Blitz PhD effectively demonstrates that scientific truth is built on the weight of systematic evidence rather than the cherry-picked skepticism of conspiracy theorists. This video serves as a necessary reminder that empirical verification remains the only valid antidote to personal incredulity.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
Delulu moon-landing denier feat. @deanwithrsAdded:
Wait, Blitz, did you just hear what he said?
>> No, I didn't. What did he say?
>> Oh, it was very important. It was very important because I brought up uh the reflectors that the Apollo 11 astronauts left on the lunar surface. That kind of proves the moon landing. And then he responded by saying, "No, that wasn't from any human landing on the moon. That was from unmanned missions." Uh dropped them on the moon. Now, the issue with this is that this guy thinks it doesn't prove that. Therefore, one moment. One moment. So therefore, what this means is that this guy thinks that we had the technology to send unmanned missions to the moon 60 years ago. So why don't you think that we have the technology to send >> I don't think that.
>> Gladiator, how's it going?
>> Hey, can you hear me?
>> Yeah, I can. Gladiator, what uh shape do you think the Earth is?
>> 90% sure it's not a ball.
>> You're Did you say you're 80% sure?
>> 70 70 >> 70% sure. Okay.
>> Yeah. Yeah. And >> I'm pretty convinced it's not a ball.
>> Okay. Why?
>> You know, actually, it's recently been these uh Armus missions.
>> It's been the Artemis missions that convinced you that it's not a ball.
>> Um well, it's made me more convinced.
>> Okay.
>> That last guest actually brought up a good point. You said ever since these Armist missions happened, it seemed it's become more of a bit more of a talking point, you know?
>> I think a lot more people are getting convinced.
>> Well, I think that they're being louder.
Um, I think that it's uh very easy to in today's age to just go onto a live stream and just shout AI. Um, it I don't know if that means that there's more of them, just probably that there are more people that >> there are more of them that are just commenting. Anyway, what about the Artemis missions made you think that the uh the Earth is a Earth is not a globe.
>> Well, I think it's pretty obvious that they're uh they're faking the mission, the lion. Um, >> how was that obvious?
>> And it's not it's not just AI stuff. I don't I think the AI stuff, you know, that you keep bringing up, that last donator keeps bringing up, I think that's actually getting pushed out as a counter to to turn you away from looking into it.
>> So, what part about what part about it is obviously fake?
>> Okay. Are you able to pull up videos on this stream with like audio?
>> I can uh not with audio. No.
>> Um because if there's audio, then it'll get like demonetized.
>> Oh, okay. Uh would I be able to like record it? It's just like a video from YouTube. Well, what's the video? We can just talk about it if you want. I could probably pull it up without >> It's a live stream. Well, the audio is quite important, but I mean, what we can do is we can get everyone can go and find it at the same time.
>> Yeah, they could. So, what's what's the video? We can talk about that.
>> So, it's it's on NBC News. It's a live coverage of Optimus 2's Moon Flyby.
Posted six days ago. It's got about 700,000 views.
>> Okay. Let me see if I can pull it up.
Um, yeah. Yeah. Okay. I found it. So if you go to >> it's 10 hours which what's the time stamp that you need?
>> Yeah. Let's let's not watch the whole thing. Let's just go to 9 hours 54 right.
>> Okay. 9 hours 54. So this is the video right?
>> Yeah that's it. That's it.
>> Okay. So right about here.
>> Yeah about here. Maybe if you go a bit forward when they uh get off this mean animation.
>> Mhm.
>> That they always like to use.
>> So here.
>> So yeah about here is basically if you just give it a pause you can see they're all there right? Well, three of them are there. There's four astronauts, but yeah.
>> Oh, right. Yeah. Uh, three of them are there. Well, the guy on the left, I want you to focus on the guy on the left.
Basically, if you can hear the audio, >> there's someone back at Houston talking and you see how he puts his thumb out there. He does it before he's supposed to. He forgets about the delay and then then he does it again. You see that?
>> Okay. So, that's >> So, I I don't actually know what he was doing. I don't know why he was doing it.
>> No, I can't. Here, let's uh >> speed out from an ontime start and we have adjusted the fan speed. We'll take a thumbs up if you're happy with it.
>> Whoops. That's too quick. Pulls.
>> Oh, wait a minute. So, he he even put his thumbs up before they even asked for it. So, it looks like he was just thumbs uping the other stuff.
>> No, he said if she goes, "Can we get a thumbs up?" And he immediately does it.
Like, it's a >> It seems like he he put the thumbs up before she finished asking the question.
>> I mean, you can play it again.
>> Yeah. Okay, >> we'll take a thumbs up if you're happy with it.
>> See, he was middle. He was like he was in the middle of moving his arm by the time that she was that by the time that she was done.
>> We can even just like look when was he when did he start moving his arms? We'll just go back until >> that's why.
>> So, okay. So, so here So, here's the frame.
>> Here's the frame with it.
>> So, he was already moving his hand by the time she finished her sentence.
>> What's after thumbs up? So, so is your evidence that this is that this guy gave a thumbs up before >> when he wasn't supposed to?
>> Okay.
>> Because he's on a set actually in space and there's not actually a big delay.
>> So, do you think that So, do you think that some people just give thumbs up sometimes?
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. So, is it possible that he was giving a thumbs up to the statements that were made earlier?
>> Well, the lengths that you people >> will take a thumbs up. So like >> bum says and then bum he >> to be clear.
So they say >> and we have adjusted the fan speed.
>> So they say we have adjusted the fan speed. Is it possible that he heard that and then he gave a thumbs up because he's the kind of guy that gives thumbs up. Is that possible?
>> Yeah, that's possible.
>> Okay. So is your >> is what I'm saying possible?
The level of credence that you should have in some guy giving a thumbs up because he heard something and then the person mentioning a thumbs up at the same time >> should be way higher than this entire mission was faked >> because you saw because you saw a guy give a thumbs up that you saw a guy give a thumbs up and a second and a half before you think he should >> before you think he should have.
>> Well, there's a delay there. There's a delay, >> right? But he could have been thumbs uping something earlier. Even that even that should have uh there should have been more of a delay.
