make you think you should drink them?
    2
  499.  @RichardBonomo  They probably don’t have every bit of documentation, but the designs still exist. You can even find Saturn V flight manuals on NASA’s website.
    2
  500.  @RichardBonomo  I find the best analogy to describe what happened after the Apollo program was cancelled is to compare it to what happens when a car model is discontinued. It’s not like the manufacturer forgets how to make it. They just don’t have the production lines and supply chains up and operational. The lack of supporting infrastructure is why we can no longer build a Saturn V. It would take vastly more money and effort to rebuild a Saturn V than it would to just design and build an entirely new rocket. While not the same as and newer than the Saturn V, shuttle engineering is still kept around. The important thing many people miss is that the engineering advances made during the Apollo era were applied to later rocket technology.
    2
  501. Nixon’s phone call was patched to a radio signal. That signal was sent from a ground station to the spacecraft. The first lunar flyby happened in 1959 and proved that radio signals can be used to control and communicate with spacecraft at the moon.
    2
  502. Sibrel is a demonstrable liar. The Van Allen belts were discovered in 1958 and are not an impenetrable barrier to human space travel.
    2
  503. She’s promoting a grifter and a grift, not the truth.
    2
  504.  @boardwalkbw7130  “Exposing the lies of Bart Sibrel” is one of the better comprehensive debunks of Sibrel out there.
    2
  505.  @JerryCarrera-cx4tl  To reiterate, Sibrel lied to Aldrin to arrange an in person meeting under false pretenses. Sibrel then began to harass Aldrin. Aldrin tried to walk away numerous times until Sibrel ultimately backed him up against a wall and got in his face. Only then did Aldrin punch Sibrel. It was entirely provoked and the punch had a good case for being justified as self defense. Sibrel deliberately leaves out the context of that encounter because he’s a dishonest grifter.
    2
  506. Sibrel doesn’t tell the truth. He preys on people’s personal incredulity and antiestablishment biases. His claims have been thoroughly debunked.
    2
  507. Grissom, White, and Chaffee didn’t die in mysterious circumstances. We know exactly what caused the fire.
    2
  508.  @Mrs.Stone99  The war is part of the reason that the government cancelled the Apollo program. The goal of beating the Soviets to the moon had already been accomplished. Both the war and the Apollo program were incredibly expensive. The Apollo program was cancelled so that money could be spend elsewhere, like the war.
    2
  509. If she was meticulous in her research, she would have known that Sibrel is a liar.
    2
  510. You fell for a mockumentary.
    2
  511. We went back 5 more times.
    2
  512. ⁠​⁠ @AereForst  This isn’t a matter of blindly believing the government. That’s a common misrepresentation thrown around by moon landing deniers and other conspiracy theories rooted in an antiestablishment bias. Sibrel is a grifter and proven liar. He preys on people like you by appealing to personal incredulity. He relies on people being willfully ignorant. Your antiestablishment bias reigns supreme and you blindly believe any “government bad” narrative you’re fed. Sibrel’s claims fall apart under the slightest scrutiny. For example, it would have been blatantly obvious to any radio tracking station of the Apollo spacecrafts never left low earth orbit. Meanwhile, you had no idea there was more than one moon landing but you’re pretending like you actually what you’re talking about.
    2
  513. There is no evidence that’s shows any pictures or videos were faked.
    2
  514. Sibrel doesn’t like to talk about the Apollo missions after Apollo 11 because it’s much harder to keep up a cohesive lie. The moon landings objectively happened and Sibrel is a proven liar. His central claim is that the Apollo missions never left low earth orbit. However, that claim can easily be debunked. Radio tracking stations all over the world followed the Apollo missions. They pointed their directional antennas towards the moon and all picked up the same continuous signal. If the spacecraft was in low earth orbit, they wouldn’t pick up the same signal at the same time and it would come in and out on a roughly 90 minute cycle.
    2
  515. The evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened. And why are you expecting Armstrong to have bounced?
    2
  516. It is trivial to prove that the earth is not flat.
    2
  517. The video Sibrel touts and an unedited leak was part of the news broadcast. It was always public. Sibrel is just lying. It would have been blatantly obvious to the ground stations if the spacecraft was in low earth orbit as Sibrel claims. Instead of pointing their radio antennas and getting a constant signal, they’d be getting signal every 90 or so minutes, the orbital period of low earth orbit.
    2
  518. ⁠ @Odnodum  You’re using made up standards so you can dismiss things you don’t like. Non-US based search engines (including yandex) will also tell you the moon landings happened. In fact, Russia, India, China, South Korea, and Japan will all tell you that the moon landings happened because they verified for themselves with lunar satellites. Sibrel is a demonstrable liar. It takes only the slightest scrutiny for his claims to fall apart. He relies on people blindly falling for his appeals to personal incredulity and antiestablishment biases.
    2
  519. Well the moon is still in orbit around the earth, so that technically is correct.
    2
  520.  @cplmpcocptcl6306  Yet many moon landing deniers think they’re privy to knowledge “they” don’t want you to know or have been “deprogrammed” or are no longer a sheep. It’s a perfect example of the Dunning Kruger effect. These people have done next to no research and blindly believe a narrative that serves as confirmation bias yet think they’re the informed ones.
    2
  521. I’m always amused by that irony. They just demonize certain bits of technology when it’s convenient to their grift.
    2
  522. Public interest for the Apollo program plummeted after Apollo 11. There were 6 more missions after that but none had nearly as much interest as Apollo 11. People lost interest on their own. The challenger disaster happened in 1986, over a decade after the Apollo program was cancelled. It did jeopardize the shuttle program, but it continued until 2011. Please get your basic facts straight before making claims like you did here.
    2
  523. Kubrick didn’t even try to simulate low gravity in the moon scenes from 2001.
    2
  524. The moon landings verifiably happened. Sibrel is just a liar.
    2
  525. Well the evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened. It doesn’t take much to debunk Sibrel’s claims here.
    2
  526. The US was firmly ahead of the Soviets by the time the Gemini program began. Please better inform yourself on spaceflight history.
    2
  527. Incorrect
    2
  528. You can easily verify for yourself that the earth isn’t flat. In fact, people figured that out over two millennia ago.
    2
  529. Sibrel is a grifter and he is actively lying to you. His arguments have been thoroughly debunked.
    2
  530. Moon landing denial and other conspiracy theories are more akin to the Easter bunny for adults. It takes blind belief in baseless claims to deny the moon landings.
    2
  531. She platformed a grifter and a liar.
    2
  532. She platformed a grifter and liar. There’s nothing commendable about that.
    2
  533. You’re blindly believing confirmation bias from a proven liar.
    2
  534. Sibrel is a grifter and proven liar.
    2
  535. You’ve always been saying that but never bothered to look up how the first steps on the moon were recorded? A camera mounted to the outside of the lander recorded Armstrong’s first steps.
    2
  536. They used the same technology as call in radio. Nixon called Houston and that call was patched to a radio signal.
    2
  537.  @justthinking526  Emojis don’t change the fact that the note is correct and that the moon landings verifiably happened. Try coming up with an argument that isn’t just “nuh uh”.
    2
  538. It’s a fictional movie.
    2
  539.  @boardwalkbw7130  There’s nothing honest about Sibrel. He’s a grifter and a proven liar.
    2
  540. The Van Allen belts are a donut shaped region of solar radiation particles trapped by earth’s magnetosphere. These belts were discovered in 1958. Also, they’re not a barrier to human space travel.
    2
  541. Why? Sibrel is a proven liar and Owens uncritically platformed him.
    2
  542. 1. The Van Allen belts were discovered in 1958 and were largely mapped by the end of the 50s. They did take precautions for these belts. 2. The flag waved because the astronauts made it move. 3. Backup tapes got recorded over as part of standard procedure.
    2
  543. You are receiving misinformation about the Van Allen belts. James Van Allen himself said the radiation belts that bear his name were not a barrier to human space travel.
    2
  544. It’s not just that. Sibrel lied to Aldrin to arrange an in person meeting under false pretenses then proceeded to harass him. Aldrin kept trying to walk away. Sibrel ultimately backed Aldrin against a wall, got in his face, and called him a liar, a coward, and a thief. Only then did Aldrin punch Sibrel.
    2
  545. Do yourself a favor and learn what a money laundering operation is. At the very worst, NASA and the Apollo program were a works program. Sibrel is the one perpetuating a hoax and you’ve fallen for it hook, line, and sinker.
    2
  546. And look how many people fall for it.
    2
  547. Sibrel is a liar. You’re saying you’re glad Owens platformed misinformation.
    2
  548. India has taken pictures of some of the Apollo landing sites with Chandrayaan-2.
    2
  549. Sibrel and Owens are the ones indoctrinating you. How do you not see that?
    2
  550. Consider watching “Exposing the lies of Bart Sibrel” instead.
    2
  551. Sibrel is lying to you. The evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened.
    2
  552. Males can still get HPV. That’s why they should get the HPV vaccine.
    2
  553. Sibrel and Owens are the ones preventing misinformation. Do yourself a favor and do some actual research. The evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened. Don’t fall for grifters like Sibrel.
    2
  554. Flat earth is trivially easy to disprove. People figured out that the earth isn’t flat over two millennia ago.
    2
  555. Were you able to realize that Sibrel is a liar?
    2
  556. Yes, Russia would have immediately known if there wasn’t a moon landing. However, they acknowledged the success of Apollo 11.
    2
  557. The budget went to facilities operations, making hardware, and paying the salaries of regular people.
    2
  558.  @HaleyMarieIrishQueen  You made a patently false claim about the fact check and when called out for it, your response is to say everyone is offended? Did you call your math teacher offended when you got answers marked wrong? Whether or not the moon landings happened isn’t a matter of opinion. Also, your initial comment called the fact checking false. That’s not an opinion either. That’s a definitive statement.
    2
  559. Why are you congratulating Owens for platforming a grifter and spreading misinformation?
    2
  560. ⁠ @brianwinkler8183  The triggered accusation is nothing more than a weak attempt to dismiss what I’m saying without having to address that. I suspect you know this too. To prove that I have an argument, I’ll show how easy it is to debunk Sibrel’s central claim. He says the Apollo missions never left low earth orbit. If that was the case, it would have been blatantly obvious to every radio tracking station that was following along. Instead of getting a continuous signal when pointing their directional antennas towards the moon, they’d have signal come in and out on a roughly 90 minute cycle. Multiple radio tracking stations picked up the same continuous signal when pointing their antennas in the same direction. That wouldn’t be possible if Sibrel’s claims were correct. Sibrel is a grifter who preys on people’s personal incredulity and antiestablishment bias and you clearly fell for it.
    2
  561. This guy is a grifter and demonstrable liar.
    2
  562. It is trivial to prove that the earth isn’t flat.
    2
  563. Personal incredulity is not a valid argument.
    2
  564. All the antiestablishment conspiracy theorists use trickery to make a living by grifting their followers.
    2
  565.  @paulm.s.2577  The space program arose out of missile development. However, people quickly realized practical application to space such as GPS and communications. Look up a list of all the things that are now ubiquitous with modern society that were developed because of space exploration.
    2
  566. Only 3 of the Apollo astronauts were Freemasons.
    2
  567. Who’s “they”? Also, you know you can verify the shape of the earth for yourself right?
    2
  568. You loved being lied to by Sibrel?
    2
  569. ⁠​⁠@Shikshame So you don’t see that Sibrel is a grifter and a liar but you do like being fed confirmation bias?
    2
  570. @Shikshame Well as long as you know Sibrel is lying, I guess I can’t make you not enjoy a fantastical and speculative story.
    2
  571. Sibrel is the one who is demonstrably lying.
    2
  572. Have you never looked up how the video was recorded? There was a camera mounted to the outside of the lander.
    2
  573. Sibrel is a grifter and proven liar. He preys on people’s ignorance, personal incredulity, and antiestablishment biases. The evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened.
    2
  574. The Van Allen belts were discovered in 1958 and largely mapped by the end of the 50s. James Van Allen himself knew it was possible to safely fly through the belts.
    2
  575. This isn’t the truth. Sibrel is a proven liar.
    2
  576.  @Charles-oo8bq  Do you really think that teams of scientists and engineers were too clueless to figure out the necessary spacecraft size, wall thickness, and shielding but you have it figured out. The irony here is that lead is a terrible choice for spacecraft shielding for multiple reasons. I’ll let you figure out why.
    2
  577.  @antisgamozero  “Nuh uh” isn’t a very good rebuttal. American Moon has already been debunked.
    2
  578. The most commonly cited reason is to trick the Soviets into thinking the US had won the space race. That claim falls apart with even the slightest bit of scrutiny.
    2
  579. The evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened.
    2
  580. She probably knows a certain part of her audience will eat up antiestablishment narratives like moon landing denial.
    2
  581. He was never in danger. It’s a made up story.
    2
  582. The evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened.
    2
  583. Sibrel likes to exclude the fact that he followed Aldrin around constantly harassing him then backed him up against a wall before getting in his face. The punch was entirely provoked and is easily justifiable as self defense.
    2
  584. Good thing the moon landings can’t be verified independently of the government.
    2
  585. You seem to be referring to a particular interview aboard the ISS where the astronauts correctly said that at that current time, there was not a spacecraft capable of taking people beyond low earth orbit. That doesn’t mean it never had happened before.
    2
  586. What do you know that scientists and engineers that study aerospace don’t? Because they all say the moon landings happened.
    2
  587.  @danclaymore2428  Abject reality denial typically isn’t received well. No surprise there. Also, you should learn what money laundering is. Giving money to NASA would be a terrible money laundering scheme because you’re just losing the money. The point of money laundering is to make it appear that illegitimately acquired money was acquired legitimately. NASA’s budget largely goes to mundane things like paying the salaries of regular people and building hardware. At worst, you could call NASA a works program.
    2
  588. If they knew, why wouldn’t they have said anything? They acknowledged Apollo 11’s success in Pravda.
    2
  589. SpaceX objectively launches rockets into space. This is easily verifiable. The videos claiming otherwise are lying to you and are preying on your antiestablishment bias.
    2
  590. Repeatedly winning? Even by the beginning of project Gemini, the US was firmly in the lead of the space race. The US performed the first rendezvous and docking in space. They had conducted longer duration missions. They had more successful lunar landers. They more thoroughly scouted landing locations on the moon. For a comparison of where each space program was towards the end of the space race, just look at Russia was doing when Apollo 11 launched. The Soviets wanted to snag one last “first” so they launched Luna 15, an intended sample return mission just a few days before Apollo 11 launched. Luna 15 was still in lunar orbit when Apollo 11 landed on the moon and it ultimately crashed mere hours after Apollo 11’s lunar ascent. The Soviets kept working towards a manned landing for a few more years after Apollo 11. However, their N1 rocket blew up every single time they tried launching it. The program was hemorrhaging money and they decided to pull the plug because they didn’t think it was worth it just for a distant second. NASA scouted the radiation environment before sending people beyond low earth orbit. The Van Allen belts were largely mapped by the end of the 50s and the Ranger and Surveyor programs measured the radiation levels in transit to and on the moon. That’s how it was determined that the astronauts wouldn’t receive a dangerous dose of radiation over a less than two week long mission. The radiation issue becomes much more pertinent for missions like a crewed mars landing. The mission duration is orders of magnitude longer. It would take upwards of 2 years.
    2
  591. Moon landing denial is a grift and she probably recognizes that the antiestablishment narrative peddled by Sibrel will resonate with her audience. Whether or not Owens knows Sibrel is a grifter or she fell for his grift herself is yet to be determined.
    2
  592. This isn’t proof. Sibrel is a grifter and proven liar.
    2
  593. No, they were not faked. The evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened.
    2
  594. ⁠ @nada2excoo  “I believe my eyes” just means you’re drawing conclusions from personal incredulity. The Apollo program was cancelled because the government didn’t want to pay for it any more. Until recently with the Artemis program, there hadn’t been any desire by the government to pay for more moon missions. Spaceflight technology has improved greatly since the 60s though.
    2
  595.  @giovannamoro8564  Can you share the title of the video?
    2
  596. SELENE didn’t have the resolution to capture pictures of the hardware left behind on the moon. What it did confirm with its 3D mapping of the surface of the moon is that the topography at the Apollo landing sites perfectly matches was is seen in the Apollo pictures and videos. It also captured lighter spots in the lunar regolith that were consistent with dust that had been disturbed by the descent and ascent stage engines. Other satellites have captured pictures of the Apollo landing sites. The LRO has pictures of all 6 sites. Both India’s Chandrayaan-2 and South Korea’s Danuri captured pictures of the Apollo 11 site.
    2
  597. Sibrel likes to ignore that and Owens probably has no clue about it.
    2
  598. It would make absolutely zero sense to “eliminate a threat” to the program in such a way that also took out two compliant astronauts and nearly led to the cancellation of the whole program. Sibrel is just lying.
    2
  599. The Apollo 1 fire was a genuine tragedy. Conspiracy theorists claim it was a hit job but that claim falls apart with even the slightest bit of scrutiny.
    2
  600. Do you think the warning labels on the bottles under your kitchen sink mean you should drink them? And I wish you could see the irony in your comment. Moon landing deniers are the ones who are uncritically and blindly parroting claims they heard. Their “research” consists of finding confirmation bias from grifters like Sibrel who prey on people’s ignorance and personal incredulity. All evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened. It takes only a small amount of actual research to find this information.