>> A one and a half. It's it's like one and a half second delay.
>> It's not that much if you go if you go and count like normally when they do it.
>> So So just to be clear a completely other point there's normally >> Integrity Houston we are 3 minutes out from >> So when they say we are 3 minutes from an on time start >> he could be thumbs uping right then. and he like right when he hears that that could be exactly when um >> that could be exactly when he starts coming up. Also, >> are we hearing live from Houston or are we hearing it when they hear it?
>> I'm I'm comparing it to the the rest of the video and I'm comparing the consistency and and and it's that you know, you're saying could it be this?
Let's not ignore the point that she specifically asks for a thumbs up and immediately after he puts a thumbs up.
>> How is my scenario not the more likely one?
>> So perhaps your So look, I'm not going to say that >> this is the smoking gun, ladies and gentlemen.
>> This is the smoking gun for you.
>> So perhaps perhaps it's the case, Gladiator. Perhaps it's the case like like it is it is a there's a non-zero possibility that you're right about this. However, there's also a non-zero possibility that A, we're hearing the audio at the same time they're hearing it. That B, he knew what was she what she was asking because they've rehearsed this in the past about what we're going to ask you to do when we are asking for confirmation because obviously they're going to definitely rehearsed it.
>> They're going to do practice runs, right? And C, it's possible he's just a thumbs up kind of guy. So, if this is the kind of thing that is the smoking gun for you, then surely when you have individual amateur astronomers tracking the Artemis the uh the uh Orion capsule while it's in space, I can find it for you if you want.
>> Like they they saw it.
>> Yeah. With telescopes.
>> That's pretty cool.
>> One sec.
>> Yeah, I mean it is really neat. By the way, >> this whole Artemis mission really it's been easy to spot them, but I just thought that one was the most clear. You know >> what I mean? I mean, like this should be this should be shocking for you, too, that like if it was fake, if if the Earth was not flat, then they shouldn't have been able to track the actual Aremis um capsule, right? Let me see if I can find a good clip because there were a lot of people who did this because it actually wasn't that hard to do. Um but I just want to find there.
Oh, yeah. There we go.
So, this is probably I mean this isn't maybe this is not the best one, but here's a good example of one. So, here's a guy. He's just a guy on YouTube. His he goes by Astrocreation.
Um he pointed his telescope where the Aremis where the Orion telescope was or the Orion capsule was supposed to be.
And here you can see it moving on his uh in his subsequent frames.
>> One moment. He's going to play it in a sec.
>> Is this him like looking for a test?
This is this is looking at the data that his that his telescope captured. So you can see the you can see the uh the file names that his telescope took like the pictures. You can see them on the right.
>> And so he's about to scroll through them.
See that? What's that moving?
>> With the uh the little light there.
>> Yeah, the little light in the middle.
>> The little pin prick of light.
>> Yep. Exactly where it's supposed to be.
>> That that's detected by a >> Looks like a light. Well, except except it's exactly where it's supposed to be according to NASA.
>> Okay.
>> Right.
>> Okay. According to the people telling us the story, there's a light where it's supposed to be.
>> Yeah. So, >> how do we know that's an Orion capsule going around the moon?
>> How could they know that there was going to be something there in advance if they didn't put it there?
>> Who Who's they?
>> NASA.
>> Well, NASA did put it there.
>> So, you agree that NASA put something in space?
>> Well, I don't know that's in space. It's just a pin brick of light in the sky.
>> Where is it?
>> It's It's a pin. It's a It's a light in the sky.
>> How is How is NASA putting How is NASA putting a light in the sky?
>> You're just taking the context of what NASA is saying.
>> How How is NASA putting a light in the sky?
>> A light in the sky.
>> How is NASA putting a light in the sky?
>> I don't know, a high altitude plane, a drone. You you know NASA gets like billions and billions a year. Like it's a pretty big budget.
>> It don't cost that much to put a light in the sky. When you you know, when you look up in the sky, you see a satellite.
Like what does it look like? So, we have we have a special guest. I guess Dean Withers wants to come on. I guess he has something interesting to add here. So, >> we'll bring Dean on.
>> The Dean Withers.
>> The Dean Withers. He's a friend of mine.
>> I feel like it's it's been a really long time, man. Hope you've been well.
>> Yeah, I'm recovering from some surgery, but I'm doing okay. Dean, you have something to add here?
>> Yeah, I do. So, I just want to get this straight. I could go on my computer right now and download a digital soundboard uh that will delay my microphone input by two to five seconds if I wanted to join a Discord call. But you're telling me that this multibillion uh federal entity that is able to perfectly fake zero gravity for hours on end and make it seem as if we went to the moon and back. um could not fake a delayed transmission with something such as a soundboard. That's what disputes your claim here is that we know that the astronauts did not hear Houston the moment when Houston spoke because even if it were to be fake, Houston would be able to fake delay their transmissions to the Orion astronauts to make it look more real with a soundboard in less than 30 seconds. It's so easy even you could do it from home. So that's why we are going to rely on all of the other evidence that this thing is real and the fact um that he was given a thumbs up in response to something else probably what Blitz pointed out earlier.
So, it's just coincidental about her saying, "Can we get a thumbs up?" And also, >> the clarification here, just to be clear, the point that Dean's making is merely that >> why would they bother >> trying to tell the astronauts to act as if there is a delay when they could just have the astronauts. They could just add their own delay, right? They're going to be miked up separately anyway.
>> The the obviously the message the the recording that they're getting from Houston is going to be on a separate audio track, so they could just delay it and post.
>> Um, yeah. I mean, this this is where it gets a bit more tin foily, but um a lot of us in this space, we believe that they they do purposely like put out these things for you to see because they're not really allowed to they kind of have to tell the truth and what they're doing. That's that is why >> So they have so they have to tell the truth, but they're also trying to lie.
>> What's going on here?
>> Yeah, I know. I mean, you got to do your research into it sounds crazy. Of course it does, but um >> it does sound crazy. Why why would anyone believe that? What are their motivations to tell the truth? And also >> the independent research. That's why >> the independent research. You mean like the guy who was obviously detecting a spacecraft that was put into space by NASA in the place that they sky man.