    2
  601. The evidence shows otherwise.
    2
  602.  @WinkyFromNorthChicago74  “I’m right because you said im wrong.” That’s the argument you’re making. Do you not see how absurd that is? If someone is making claims that are patently false and people are falling for them, should people not be calling out the false claims? For example, let’s say someone starts claiming that lead is actually a cure to cancer and people believe it and start eating lead. To most, it’s obvious that lead is bad for you, but some people have been convinced otherwise. People start speaking up and telling those people that they’re wrong and lead is bad for you. If a lead eater responded “the fact that you’re trying so hard to tell me that lead is bad actually means lead is good for you” would you think they’re making a good point? I’d hope not. Also, lunar satellites have already taken pictures of the Apollo landing sites. Were you not aware of this or are the pictures not good enough for you? And what makes you think that moon landing deniers wouldn’t just call it fake if a mission was sent to the Apollo sites?
    2
  603.  @boxingandbulldogs6341  Yes, evidence. You could do yourself a favor by researching it and using it to substantiate your arguments. @SolarChronicle gave a good list to start with. You are correct that we have access to basically unlimited information, yet you seem to have only found disingenuous sources. “They’re lying to us, therefore the moon landings are fake” is an extremely poor argument. You’re just drawing conclusions from an antiestablishment bias. Baseless denial doesn’t make you a skeptic or “awake”. It’s just as intellectually lazy as blind belief.
    2
  604. An o-ring in one of the boosters failed because it was flown in conditions it wasn’t rated for.
    2
  605. Russia was tracking the missions with radio antennas. It would have been blatantly obvious if there wasn’t a spacecraft en route to the moon. And now, multiple countries have observed the hardware left behind with lunar satellites.
    2
  606.  @Xueqs  Ok yeah I’m with you there. Many moon landing deniers reference the one failure of the LM training craft where Armstrong had to eject and say it was impossible to land on the moon. Meanwhile they’re ignoring the fact that Armstrong successfully flew that trainer numerous times. I wasn’t sure which way you were taking this. And yes, it was likely easier to operate the real LM as opposed to trainers that were doing their best approximation of mimicking handling on the moon.
    2
  607. He has no evidence and his claims have been debunked for decades. But grifters gotta grift and the antiestablishment narrative convinces a lot of people to believe him.
    2
  608.  @redflipper992  You’re the gullible one if you’re believing what Sibrel is claiming.
    2
  609. You loved being lied to by a grifter?
    2
  610. I’d like to see your engineering analysis of the lunar module that shows it couldn’t have worked. Why did the engineers at Grumman think it would work?
    2
  611. ⁠ @jasonmorgan27  Conveniently, there’s nothing in space to block a radio signal from being picked up by 25+ meter wide dish antennas. There are plenty of things that can prevent the tiny antenna in a cellphone from picking up a signal. The Apollo missions used the same technology as live TV broadcasts. The only difference is that the signal was being sent from the moon and picked up by a large ground station antenna before being disseminated. Also, they did test the technology before the moon landings. In the 1940s, the first radio moon bounces were performed, proving a signal could be sent back and forth between the moon. The first lunar flyby was conducted by the Soviets in 1959, proving radio signals could maintain communications with a spacecraft at the moon. NASA’s Ranger and surveyor programs demonstrated their ability to get spacecraft to lunar orbit and perform soft landings. Expressing personal incredulity and reciting a stock antiestablishment narrative isn’t evidence against the moon landings.
    2
  612.  @ApolloKid1961  They said “against the landings”, which to me means they’re saying people like Sibrel can fabricate “evidence” for their moon landing denial claims.
    2
  613. The fact that Sibrel lies by omission of the context is a good indication of how truthful he is with the rest of his claims.
    2
  614. Sibrel is a grifter and a liar. He preys on people’s antiestablishment biases and personal incredulity.
    2
  615. Sibrel is lying to you. Don’t fall for his grift. The moon landings happened.
    2
  616. For context, the video here is a debunk of Sibrel’s appearance on Joe Rogan by Dave McKeegan. It’s a great video.
    2
  617.  @Jonathondonavon1984  That’s what Sibrel is aiming for. He preys on ignorance, personal incredulity, and antiestablishment biases.
    2
  618. The moon landings objectively happened and the evidence makes this fact abundantly clear.
    2
  619.  @HardKncokIntelligence  An onboard camera did record the descent and landing. It just didn’t broadcast that video live. You can easily find that video along with the communications between the astronauts and Houston. There is on the order of 100 hours of video recorded on the surface of the moon across the 6 moon landings. It’s all public record.
    2
  620.  @HardKncokIntelligence  You’re not applying basic logic to any of this though. You’re reaching conclusions from personal incredulity and ignorance. Just look back in this thread at how many times you claimed something didn’t exist, got corrected, then said “well what about this?” You’re making bad faith arguments because you have no evidence on your side.
    2
  621. They didn’t fake it. It would be blatantly obvious if they did.
    2
  622. It’s sad that people still believe what this grifter has to say. He’s been making the same claims for decades now and they’re all simple to debunk.
    2
  623. You’re exactly right in your take on the Sibrel and Aldrin encounter. In this case, it’s evident that Owens did no actual research. She seemed to completely fall for Sibrel’s grift. He preys on people’s personal incredulity and antiestablishment biases.
    2
  624. Exactly. Sibrel can’t present evidence to back his story. That’s a really good indicator that he’s lying. And on the other hand, there are mountains of evidence showing that the moon landings happened.
    2
  625. Sibrel acts like every other grifter. It’s a prerequisite to pretend the claims are self evident or provide flawed “evidence” He spouts lies that serve as confirmation bias. He preys on personal incredulity and antiestablishment biases. He relies on people being gullible enough to not investigate his claims because they fall apart with the slightest scrutiny.
    2
  626. CERN is just an organization studying particle physics.
    2
  627. They used the same technology as call in radio. And the camera was controlled by Ed Fendell at Mission Control. He made predetermined inputs based on a timer to account for the delay.
    2
  628. There’s not much courage involved in platforming a grifter and proven liar.
    2
  629. The shadows make perfect sense.
    2
  630. Unfortunately, many people think being a contrarian automatically makes them a critical thinker. What they don’t realize is that baseless denial is just as intellectually lazy as blind belief.
    1
  631. ⁠​⁠ @ValentinKostadinov  The radio tracking does in fact prove Sibrel wrong. Even if there was a robotic craft on the moon playing one half of a predetermined script, that still leaves many loose ends. That means that all of mission control would have had to have been in on the conspiracy. We saw the astronauts launch, so there still would have had to have been coms with the astronauts in low earth orbit. No one picked up any signals from astronauts in earth orbit when they should have been gone. Also, we have evidence like the samples brought back and pictures of the landing sites (from multiple countries) that show the tracks the astronauts left in the dust. And lastly, you’re just further digging into the conspiracy theory. Refer to groups you don’t like and call me a bot and now you don’t have to address what I’m saying anymore right? I’m not convinced you actually believe what you’re telling yourself.
    1
  632. ⁠​⁠ @lemmyelk , cool name…. See how that’s a silly point to try to make? My account name is just my initials and Google decided to add rd9pu to my display name some time after I had created the account. I decided to not change it. What’s also silly is the “we can only get x% of the way to the moon” argument. It’s designed to prey on ignorance and personal incredulity. If you’re not going to the moon, what purpose is there in going beyond low earth orbit? The answer is next to none. There is quite literally nothing a quarter, halfway, three quarters, etc. the way there. We also currently have a rocket capable of sending a crew capsule around the moon and back. So there’s nothing to figure out there. Any other questions?
    1
  633. Empirical data was used to create models that verifiably work.
    1
  634.  @EnriquetheSquirrel  I’m talking about scientific models.
    1
  635. @fast-toast Even better, including contractors, the total number of people working on the Apollo program was about 400,000. To fake it, you’d need an entire extra team dedicated to that outside of the team already working on the hardware.
    1
  636. ⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠ @VtooSmooth  “It doesn’t make sense to me” is not a valid argument and is nothing more than an argument from incredulity. Let’s take a look at the Concorde. It was a passenger jet capable of flying at Mach 2. Development began in the 50s. Production began in the 60s. Its first flight was in 1969. If we had Mach 2 capable passenger jets in the 60s, why don’t we have even faster passenger jets now? It’s because at the end of the day, it was just too expensive to operate. The Apollo program was cancelled because the government didn’t want to keep paying the extraordinary cost to continue sending people to the moon. They felt NASA’s budget was better spent on other programs. Space exploration technology has advanced since the Apollo program. It was just focused in other areas. Getting to the moon now is comparatively easier than it was in the Apollo era, but it’s still not easy. It was only recently with the Artemis program that funding has been allocated to work to send people back to the moon. And when you say “petrified moon rocks” I can only assume you’re trying to refer to the piece of petrified wood that found its way into the Dutch national museum labeled as a moon rock. It’s clear that you’re just trying to throw out a “gotcha” even though you haven’t researched the topic at all. That rock was a personal gift from a US ambassador to the former Dutch prime minister. It was pulled from his personal collection after he died and was not properly vetted before being put in the museum. There are a multitude of ways a personal gift that sat in a personal collection for years could turn out to be a fake. The fact that scientists could identify exactly what it was once it was properly analyzed. Over 800 pounds of lunar samples were brought back by the Apollo missions. The situation with the piece of petrified wood shows that scientists will know if the samples they’re studying are moon rocks or not.
    1
  637. Sibrel is a grifter and a proven liar. He is lying to you about the moon landings. His grift preys on people’s antiestablishment biases.
    1
  638. I’m quite certain that people 2000+ years ago couldn’t even fathom the technology we have today. The Bible mentions nothing about television, internet, or even electricity. Of course it has nothing relevant to say about space travel. However, educated people during the time the Bible was written likely at least knew the earth isn’t flat.
    1
  639. Sibrel isn’t telling the truth. He’s a proven liar.
    1
  640.  @wakinglife7065  Would you like to provide any evidence to support your claims that the moon landings didn’t happen?
    1
  641. Both of them platformed this grifter and neither gave any pushback on his lies.
    1
  642.  @rebeccagabele3823  The moon landings can be verified independently of the government. It only takes basic scientific literacy to debunk Sibrel’s claims. Also, multiple nations have independently verified the moon landings, including Russia, India, China, Japan, and South Korea.
    1
  643. There are plenty of things to be concerned about when it comes to Sibrel. Simply put, he’s a lying grifter.
    1
  644. ⁠ @BornInTheWrongTimes  I doubt it. As you said, she’s just picking controversial narratives and running with it. She would lose all credibility “credibility” in the eyes of her fans who like these narratives if she backtracked. To some groups, it’s “cool” to just blatantly deny anything that comes from “the establishment”.
    1
  645. The moon has 1/6 of earth’s gravity. Take the weight of the lunar lander in earth, divide by 6 and compare to the thrust of the descent stage engine. The engine produces more thrust than the LM weighed. Then look at the weight of the ascent stage on earth, divide by 6, and compare to the ascent stage thrust. The engine produces more thrust than the ascent stage weighs.
    1
  646. The moon landings are easily verifiable independently of what any astronaut says or doesn’t say.
    1
  647.  @danchanda  It’s not name calling when it is a demonstrable fact that he is a grifter and a liar. The evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened and Sibrel’s arguments have been thoroughly debunked.
    1
  648.  @OdinWarrior514  Try providing evidence for once. Just saying “nuh uh” doesn’t accomplish anything.
    1
  649.  @OdinWarrior514  Your ignorance on this topic is abundantly obvious. You’re just parroting stock talking points that pander to personal incredulity. You easily could have looked up any of these things but chose not to. The S-IVB third stage performed the TLI burn. It lasted a bit shy of 6 minutes. The tank held over 240,000 pounds of fuel. The engine had a total burn time of about 8 minutes between the two burns it performed. Assuming a full throttle burn for both, 3/4 of the fuel, or about 180,000 pounds of fuel were burned for thr TLI. They got through the radiation belts by flying through quickly. They spent less than an hour total traversing the belts between the outbound and return trips. With the short duration of exposure and shielding provided by the spacecraft, the astronauts did not receive a dangerous dose of radiation. Remember that the Van Allen belts were discovered in 1958 and largely mapped by the end of the 50s. The Ranger and Surveyor programs also helped increase knowledge of the radiation environment. And lastly, James Van Allen himself said the belts weren’t a barrier to humans space travel. The moon is about 240,000 miles away. I’m not sure where you’re getting 60 million from. Either way, radio signals can travel that far because there’s nothing in space to stop them. The first radio signal bounces off the moon were performed in the 40s. It only takes about 1.3 seconds for a radio signal to travel between the earth and the moon. The video of Armstrong’s first steps on the moon were recorded by a camera mounted to the outside of the lander. Scientists and engineers were able to figure this out in the 60s because they were really smart and extremely high national priority was placed on the program. It took the combined efforts of over 400,000 people working the majority of a decade to accomplish the moon landings. We stopped going because the government didn’t want to pay for it anymore. The Challenger astronauts are dead. Also, I fail to see how Challenger is relevant. The Challenger disaster happened 14 years after the Apollo program was cancelled. Have you really never hear of call in radio? Nixon called Houston and the call was patched to a radio signal. You need to use the educated part of your brain to do some basic research instead of parroting questions you think are “gotchas”.
    1
  650.  @BTFREEDOM1776  Sure, you and I haven’t been to the moon, but 12 men did walk on the moon.
    1
  651.  @BTFREEDOM1776  The evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened. I can reach that same conclusion by evaluating that evidence for myself. People like Bart Sibrel are the ones who are lying.
    1
  652.  @BTFREEDOM1776  A bit of science and empiricism will do you well.
    1
  653. ⁠​⁠ @bookworm8415  Well first off, Nixon was president during all of the Apollo landings. That shouldn’t be a factor in whether or not you acknowledge the moon landings, but we should make sure to get the facts straight. The reasons you’re citing for skepticism are largely personal incredulity. I get that the Apollo program can be difficult to fully understand and that a bit of distrust in the government can sway views, but the evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened.
    1
  654.  @chrissyg1700  None of that money was allocated towards going back to the moon until the Artemis program began. NASA can’t just do whatever they want with their budget. Congress dictates what programs and projects get funded.
    1
  655.  @chrissyg1700  Also, I highly encourage you to see the debunks of Sibrel’s claims. In a vacuum, they may seem convincing, but he’s relying on people not knowing anything about the space program. Dave McKeegan has several videos debunking Sibrel. One of the best videos is a debunk of Sibrel’s appearance on Joe Rogan. It’s called “Debunking the lies of Bart Sibrel”.
    1
  656. Because sometimes people need to be steered in the right direction. So you see the warning labels in the bottles under your kitchen sink and think to yourself that means you should drink them?
    1
  657. Just about everyone knows that comments just get removed when they trip the filter. Also, we can see what you’re implying and it’s frankly a really lame narrative at this point.
    1
  658.  @rjnuzzi1648  Sibrel’s claims have been thoroughly debunked. He’s a proven liar.
    1
  659. I don’t know. What are the chances? You’ve provided no evidence.
    1
  660.  @joeycarbone3754  No, they’re not credible. They’re easily debunked. Sibrel is feeding you confirmation bias that preys on your personal incredulity and you’re blindly believing it.
    1
  661.  @paolorossi8470  You copied and pasted so I’ll copy and paste. Of course your default response is to resort to a conspiracy theory. Be real with yourself. Do you really think that it’s entirely impossible for someone to hold an opposite view as you and also be in the comment section. Is the only possibly that I’m a paid agent or shill?
    1
  662. It was daytime on the moon. Daytime on the moon is just as bright as daytime on earth. The stars were too dim relative to everything else to be seen.
    1
  663. ⁠​⁠ @whorlwinds.9750  Nothing Bart said here proves your claims and it certainly doesn’t account for the samples brought back and the pictures taken by lunar satellites.
    1
  664.  @Mjg_00  Baseless? On the contrary. There are mountains of verifiable evidence that show that the moon landings happened. Also, are you just going to move on from your claim about why the Soviet Union didn’t call out the moon landings for being fake?
    1
  665. It doesn’t exist. I wouldn’t trust Owens to investigate it because she’d probably fall for another grift.
    1
  666. There was a camera mounted to the outside of the lander and it transmitted the video via radio signal.
    1
  667. There were 6 moon landings. Could you really not be bothered to look that up?
    1
  668.  @dustinryan9671  If NASA/ the government/ the CIA was trying to prevent Grissom from exposing information about the Apollo program to protect it, why eliminate him in a way that took the lives of two “compliant“ astronauts and nearly led to the cancellation of the program?
    1
  669.  @kimberleesimmering6228  Do you not see how you’re just blindly accepting confirmation bias being fed to you by Bart Sibrel? Where’s your skepticism of his claims. Put them under some scrutiny and see if they hold up.
    1
  670. ⁠​⁠ @kimberleesimmering6228  You thanked Owens for spreading what can only be described as misinformation and took issue with the note that YouTube placed on the video. That sounds like you’re sympathetic to the claims Sibrel is making at the very least. You say you question his claims but you’ve only been skeptical of the moon landings and the state in this thread. Let’s take a look at Sibrel’s main claim. He says Apollo 11 remained in low earth orbit. We can debunk that claim easily. The tracking station for when Apollo landed was based in Australia. It had its directional radio antenna pointed straight at the moon and received a constant signal. If the spacecraft was in low earth orbit, the station would be picking up and losing the signal on a roughly 90 minute cycle. A different radio antenna in Germany picked up the signal by pointing straight at the moon but it lost the signal when the moon set. This correlates with a spacecraft being on the moon, not in low earth orbit.
    1
  671. Why do you blindly believe Sibrel? His claims have been thoroughly debunked for decades now. He’s a grifter and proven liar who preys on people’s personal incredulity and antiestablishment biases.
    1
  672.  @DuckGoose21  When you see the warning labels on the bottles under your kitchen sink, does that make you think you should drink them?
    1
  673. ⁠ @DuckGoose21  No, I’m not comparing apples and oranges. I’m applying your same logic to another situation. “They” put out a warning label and you’re telling yourself the opposite must be true because you don’t trust “them”. Moon landing denial isn’t “questioning”. It’s a rejection of objective evidence that clearly shows that the moon landings happened. Acknowledging the fact that the moon landings happened has nothing to do with blindly trusting the government. They can be verified independently of the government.
    1
  674. You’re falling for all sorts of conspiracy theories. The Apollo landings and subsequent robotic landings verifiably happened.
    1
  675. ⁠​⁠​⁠ @carlossomosa3504  It’s not that they can’t go back. What happened is that no one wanted to pay to go back. After 6 landings, the government wasn’t interested in continuing to pay the extraordinary cost to keep sending people to the moon. Then since NASA had already been there and done that, Congress made them focus their efforts elsewhere on cheaper missions. For example, robotic mars missions cost on the order of hundreds of millions to a couple billion. The Apollo program cost over $250 billion in today’s money. Crewed moon missions are multiple orders of magnitude more expensive than robotic missions.
    1
  676. SpaceX did put a car in space.
    1
  677. The evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened.
    1
  678.  @randyschissler5791  The traceability on the rock is effectively nonexistent. The only thing we have to go off is Middendorf claiming he got the rock from the state department. But even then, he said he couldn’t remember who. The rock went into Drees’ personal collection for decades before it was pulled and displayed. We have no idea if the rock that made it to the museum is even the one that Middendorf gave Drees. The funniest thing to me is that the plaque that the rock was displayed in doesn’t actually say the rock is from the moon.
    1
  679. Ok then share it.
    1
  680. The Apollo landings objectively happened.
    1
  681.  @stevejames9531  Technically yes, but it is extraordinarily improbable and would require levels of conspiracy that flat earthers claim. Basically, every space agency has to be lying. All evidence shows that the pictures are genuine. I think one of the best pieces of evidence for the legitimacy of the pictures comes from Chandrayaan-2. The widely circulated pictures of the Apollo 11 and 12 landings sites from Chandrayaan-2 were actually processed from raw data by a civilian. His name is Marty McGuire and he goes by the Backyard Astronomy Guy. He has a website where he details how he processed the images. He used the known coordinates of the landers to know which portion of the raw data to sort through. The fact that a civilian could use public information on the Apollo landings and work with publicly available raw data to find the landers is extremely strong evidence for the legitimacy of the images. This shows that the Apollo 11 and 12 pictures from ISRO aren’t just photoshopped images they put out. The important thing to keep in mind is that space agencies don’t just put out pictures. They put out mass amounts of raw data that people can sift through themselves. That is orders of magnitude harder to fake. It’s the combination of verifiable factors that give the extreme degree in confidence for the legitimacy of the pictures.
    1
  682. The truth is that the moon landings happened. Sibrel is a grifter and a proven liar.
    1
  683. By that logic, it would be impossible to so something only once.
    1
  684.  @singersunite9785 Apollo 12 happened just 4 months after Apollo 11. What was missing in July, 1969 that they had in December of the same year?
    1
  685.  @paolorossi8470  You copied and pasted so I’ll copy and paste. Of course your default response is to resort to a conspiracy theory. Be real with yourself. Do you really think that it’s entirely impossible for someone to hold an opposite view as you and also be in the comment section. Is the only possibly that I’m a paid agent or shill?
    1
  686. The sources you heard that from are lying.
    1
  687. Chemtrails are just another conspiracy theory.
    1
  688. No they didn’t. You’re misunderstanding a cherry-picked quote. And communications were sent via radio signal. The first radio signals were bounced off the moon in the 1940s.
    1
  689.  @andrewworth7574  I’ve seen people say this before and it 100% tracks with how Sibrel conducts his grift, but do you have a source where he directly says this?
    1
  690. The earth is demonstrably not flat. Why are you believing things you have zero evidence for?
    1
  691. Sibrel claims the spacecraft stayed in low earth orbit, but that is demonstrably false.
    1
  692. The moon landings can be verified independently of the government.
    1
  693. ⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠ @dustinwarnock5731  They had enough fuel because the engines weren’t constantly firing and engineers who actually knew what they’re doing designed the rocket to carry enough fuel. Look up the basics of rocket staging and transfer orbits. The radiation environment was measured before astronauts were ever sent beyond low earth orbit by the Ranger and Surveyor programs. Dosimeters further confirmed that less than two eeek long missions didn’t lead to acutely dangerous doses of radiation. There are multiple groups and organizations independent of the US government that verified the moon landings. For example, the Soviet Union, India, Japan, China, and South Korea all verified the moon landings. A German radio observatory confirmed the moon landings by picking up the signal from Apollo 11. Geologists all over the world have confirmed the moon landings through their studies of the samples brought back.
    1
  694. Sure, the US government does bad things, but that doesn’t mean the moon landings are fake. That is completely flawed logic. Bart Sibrel is a grifter and proven liar. The moon landings objectively happened and can be verified with evidence.
    1
  695. She fell for an easily debunkable grift. There’s nothing commendable about that.
    1
  696. You know that SpaceX is largely just a launch service provider right? Yes, the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy have proven to be reliable rockets and the ability to land and be reused is impressive. However, NASA is still the group designing or developing much of the scientific instruments that get sent to space.
    1
  697.  @laurenavaneale1364  You clearly didn’t read what I wrote in my previous comment and instead blindly bought into a politicized narrative. The astronauts weren’t rescued, nor were they stranded. They were safely aboard the ISS and had a spacecraft they could have returned home aboard incase of an actual emergency. They simply joined Crew 9 and conducted the intended mission duration. This was the plan ever since the call was made to not return aboard Starliner back in August/ September.
    1
  698. ⁠ @laurenavaneale1364  Did you even read what I wrote? I did my homework. Everything I said was factual. Can you explain how Butch and Suni were stranded when they were working as part of the Crew 9 mission and they had a spacecraft they could return home aboard in case of emergency? When the call was made for the Starliner astronauts to not return on Starliner, it was decided that they would join Crew 9. Crew 9 launched with two instead of four astronauts. Butch and Suni joined that mission and Crew 9 ran its intended duration. Crew 10 showed up recently, and after a standard few days handoff period aboard the ISS, Crew 9 returned home. They executed the plan that was determined back in August/ September. 9 months is not an unprecedented amount of time to spend in space either. 5 NASA astronauts have already conducted longer missions aboard the ISS than Butch and Suni. The first year long mission in space happened from 1987-1988. The longest ever space mission was just shy of 438 days and conducted from 1994-1995. If you feel anything I said is incorrect, please refute it with evidence.
    1
  699. Sibrel is spreading misinformation. Is it not a good thing to warn people of that?
    1
  700. The Apollo program would have been an abysmally bad money laundering scheme. The money was going towards people’s salaries and building hardware. You’re not supposed to spend all your money while money laundering.
    1
  701. No, they’re not fake. Sibrel is a grifter and a demonstrable liar.
    1
  702. Science is an empirical methodology that has led to the vast majority of current human knowledge. Science denial is something that actual cults indoctrinate their members with to keep them uneducated and unable to question the cult.
    1
  703.  @raymond3803  It didn’t stop. It deployed a de-spin mechanism. Also, a rocket stopping that fast would be obliterated. It just stopped spinning.
    1
  704. ⁠​⁠​⁠ @raymond3803  the GoFast rocket don’t stop increasing altitude though. It only stopped spinning and it did so by using a mechanism intended to make it stop spinning. People misunderstood what they saw and reached a predetermined conclusion. As for other rockets that “hit the firmament”, it’s still just people not understanding what they’re seeing and reaching predetermined conclusions. Rocket plumes spread out greatly when surrounding pressure drops. These rocket plumes and other atmospheric interactions are being incorrectly labeled as collisions with a dome. You can make observations of the ISS yourself and verify that it is about 250 miles up and traveling at about 17,000 mph. That correlates with an object in orbit around the earth. When space is verifiably real, I don’t know why you reject it and physics in general in favor of what you are effectively calling magic.
    1
  705. Sibrel’s arguments have been thoroughly debunked. Even the average person should be able to see right through them with just a little bit of scrutiny. The evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened.
    1
  706.  @garystanfield2274  Sibrel is the demonstrable liar here. He gets people to fall for his grift by appealing to personal incredulity and antiestablishment biases. It’s basically rule number one of grifting to feed people lies that act as confirmation bias and convince them that everyone else is lying.
    1
  707. ⁠​⁠ @garystanfield2274  Basically everyone knows the government lies. Having some amount of an antiestablishment bias is pretty normal. However, don’t go the complete extreme and blindly believe anyone who pitches an antiestablishment narrative. Grifters like Bart Sibrel prey on people like you. He’s banking on you being entirely uncritical of claims that center around “government bad”. The moon landings can be verified independently of the government and Sibrel is a proven liar.
    1
  708. Because there’s nothing to call out. The moon landings happened and multiple countries have verified that for themselves.
    1
  709.  @ChristChickAutistic  Were you? No. Was Sibrel? No. So by your own logic, none of us can make any conclusions on the matter. The claim that you have to have witnessed something in person or done it yourself is just an excuse to baseless dismiss evidence. But, in reality, we can verify that things happened without being there because of evidence. The evidence of the Apollo 1 fire shows that Sibrel is lying.
    1
  710. ⁠ @RobMathMiller  So are you just going to ignore that I explained how the Starliner astronauts weren’t stranded so you can keep pretending that it’s an argument against the moon landings?
    1
  711. Geologists all over the world have studied the samples that were brought back. They can tell that those rocks were never exposed to oxygen or water, meaning they could not have come from earth.
    1
  712.  @SAsh-zg6ln  You’re correct about people believing any conspiracy theory simply because some have turned out to be true. However, I disagree with your sentiment. It’s always worth it to fight misinformation. There’s also some entertainment value in it. Sometimes you’ll get a bite on these comments.
    1
  713.  @SheepAmongG.O.A.T  Evolution objectively exists and has been directly observed. You’re buying into science denial lies if you think evolution doesn’t exist.
    1
  714.  @pmodrat  It sounds like your deep look involves less than credible sources. Because the bombs were detonated in the air, the radiation largely diminished in the order of weeks to months.
    1
  715. Incorrect. You can easily find moon landing denial content.
    1
  716. If you’re talking about Aldrin punching Sibrel, the LA County DA office dropped the case because they determined Aldrin’s actions to be reasonable.
    1
  717. If the CIA really had it out to have Sibrel whacked, he wouldn’t be able to be going podcast to podcast telling people about it. Same thing went for Bill Kaysing. He claimed the CIA was going after him but they never got him and he died in 2005.
    1
  718. Good thing the moon landings can be verified independently of the government.
    1
  719.  @kaanerdem2822  Since the days of early YouTube, lunar satellites from multiple countries have taken pictures of the Apollo landing sites.
    1
  720.  @paolorossi8470  You copied and pasted so I’ll copy and paste. Of course your default response is to resort to a conspiracy theory. Be real with yourself. Do you really think that it’s entirely impossible for someone to hold an opposite view as you and also be in the comment section. Is the only possibly that I’m a paid agent or shill?
    1
  721. The key point that all the conspiracy theorists miss is that even if the moon landings were faked, at the very worst, it was just a works program. You’re exactly right that the money wasn’t just stolen. It got put into the economy and into the pockets of over 400,000 regular Americans. As for Aldrin punching Sibrel, the full context makes it even worse for Sibrel. Calling a combat veteran a coward is already asking for trouble. But, Sibrel lied to Aldrin to arrange an in person meeting under false pretenses. He then proceeded to ambush Aldrin and harass him, asking him to swear on a bible. Aldrin tried to walk away and had no inclination to oblige the person actively harassing him. It was only when Sibrel backed Aldrin against a wall, got in his face, and called him a liar, a coward, and a thief that Aldrin punched Sibrel. And lastly, the claim that the Apollo 1 fire was a hit is absurd and disrespectful. Sibrel outright lies about many aspects. Also, it makes no sense to take out a noncompliant astronaut in a way that jeopardizes the program you’re trying to protect.
    1
  722. You know that money gets spent on making things, doing research, and paying regular people’s salaries right?
    1
  723.  @ApolloKid1961  If they respond, what are the odds they claim “compartmentalization” or “only a small number knew”?
    1
  724.  @ApolloKid1961  “If” is doing a lot of heavy lifting in my last comment.
    1
  725.  @ApolloKid1961  I sometimes just have to laugh because I’m an aerospace engineer and some of the stuff we have to do would be absurdly tedious and unnecessary if we weren’t actually sending stuff to space.
    1
  726. Sibrel is the liar here. His claims have been thoroughly debunked and the moon landings can be verified.
    1
  727.  @Bashbekersjiw  The internet. You can search Lunar reconnaissance orbiter, Chandrayaan-2, and Danuri to find the pictures they took of the Apollo landing sites.
    1
  728.  @debrademann8823  Considering she brought on a grifter to “investigate” the moon landings, I’m not confident she would find the appropriate people to investigate the Titanic.
    1
  729. Listing a bunch of topics there are conspiracy theories about doesn’t prove a point. The moon landings verifiably happened.
    1
  730. NASA’s budget is public record and the vast majority of it goes to mundane things like buying materials, building hardware, doing research, and paying regular people’s salaries.
    1
  731. There were over 100 shuttle launches. The Challenge disaster occurred on the 25th flight. What would the 25th shuttle flight have revealed about the Apollo program that had been cancelled 14 years prior?
    1
  732. The Van Allen belts actually aren’t a matter of debate. All data shows that it is possible for humans to safely travel through them.
    1
  733.  @Thingsarechanging  Nothing is being hidden. If NASA actually wanted to hide things, they never would have announced the existence of a deadly barrier to human spaceflight. We had the ability to map the Van Allen belts by the end of the 50s. We had the ability to adequately shield astronauts and electronics in the 60s. And Artemis 1 showed that we have the ability to shield much more sensitive electronics.
    1
  734.  @theeraphatsunthornwit6266  You’re either woefully ignorant or just lying. Go online and find an ISS tracker website, punch in your location and it will tell you exactly when and where to look. It’ll be there. I have seen the ISS with my own eyes numerous times. Countless people have also seen it and many have taken high enough quality photos of it that you can see the details of it.
    1
  735. Your entire comment just boils down to “trust me”.
    1
  736. Could you not be bothered to look up how the lander was constructed? Personal incredulity isn’t a valid argument against the moon landings.
    1
  737. You’re loving being lied to by a grifter? Sibrel’s claims fall apart with the slightest bit of scrutiny. He counts on people not doing any research.
    1
  738. ⁠ @JillyJoan  Would you feel inclined to oblige someone who lied to you to arrange an in person meeting then proceeded to harass you? I didn’t think so. Also, I don’t think many combat veterans will take kindly to being called a coward.
    1
  739.  @JillyJoan  I’m providing the context that Sibrel deliberately omitted regarding his encounter with Aldrin. He wasn’t just asking him a question.
    1
  740.  @JillyJoan  I’m providing the context that Sibrel deliberately omitted regarding his encounter with Aldrin. He wasn’t just asking him a question.
    1
  741. Sibrel’s claims have been thoroughly debunked. He’s a grifter.
    1
  742. The fraud here is Sibrel and you shouldn’t be thanking Owens for platforming him.
    1
  743.  @paolorossi8470  You copied and pasted so I’ll copy and paste. Of course your default response is to resort to a conspiracy theory. Be real with yourself. Do you really think that it’s entirely impossible for someone to hold an opposite view as you and also be in the comment section. Is the only possibly that I’m a paid agent or shill?
    1
  744. Owens fell for a grift and brought a grifter on to peddle that grift to you. Sibrel is a demonstrable liar and his claims fall apart with the slightest bit of scrutiny. For example, did you know that James Van Allen himself said that the radiation belts weren’t a barrier to human spaceflight?
    1
  745.  @alisonturner2603  Yes people do lie, including the ones telling you that all the astronauts were Freemasons. They prey on people’s personal incredulity and antiestablishment biases. The moon landings can and have been independently verified.
    1
  746. Who was embezzling the money? Remember that over 400,000 regular people were working on the Apollo program and getting paid. Real people did real work and made real hardware.
    1
  747. Those are the maximum and minimum day and night surface temperatures. Remember that lunar daytime and nighttime are each two earth weeks long. It takes time for the surface to heat and cool to those temperatures. Apollo 11 landed during the equivalent of lunar morning and the surface temperature wasn’t near either extreme.