>> Okay. So where where did the light come from?
>> It came it came from a source in the sky. Like I don't know what I'm what to tell you. Like can can you not get high altitude planes and drones?
>> So So it seems like NASA's going >> Could you tell the difference? Blitz, could I ask you something really quick?
Would you be able to tell the difference between a a high alitude like spy drone, you know, these crazy ones that they have uh emitting a tiny light and could you tell the difference between that and what they say is a satellite in space?
Could you tell the difference?
>> Yeah. Yeah, you could. And you could use something called parallax, but I'm not going to let you deflect. The reason I brought the reason I brought up NASA putting this this light in the sky is because if NASA's going through all the effort to make this fake, why are they letting through little tiny leaks?
>> Because again, that goes back to my they they they have to put it in there that they're lying. It's like it's like a karmic thing. It's >> why do they have to do that?
>> Because that's what they believe. That's what they believe.
>> Wait, wait, wait, wait. What is your evidence that that is what they believe?
if you do your research into like basic like uh freemasonic you know beliefs and >> wait I'm pretty sure they think that the person that I'm pretty sure it sounds like you've done your research so I've done my own research >> would you mind sharing that research with us to convince us uh that when this astronaut gave a thumbs up uh the moment was making a transmission this was that astronaut responding to the you know what here's better question I could dispute this as well I know that the astronauts on Border Ryan did not fake the delay in the transmissions from Houston's because they're consistent and the delay only increased the further away they got from Houston and the closer they got to the moon. If it was fake, then how would it be so reliably consistent because they keep changing it based on where they would be. But obviously at this point at the end of the 10-hour live stream, this guy on the left is getting a bit tired and he messes up when he hits thumbs up. He immediately does it.
the reaction of the the the black gentleman.
>> There's a problem here, right?
>> He looks stressed. He looks embarrassed.
>> There's a problem here.
>> There's a problem here. Look, so the claim is is that they didn't add the delay in post, right? Because otherwise, this guy wouldn't have been able to respond early. So, if it's the case that they were that the actors were trained to have a certain amount of uh you know, delay, then they would need to be able to adjust their delay. microscopically as time went on. And it sounds like that that's a little bit of a stretch, especially because you're also claiming that one of those astronauts, actors, as you might call them, uh, just kind of screwed up, right? They just they just screwed up even though they were able to get the delay perfect in an increasing amount as time went on, as they got further and further away. But just this one time he screwed up. That's it's a little bit farfetched, don't you think?
>> Yeah. And to even add on top of that, you know, like you were bringing up earlier, Blitz, he threw the thumbs up right as she said thumbs up. Not even until she >> No, that's not true.
>> Asking asking him why.
>> Go back to the video and play the audio.
That's disingenuous.
>> Dean, one moment. He threw the thumbs up right as she said thumbs up. And And not even she didn't even wait until uh she was done asking him like why uh he he uh was to throw the thumbs up, you know, like if everything's good. So, you know, to your point, Blitz, here. Yeah. This is incredibly far-fetched. You know, like Gladiator, if I was there back and forth, I'm almost done. Gladiator, if I was to have a 10-hour back and forth conversation with you, but I was to also request that in every response that you give to me, you add a 1 second delay, but then every 30 seconds, make sure to add 1/100th of a second. And then over the course of the 10 hours, that delay would increase by seconds. And you're talking respond to me before I'm even done with my sentence.
>> That's insane. That's not plausible.
>> You're talking as if throughout that whole 10-hour live stream is these astronauts talking to someone. It's not.
It's like little bits throughout. So, it's not like every single time they get further and further away, they have to increase the delay. So, again, you're just being disingenuous. If you go throughout the whole 10-hour video, there's only like two points where the astronauts are actually talking to uh, you know, Houston or whatever. Most of it, of course, is your CGI animations.
It's just so funny how you you two are so okay with this.
>> I think it's probably and you know, I haven't watched the 10-hour live stream, but I think it's probably farfetched to say that they were they only me they only talked with Houston a few times.
Probably what happened is that for most of the interactions, they just weren't broadcasting that because they were busy broadcasting something else, right? So, so I'm not saying they should be, but I'm just using that as my point to counter Deans. I mean, like, do you understand my point?
>> All you need is a few data points, right?
You only need a few different a few different moments when the broadcast happened and to measure to measure a delay. That's all you need.
>> Yeah.
>> Well, that's if it varies. If it varies, then that means that they trained the astronauts to have those delays so well that this is the only time a screw-up happened.
>> It's not the only time a screw up happened. There's been screw-ups throughout the whole mission. So many people getting turned into moonlanding deniers and flat earthers. Like, I'm not even a full flat earther. I just have my doubts.
>> Okay, this whole mission has just further made We can deviate a little bit. We So we could say, okay, so that is a piece of let's even call that a piece of evidence that this uh that this was not real. Now let's look about let's look at all of the other evidence that it is real. So I've already brought up I've already brought up this this kind of video. And we have a whole bunch of pieces of data that the Orion capsule is in the place that NASA said it is.
Right? That is prove anything. Well, look, the point is is that it is expected given the hypothesis that NASA put the Orion the Orion spacecraft in space. That is what's expected. And so, the fact that we make those observations means that it's evidence >> in the same way that you would expect that the delay would always be present and obviously present if um if there was such a delay. And so, we can even say that your your clip is evidence. So, now we just have to weigh the evidence, right?
>> Your evidence is not provable.
>> Your evidence isn't provable either, right? We can't prove that that the guy actually gave that intending to respond to the thumbs up request by the woman in Houston. We can't we can't prove that.
No, we can't.
>> Say, "Can we get a thumbs up?" He puts his thumbs up and then he gets really embarrassed and he pulls his thumb away.
And can I ever prove >> Am I allowed to do that or do I have to >> only if you're not going to interrupt me? Are you going to not interrupt me?
>> No. Go ahead.