    1
  748. Because they’re not actually after him.
    1
  749. I don’t think people should clap for someone who platformed a grifter and proven liar.
    1
  750. She platformed a grifter and a liar. She’s not doing you any favors here.
    1
  751. It would have been blatantly obvious if any fakery occurred. Also, if you actually went, there would be no need to fake anything
    1
  752. I wouldn’t trust Owens’ investigative skills considering she fell for a obvious grift here.
    1
  753. There’s a lesson to be learned here. Don’t go into a panic just because some guy on the internet says something is fake. Sibrel is a proven liar. The moon landings objectively happened and the evidence makes this fact clear.
    1
  754.  @AnisNin55  If you had done any research, you’d know that there was more than one moon landing. Was it a typo when you said “moon landing” implying there was only one?
    1
  755. Sibrel doesn’t like to talk about the other moon landings because it’s harder to keep up the grift when talking about more than just Apollo 11.
    1
  756. All of SpaceX’s accomplishments are thanks to a team of brilliant engineers (that is overworked), not Musk. He doesn’t do any of the scientific or engineering work.
    1
  757.  @wakinglife7065  So it’s fake because you say so and because you’re incredulous over the design? Got it.
    1
  758. Why are you thanking her for platforming a grifter who is actively lying to you?
    1
  759. Why are you asking Owens this? She just proved she’s susceptible to easily debunkable conspiracy theories and therefore is not a reliable source of information on space related matters. That being said, the James Webb Space telescope is real.
    1
  760. You loved being lied to by a grifter?
    1
  761. The moon landings aren’t a matter of belief. They objectively happened.
    1
  762. You can watch rocket launches and see satellites with your own eyes. What else do you need to accept the fact that spaceflight exists?
    1
  763.  @wakinglife7065  How many times do I have to tell you that evidence, not belief, verifies that the moon landings happened?
    1
  764.  @DaRKHuNTeRMK  Your assumption is incorrect. I have done plenty of research on the Apollo program. I also have a degree in aerospace engineering so this is a topic I am quite familiar with. And I guess I need to remind you again that evidence, not belief, is what verifies that the moon landings happened.
    1
  765.  @wakinglife7065  I work for an aerospace company that is primarily a defense contractor, but some of my work is for NASA programs.
    1
  766. I’m always amused when people tell themselves that “they” are hiding clues in plain sight. It would make absolutely no sense to broadcast your intentions to the world with your own name if you’re some would deceiving evil organization. @heatherjoyart, you’re making something out of nothing so you can tell yourself you figured something out.
    1
  767. At this point, I wouldn’t put it past her. She seems to latch onto anything “antiestablishment” without any sort of vetting or critical thinking.
    1
  768. Do you see the warning labels on the bottles under your kitchen sink and think they mean you should drink them? Also, the piece of petrified wood was a personal gift from a US ambassador to the former Dutch prime minister. It was not from NASA or the government and it was not vetted before being displayed. Also, the plaque it was displayed on didn’t actually say the rock was from the moon. Once the rock was actually examined, it was immediately obvious that it was petrified wood. Over 800 pounds of lunar samples were brought back and have been studied all over the world. If it was that easy to determine that one rock as a piece of petrified wood, don’t you think it would be blatantly obvious to the geologists if the samples they were studying weren’t from the moon?
    1
  769. That’s a patently false claim. For example, Aldrin is Presbyterian.
    1
  770.  @TheSilentZebra64  I really don’t understand why you don’t think humanity can be special in a large universe. We can objectively verify that the universe is huge.
    1
  771. While orbiting the earth, you would see stars while in earth’s shadow and you wouldn’t see stars when in sunlight.
    1
  772.  @omnitrus  Go and google the following. Apollo 8, Apollo 10, Apollo 11, Apollo 12, Apollo 13, Apollo 14, Apollo 15, Apollo 16, and Apollo 17.
    1
  773. Or maybe she doesn’t actually have enemies that would do that kind of thing.
    1
  774. The math could be done on calculators and basic (by today’s standards) computers. Information was sent to the spacecraft via radio signal.
    1
  775. If she was a logical thinker, she would have seen straight through Sibrel’s grift.
    1
  776.  @jameswest4819  Apollo 11’s earth orbital inclination was about 30 degrees relative to the equator. Yes, this inclination is largely due to the fact that the rocket launched from about 30 degrees north, but the inclination was advantageous for avoiding the inner Van Allen belt.
    1
  777. If you completely wanted to avoid the radiation belts, you could take a polar orbital trajectory. But that would require so much more fuel. The outer Van Allen belt isn’t that intense of radiation. It’s largely charged particles that are fairly easy to shield. Scientists have known how to shield electronics and humans since the mid 60s. According to James Van Allen, it would take about a week of flying through the stronger inner belt for an astronaut to receive a fatal dose of radiation. For comparison, the Apollo astronauts flew through the outer belt in under a half hour. Dosimeters worn by the astronauts showed that they didn’t receive dangerous doses of radiation. This is all to say, we don’t need to hyper analyze traveling through the Van Allen belts. We know how to get spacecraft and propel through the belts. They aren’t nearly the hazard that some people claim they are.
    1
  778. My experience is that I work on rockets as an engineer and have a degree in aerospace engineering. So these are topics I’m pretty familiar with. Water and polymers are good for shielding but the issue is that water is heavy. Layers of polyethylene are used as shielding on the ISS. The aluminum hulls of spacecraft perform a good bit of the shielding. Higher latitude launches will likely help make polar orbits easier. The most important consideration here is conservation of momentum. Most rockets launch eastward and near the equator because you can maximize the velocity picked up by the rotation of the earth. The tangential velocity of the ground at the equator is about 1000 mph. That means you basically get 1000 mph of the speed you need for orbital velocity for free. But for a polar orbit, you don’t want horizontal velocity. However, setting up a launch pad at the poles is going to be way more work than just having the rocket do the work to counteract the velocity from earth’s spin. The US launches most of its spacecraft destined for a polar orbit out of Vandenberg AFB. When it comes to orbital transfers to the moon, the easiest thing to do just fly through the outer Van Allen belt on a moderately inclined orbit. The extra delta V from the spin of the earth saves a lot of fuel. The most efficient orbital transfer is called a Hohmann transfer. This is an elliptical path. But it’s also slow. The common tradeoff is to take a more direct approach to save time. The basic premise of orbital dynamics is that everything moves in a circular or elliptical path. Direct paths take more energy.
    1
  779. ⁠​⁠ @jameswest4819  I get where you’re coming from with a lot of these suggestions, and you’re basing them on solid ideas, but a lot of this simply isn’t needed. The combination of inclination and rotational velocity from launching from Florida is actually pretty ideal for launching to the moon. I’m sure shielding technology will continue to advance, but it’s not like what is currently being used is inadequate. When it comes to Starship, there certainly seem to be a lot of inefficiencies. I can’t speak for SpaceX on why they made some of the decisions that they did. You’re right that stainless is heavy. I don’t know why SpaceX chose to use it. Most rocket cases use aluminum or composites. Sending things to space will be an expensive endeavor for quite some time, but the cost is slowly coming down.
    1
  780. He’s a grifter and it is easier to cast doubt on just one of the missions than try to come up with lies about all of them.
    1
  781. When you see the warning labels on the bottles under your kitchen sink, do you think that means you should drink them?
    1
  782.  @HaleyMarieIrishQueen  Like I already said, it shouldn’t be a surprise that people don’t respond well when you tell them something they experienced didn’t happen. And what is it with you branding others as “offended”? It doesn’t affect me at all that you’re making patently false claims about the moon landings. I’m simply choosing to point out that the claims you’re making are wrong.
    1
  783. ⁠ @HaleyMarieIrishQueen  There are mountains of evidence showing that the moon landings happened. You’re just choosing to ignore it. And I never said I don’t care about moon landing denial claims. I’m just saying I’m not offended. I am here to set the record straight. I actually enjoy having good faith discussions with people here.
    1
  784. I think I was too harsh in some of the wording of my previous comment and it doesn’t accurately reflect the fact that I genuinely do want to have good faith discussions. In my evaluation of the evidence and arguments for and against the moon landings, I reached the conclusion that the moon landings not only happened, but also would have been effectively impossible to fake. In the light of evidence such as the samples returned, radio tracking of the missions, and pictures taken by lunar satellites, the only conclusion that I can reach is that the moon landings undeniably happened. However, I would like to know what you feel are the best arguments against the moon landings that leave you undecided on whether or not they happened.
    1
  785. ⁠ @HaleyMarieIrishQueen  Sibrel made his usual list of claims here, but they’ve all been thoroughly debunked for years now. The claim that we didn’t have the necessary technology at the time is purely an appeal to incredulity. The technological buildup leading to the moon landings is extensively documented. I cannot recommend enough that you go and see the progression in the Mercury, Gemini, Ranger, and Surveyor programs as well as the Apollo missions preceding Apollo 11. You can clearly see how NASA first developed the ability to get people to and from space safely, then developed rendezvous and docking procedures, then developed the ability to soft land and return from the moon. Speaking of radio tracking, that’s one of the easiest ways to debunk Sibrel’s entire argument. His central claim is that the Apollo missions never left low earth orbit. That would have been blatantly obvious to every radio tracking station. Multiple stations around the world pointed directional antennas towards the moon and got a continuous signal. Had the spacecraft been in low earth orbit, signal would have come in and out in a roughly 90 minute cycle. It also would have been far more difficult to fake the moon landings back in the 60s and 70s. From the pictures and videos, they were in an environment with parallel light rays and no air. There was no technology at the time that allowed for those conditions to be replicated on a film set. Additionally, they would have had to simulate 1/6th earth’s gravity. From the photo and video evidence, we know wires weren’t being used. And in general, there is no evidence to suggest that the picture and videos were faked. People will point to things like lighting and shadows, but they’re simply incorrect. What we see is entirely consistent with an environment that has no air and 1/6 earth’s gravity that is illuminated by the sun. And perhaps most importantly, Sibrel’s claims do nothing to address the over 800 pounds of samples brought back or the pictures taken by lunar satellites from multiple countries.
    1
  786. Sibrel is a grifter and proven liar. All Owens did is introduce more people to his grift. The evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened. Choosing to believe Sibrel over the evidence is in fact tin foil hat behavior and is the exact opposite of waking up.
    1
  787. What technology specifically was missing?
    1
  788. We stopped going because the US had proven their point to the Soviets and didn’t want to continue paying the extraordinary cost of sending people to the moon.
    1
  789.  @paolorossi8470  You copied and pasted so I’ll copy and paste. Of course your default response is to resort to a conspiracy theory. Be real with yourself. Do you really think that it’s entirely impossible for someone to hold an opposite view as you and also be in the comment section. Is the only possibly that I’m a paid agent or shill?
    1
  790.  @mauryandcolleen  I have studied the series of errors and bad decisions that led to that tragedy during undergrad and now work for the company that made that booster. While it all seems blatantly obvious in hindsight, the causes of the failure are understandable. Challenger is far from the first time that schedule was prioritized over safety. As regrettable and avoidable as that tragedy was, why does it make you question the validity of the moon landings?
    1
  791. That’s patently false
    1
  792. On the contrary. It is very clear that the moon landings did happen. Grifters like Sibrel prey on antiestablishment biases, ignorance, and personal incredulity.
    1
  793. The moon is a physical object. That fact can easily be verified.
    1
  794. ⁠ @fernandorios7108  The earth is demonstrably not flat. People figured that out over two millennia ago.
    1
  795. Moon landing denial, while popular compared to other conspiracy theories, isn’t largely popular. I suspect many people realize that this is just an interview with a grifter.
    1
  796. The moon landings can be verified independently of the government. Also, space is easier to observe and study than many areas of the ocean.
    1
  797. Are you by chance a flat earther? Why do you think landing on the moon is impossible?
    1
  798. What are your qualifications to identify those signs?
    1
  799.  @DarkEnergyHealer  Why not read up on the evidence that clearly shows that the moon landings happened?
    1
  800. ⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠ @DarkEnergyHealer  “The government lies, therefore the moon landings are fake” is an extremely poor argument and completely fallacious logic. The moon landings can and have been verified independently of the government. I have a suspicion that the sources you think I should check out aren’t credible and just serve as confirmation bias for you. And if you think not going back is your best argument then you’re admitting to having a poor argument because there’s a very simple explanation. It’s also not even a piece of evidence. It’s really just an attempt at a cheap “gotcha” question. Most simply put, the government hasn’t wanted to pay to do it again because they had been there and done that. It costs an extraordinary amount of money to get people to the moon. It took the geopolitical climate of the Cold War to motivate the government to spend that kind of money on a space program. But after accomplishing the goal of beating the Soviets and landing 6 times, the motivation to keep spending that kind of money just wasn’t there. In the time since, there wasn’t much to gain from going back to the moon. The government decided that NASA’s budget would be better spent on planetary probes and expanding human presence in low earth orbit. Only recently has the government decided to spend the money to work to go back to the moon. Now that we have that sorted out, what are the other “facts”? I have a suspicion that they’re just more “gotcha” questions.
    1
  801.  @mrshaze6458  Peddling an antiestablishment narrative gets views.
    1
  802. This info isn’t credible. Sibrel is a grifter and proven liar.
    1
  803. Sibrel is a proven liar and the moon landings objectively happened.
    1
  804.  @chrisstokie2361  Sibrel’s arguments have been thoroughly debunked. If you’re actually open minded, you should check out videos countering Sibrel’s claims. Dave McKeegan has a few that I’d recommend you take a look at.
    1
  805. The moon landings objectively happened. You wasted your money on someone who couldn’t see through blatant lies.
    1
  806.  @Jenseduca  Independent radio tracking and receiving stations picked up only the signal from the astronauts (and not capcom) when they pointed their antennas towards the moon. This shows that two way communication was going on and that there wasn’t just prerecorded messages being transmitted from the moon. Also, pictures from lunar satellites show the astronaut foot paths in the dust. The evidence shows that the landings were crewed.
    1
  807. Because cameras have to be held by a person right?
    1
  808. You’re forgetting the cost involved.
    1
  809. Helium is used as a coolant and for pressure fed fuel systems. Also, you can observe satellites and verify for yourself that satellites are in space.
    1
  810. You know Wikipedia cites their sources right? You can see where the information is coming from.
    1
  811.  @snarfdwarf  Can you provide an example where factual information was removed because it was “unwanted”? Perhaps it wasn’t actually factual or relevant.
    1
  812.  @snarfdwarf  I’m not going to go on a wild goose chase just to guess at an example when you can’t even be bothered to do the bare minimum to prove you’re not just making things up.
    1
  813. You’ve got a typo
    1
  814. Gagarin went to space and so have hundreds of others.
    1
  815. Incorrect. 24 people have left low earth orbit.
    1
  816.  @b.t.3780  You’re the one claiming the moon landings didn’t happen. The burden of proof is on you to show that is the case. Do you not see how intellectually lazy it is to expect others to disprove your claims?
    1
  817.  @b.t.3780  Again, do you not see how intellectually lazy it is to claim whatever you feel like and then expect others to put in the work to disprove your claims?
    1
  818.  @b.t.3780  You’re the one making a claim about the moon landings in this thread, not me. You are yet to provide evidence. Try being not lazy and substantiate your claim. I’m not going to do your work for you.
    1
  819.  @b.t.3780  That’s a complete non sequitur. My ability to prove or disprove your point is entirely irrelevant to whether or not you are correct. If a scummy mechanic tells a customer there’s a problem with their car when there isn’t one but the customer can’t prove the mechanic wrong, does that mean the mechanic is actually right? Try showing some academic integrity and substantiate your own point. Then I’ll respond with evidence of my own.
    1
  820.  @b.t.3780  I can and I will once you show you’re willing to put in even an ounce of effort. Also, thanks for showing you didn’t even bother paying attention to what I wrote. If I started making up baseless claims about you, would you still be saying I’m right until you prove me wrong?
    1
  821. Wires don’t explain how the dust also fell at an acceleration of 1.62 m/s^2
    1
  822. Bill Kaysing also claimed the CIA was after him for his moon landing denial claims. Yet, he died at the age of 82 in 2005. He and Sibrel were/ are both liars.
    1
  823. You can easily verify for yourself that the earth isn’t flat.
    1
  824. ⁠​⁠​⁠ @MarcisBold  You’re either willfully ignorant, lying, or both. We can observe curvature over large bodies of water. There are countless examples of this observation being made.
    1
  825.  @MarcisBold  Taboo is a dishonest grifter who preys on people like you. He’s been debunked and caught lying countless times. I’ll give you another chance to find people demonstrating curvature over water before I start dropping sources that prove you and Taboo wrong. I’ll give you a bit of advice. Look outside of your echo chamber and don’t seek confirmation bias.
    1
  826. Many of the inefficiencies with NASA are the result of ridiculous requirements placed on them by Congress. It’s almost like politicians don’t know how engineering works.
    1
  827.  @shannonsmith6806  She didn’t get the real story on the moon landings though. All she did was platform a grifter and proven liar because his narrative appeals to people with strong antiestablishment biases.
    1
  828. Rockets burn a mix of fuel and oxidizer. The Saturn V used hydrogen and oxygen for its main stages.
    1
  829. ⁠​⁠ @kyinchi  Yes, there are countless sources of information on the Apollo program. All legitimate ones show that the moon landings happened. Sibrel “cites” sources but he’s usually misrepresenting information or outright lying. For example, that video he was supposedly accidentally leaked was just from a news broadcast. He’s blatantly lying just so he can push a narrative. It is trivially easy to debunk his argument and it has been done many times over at this point. I’ll gladly explain how he’s lying about more claims and provide evidence if you’d like. Also, calling a grifter and liar and a grifter and a liar isn’t an attack on character. It’s an objective statement. Lastly, calling people who call out your claims CIA is a hilariously weak argument. It’s nothing more than a desperate attempt to dismiss what people are saying because you can’t refute it.