>> Okay. So the point is is we can't like there are other alternative explanations in the same way that you're giving an alternative explanation for this piece of data. So okay, there's an alternative explanation for both pieces of data, but we'll consider those both as pieces of evidence. Maybe even equal pieces of evidence. Well, what about all of the extra evidence that we have from the Orion spacecraft, namely that something fell from the sky?
>> Something fell from the sky with signs of re-entry burns.
>> That's a piece of evidence, right?
Right. And then we caught that thing and that that that was what the capsule was.
There's also the piece of evidence that we saw that hundreds of thous going to space. Sorry.
>> Shall we just stick on like that piece of evidence? I mean, that's a good one, right? That's probably the one that most people use, right? You saw the rocket go up and you saw the capsule come down.
>> What I'm giving you is what I'm giving you is individual pieces of evidence.
And you could probably find you could probably nitpick and find problems or find small probability problems with each of these. But the point is is that you're going to have a hundred pieces of evidence, each of which might have a nitpick that you can find an issue with that.
>> Alternatively, you have like one piece of evidence that >> No, >> also has a small probability nitpick.
So, which which is more overwhelming?
>> No, there's lots. There's this like this the one that I showed is just one mess up they've done. There's lots of like green screen errors. There's there's there's lots of wire >> talking about the CNN green screen error, the one with the floating thing.
Uh uh no it's not even that one. It's the one where like there's all stars in the background and again you can find it on an actual stream like >> where there's no stars in the background or there are stars in the background.
>> No no no it's it's uh it's a shot from inside the capsule >> um and then in like the bottom left corner like the stars stars start appearing kind of like what it should be looking like on the outside. So it's like a green. You wouldn't be able to see stars on the outside anyway unless you have a long exposure photograph.
>> Why? Why can they never see stars as well? I mean, crazy.
>> Because it requires long exposure time or requires extreme darkness. So, if you have a video, >> you have a you have a video that is being recorded on like the interior of a spacecraft. As long as the lights are on in the interior of the spacecraft, if you pointed it out the window, the exposure settings for your camera are going to be such that you're not able to see the stars because the stars are much dimmer than the light inside the spacecraft.
>> I mean, I can see whenever I'm on a plane and it's flying at night, I can I can see the stars even if the lights on the plane.
>> Yes. Because you're using your your eyes to see the stars, not not a digital camera to see the stars. Digital cameras have limitations that your eyes >> So you're telling me the astronauts on this mission, they did see stars the whole time. Is that what you're saying?
>> So when it was dark, they would have seen stars. And in fact, the Orion astronauts did report seeing stars when they were on the when they were on the uh >> when the sun was being obstructed. The sun and the earth were being obstructed from the moon or by the moon.
>> So that directly contradicts reports of Apollo 11 astronauts. That's a bit strange. Michael says he doesn't see the stars.
>> The Apollo 11 astronauts were on the day side of the moon.
>> Their lights were the moon. They said on on the trip they do not recall seeing stars.
>> Whether or not they recall it is a different story of whether or not they saw them. Right.
>> In fact, in fact, I believe I believe one of the I believe one of the nitpick what you do believe in us and what you don't. I believe one of the stars. I believe one of the Apollo astronauts actually said actually I think I do remember seeing stars and one of the other said no I don't no there so there there was a conflict seeing anything >> there was a disagreement amongst the Apollo 11 astronauts cuz there were three of them >> disagreement how can you disagree about that >> some people may be more observant may have better memory than the others >> they didn't see the stars they were so unobservant they didn't look and see if there were stars just to be clear to your face do you think that Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong were busy perhaps They were so busy that on their 10day mission to the moon, they couldn't see.
>> Wait a minute. They couldn't verify.
>> Was Apollo 11 10 days? I don't remember off the top of my head if Apollo 11 was 10 days. But I mean, you don't think that they were busy, do you? Of >> of sure. Of course they were busy. Fine.
>> Okay. So, do you think they So, Apollo 11 was 8 days, by the way. But that's neither here nor there.
>> Five minutes. Five minutes a day. Just 5 minutes.
>> So, look, it is possible.
>> Look out the window. Hey, I'm in space.
>> It is possible that you look at that.
Some of them remember seeing the stars and some of them don't.
>> What is the case? What is the case if there were stars?
>> What is the case is that the Orion 2 astronauts, sorry, the Artemis 2 astronauts did report seeing stars.
>> Mhm.
Well, that's just it's just a bit strange that people didn't report seeing stars at first.
>> If they were looking at the sky when it was daytime, they wouldn't see stars.
>> Daytime.
>> Yeah. The moon has a day and a night.
Right. But they're not they weren't on the moon the whole time. They they they spent a whole trip going from Earth to the moon around it, landing on it, and back.
>> So, Michael Collins said on that whole trip, he's like, "I do not recall seeing any stars." And then Neil Armstrong looks at him and he's like, "What the hell is like there's so many Have you seen the this Arteimus to >> Wait a minute. Hold on. Have you seen a recent mess up?"
>> I'm sorry. Hold on. Let's uh let's because I'm just googling this because I'm not sure if I believe you. Um >> because you haven't done your research.
I know more about >> Michael Collins. In the book that Michael Collins wrote, he said, "Outside my window, I can see stars and that is all."
>> Exactly. He contradicts himself.
>> He writes the book years later and he contradicts himself because if you watch He did say that he stars. I'm glad we agree.
>> No, no, no. Let me finish. If you watch and you can pull it off these two, >> so you believe them. So you believe them at one point but not at the other.
>> I believe them when the memory is most fresh. Yeah, absolutely. the post press uh press conference when they got down and they're talking about it.
>> I believe what was the specific question that he was asked because if the specific question that he was asked >> they could see stars.
>> Was that it verbatim?
>> We can go look you don't know this shows that you've never looked into it.
>> The hilarious thing about this whole >> Okay, perfect. So since the question verbatim was have you seen stars? Well, if he says no, well, this could actually be situationally true in many contexts.
Like for instance, when standing in a uh very bright sunlight spot on the surface of the moon, which is the most notable uh event that occurred during Apollo 11 clearly. Okay. Uh or like for instance uh >> have you watched the video, Dean?
>> Have I watched the video of the moon?
>> No. No. You see, you don't even know what video I'm talking about.
>> The post-flight Apollo 11 press conference where Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins are getting they're talking about the most historic thing that's ever gone on. You've never watched that, Dean?
>> Wait a minute. I love that they landed on the moon though because we could point lasers at the uh reflectors because drones because >> and we can also see with Russian probes put those lasers on the moon. So, >> you know, look, I I'm actually a little bit curious here because you said that it was the 2 mission. You said that it was the Artemis 2 mission, Gladiator, that made you more convinced that the Earth is a globe. And now it seems like that when I mentioned that the Aremis 2 astronauts could see the stars, you're deflecting to something 50 years ago. So it were you lying to me about it being the Artemis 2 mission that made you think that the Earth was less likely to be a globe or >> Wait, what do you mean if I'm lying? No, it >> What I meant was it sparked this interest in me.
>> Wait, Blitz, did you just hear what he said?
>> No, I didn't. What did he say?
>> Well, it was very important. It was very important because I brought up uh the reflectors that the Apollo 11 astronauts left on the lunar surface. That kind of proves the moon landing. And then he responded by saying, "No, that wasn't from any human landing on the moon. That was from unmanned missions." Uh, that's what they said. Dropped them on the moon. Now, the issue with this is that this guy thinks it doesn't prove that. Therefore, one moment. One moment.
So, therefore, what this means is that this guy thinks that we had the technology to send unmanned missions to the moon 60 years ago. So, why don't you think that you have the technology to send? I don't think that. Well, you just told me that you think about the mission rover to the moon to leave the reflectors there.
>> No, I'm saying that that that it did it makes it so you can't say that humans went and did it. I'm saying allegedly they were put there before humans ever went.
>> So, so what's your explanation? How do you think uh those reflectors got on the lunar surface?
>> I don't think there's anything on lunar surface. I don't think the there is a lunar surface. I don't think >> you unironically you unironically could go build a laser, attach it to a telescope and prove that the reflectors are on the lunar surface yourself. If this was not the case, then why hasn't there been a single flatearther that has ever lived that has done that and disproved it?
>> So, a laser reflector, you see a laser like shine back at you from the moon. Is that what you see?
>> Yes. from the very specific spots uh where these reflectors are.
>> Is this is it is or is it just like a bunch of data on a screen? Is that what it is?
>> It's not actually like a laser.
>> I mean, it is it is data on a screen.
>> You don't actually see like a green laser pointing back on the moon, do you?
>> So So it is a laser going there and it's a laser coming back, but it is data.
Yeah.
Do we not do we not trust like scientific instruments now?
>> Um I don't trust data that isn't there to be verified. No, >> you don't trust data that is there.
Like I just said, >> you know, I can't go to the moon and I can't verify this.
>> Wait, wait, wait. Can Can you verify yourself that I'm a real person and and not an AI chatbot?
>> I mean, pretty well known on TikTok, so I mean, yeah, >> Dean was actually Yeah, I could. Dean, you know, I could actually in the early in the early 2020s uh as a uh as an attempt to surpass Parker and my AI chatbot has indeed succeeded, >> right? I mean, I could prove that you're real, Dean. Yes. I mean, I could we could both right now. We could I could say, "Hey, what's your address? Let me come to your house. I'll come say hi."
That is an actual thing we could do.
Obviously, we're not going to, but that's a thing that we could do.
>> Obviously, >> could you go to the moon, Dean?
>> Obviously, you're not going to, but you could build a laser in a can data to prove that the reflectors are on the lunar surface.
>> Can you go prove those reflectors are on a lunar surface?
>> Yes, you can prove that the reflectors are on the lunar surface by by building a laser, connecting it to a telescope, and collecting the data.
>> It's literally something that you could do. People literally do this, by the way.
There's a lot of astronomers and stuff.
Yeah.
>> I'm actually a little curious as to why it is the case that Michael Collins would say I don't remember seeing any if it was fake >> because he didn't know what to say. He like messed up his lines. Oh, >> okay. So, it seems like that your account of why all these moon missions were fake because people are just screwing up all the time.
>> Well, to be clear, I found a transcript.
So he said I found a transcript of the interview. He said I don't remember seeing any. Namely, I don't remember seeing any. Now >> yeah, that's basically saying I didn't see any.
>> No, it means that he doesn't remember seeing any.
>> So you you think what you're telling me?
You're telling me that you wouldn't remember stars or not in space? Are you joking me?
>> So the important point is that you can't see the stars when it's daytime. And so he's only the only chance that he would have to see the stars is if the window is pointed away from the moon, away from the Earth, and it's nighttime, and he's looking out, and it's also happened.
>> I mean, it could it could have happened, but it's likely that happened.
>> The conditions to make that happen are not trivial.
>> I think they are.
>> You think that the that those conditions, you have to have the moon and the earth. Michael Collins >> all all not within frame, right? And you have to have the windows pointed out like not towards the moon.
>> Michael Collins was in the capsule, right, when they landed on the moon. He didn't go down, right?
>> Yeah, he didn't go down.
>> So, he was orbiting the moon as they were down.
>> Yep.
>> So, is it not likely that at some point like the moon was blocking out the sun somewhat?
>> It could have been, but then you would need to have the capsule also have its mirror or not mirror, sorry, its window pointed didn't have like three didn't have like three windows or on each side.
>> We can we can go look if you want.
>> I'm sure it did. If it just had one window, that's pretty weird.
>> Oh, and on top of that all, your eyes would have to be adjusted to the dark.
>> Your eyes would have to be >> That's true. That's true. Actually, if it was bright on the inside, you would have a hard time seeing the uh the stars on the outside.
>> Right. So, we can go look up the lunar orbiter.
>> Uh 1969, >> lunar did this, by the way.
>> Yeah. And we're getting all excited that we're doing it again in 2026, but we landed on the moon in 1969.
>> Yeah.
>> Who cares? Like, who cares then, right?
>> Who I mean, it's still an achievement.
>> Is that Is that an achievement?
>> Wait, wait. I know that. I know that >> we've already been We played golf on the moon.