    1
  830.  @RandomVideoWatcher7  Sibrel didn’t just ask. He lied to Aldrin to arrange an in person meeting under false pretenses then proceeded to harass him. Aldrin did not want to take part in Sibrel’s stunt. Sibrel backed Aldrin against a wall and got in his face. Then Aldrin punched him. Funny how Sibrel likes to leave out that context.
    1
  831. ⁠ @paolorossi8470  You copied and pasted so I’ll copy and paste. Of course your default response is to resort to a conspiracy theory. Be real with yourself. Do you really think that it’s entirely impossible for someone to hold an opposite view as you and also be in the comment section. Is the only possibly that I’m a paid agent or shill?
    1
  832. ⁠​⁠ @charlenequigley5557  The reality is that there’s just not any money to be made from space outside of launch contracts. Sending people for tourism isn’t a profitable model. That’s why it hasn’t become more common yet. SpaceX technically could do space tourism. They have a proven rocket and spacecraft, but there aren’t enough people willing to pay enough to make it happen. There are elites who have control over the general population but it just comes down to money. With enough money, you can manipulate markets, buy any sort of advanced you want, and lobby politicians. Plenty of people recognize that there is an elite ruling class, but there’s really nothing secretive to it. They do everything right in front of our faces. It isn’t that deep. They have power to control the world around them through influence and money. And YouTube’s comment section stinks. Many comments get claimed by the filter for seemingly no rhyme or reason.
    1
  833. You love that she platformed a grifter and proven liar?
    1
  834. People who have basic scientific literacy can evaluate the evidence and realize that the moon landings actually happened.
    1
  835. While the government is corrupt, the moon landings objectively happened. Sibrel is a grifter and he preys on people’s ignorance and antiestablishment biases.
    1
  836. ⁠ @Mrs.Stone99  No other country has simultaneously had the technological capability and money to get people to the moon. The Soviets ultimately gave up because their N1 rocket kept blowing up and the program had become a massive cash drain on top of the fact that they had been thoroughly beaten. They didn’t see a point in continuing to put in the money and effort just for a distant second place. The US didn’t want to keep spending the money so the Apollo program got cancelled. And for the following decades, there was a “been there, done that” attitude towards the moon as efforts were focused elsewhere, primarily planetary probes and establishing a sustained presence in low earth orbit. All other space programs developed well after NASA and ROSCOSMOS so they’re effectively playing catch up.
    1
  837. ⁠ @tray12234  I’ve seen just about every single argument Sibrel has made get thoroughly debunked. What points from him do you think are valid?
    1
  838.  @tray12234  Just look through this comment section. Plenty of people unfortunately are believing a random YouTuber (Sibrel). People who deny the moon landings do so because they place their biases and personal incredulity over evidence.
    1
  839. You clearly blindly believe what grifters like Sibrel are saying.
    1
  840.  @PABLOSGHOST  Notice how you haven’t provided any evidence despite claiming there is evidence proving the moon landings didn’t happen.
    1
  841. That they work and have been used to eradicate or nearly eradicate some of the worst diseases known to humanity?
    1
  842. ⁠ @charlenequigley5557  I’m always happy to have a civil discussion with people on these topics. I’m glad we could have this interaction with both sides listening to each other.
    1
  843.  @paolorossi8470  You copied and pasted so I’ll copy and paste. Of course your default response is to resort to a conspiracy theory. Be real with yourself. Do you really think that it’s entirely impossible for someone to hold an opposite view as you and also be in the comment section. Is the only possibly that I’m a paid agent or shill?
    1
  844. I’m assuming you’re referring to Kelly Smith in “Orion: trial by fire”. That was a video posed by NASA Johnson. He never said they haven’t gone past the Van Allen belts. He simply said they’re still a challenge. That doesn’t mean it’s never been done before. As for the other astronaut, I’m going to assume you’re referring to Don Pettit. He also didn’t say the technology or information was lost. You’re misunderstanding or misrepresenting cherry-picked quotes.
    1
  845. I don’t think there’s anything great about platforming a grifter and proven liar.
    1
  846. The Van Allen belts were discovered in 1958 and were largely mapped by the end of the 50s. Apollo 8 was the first mission to send people beyond the Van Allen belts.
    1
  847. Plenty of people have given their thoughts on why the US would be motivated to fake moon landings. The consensus is that the goal would have been to fool the Soviets. However, it would have been effectively impossible to fool them.
    1
  848. The surface temperature during the Apollo missions was at neither extreme. And no information was lost. You parroted a lie.
    1
  849. She platformed a grifter and proven liar. She did her audience a complete disservice.
    1
  850. Sibrel’s case got thrown out because Aldrin’s actions were deemed reasonable. Sibrel likes to remove the context that he lied to arrange an in person meeting and was continuously harassing Aldrin before backing him against a wall and getting in his face.
    1
  851. It is trivial to prove that the earth isn’t flat. People figured that out over two millennia ago.
    1
  852. The Falcon 9 has launched over 450 times with only 3 failures.
    1
  853. And your evidence that everything is fake is…
    1
  854. You love her for platforming a grifter and proven liar?
    1
  855. Sibrel is a grifter and proven lair. She fell for his grift and brought him on, allowing him to lie to an even larger audience.
    1
  856.  @wakinglife7065  The photo was from Apollo 8, which happened 6 moths earlier. And have you never heard of call in radio? That technology has its roots in the 1920s. Nixon called mission control and the call was patched to a radio signal. That wasn’t new technology.
    1
  857. The moon landings happened and dinosaurs existed. You’re lying to yourself.
    1
  858. He was never in danger. Bill Kaysing, the original big moon landing denier, also said the CIA was after him but he kept peddling moon landing denial for decades until he died at the age of 82 in 2005.
    1
  859. ⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠ @JohnIonnes  YouTube didn’t hide your comment. And evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened. You just deny it.
    1
  860. The only people telling you that NASA forgot the technology are moon landing denial conspiracy theorists. You can find a Saturn V flight manual on NASA’s website. They wouldn’t have that if they had forgotten the technology.
    1
  861. What do you feel they have given a straight answer for? Edit: I accidentally wrote “have” instead of “haven’t”
    1
  862. ⁠ @thebarberfrombrampton5404  looking back, I realize I had an unfortunate typo. That should have said “what do you feel they haven’t given a straight answer for”. I was intending to ask for a specific example.
    1
  863.  @thebarberfrombrampton5404  Why do you think Sibrel is an expert? He has no education or experience in any fields related to engineering and space. He simply pretends to be an expert and people buy it because he feeds them confirmation bias. Sibrel’s claims have been thoroughly debunked.
    1
  864. She didn’t expose the truth. She platformed a grifter and proven liar. Sibrel is lying to you.
    1
  865. The moon landings can be verified independently of the government.
    1
  866. Considering most of the comments here seem to be denying the moon landings, I’m going to guess very few.
    1
  867. You love that she platformed a grifter and spread disinformation?
    1
  868. No blind belief in the government is required. The evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened.
    1
  869. Sibrel is a proven liar.
    1
  870. No, Aldrin never said the moon landings never happened. You’re misunderstanding cherry-picked quotes. Also, do you really think k the government would just let an astronaut blab like that? Aldrin punched Sibrel because Sibrel was harassing him and backed him against a wall before getting in his face. Sibrel wasn’t simply asking a question. He deliberately omits the context of that interaction so he can fool his audience.
    1
  871. The moon landings can be verified independently of the government.
    1
  872. You fell for lies.
    1
  873. Because he’s not actually in danger.
    1
  874. He’s a grifter and demonstrable liar.
    1
  875.  @Nastyfinger1444  The moon landings verifiably happened and Sibrel is a proven liar. The fact that he likes to exclude the full context of his encounter with Aldrin should be a glaring red flag.
    1
  876. @Davidschwartz-v1c He’s saying that we still have the physical film from the Apollo missions, disproving your claim that we have never seen the real footage.
    1
  877. ⁠@Davidschwartz-v1c I’ll remind you again. The physical film still exists. There is tangible proof that the footage is real. Also, radio tracking and receiving stations around the world received a live broadcast when they pointed their directional antennas at the moon. That means a signal was coming from the moon. Do you have anything other than “nuh uh” to offer as a rebuttal?
    1
  878. @Davidschwartz-v1c There’s no evidence that any footage is missing either though. Basically the entire time the astronauts were on the moon was documented through picture, video, and communications recordings. The reason I’m pointing out the legitimacy of that documentation is because that leaves no room for fake footage, cons, or videos. With that being the case, there is no room for your claim that there was something on the moon that the government or NASA is hiding.
    1
  879.  @wakinglife7065  Try watching the whole interview and using some context clues.
    1
  880. The evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened.
    1
  881. The Van Allen belts are a roughly donut shaped region of solar radiation particles that have been trapped by earth’s magnetosphere. These belts have been known since 1958. People can travel through them.
    1
  882.  @paolorossi8470  Your idea of “reading between the lines” is just concluding what ever you feel like from the quote. You’re looking for confirmation bias. As I already said, you can boil this quote down to, “Don’t blindly trust the TV”.
    1
  883.  @paolorossi8470  No one should blindly trust anything. And there’s no way to know what specifically Clinton was referring to. But, it’s not hard to imagine that as president, he saw things being portrayed on TV differently than his intel indicated.
    1
  884. @ How could anyone possibly know what specifically Clinton was referring to with that quote? He vaguely says that he saw things that were different than they were shown on TV. There is zero indication of a specific event. You’re the one spinning illogical conclusions out of nothing. The evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened.
    1
  885. Sibrel’s claims are not difficult to debunk. If you really think he made a convincing case, then you are being entirely uncritical.
    1
  886. What convincing debunk did ChatGPT provide? And why do you place that above the mountains of evidence that all show that the moon landings happened?
    1
  887. She platformed a grifter and proven liar here. There’s nothing admirable about that.
    1
  888. @JamesWillis-w9g Sibrel has been on his moon landing denial grift for over two decades now and is the most prominent figure of the moon landing deniers. His arguments have been thoroughly debunked and most aren’t particularly difficult to debunk either. His claims fall apart with even a small amount of scrutiny. The primary issue here is that Owens pushed back on precisely nothing. She uncritically nodded along to everything Sibrel said. If she actually was “seeking the truth” she would have done some amount of rudimentary research into the moon landings. Instead, she just blindly accepted the stories of a grifter. I have to suspect that she was so uncritical because the moon landing denial narrative resonates with the antiestablishment biases and personal incredulity of her audience. Because she couldn’t be bothered to vet Sibrel’s claims, she effectively just gave a new crop of people for him to prey on. There’s nothing genuine in that and her actions are only worsening the issue of misinformation.
    1
  889.  @garyolsen4160  If the Challenger Disaster really was faked, don’t you think that the named crew would go into something resembling the witness protection program? They’d almost certainly be given completely different identities with as little publicity and traceability as possible. It would make absolutely no sense to reintroduce them into the public with the same or similar name, occupation, and appearance along with easy searchability. “It looks like” is nowhere near rigorous enough evidence to make a definitive claim on this matter. Your bank robbery example doesn’t hold up because it’s possible that someone who looks like you stole your car and then robbed a bank. The fact that the car is yours and the suspect looks like you doesn’t mean you did it. Further evidence is needed to determine who did it. The evidence only supports the conclusion that the crew of the Challenger Space Shuttle lost their lives on January 28, 1986.
    1
  890. Sibrel is the one placing the veil over your eyes. He lies for a living and fools people by appealing to personal incredulity and antiestablishment biases.
    1
  891. Owens just platformed a grifter and proven liar and seemingly completely fell for his grift. She didn’t offer even the slightest bit of questioning, pushback, or skepticism. She’s not someone you should be looking to for investigative journalism.
    1
  892. Space travel already exists. If you think otherwise, then you are the one who has been deceived.
    1
  893. I have a feeling that when you say engineering, you’re thinking about the “jet fuel can’t melt steel beams” claims. Actual engineering tells us that the temperatures at which jet fuel burns can severely compromise the structural integrity of steel beams.
    1
  894. What are you talking about?
    1
  895. Your “research” likely involved looking up conspiracy theory confirmation bias. Sibrel is a proven liar. He preys on people’s ignorance, personal incredulity, and biases.
    1
  896. There were 6 landings. Is that not enough?
    1
  897. You fell for a made up story. The Apollo program got its name from Abe Silverstein. He chose the name because he felt "Apollo riding his chariot across the Sun was appropriate to the grand scale of the proposed program." The missions were numbered sequentially.
    1
  898. The moon landings can be verified independently of the government.
    1
  899. What was amazing about a proven liar peddling his grift and preying on people’s personal incredulity and antiestablishment biases?
    1
  900.  @jengleheimerschmitt7941  You’re exactly right that if NASA was faking moon landings for money that the logical next step would be to keep faking things. It would make absolutely no sense to stop faking missions if they were making money off it.
    1
  901. Why are you thanking her for platforming a grifter and proven liar?
    1
  902.  @ThePlantageNot  Then what’s casting a shadow during solar eclipses? And why can we bounce radio signals off it and measure that it is 240,000 miles away? The moon is a physical object and that fact has been known for millennia.
    1
  903. @natalieemmary Sibrel really only focuses on Apollo 11. But he’s a grifter and a proven liar. The moon landings objectively happened.
    1
  904. No, this is not excellent. She platformed a grifter and a proven liar all while falling for his narrative hook, line, and sinker.
    1
  905. You’re misunderstanding a cherry-picked quote. Nothing was actually lost. The original designs for the Saturn V still exist. They just stopped making the Saturn V because the Apollo program was cancelled. We currently have SLS.
    1
  906. Moon landing deniers can’t seem to reach a consensus for the rationale behind faking a failed mission. In reality, there was an oxygen tank explosion and through the wits of the engineers on the ground and the collection of the astronauts, the mission didn’t end in tragedy.
    1
  907. Humans can travel through the Van Allen belts without receiving a dangerous dose of radiation.
    1
  908. You know that a handful of people were just there and extensively documenting the 24 hour sun right?
    1
  909. Owens is not a hero. She platformed a grifter who fed you confirmation bias.
    1
  910.  @ApolloKid1961  If I recall correctly, only four flags were spotted and it was an indirect observation at that. The shadows of the flags could be seen by lunar satellites. Apollo 11 blew over its flag and I believe one of the later missions also did.
    1
  911.  @ApolloKid1961  I find it funny how people fixate on seeing the flag and only the flag. I’m almost certain it’s because they think the flag was the only thing left behind.
    1
  912.  @ApolloKid1961  There’s an entire rabbit hole of “it could be worse” haha. Frankly though, the edge in creativity has to go to flerfs. Most moon landing deniers just parrot the same handful of claims. Worse yet, most of it is just a bad game of telephone stemming from like 5 different sources. When pretty much all of reality is an affront to your worldview, you’re fixed to come up with some zany things to keep the delusions alive.
    1
  913. He’s a grifter and is actively lying to you.
    1
  914. Luna 15 was orbiting the moon when Apollo 11 landed. They would have known whether or not a moon landing was happening.
    1
  915.  @paolorossi8470  You copied and pasted so I’ll copy and paste. Of course your default response is to resort to a conspiracy theory. Be real with yourself. Do you really think that it’s entirely impossible for someone to hold an opposite view as you and also be in the comment section. Is the only possibly that I’m a paid agent or shill?
    1
  916. No earth based telescope can see the Apollo landing sites. Lunar satellites can though.
    1
  917. ⁠ @shabzyhoney1166  This is an exaggerated example, but the situation isn’t dissimilar to looking for both sides of the argument over the existence of Bigfoot or unicorns. The majority of people and sources will say there is simply no evidence for their existence. Fans of cryptids will present anecdotal stories and other fantastical “explanations”. The prevalence of arguments from the two sides will be extremely lopsided. The moon landings verifiably happened. It’s expected that the vast majority of sources are going to show the evidence that the moon landings happened. The simple reality here is that all “evidence” against the moon landings is fabricated. People commonly cite lighting, shadows, radiation, computing power, fuel and oxygen requirements, and spacecraft design. All of these arguments ultimately come from ignorance and personal incredulity. They all have rational explanations. Moon landing denial isn’t being censored. It’s just a minority belief and the debunking of moon landing denial is vastly more popular. Take a look at the evidence for the moon landings, the arguments against it, and the refutations of the denial arguments. I also strongly recommend you check out the videos by Dave McKeegan that address Sibrel’s claims.
    1
  918.  @solasunny8965  How is he not a grifter when he makes his living by lying about the moon landings? He’s a proven liar and he preys off people’s ignorance and antiestablishment biases.
    1
  919.  @kaone3151  Sibrel got himself on this show and Joe Rogan. He made national news for his confrontation with Buzz Aldrin. He had a movie made. He makes a living doing this. Despite the fact that he is a grifter and proven liar, he has made a name for himself doing this and is a hero to the conspiracy theory crowd. The G forces faced were nothing a human couldn’t handle. The fuel requirements were figured out by rocket scientists. Staging is how you drastically reduce the amount of fuel needed. People that actually understand engineering don’t take issue with the amount of fuel the Apollo missions carried. Lastly, the speed of the earth around the sun is largely irrelevant because the moon and everything on earth is also moving at that speed. Please take some time to educate yourself on these matters instead of “asking” questions like they’re “gotchas”.