>> I I know that a lot of flat-earthers are like weirdly Christian. Are you weirdly Christian?
>> Uh, first of all, I'm not a flat earther. Don't assume my identity. But I'm not weirdly Christian. No, I'm not really religious. Because what I was going to say there is, well, Jesus has already came to Earth once. Would we get excited that he came back again? Like, listen, the point is I'm Christian.
>> This is exciting to a lot of people because we haven't been there in so long. And frankly, there's actually a lot of people such as myself and you, by the way, and [ __ ] uh Blitz, by the way, that we're not alive to see the first moon landing. That's why so many people >> Crazy, I know. But listen, like I said, there's just so many like inconsistencies within like the theories that you're spousing. I just wonder what it'd be like to exist as such a delusional person, you know, like on the Artemis 2 mission, right? There's like literally no way that humans have to like uh fake zero gravity for like extreme.
>> I mean, there is there's probably there's a multitude of ways that they can >> How do you fake it?
>> I mean, you watch Interstellar, you watch space films, have you seen those zero gravity planes that you can go on that simulate zero gravity? Are you [ __ ] quoting a movie? I'm No, I'm giving you multiple different ways that humans have simulated zero gravity.
>> And not to not to tilt the conversation back in the opposite direction, but I did just want to show you I found a uh a nice reconstruction of the uh lunar orbiting module.
>> Wait, which one is this? The current one or the >> No, this this the one that Apollo used.
>> Look, they got a few windows, right?
>> Nope. That is that tiny That tiny thing is one window and they have one more on the other side.
Okay. So, they got two >> two small windows >> on each side. Well, that's how each one on each side.
>> Yeah. Yeah. So, one on each side.
>> Yeah. Yeah. But I mean, they're both angled in the same direction, right? So, they're not like flat.
>> I mean, the notion that that looks >> none of these astronauts had.
>> Sorry.
>> Look how small those windows are. No, the point is is that none of them didn't have any time. The point is is that Michael Collins was almost certainly busy doing other things. He wasn't up there just jerking it, right? He didn't have the time.
>> So, no, I mean, he may have glanced out the window, but maybe the lights were on and he didn't see anything.
>> Look, the point is is that there are plenty of good explanations for why Michael >> What was he doing?
>> Do you want to look up what the transcript was between Michael Collins and Houston during the entirety of the Apollo 11 landing?
>> No, that'd be pretty boring. Let's not do that.
>> So, he wasn't he wasn't up there just jerking it? Surely, unless you think he was, I guess.
>> Hell no. I mean, actually, would you not try that if you were up there? I mean, >> what a weirdo. Yeah. Can you explain how humans could could fake zero gravity for extended periods of time, such as hours or days?
>> First of all, it doesn't have to be hours or days.
>> Okay. Well, actually, yes, for Artemis 2, it would have to be hours because there were periods where we got hours of uh fake gravity on camera.
>> Find it. Find an hour long. Hour long uncut zero gravity. Find it. Hour long.
Dean, you haven't watched this stuff and you're talking about like this is like me coming into your live and talking about Trump and I'm I'm British. I know nothing about Trump.
>> I tuned in for two days of it. I I watched it went up and >> two whole days, right? You weren't on your phone.
>> Listen to it like literally all day.
Yeah.
>> So, were you not disappointed?
>> Was I not disappointed now? So, tell me the lack of footage, how it was all just like shitty.
>> Tell me.
>> Sorry. Say that again.
>> Tell me how they faked the zer. Tell me.
>> Are you aware? Are you aware of these like parabolic flight? Is that the flight?
>> Yes, I am.
>> Well, I mean that's one way they could fake it. Uh any are you aware of filmic flights >> parabolic flights? One moment. Parabolic flights will only give you periods of zero gravity for around 2 minutes. Okay.
Like I >> That's for the two-minute clips. That's for the short two-minute clips.
>> So we have a 20 We have a 20-minute clip, by the way, of them being in zero gravity.
>> Okay. Well, you could do it for 20 minutes. Look at that guy. You can't do a parip lying down.
>> And look at the hair. This is the biggest one for me people. Look at the hair. Everyone in chat, look at the woman's hair.
>> What about it?
>> It's hairspray. That's not what Why is it like so rigid?
>> So, this it's actually an interesting question and I've thought about this a lot and I I eventually found an answer.
>> I'm sure you have because you know it's flat.
>> Yeah, but you're >> glad gladiator if you want to hear an explanation I can give you one. So, >> human hair human hair is naturally rigid, right? like it is structured.
These are cells that are locked together.
>> And so when there's gravity present, >> when there's gravity present, it falls, right? But like it's not just wiggling around willy-nilly, right? It's just sitting in a certain orientation.
However, if there's no gravity, it will just point in the direction that the that it grows in. And that's why you often see like people will be like, "Oh, why is her hair sticking straight up?"
Because that's the direction that the hair grows in. And if there's no >> it shouldn't look like that.
>> Wait, why not? Why not?
>> Because you can look, you can go right now, you can go and find a video of a a zerog flight, right? Which, you know, members of the public can get where they simulate this sort of gravity. And you look at a woman's hair and it's like free flowing. It's like almost like she's underwater. But here it's like >> so to be clear, being distinct from being in zero G. I can go find you a clip if you want.
>> It doesn't make any sense.
>> Wait, also this is going to change depending on hair texture. Yep.
Absolutely. For all it's for all the women on the one moment. One moment. One moment. One moment. It's going to depend on hair texture. It's going to depend on hair thickness. It's going to depend on uh their hair is like curly or straight.
It's going to depend if they have it in a ponytail or not. In that clip, it is in a ponytail, so it's going to be a little bit more bundled up and uh congested. Uh therefore, it's probably going to move a little bit more rigid.
But all this aside, all right, there's other indicators even just in the screenshot that Blitz just showed. Even if we ignore the fact that we could watch it and just clearly see that they're in zerog because they're moving.
They're [ __ ] floating around, dude.
Like, I don't know. Use your eyes.
>> Oh my god. Matthew McConn was floating around in Interstellar. Did you see that, Dean? Did you see it >> in a movie? Yes, I saw it.