    1
  920. A certain July, 1969 issue of Pravda acknowledged the success of Apollo 11.
    1
  921. Why are you thanking her for platforming a grifter and proven liar?
    1
  922.  @tulipsontheorgan  So should people blindly believe Sibrel instead? The moon landings aren’t a matter of belief. Evidence clearly shows that they happened.
    1
  923.  @johnturtle6649  You can easily find the answers to these questions and you clearly chose to remain ignorant. The lunar ascents for Apollo 15, 16, and 17 were recorded by Ed Fendell at mission control. He was remotely operating the TV camera on the lunar roving vehicle. The signal was broadcasted via radio signal.
    1
  924. The evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened.
    1
  925. The blast was so hot, that ceramic roof tiles started to boil. No conventional explosive gets that hot. Do yourself a favor and actually research the matter.
    1
  926. She platformed a grifter and proven liar.
    1
  927. You’re drawing conclusions from personal incredulity. We haven’t been back after 6 landings because no one wanted to pay for it. You’re missing a 0 on your altitude to the ISS. But the altitude of the ISS is irrelevant because that doesn’t mean we “can only go 250 miles up”. There’s no reason to put the ISS higher and there’s literally nothing to stop at between the ISS and the moon. Going to 100,000 miles would be absolutely pointless. And lunar satellites have taken pictures of all of the Apollo landing sites. The evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened.
    1
  928.  @paulchafin6318  There’s a good chance you’re referring to a video of some fishermen in a small boat being turned by by a naval ship. They were in the Bass Strait, which is north of Tasmania, where people live, and nowhere near the 60th parallel.
    1
  929. The Van Allen belts are roughly donut shaped regions of trapped solar particle radiation surrounding the earth. It is possible to safely fly through them. The moon is a physical object. People have been bouncing radio signals off it since the 50s.
    1
  930. ⁠​⁠ @wakinglife7065  You’re not seeing though the moon. The light reflecting off the moon is bright enough that you see it through the light diffusion of the atmosphere. For the part of the moon that is now illuminated, you just see the diffusion of the atmosphere. When you see the moon during the day, you’re seeing the atmosphere through the atmosphere, not the other way around. And earth/ solar system/ universe simulators do exist. They run based on real scientific models. Those models are how we can predict things like eclipses.
    1
  931.  @aetherr  You’re still deflecting from my question and are bringing in a new topic you think gives you an out. Black budget programs are for secret projects, not highly publicized programs like the Apollo program. Most people know that black budget programs exist and that’s about it. That’s the whole point of it being black budget. The public can’t look them up. That still doesn’t change the fact that the government didn’t want to keep paying for crewed moon missions. They canceled the Apollo program 3 missions early. When the government clearly expressed they didn’t want to pay for moon missions, what would be the point in switching the money from publicly documented to a black budget? Also, the technology developed for the Apollo program got incorporated into all facets of further space travel. Technology is better now. There just hasn’t been motivation to go back to the moon until recently. Crewed moon landings aren’t the only thing to do in space.
    1
  932. ⁠​⁠​⁠ @aetherr  A “no, you” accusation doesn’t change the fact that you’re still avoiding my question about NASA’s budget then vs now. It’s a super simple question and all you have to do to show you’re not dodging it is just provide a couple numbers. Bringing up black budgets is just a deflection. I can see you’re effectively implying that NASA’s publicly known budget was cut but is secretly being supplemented by a black budget. I suspect that you know this is an unfalsifiable claim. I can’t prove something isn’t receiving a black budget, but you also can’t prove that it is. So it just becomes a moot point. I already explained that innovation has continued since the Apollo program. Guidance systems are vastly superior than they were in the Apollo era. Rockets are more reliable. We have rockets that can land themselves and be reused. We have sent probes to every planet in the solar system. Five probes have even left the solar system. All of this is descended from the technological developments of the Apollo program. You’re acting as if sending people to the moon is the only metric of spaceflight technology. Also, we do currently have a rocket capable of sending a capsule to lunar orbit and back.
    1
  933.  @aetherr  Do you really not see that you are the one dodging questions here? I’ve addressed everything you’ve said so far but you are pretending that I haven’t. I asked a very simple question and you are desperately avoiding answering it. That’s quite telling. You’re also pretending cost is not a factor. The Apollo program cost over $250 billion in today’s money and the Artemis program is projected to cost $100+ billion. It requires an extraordinary amount of money to send people to the moon. No one is saying that kind of money doesn’t exist. It’s just that for the better part of half a century, the government didn’t want to spend that much to send people back to the moon because they had already been there and done that. You’re yet to provide a fact based argument. Everything I have said is backed by factual evidence, but I’m the indoctrinated one? You’re projecting.
    1
  934. You thought it was amazing she platformed a grifter and proven liar?
    1
  935. Chang’e 2 begs to differ.
    1
  936. Why? He’s a grifter and proven liar who preys on the ignorance of his audience.
    1
  937.  @scienz  Sibrel wasn’t even a random stranger. He was already a known harasser of astronauts and he lied to Aldrin to arrange an in person meeting under false pretenses.
    1
  938. You’re celebrating being fed lies and confirmation bias? The evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened.
    1
  939.  @shabzyhoney1166  Five different space agencies confirming the moon landings is vastly different than 5 CEOs conspiring on something. Hundreds of thousands of people are involved in those space agencies. They all are experienced in what they do and are not easily fooled.
    1
  940. She platformed a grifter and proven liar. There’s nothing commendable about that.
    1
  941. The moon landings actually happened and modern technology benefited from it. Sibrel is a grifter and a liar.
    1
  942. ⁠​⁠ @Butterfliesandblossoms  They used radio signals. There’s nothing in space to stop the signal from traveling forever. The first radio signal sent across the Atlantic was in 1901. The first radio bounce off the moon was performed in the 1940s. Sibrel is just plain lying about astronauts being offed for noncompliance. He has no credible sources. Apollo 1 only intended to go to low earth orbit. The fire that claimed the lives of Grissom, White, and Chaffee was an accident. Sibrel’s claims of it being intentional are entirely fabricated.
    1
  943. I wouldn’t call someone who platformed a grifter and proven liar a national treasure.
    1
  944. The question was confusingly/ ambiguously worded. That’s what led to the uncertainty in the answer. The astronauts couldn’t see stars while on the daytime side of the moon. They could see stars while orbiting around the nighttime side of the moon.
    1
  945.  @sinistersteel1042  It was daytime on the moon during the Apollo landings. Daytime on the moon is just as bright as daytime on earth. Even though the sky is black, everything else is still too bright for you to see stars.
    1
  946. You can get a telescope and see things in space for yourself.
    1
  947. Have you considered the possible that the moon landings actually happened and that the platform wants to out disclaimers on potential misinformation?
    1
  948. It is trivial to demonstrate that the earth isn’t flat. People figured that out over two millennia ago.
    1
  949. Do you not understand how much more difficult and costly a crewed trip to mars would/ will be? The Apollo program got cancelled three missions early because the government didn’t want to pay for it anymore. Why would they immediately go and spend even more money to send people to mars?
    1
  950. Both have sent robotic landers to the moon, but the US is the only country to send people to the moon. The hogwash here is the grift that Sibrel is peddling.
    1
  951.  @wakinglife7065  You’re the gullible one for falling for lies like the ones Sibrel tells.
    1
  952.  @hopescarbrough767  Christa McAuliffe was never going to the moon. She was aboard the Space Shuttle Challenger headed for low earth orbit when it exploded shortly after launch. The cause of the explosion was an o-ring in one of the boosters failing because of low temperatures. There are plenty of conspiracy theories surrounding the Challenger disaster, many of which involve “them” not wanting a civilian (McAuliffe) to expose whatever secrets were supposedly being hidden. Other conspiracy theories claim that the crew of Challenger didn’t lose their lives. There never would have been an initiative to put a teacher into space is there was something “they” wanted to hide. A space shuttle mission never would have exposed anything about the Apollo program. Perhaps I jumped to a conclusion that you were bringing up a conspiracy theory. However, the fact of the matter here is that Challenger was headed for low earth orbit and it did explode, killing the entire crew.
    1
  953. Doesn’t change the fact that the moon landings have been verified numerous times by multiple independent parties.
    1
  954. The vast majority of the budget goes to operating facilities, producing hardware, and paying the salaries of regular people. No one is pocketing millions.
    1
  955.  @romper4444  Why do you think “extra help” was necessary? From whom did that help come? And what evidence led you to that conclusion. As I said, the technological progression is extensively documented. There are no gaps or illogical progression. I can verify that for myself as an aerospace engineer.
    1
  956.  @TimothyTakemoto  Everything we see in the videos from the moon behaves exactly as we should expect in an environment with 1/6th earth’s gravity and no air. People would have caught on decades ago if a mistake that glaring was made.
    1
  957.  @tekisutoesl3660  I just want to make sure I have your argument straight. You said you find the paper convincing but then say you think other videos still look wrong to you. So does that mean you think some videos are real but some aren’t? Can you provide a specific example of a video that you think doesn’t look right? There are hours and hours of video from the surface of the moon so it would be impossible for me to go and find what you’re talking about on my own. Also, I’d like to go back and address a couple points from your initial comment. For the press conference, why do you think the astronauts’ demeanor for one short segment of a long press conference means anything. They had just gotten out of a three week long quarantine. Don’t you think it’s possible that they may not have wanted to be there? Also, what about the portions of the conference where they’re in higher spirits? And what about their reactions immediately after returning to earth and while interacting with Nixon? As for the piece of petrified wood that found its way into the Dutch Museum, it wasn’t given by NASA or the US government. It was a personal gift from a US ambassador to the former Dutch prime minister. The rock was pulled from the former prime minister’s personal collection after he died and was placed in the museum without any proper vetting. After Apollo 17, goodwill gifts including small samples of moon rocks were given to 135 countries, including the Netherlands. It would make no sense to give the Netherlands a second sample that is much larger than the goodwill samples. Also, over 800 pounds of samples were brought back by the Apollo missions. These samples have been studied all over the world. Considering it was immediately obvious that the rock in the Dutch museum wasn’t from the moon once tested, logic only follows that it would be immediately obvious to any geologist studying the Apollo samples if they were fake.
    1
  958.  @TimothyTakemoto  I don’t understand why you are so intent on psychoanalyzing press conferences. An extraordinary series of events preceded those conferences. Everyone reacts to everything differently. I don’t think anyone can accurately determine how exactly anyone should act in those situations. I already explained that it’s very possible that the astronauts didn’t entirely want to be at the press conference. The astronauts’ excitement is much more apparent in their interaction with Nixon immediately after returning to earth, but it would still be unreasonable to expect them to be exited 100% of the time. That’s not normal human behavior. I think the astronauts behaved like normal people would. I already explained the situation with the petrified wood. It wasn’t properly vetted before being put into the museum and it was a personal gift from a US ambassador to former Dutch prime minister Drees. That’s the only traceability of that rock. Sibrel is lying about it. Yes, lunar meteorites have been found, but they were only identified as lunar meteorites after the Apollo program brought back lunar samples. Also, all rocks on earth show the chemical signs of exposure to air and water. The lunar samples show that they have never been exposed to air or water. So again, any geologist could determine if a sample they’re testing was collected on earth. As for the stars, it was daytime on the moon. The stars were too dim relative to everything else to be seen. However, Apollo 16 brought a Far Ultraviolet Camera/ Spectrograph so they could take pictures of the stars. For example, look up AS16-123-19657.
    1
  959.  @TimothyTakemoto  Again, I feel you are placing entirely too much on psychoanalyzing the astronauts’ behavior. This is entirely subjective and you should instead look at the much more tangible evidence. That being said, I still maintain my position that the astronauts behaved like regular people. The traceability of the piece of petrified wood is nearly nonexistent. Middendorf said he didn’t recall the details of how he got the stone that he gave to Drees. He only said it came from the state department, but that claim isn’t verifiable. There are any number of ways that rock could have been passed off as a moon rock. Interestingly, the plaque doesn’t even say the rock is from the moon. The important thing to remember is that the only reason geologists could identify rocks as being of lunar origin is because of the samples were brought back from the moon. Also, lunar meteorites have telltale signs of being meteorites. A geologist wouldn’t be fooled by a cracked open rock. And who would be the one cracking open these lunar meteorites to pass off to geologists to fool them into thinking they were studying samples from the moon? Simply pointing a camera up wouldn’t allow it to see stars because there is still sunlight entering the lens. Perhaps shrouding the camera to make sure no direct sunlight or light reflected off the ground entered the lens would allow for taking pictures of the stars, but they didn’t decide to do that. This is all beside the point because the fact that it was daytime on the moon means we shouldn’t expect to see stars. The pictures and videos are consistent with what we expect. The far ultraviolet camera/ spectrograph was designed to study UV signatures. I presume it was easier to study UV signatures than visible light signatures while in daylight. Also, being on the moon gave a unique opportunity to study these UV signatures without interference from the atmosphere. The quantity of stars seen in the picture I provided is likely limited due to exposure. The bright object in the middle of the picture is the earth. It is much brighter than the other stars captured in the picture. If you would like to learn more about the instrument, the Wikipedia page about it is a good place to start. Concluding this all, there is nothing from the Apollo missions that raises suspicion. All evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened.
    1
  960.  @TimothyTakemoto  I still don’t understand why you want to use a subjective analysis when there are mountains of tangible evidence. And I don’t recall seeing any reaction from the astronauts that is even remotely close to what I would describe as visceral. Could you point me to a particular video and time stamp? The Apollo samples have been studied all over the world. Samples have also been brought back by Russian and Chinese autonomous landers. The Russians brought back a bit more than 300g in the 70s. The Chinese brought back a bit shy of 4kg within the past 5 years. When I say “we”, it is quite inclusive. It includes you, me, anyone reading this comment section, and people in general. The sky is black on the moon because there is no air to scatter the incoming sunlight. However, photons are still streaming around. We only see things when they are emitting light themselves or are reflecting light. Since the light is traveling through empty space until it strikes the moon, we don’t see anything in the sky. I say “should” because I am not assuming the views of others but am instead stating the expected observation based on scientific principles and applied knowledge. The cameras had exposure times set for daylight conditions. If you had a camera with its exposure set for daytime and tried to do some astrophotography at night, nothing would turn out because it wouldn’t collect enough light. As I already explained, if you shrouded the lens to bock all direct and indirect light and set the exposure long enough, I would think it should be possible to capture pictures of stars while it was daytime on the moon. I am well aware that there are people who doubt and outright deny the moon landings. I genuinely try to understand the point of view of these people. I don’t baselessly dismiss anything and will gladly explain things and present evidence for the moon landings. It is understandable to be unsure of how the moon landings were accomplished. It is also understandable for people to question things they don’t fully understand. However, this doesn’t change the fact that all evidence points to the validity of the moon landings.
    1
  961. They keep blowing up Starship, so things aren’t exact great on their super heavy lift front. However, what they’re trying to do with starship is much more complicated than what the Saturn V and Apollo missions did.
    1
  962. Cameras were designed to be able to withstand the conditions on the moon and radio signals were used to transmit the videos back to earth.
    1
  963.  @elgajd  It was also designed to withstand the conditions it faced and was brought back by the astronauts.
    1
  964. No. They also never landed a person on the moon, only robotic landers.
    1
  965. The moon landings objectively happened.
    1
  966. Rocket launches happen multiple times a week. You can literally see satellites with your own eyes. Why do you think launching the car was fake?
    1
  967.  @FrodoUK  Which video do you think may be faked? And when you say “that occasion” do you mean Apollo 11? Apollo 12 was just 4 months later. What did NASA need that they didn’t have in July of 1969 that they had in November of 1969? Also, how do you think the Russians wouldn’t have noticed if there wasn’t a spacecraft going to the moon?
    1
  968. I’m glad you realize that Sibrel is full of it but the reason he gets people to fall for his grift is because he appeals to people’s antiestablishment biases and personal incredulity.
    1
  969. Aldrin never said we haven’t been to the moon. People are cherry picking an out of context quote. And he punched Sibrel because Sibrel lied to arrange an in person meeting under false pretenses then proceeded to harass him.
    1
  970. Your intuition to question his credibility is correct. If he’s lying about the stories about the CIA being after him, then it’s reasonable to expect that he’s lying about his other claims. Sibrel is a grifter and a proven liar. He gets proven to fall for his claims because he preys on personal incredulity and antiestablishment biases. All evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened.
    1
  971. Your “argument” is nothing more than personal incredulity.
    1
  972.  @TallGreenVegetables  This is a simple matter of objectively evaluating evidence and reaching the conclusion that the moon landings did in fact happen. No emotions are involved. Would you like me to show how Sibrel is lying?
    1
  973. Can you really not accept that he was just a scientist and science communicator?
    1
  974. Or perhaps the moon landings did happen and Sibrel is just lying. Why are you so inclined to believe him over all the sources that show the moon landings happened?