>> Yeah, because you know it's a movie.
This is a movie. But they're telling you it's real life. It's not that hard to grasp.
>> Wait, wait, wait.
>> It's just because the lie is so big.
It's like it's insult to your intelligence. Like, >> this is a parabolic flight. Here's a parabolic flight video. Just pay attention to her hair and the way that it's oriented.
One sec. So, pay attention to her hair orientation right now.
>> See how those bits just stick straight out? They just stick. Look there. Look there.
>> It's the same orientation.
>> Play the video.
>> It's the same orientation.
>> Boom. He moves. Boom. He goes up and down.
>> Because she hit the ground.
>> Oh my god. THIS GUY >> WHEN she when she's not hitting the ground, it's staying in the same orientation. When she's not hitting stuff, see how it's staying in the same orientation.
>> But now look, it looks different. Now look, her hair looks different.
>> Hold on. I'm like 2 seconds before.
>> It literally doesn't. It's still It's still going backwards in a curly fashion.
>> No, no, no. You're not You don't It's not free flowing. It's It's not free flowing. It's just in It's just in an orientation.
>> Okay. Okay. Right. If you look at her hair right there, it's not in the same position as when the zero gravity first started because obviously to hit stuff yada yada. Oh, yes. It's still sticking up. I'm not saying that.
>> Yeah. So then what's the >> But if you look But if you look at the the women on the ISS, the woman on the uh Optimus mission >> Mhm. It's consistently just in the same place.
>> Yeah, because she's not ping ponging around and inside of inside of >> She's not bouncing off of stuff. Also, by the way, >> here. Here's a clip.
See how her hair is moving?
>> We can't see it.
>> Oh, I'm sorry. Oops. My bad.
Those >> hairs, bro.
>> See how it just bounce it back into place. where it was before.
>> But it does move, right? If there was hairspray, then it wouldn't be moving.
>> No, it' still move. It just stay rigid.
That's what it would look like.
>> If it if it was rigid, then it wouldn't be moving.
>> How? Okay. Okay. So, you've got it.
You've got me. You've got You've got Blitz. You've beat us. You've explained the reason why her hair is sticking up is because of hairspray.
>> Okay. But now, can you explain how she was literally [ __ ] floating in free space? Now, can you explain that? Wires on a green screen. I don't know.
>> Wires on a green screen. Okay. Wait, wait, wait. So, >> it's 2026, man.
>> Okay. So, you just said I don't know.
So, the reason why >> Do you not believe in trickery at a large scale?
>> The reason the reason why the wires on a green screen wouldn't work here is because that would mean that the wires would have to be inside of the Orion space capsule capsule. But we know that the space capsule in of itself is not a green screen because they interact with it. So, now that we've out ruled out the wires on a green screen.
>> No, no, no. It's a That's just a That could be a set. You don't know what that is. You don't know what >> you have. If it's a green screen, then you can't interact with it. You can't touch it. You can't feel it. You can't bounce off of it. It can't dynamically change. Okay.
The green would be I want to millions of I want to clarify. I'm still in the middle of my statement. I want to clarify here that it is the green in which would be replaced via the background not a wire. So now tell us tell us tell us tell us how is she free floating wires then okay wires.
>> So the issue with the wires approach is to what points of all of their bodies are the wires connected because it's not just like they're free floating as a as a fix one moment as a fix to the middle of their body. They're not free floating as we would expect from a rock climber repelling from a harness. No, the totality of their bodies are free floating, including their arms, their limbs, their legs. You could see their faces are free floating because they're a little bit more filled with blood because all the blood doesn't rush down.
The hair is free floating. And then they move every affixment of their body independently and you could observe it floating in space. So, are you arguing that there's like one wire connected to their right foot, another to their left, one another wire connected to their right knee, another to their left, another wire connected to the right side of their hip, another one wire connected to their uh right shoulder, left shoulder, right elbow elbow, right hand, left hand, neck and face and head and hair.
>> This is like if I if I showed a crazy video to someone living 200 years ago, they'd react the same way that you're that you're reacting. Okay, I want I want >> they just they have crazy good camera trickery and the and this looks >> prove it >> because look at this right now. Look at this image that you're looking at of these four completely static people that are barely even moving. One guy is literally just lying down in the top left and cross analyze that with like any film that's come out in in the past 20 years. Like >> why is the uh why is the microphone moving?
>> And you're acting like a company that has billions and billions and billions of billions.
>> Why is the microphone moving?
>> Yeah. What? What's Why is it Why is it floating?
>> Why is it floating?
>> Because they're they they they're faking it. What do you mean? They're acting like I'm >> How How can they interact with it?
>> If it's fake, >> bro. Literally just grabbed it.
>> Could you Can you not picture like someone saying this? Like if you showed Interstellar to someone like 100 years ago, >> you understand that Interstellar, >> how was it floating?
>> You understand that Interstellar >> camera trickery? You understand that Interstellar, okay, took like 2 years to film and then two years to edit and post. So, how are they able to do this live in the moment of as interactive with real questions from random people on the ground?
>> This is a government entity with endless budget >> and obviously you got to assume that in my worldview that they have the reason to fake it. So, they have multi they have an unlimited budget.
>> Wait, what? Wait, what is the reason to fake it?
It's to hide where we are. Oh, >> wait, wait, wait. Why would they have to hide where we are with a new Aremis 2 space mission to go around moon?
>> It's It's more about just keeping up that illusion in the public's mind.
>> Why wouldn't they just do it?
>> Why wouldn't they just not do it?
>> Not do what? Just go to the moon.
>> Why? Yeah. Why wouldn't they just not do the Artemis mission?
>> Because I don't think they can. Because I don't think you can go to space.
>> No. No. Why wouldn't they just not even try to fake it? Why wouldn't they just say, "Oh, well, you know, it's too expensive." Or, "Oh, no, the rocket."
>> That's what they have been doing. That's what they have been doing.
>> So then why do they do this now?
>> To keep up the illusion for a new generation. Because Dean just said none of us were even alive when the last one happened.