    1
  975. He’s a grifter and a proven liar. The CIA isn’t after him.
    1
  976. People have known the earth isn’t flat for over two millennia.
    1
  977. ⁠ @arthorse6835  These astronauts were largely fighter and test pilots beforehand. Armstrong performed 7 flights of the X15. Aldrin flew 66 combat missions in Korea and earned a PhD to help develop the rendezvous techniques necessary for a moon landing. Regardless of the moon landings happening or not, the non debatable fact is that real people designed and built real hardware. Over 400,000 people worked on the Apollo program. At the very worst, it was all a works program. It wasn’t a scam or embezzlement scheme.
    1
  978.  @arthorse6835  In addition to the number of people working on the program, we also know that the contractors built real hardware. There was an estimated million people who went to watch the rocket launch in person. So we know that an actual rocket was built and flown. Even if the Apollo missions didn’t send people to the moon, I’d argue that the Apollo program wouldn’t constitute a scam. Nothing about the scheme would make sense. All the scientists and engineers were either building something they thought was going to space or they were in on it. And if it was a scam, who was the beneficiary and who was the victim? Were the companies pulling a fast one on the government? If the government was in on it and the contractors weren’t, you couldn’t argue they were being scammed because they were getting paid for their work. I just don’t see any victims here. Taxpayer money went back into the economy and into the pockets of regular Americans. Sure, it would be deception if the moon landings were faked, but not a scam. As I have said, at worst, it was effectively a works program.
    1
  979. Sibrel isn’t a truth seeker or a truth teller. He is a grifter and proven liar.
    1
  980. There’s no money to be made by going to the moon. Crewed lunar programs cost hundreds of billions of dollars. How do you propose they turn a profit on that?
    1
  981.  @AereForst  Simply naming things there are conspiracy theories about doesn’t prove a point.
    1
  982.  @AereForst  You’re ignoring the fact that the moon landings can be verified independently of the government.
    1
  983. Why are you thanking her for platforming a grifter who is actively lying?
    1
  984.  @makeupartistdani  Just admit that you don’t want to acknowledge that you were wrong.
    1
  985. ⁠​⁠ @wakinglife7065  Did you miss the part where I said “evidence”? There’s no belief involved.
    1
  986. People figured out that the earth wasn’t flat over two millennia ago. Do try to get with the times.
    1
  987. Exactly. And on top of that, Sibrel was outright harassing astronauts. The vast majority of people won’t feel inclined to oblige the request of someone who is harassing them.
    1
  988.  @Odnodum  Clearly the Van Allen belts aren’t well known if there are still people getting the name wrong but definitively claiming they are a barrier to human space travel. The belts were discovered in 1958 and are largely mapped by the end of the 50s. James Van Allen himself helped determine a safe path through the belts. There is no credible information or research showing that it would be deadly to simply fly though the Van Allen belts.
    1
  989. ⁠ @Ricky-pz8tm  Do you believe your opinion outweighs the entire field of aerospace engineering? The Van Allen belts were discovered in 1958 and largely mapped by the end of the 50s. Multiple satellites and probes were sent to the moon before people were. The radiation was not a barrier to human space flight. The scientists and engineers working on these programs understood the orbital dynamics involved. To perform a translunar injection, the spacecraft would perform a singular burn then coast the rest of the way. They knew the exact delta V and fuel required. NASA had everything it needed to get people to the moon and back during the Apollo era.
    1
  990. ⁠ @Ricky-pz8tm  How am I the delusional one? You’re the one placing their uninformed opinion over an entire field of scientific study. Are you going to address anything I just said? The “why didn’t they go back” argument accomplishes nothing. There were 6 landings and then the government decided they didn’t want to keep paying for it.
    1
  991.  @dawnpresson6940  You know that money went to paying real people to build real hardware right? It supported the American economy. Also, Sibrel is a proven liar.
    1
  992.  @kyinchi  That’s a baseless claim. Do you really think enough people at the time thought the moon landings were faked to appreciably affect public opinion of the Apollo program. If so, please provide evidence.
    1
  993. The Van Allen belts are a region where charged particles emitted by the sun are trapped by earth’s magnetic field.
    1
  994. ⁠ @clarenceday4773  I’d argue that Owens is nothing more than a grifter. She peddles narratives she knows her audience will eat up. Moon landing denial strongly appeals to antiestablishment biases. And scientific consensus becomes consensus for a reason. Many people individually verified the same thing. What else is a better indicator of something being true?
    1
  995. They went back 5 more times. And why should anyone care what your dad thought? The evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened. The only indoctrination is by the grifters who prey on people’s antiestablishment biases to peddle moon landing denial.
    1
  996. There is no proof here, only lies. Sibrel is a grifter and proven liar. The moon landings verifiably happened.
    1
  997. ⁠”I can’t refute what people are saying so I call them CIA because that definitely invalidates their argument” - @kyinchi 
    1
  998.  @WinkyFromNorthChicago74  Prove it. Provide evidence for once. Meanwhile I’ve got plenty of evidence that the moon landings happened and that Sibrel is a liar.
    1
  999. This topic draws ridicule because the moon landings objectively happened and people like Sibrel are grifters and demonstrable liars.
    1
  1000. Look into the debunkings of Sibrel’s claims. He’s a proven liar.
    1
  1001. Sibrel is a grifter and proven liar. That fact is what needs to be everywhere. The moon landings objectively happened.
    1
  1002.  @sassafras8677  The pictures of the landing sites likely came from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter.
    1
  1003.  @sassafras8677  Correct, but it doesn’t help to get the details wrong even if the overall message is right. Conspiracy theorists often have no clue about the topics they’re “investigating”. They just look for things that seem wrong to them. Seeing one person say that you can see the landing sites from JWST and another saying you can’t, they’re just going to take that to mean “the moon landing believers must be lying because they can’t even get their story straight”.
    1
  1004.  @sassafras8677  If you’re trying to support something, you’re only doing yourself a disservice by not keeping the facts straight. That’s the point I’m making.
    1
  1005. And Sibrel thanks you for your blind belief of his grift.
    1
  1006. You learned nothing because Sibrel is a grifter and proven liar. His claims have been thoroughly debunked.
    1
  1007. … is a grifter and proven liar. He preys on people’s personal incredulity and antiestablishment biases.
    1
  1008. The moon landings are a verifiable historical event.
    1
  1009. I’d argue otherwise. Owens platformed a grifter and proven liar.
    1
  1010. That doesn’t account for the over 800 pounds of lunar samples brought back that have been studied by geologists all over the world. Also, multiple tracking stations all over the world pointed their antennas at the moon and picked up the same signal.
    1
  1011.  @ShawnCaldwell11  It’s definitely Sibrel who’s conning you. His arguments have been thoroughly debunked.
    1
  1012. She brought on a grifter and proven liar. This is not an honest investigation.
    1
  1013. She platformed a grifter and proven liar.
    1
  1014.  @josegoncalves1565  Why do you find it so hard to understand that there was a camera mounted to the outside of the lander?
    1
  1015. What evidence shows the pictures are all fake? There are ISS trackers with perfect accuracy. You can see the ISS with your own eyes. ISS live streams perfectly match the weather patterns of the areas it orbits over. Those are just a few of the ways you can verify the legitimacy of NASA.
    1
  1016. What do you mean the rest? It got spent on paying 400,000 people to design and build over half a dozen moon rockets over the course of a decade.
    1
  1017. The astronauts would have known. How could you possibly fool someone into thinking they stepped into a 360 foot tall rocket and launched into space? Remember that people watched the rocket launch and independent groups tracked the mission with radio antennas.
    1
  1018. The truth is that the moon landings happened and Sibrel is a liar. Owens fell for an easily debunkable conspiracy theory.
    1
  1019.  @bapyongukgukguk2352  Nothing was lost. You’re parroting a lie.
    1
  1020. He’s a demonstrable liar. That what’s off about him. All of his claims have been thoroughly debunked.
    1
  1021. Why? She platformed a grifter who is actively lying to people.
    1
  1022. The Apollo program cost over $250 billion in today’s money. Sure it invigorates many local economies, but it still cost the government money.
    1
  1023. ⁠ @FATHERTiME-jo6zj  Real people did real work designing and building real hardware and they got paid to do it from part of the federal budget. At the very worst, you could call it a works program. Are you going to track down engineers, technicians, and operators from the 60s and demand reparations?
    1
  1024. ⁠​⁠ @FATHERTiME-jo6zj  You clearly still don’t know what a money laundering scheme is. The government spent billions paying real people to do stuff. That’s not money laundering. As I said, at the worst, it was a works program.
    1
  1025. The note is correct.
    1
  1026. ⁠​⁠​⁠ @justthinking526  There are more metrics for space exploration progress than just going to the moon. Just about everything we have now is descended from Apollo tech. As for why going back to the moon is taking a while, the funding to do so only began recently. NASA is working with a fraction of the budget and national priority than it had in the Apollo era. That means the program moves slower. Over 800 pounds of samples were brought back by the Apollo missions. Bringing up the piece of petrified wood is a moot point. It was a personal gift. It didn’t come from NASA or the government. The plaque it was displayed in didn’t even say that rock was from the moon. The only point this story serves is to show that geologists can tell if a rock is from the moon or not. And considering there are over 800 pounds of samples that have been studied all over the world and we don’t have geologists setting off alarm bells, that’s a pretty good indicator that the Apollo rocks are actually from the moon.
    1
  1027.  @justthinking526  You didn’t even attempt to address what I said in my previous comment. Don’t pretend that you’re the one who has an open mind and is properly investigating when you’re actively avoiding addressing the evidence being presented to you. It’s not about “not questioning the official narrative”. The Apollo program is extensively documented and the verifiable evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened. The “narrative” gets “questioned” every single time someone studies the Apollo program or works with technology descended from the Apollo program. It checks out every single time. That’s all there is to it. It’s not a matter of debate. Sibrel is a grifter and demonstrable liar. He preys on people’s antiestablishment biases and personal incredulity. You’re telling yourself that you’re “questioning the narrative” when in reality, you’re just denying evidence.
    1
  1028.  @paolorossi8470  You copied and pasted so I’ll copy and paste. Of course your default response is to resort to a conspiracy theory. Be real with yourself. Do you really think that it’s entirely impossible for someone to hold an opposite view as you and also be in the comment section. Is the only possibly that I’m a paid agent or shill?
    1
  1029. Flat earth is trivial to disprove. People figured that out over two millennia ago.
    1
  1030.  @panjualede  No way, your totally not made up scenario says I’m a bot??? But for real, do you really not see how pointless of a claim that is to make? It doesn’t matter who or what says a piece of information. It doesn’t change the facts of the matter. It is an objective fact that people figured out the earth wasn’t flat over two millennia ago. Try to address the argument instead of making a weak attempt to baselessly dismiss me this time.
    1
  1031. ⁠ @panjualede  Be real with yourself. Do your really think that the most likely scenario here is that I’m a bot? Or do you think it may be more likely that you’re talking to an actual person. You have to know that flat earth is a belief held by a very small minority of people. When that’s the case, did you not think you may get pushback on your comment? My comment about people figuring out the shape of the earth two millennia ago wasn’t intended to be evidence for the shape of the earth. I was expanding on the point that verifying the shape of the earth is trivial. People figured it out with nothing more than observations of the world around them. I’m not surprised you bring indoctrination into this. Every flat earther calls everyone else indoctrinated and completely ignores the fact that anyone can go and verify the shape of the earth for themselves.
    1
  1032. ⁠ @panjualede  What a cowardly cop out. You’re just giving yourself an excuse to not address what I’m saying.
    1
  1033.  @panjualede  I’m presenting an entirely factual and logical argument but you’re the one who refuses to acknowledge any of it. You’re also the one trying to make this about opinions and feelings. The point remains that you could easily verify for yourself that the earth isn’t flat. I’ll gladly provide multiple ways for you to do this if you’re willing to actually listen and show a shred of intellectual integrity.
    1
  1034.  @Rockzilla12  One could argue that Sibrel is an accomplished grifter. He’s been at this for decades now and has made a living off it. That doesn’t change the fact that he makes a living by lying to people about science and history.
    1
  1035.  @danieljackson7652  Try addressing what I said instead of trying to dismiss it by calling me something you don’t like.
    1
  1036. And? There’s nothing surprising about aerial nuclear tests in the early 60s.
    1
  1037. If Sibrel is lying about that, don’t you think it’s likely he’s also lying about more than just that?
    1
  1038. ⁠​⁠ @cherylrossi4644  What evidence convinced you that the moon landings didn’t happen? When you say “the 1969 moon landing”, do you mean Apollo 11? Because Apollo 12 also happened in 1969. And do you think only Apollo 11 was faked?
    1
  1039. Yes. They recently put a robotic lander on the moon.
    1
  1040. Sibrel lied to Aldrin to arrange an in person meeting under false pretenses then proceeded to harass him. It was only after Sibrel cornered Aldrin and got in his face that Aldrin punched him.
    1
  1041.  @paulbeardsley4095  They’re not very believable though
    1
  1042. The evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened.
    1
  1043. Let me guess, you got 72 miles from the GoFast rocket flight and fell for the lies people tell about it? It didn’t hit anything. It activated a de-spin mechanism. You can literally verify for yourself that satellites fly in space.
    1
  1044.  @paolorossi8470  You copied and pasted so I’ll copy and paste. Of course your default response is to resort to a conspiracy theory. Be real with yourself. Do you really think that it’s entirely impossible for someone to hold an opposite view as you and also be in the comment section. Is the only possibly that I’m a paid agent or shill?
    1
  1045.  @paolorossi8470  I do that because it’s entertaining and I’m fighting misinformation firm gullible conspiracy theorists like you. It’s comedic that you have to resort to conspiracy theory to “explain” my presence here. Also, you have to have been here since the beginning for you to know how long I’ve been here.
    1
  1046.  @paolorossi8470  You’ve been around these types of videos as much as I have so I’m sure you know that it only takes a brief bit of time to comment. It’s not like I’m sitting here all day. This is something I do in bits of free time. I imagine you do the same. Also, normal people can determine for themselves that the moon landings weren’t and couldn’t have been faked.
    1
  1047. People figured out that the earth was flat over two millennia ago. People figured out the earth orbited the sun beginning in the 16th century. It is trivial to prove for yourself that the earth isn’t flat.
    1
  1048. Yes, but probably not for the reasons I’m guessing you’d list.
    1
  1049. Sibrel’s arguments have been thoroughly debunked.
    1
  1050.  @paolorossi8470  You copied and pasted so I’ll copy and paste. Of course your default response is to resort to a conspiracy theory. Be real with yourself. Do you really think that it’s entirely impossible for someone to hold an opposite view as you and also be in the comment section. Is the only possibly that I’m a paid agent or shill?
    1
  1051.  @CitrusBlue1973  Take some time to look at the criticisms of Sibrel’s claims and see if you think they hold up. Sibrel is a demonstrable liar and the moon landings have been verified countless times.
    1
  1052. No it’s not
    1
  1053. I’d argue the true hoax is the grift being peddled by people like Sibrel. All evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened. Grifters appeal to people’s antiestablishment biases to make them reject reality.
    1
  1054. Sibrel is a grifter and proven liar. There’s nothing courageous about that.
    1
  1055.  @DaddysBack4EVA  Sibrel is factually lying.
    1
  1056.  @brianwinkler8183  Are you going to address the fact that Sibrel’s chief claim is debunked by radio tracking and receiving?
    1
  1057. ⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠ @brianwinkler8183  The radio tracking evidence alone proves Sibrel’s main argument wrong. But, there are explanations for everything else you bring up. The Van Allen belts were discovered in 1958 and largely mapped by the end of the 50s. The Soviets proved animals could survive a trip through the radiation belts and around the moon with Zond 5. NASA’s Ranger and Surveyor programs collected data on the lunar environment before astronauts were sent to the moon. You’re going to have to provide a specific example of Armstrong’s enigmatic language if you’d like to discuss that point further. We haven’t been back since 1972 because no one wanted to pay for it. Congress cancelled the Apollo program 3 missions early because they didn’t want to keep paying the extraordinary cost required to send people to the moon. Only recently with the Artemis program has there been an earnest effort to go back. Aldrin wasn’t simply questioned. Sibrel lied to arrange an in person meeting under false pretenses. Sibrel then ambushed Aldrin and began harassing him to swear on a Bible. Aldrin wanted no part in Sibrel’s stunt, likely because he knew Sibrel would call him a liar regardless. Sibrel continued to harass Aldrin as he tried to walk away. Sibrel ultimately backed Aldrin against a wall, got in his face, and called him a liar, a coward, and a thief. Only then did Aldrin punch Sibrel. This is the context that Sibrel deliberately omits from that encounter. Kubrick didn’t have a deathbed confession. You’re mistaking a clip from the mockumentary Shooting Stanley Kubrick as being real. Lastly, there is no evidence of the photos being altered. The original film for many of the photos still exists and all of the photos have been made public record.
    1
  1058.  @garyolsen4160  That money goes to things like utility bills, paying the salaries of regular people, buying materials, and other mundane things like overhead costs. When you realize the scale of what NASA and its contractors do, you’ll see that the money makes sense. It’s not like a handful of people are just pocketing the money.
    1
  1059.  @garyolsen4160  The breadth of NASA’s work is quite large. The other important consideration is the amount of contract work done for NASA. The budget goes to paying people at companies like Lockheed, ULA, Boeing, Aerojet, Northrop, etc. So a lot more salaries than just the 5000 to 6000 people who are directly employed by NASA are paid for by that 60 some million per day.
    1
  1060.  @THEfonz-s5u  I knew it was something on that order but never had much of a reason to look honestly how many. But it really does illustrate how thinly NASA’s budget is stretched.
    1
  1061. Why? She just proved she’s susceptible to easily debunkable conspiracy theories.
    1
  1062. She platformed a grifter and proven liar. So yeah I guess that constitutes being a troublemaker and stirring up mayhem.
    1
  1063. No, neither Sibrel nor Owens have any relevant credentials.
    1
  1064.  @wakinglife7065  You should learn what an ad hominem is. Because simply insulting someone isn’t an ad hominem.
    1
  1065. She means that she is incredulous to the things we were technologically capable of back then.
    1
  1066. Ok and? That’s a well known fact and has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the moon landings.
    1
  1067. You have no evidence for that claim.
    1
  1068. The lunar samples brought back by the Apollo missions are still studied today.
    1
  1069. They did land on the moon. 6 times. Sibrel is lying.
    1
  1070. @Shikshame Do you really not see that Sibrel is a grifter and a liar? Or do you just like the confirmation bias he’s feeding you?
    1
  1071. If she did, I wouldn’t expect it to be very good. Sibrel’s arguments have been thoroughly debunked and fall apart under the slightest scrutiny but Owen’s fell for all of it. I’d have to imagine she’ll just as easily fall for every conspiracy theory about the titanic.
    1
  1072.  @ApolloKid1961  Sibrel does know about the Bible swearing though. He just likes to omit that and only focus on Aldrin punching him.
    1
  1073.  @whyistheskyblue5515  You know that meteorites were only able to be identified as being of lunar origin after samples were brought back by the Apollo missions right? Also, no geologist worth their salt would confuse a lunar meteorite with a sample brought back from the moon.
    1
  1074. Apollo 7 was the first crewed Apollo launch and it successfully tested the command and service module in low earth orbit. It was the Apollo 1 ground test where a fire within the module killed the three astronauts. It was a preventable tragedy, but ultimately still an accident.
    1
  1075. Do yourself a favor and don’t give a grifter and liar your money. Sibrel is a conman. His lies are easily debunked.
    1
  1076. The truth doesn’t matter to her or Sibrel. It’s a narrative they can tell to fool their gullible followers.
    1
  1077. It doesn’t. Sibrel is a liar and moon landing denial is a conspiracy theory.
    1
  1078. Sibrel is a grifter and demonstrable liar. The moon landings verifiably happened. Sibrel is lying to you.
    1
  1079. I don’t think he’s delusional. He’s just a grifter. He knows he’s lying.
    1
  1080. Sibrel lied to Aldrin to arrange an in person meeting under false pretenses then proceeded to harass and follow Aldrin. Aldrin’s reaction was largely out of self defense after Sibrel cornered him.
    1
  1081. No, they are not faking it.
    1
  1082. If the government/ NASA/ FBI/ CIA were worried that Grissom would jeopardize the program, why take him out in such a way that took out two compliant astronauts as collateral and nearly led to the cancellation of the program?
    1
  1083. She’s delving into easily debunkable conspiracy theories.
    1
  1084.  @NWALedDisplay  Falling for the lies of a grifter like Sibrel is what is actually constitutes going to sleep.
    1
  1085. We can make materials that withstand a huge range of temperatures. We can also add thermal regulation systems.
    1
  1086. Where do you think moon landing denial falls? It sounds to me like it would constitute both hating the government and the country.
    1
  1087. Technology isn’t the limiting factor. The government lost interest in paying to keep sending people to the moon.
    1
  1088. The Apollo program cost about $250 billion in today’s money. So you’re off by quite a bit. And that money went to paying real people to do real work designing, building, testing, and operating real hardware.
    1
  1089. Level doesn’t mean flat. And all it takes is a grasp of basic physics to understand that the earth cannot be flat.
    1
  1090.  @GregKennedyTroy  The shape of the earth isn’t a matter of personal decision. Acknowledging its shape is a matter of accepting or denying reality. All evidence makes it abundantly obvious that the earth isn’t flat.
    1
  1091. ⁠ @GregKennedyTroy  No one is changing anything here. Words can have multiple meanings. In surveying, level means perpendicular to the direction of gravity or a curve conforming to the surface of the earth. The apparent level is a tangent to that curve From ground level, the earth’s curvature is so slight that it appears flat. It is trivial to demonstrate that the earth isn’t flat.
    1
  1092. The flag moved because the astronauts moved it and the Van Allen belts have been known since 1958. No actual scientist says they were impossible to pass through.
    1
  1093. Sibrel is being called a liar because he is a proven liar. That’s all there is to it. The moon landings objectively happened and Sibrel lies about it. That’s his grift.
    1
  1094.  @shabzyhoney1166  What evidence do you have for that claim? Was the technological and arms race and the Cold War in general just a farce?
    1
  1095.  @shabzyhoney1166  Ok I see what you’re saying. Yes, I have heard people claim that the US and Russia weren’t actually enemies during the Cold War and that they’re both part of some new world order. The issue with that claim is that there are still plenty of independent groups that easily could have figured out if there wasn’t actually a moon landing happening when the US said there was. The government lies. We all know that, but there is an insurmountable amount of evidence showing that the moon landings happened.
    1
  1096.  @mariadeissinger646  You’re choosing to believe something that directly contradicts what all of the evidence shows. Are you ok with reality denial?
    1
  1097. Challenger blew up and it was a result of hardware being flown in conditions it wasn’t tested or rated for. People watched it happen and real people died. The lookalikes and similar names are just coincidences. I’m not sure what lies you think are surrounding Challenger. And considering Owens’ was willing to platform a known liar and grifter in Sibrel, I don’t trust her ability to find and discern credible sources regarding Challenger.
    1
  1098. Probably whenever her producers figure out which way her audience will react.
    1
  1099. Space agencies from India, China, Russia, South Korea, and Japan have already confirmed the Apollo landings.
    1
  1100. Im with you on your other two comments, but the reason the astronauts looked/ behaved they way they did in the segment of the Apollo 11 press conference is likely because they were bored or just didn’t want to be there. They had just gotten out of a 3 week long quarantine and pretty much immediately had a press conference. It would be completely understandable if they didn’t want to be there. But the other thing to remember is that the video segment that is most often shows is just a small portion of a much longer press conference. There are portions where the astronauts are much more lively.
    1
  1101.  @YY6301  Have you ever heard of call in radio? Phone calls can be patched to radio signals. That wasn’t new technology even in the 60s. Also, launching 62 miles straight up is a lot easier and cheaper than going to the moon. That should be self evident. We have no issues going to space. The ISS has been continuously inhabited for over two decades now.
    1
  1102. You’re disturbed by a movie covering the lesser known stories of women who greatly impacted the effort to get people to the moon?
    1
  1103.  @JasonWildey  Can you refute his arguments or are you just upset that he debunks some of the people you like?
    1
  1104. ⁠ @mb4lunch  And your evidence that the videos and pictures are fake is? Also notice how you completely ignored my initial point. Why is that? Deflection isn’t a very honest tactic. I’ve seen a litany of excuses from flat earthers for “the pictures are fake” but they all come down to ignorance and not knowing what you should actually expect to see. For example, compression artifacts aren’t proof of fakery. Baseless rejection of “the establishment” doesn’t make you a free thinker. You’re blindly believing confirmation bias.
    1
  1105. ⁠ @Riseandprayrun  On microfilm at Marshall Space Flight Center. You could have easily looked that up. And you can even find a flight manual for the Saturn V on NASA’s website.
    1
  1106. It’s clear that you don’t care about the truth whatsoever. You only care about a narrative. Sibrel lied to Aldrin to arrange an in person meeting under false pretenses then proceeded to harass him. It was only when Sibrel backed Aldrin against the wall and called him a liar a coward and a thief that Aldrin punched him. Do you think many combat veterans would take kindly to being called a coward?
    1
  1107. If she was actually searching for the truth, she wouldn’t have fallen for moon landing denial lies.
    1
  1108. ⁠ @BroefortKillbere  The Van Allen belts and solar radiation are nowhere near the hazard that moon landing deniers play them up to be. The Van Allen belts were discovered in 1958 and largely mapped by the end of the 50s. The Ranger and Surveyor programs scouted the lunar environment so we knew what kind of conditions to prepare for. The only thing that was lost was the funding to go to the moon. We still know how to shield spacecraft and we still have heavy launch vehicles.
    1
  1109. No. “They” aren’t saying that. A room sized, ground based IBM computer performed the bulk of the computations and sent that info to the much smaller flight computer.
    1
  1110. She didn’t expose anything. She platformed a grifter and proven liar.
    1
  1111. Good thing space agencies from multiple other countries have confirmed that the moon landings happened.
    1
  1112. She’s both a grifter and too ignorant to see though Sibrel’s lies about the moon landings. I’d imagine he heard Sibrel’s claims and figured that type of antiestablishment narrative would be well received by her audience.
    1
  1113. She platformed a grifter who is actively lying. There were 6 landings. The fact that you didn’t know that should be a sign that you need to do better research than watching podcasts.
    1
  1114.  @giovannamoro8564  If you cannot provide an actual source, then I have no reason to just take your word for this supposed testimony. I’ll stick with the evidence that clearly shows that the moon landings happened. Lunar satellites from multiple countries have taken pictures of the Apollo landing sites. Over 800 pounds of samples were brought back hand have been studied all over the world. Multiple tracking stations pointed their antennas at the moon and received the same signal. The list goes on.
    1
  1115.  @richierich5694  The radiation levels on the moon are not high enough to cause adverse health effects over the duration of time the Apollo missions lasted. The Ranger and Surveyor programs collected data on the radiation environment before astronauts went.
    1
  1116.  @SheepAmongG.O.A.T  The genre of science fiction began around the same time science became a serious academic discipline. Scientific progress and science fiction tend to go hand and hand. As new technology is invented, there will be someone to write about fantastical uses of that technology. But back to the moon landings, they can be verified with evidence and any sci-fi material inspired by the space race or moon landings is irrelevant.
    1
  1117. Owens platformed a grifter and proven liar. Don’t thank her for that. All evidence shows that the moon landings happened.
    1
  1118. ⁠ @WinkyFromNorthChicago74  Would you like to substitute that claim? Because “nuh uh it’s fake” isn’t a very good argument.
    1
  1119. I’m pretty sure Covid didn’t involve any rocket launches so I’m not seeing the similarities. Can you fill me in?
    1
  1120. ⁠ @RyAtkins-hd6gz  What a cop out response. Believe it or not, I actually do want an explanation. I have a few ideas for where you’re gonna go with this, but I’d like to know for sure. Also, bot accusations are just plain silly. First off, your accusation implies that you think it’s not possible for an actual person to disagree you here. Second, even if I was a bot, it wouldn’t change the validity of what I’m saying. So the accusation is entirely pointless. However, I know that it’s just a tactic to dismiss what I’m saying without actually addressing it and it’s all part of the conspiracy theory narrative. You’re telling yourself that “they” are sending bots to censor/ silence you and the truth.
    1
  1121. ⁠ @RyAtkins-hd6gz  Oh look, you’re still deflecting. And I’ve already got a job as an aerospace engineer. I’ll pass on CNN.
    1
  1122. You know that people can make things up for song lyrics right?
    1
  1123. ⁠ @earlthomas6295  Surely you realize that saying whatever you want in a song is a lot easier than manipulating film and live TV broadcasts with 1960s technology
    1
  1124. Why? She just demonstrated that she’s easily fooled by a grifter.
    1
  1125. He knows his lie is more likely to fall apart the more he tries to add details.
    1
  1126.  @BruceWayne-id3wd  Personally, the fact that she brought on someone like Sibrel is a reflection of her ability to research these topics.
    1
  1127. There will always be people who deny history and reality. Fortunately, there are mountains of evidence that verify the moon landings.
    1
  1128. It was daytime on the moon. You can’t see stars during the daytime. Do you really think “they” made that glaring of a mistake over half a century ago but no actual scientist noticed?
    1
  1129. What about them?
    1
  1130. The sun and moon are physical objects. A ham radio can be used to bounce a signal off the moon and verify that it’s about 240,000 miles away.
    1
  1131.  @paolorossi8470  You copied and pasted so I’ll copy and paste. Of course your default response is to resort to a conspiracy theory. Be real with yourself. Do you really think that it’s entirely impossible for someone to hold an opposite view as you and also be in the comment section. Is the only possibly that I’m a paid agent or shill?
    1
  1132. Alternatively, she is going to get backlash from anyone that can actually evaluate evidence and realize the moon landings actually happened.
    1
  1133. Sibrel is a grifter and a liar, but he isn’t a flat earther. Where did you get the idea that this video advocates for flat earth?
    1
  1134.  @lastfirst3291  I have seen that Sibrel is a demonstrable liar. I have also seen the evidence that clearly shows that the moon landings happened.
    1
  1135. ⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠ @jasonmorgan27  My previous comment was typed up just for you. You can go and compare it to my other comments here and see that it’s unique. Ham radio operators have been able to perform moon bounces since the 50s. You could go and verify for yourself that a radio signal can go to the moon and back if you really wanted to. It’s patently false to claim that only audio transmissions were tested. Luna 3 transmitted back the first picture of the far side of the moon in 1959. The Ranger and Surveyor programs took and transmitted tens of thousands of pictures from the moon in the 60s leading up to the Apollo program. Apollo 7 featured the first live TV broadcast in space. Then Apollo 8 followed that up by broadcasting from lunar orbit later that same year. Again, the cellphone comparison is irrelevant. It’s not surprising that a tiny low powered antenna can’t pick up signals as well as a 25+ meter wide dish antenna. What about the Van Allen belts is an issue for you? James Van Allen himself said they’re not a barrier to human space travel. The only people that do claim they are rely on cherry picked, out of context quotes. If they were scientifically proven to be a lethal hazard, you should be able to cite the dose of radiation an astronaut would receive from passing through. You’ve done nothing but express personal incredulity and parrot false claims.
    1
  1136. James Van Allen himself said the radiation belts that bear his name aren’t an impenetrable barrier to human spaceflight.
    1
  1137. You love that she platformed a grifter and proven liar?
    1
  1138. American Moon is just a bunch of demonstrable lies.
    1
  1139. I’d be quite annoyed if someone I cared about baselessly denied reality. Sibrel is a grifter and proven liar. The evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened.
    1
  1140. She platformed a grifter who is actively lying to you.
    1
  1141. Sibrel is a grifter and proven liar. His arguments have been thoroughly debunked and there are mountains of evidence showing that the moon landings happened. Owens did her audience a disservice by bringing a grifter on.
    1
  1142.  @Jonathondonavon1984  It’s always the people who have fallen for conspiracy theories that parrot that same quote. You are the one here who has been fooled and refuse to be convinced they were fooled. It is not difficult to debunk moon landing denial claims like the ones Sibrel makes. I’m curious, what would it take for you to change your mind and acknowledge that the moon landings happened?
    1
  1143.  @Nastyfinger1444  Surely you realize how poor of an argument “nuh uh” is. Try substantiating your claims with evidence for once.
    1
  1144.  @LibertyJasper  Their point was to address all the people who ignorantly ask “why didn’t we go back” thinking there was nothing after Apollo 11. And sure, you could fake something multiple times. It just increases the likelihood of getting caught.
    1
  1145. @ You’re just expressing personal incredulity. You cited no reason to deny the moon landings other than “I can’t believe it”. Also, where are we supposed to go between low earth orbit and the moon. There’s quite literally nothing there. You don’t need to practice going halfway to the moon. You just need to perform a burn that provides enough delta v for a translunar injection.
    1
  1146.  @wakinglife7065  You’re blindly believing a blatant grift because he’s telling an antiestablishment narrative you like.
    1
  1147. There is no dome. If there was, why can’t it be observed or otherwise detected?
    1
  1148.  @HardKncokIntelligence  The camera that recorded Armstrong’s first steps on the moon was mounted to the outside of the lander. That fact is entirely consistent with the pictures of the lander and the published schematics. It should also be self evident from the fact that the lander takes up a large portion of the camera frame.
    1
  1149.  @HardKncokIntelligence  If only you could see the irony in your comment. You’re not using logic and you think that personal incredulity fueled “gotchas” count as “asking questions”. All you’re doing is displaying your ignorance. The moon landings are verifiable historical events. I didn’t blindly believe anything. I reached a conclusion based on the mountains of evidence available. You’re the one who blindly fell for lies. As for being corrected, did you already forget that you said a camera had to be there first to record Neil and how I told you the camera was mounted to the outside of the lander?
    1
  1150. Yes. Sibrel is a grifter who peddles lies that appeal to people’s antiestablishment biases.
    1
  1151.  @NicoleReading  All evidence clearly shows that the moon landings happened and the stories of the women in the movie can be verified.
    1
  1152. The money came from the government and the government’s money largely comes from taxpayers.
    1
  1153. You support Sibrel harassing people?
    1
  1154. That would make no sense and there is no evidence to show that could possibly be the case.
    1
  1155. Why are you thanking her for platforming a grifter and proven liar?
    1
  1156. Why do you love that she performed an active disservice to her audience by platforming a grifter and proven liar?
    1
  1157.  @rayna463  When you see the warning labels on the bottles under your kitchen sink, do you think that means you should drink them?
    1
  1158.  @wakinglife7065  The moon landings happened and the evidence makes that fact abundantly clear.
    1