>> The illusion. It's not that hard to think of, guys.
>> What is your evidence? What is your evidence that NASA is trying to hide where we are?
>> They faked a moon landing. That's the claim. That's the claim to be clear.
>> Yeah.
So if it so I just want to clarify if it was not true that NASA faked a moon landing then it would be not true that NASA's trying to hide where we are and therefore it would be not true that Artemis 2 was fake right >> I really you kind of sp my brain I don't even know what you're saying >> well because you have a very like unreliable small tiny one but anyway so I want to clarify >> you don't have to get mean like you don't have to get like rude >> I'm sorry we're just having a conversation >> I'm sorry I'll try to calm down now I asked you what is your evidence that all of the data that we've presented you to demonstrate this is being reliably true is fake. And then you said, well, I don't know, but >> they don't have it. How about they don't have the evidence to Okay. And then I asked you And then I asked you, well, why would they want to do that? Um, >> it's hide.
>> And then you said, well, I don't know why they'd want to do that.
>> No, I didn't. No, I didn't. I said it's to hide where we are.
>> Okay. Why would they want to hide where we are?
>> To because how that's the best way to keep people in control. You don't tell them where they actually are. Well, what place where they are?
>> What What place are we actually? That if we >> I have no idea. That's the crazy That's the crazy thing about this conspiracy.
We don't know where we are.
>> So, wait. So, then how do you know that we are actually in a place that if we knew said place would give us more control?
>> Are you give us more control? It's if the whole world realized for sure actually in a place where like if we knew we were in that place then government would have less control over our lives rightinc one moment I'm not convinced that if the government told us that we were in place B compared to place A when we were actually in place A and if we knew we were in place A we would have more control in all scenarios like for instance if we weren't actually a part of the Milky Way galaxy and then this massive government scheme was just like, you know, blown out of the water that was whistleblown. Now everybody knows that we're not actually in the Milky Way galaxy. Now that we know more about where we actually are, would we have more control?
>> No. We wouldn't have more control just because we're learning that we are actually a part of the Milky Way galaxy.
So in other words, in order for us learning where actually such a moment.
>> One moment. One moment.
>> In order for us to gain more control by learning where we are actually. Okay, this would require the place in which we are actually to for some reason give us more control. Like for instance, maybe the earth is flat and there's an ice wall that hides another 50% of everything in existence and there's a firmament down over us that reaffirms that we have some type of theistic creator. And the government doesn't want us to think that we have a theistic creator because they want us to be disillusioned and secular. So then we don't attempt to rise up against the immoral attributes of the government which controls us because the government wants us to think that they are the most powerful. That would be an example of some crazy conspiracy theory of where we actually are that if we knew it would give us we the people more control. So now the burden would be on you to demonstrate that the place in which we are actually which NASA is lying about and attempting to hide is a place in which if we knew about it would give us more control. But you can't do it. And that's why NASA's lying about the Artemis 2 mission. That's why you can't reliably dispute any of the evidence that we've given you. That's why you can't reliably dispute the fact that we've been to the moon already because of the reflectors on the lunar surface or the fact that you could buy a [ __ ] telescope from Walmart or Amazon and then see the landing spots of the Apollo missions.
And inevitably, this is also why you're now using movies like Interstellar to to prove the zerog that we saw live from the uh space.
>> I'm saying that it's able to be faked.
>> Look, so here's the issue. Here's the issue with the claim it's able to be faked. So you say can I answer what said like he just had a 2inut monologue like gohead >> he he he he can't even remember what he said give your time >> okay Dean brought up the point that my theory that we'd have more control it doesn't make any sense because it's like he's basically saying who cares if we don't know where we are. So basically Dean what you're saying is you don't value the most ultimate truth about where you're like it's where you're from where you are right now. That's what you're saying you don't care about.
>> I'm saying that if we were lied to about being a part of the Milky Way galaxy when in all reality we are not a part of the Milky Way galaxy. If we part of the Milky Way galaxy, that wouldn't give us we the people more control than the government less control. The government would still have just as much control tomorrow if we figured out that we were not actually a part of the Milky Way galaxy. And by the way, if you're saying that they would have less control overlifying it, >> wait one second. If now if you're arguing that we would have less control because we would figure out that we've been lied to by the government, well then the government never would have lied to us in the first place because they want more control and lying to us risks losing it.
>> But they wouldn't have it if they didn't lie to us. That's just it doesn't make any sense.
>> So wait, okay, like for instance, let's imagine that we're not a part of the Milky Way galaxy. Why would you keep this? Let's just bring up the point that we don't live on a we don't live on a spinning ballad. Gladiator. It's an analogy.
>> Yeah. Why would the government telling us that we're a part of the Milky Way galaxy give the government more control?
>> This analogy has nothing to do with Can we talk about So you admit >> why would the government tell us that we're on >> I just want to clarify I just want to clarify that you admit that the government could lie to us about where we are without the government gaining more control in many circumstances.
Okay. So then tell us how the government lying to us about being a part of the Milky Way galaxy would give the government more control.
>> Because if we are a tiny pin prick, we're a little ball >> in this endless universe and we can't leave this ball and it's already been discovered and if you just go in a straight line, you're going to end up exactly where you are. That's what they tell you.
>> What does that kill? That kills inhibition of it. kills it kills you to want to to go and explore to find out secrets of the universe.
>> Stay there. Do your job.
>> Hold on. Hold on. So, >> argue on TikTok.
>> So, a thousand years ago, we didn't know. Humanity just didn't know how big how like how big the earth was or what the continents were. I mean, like the educated people did know what the radius of the earth was, but if you just took some random peasants, they weren't going to school. They weren't being fed lies about the size of the earth, whatever it was. They were just, you know, they just lived somewhere.
You know what they didn't do? They didn't go and explore. So what makes you think that if we suddenly found out? Of course they of course they could. They could have just gone.
>> A random peasant inad what makes you think that if we found out that the that the world that we live in is actually much bigger than it actually is. What makes you think that anybody what makes you think that anybody would go there >> that like besides maybe like these uh these super rich or super wellunded explorers?
>> What makes it there?
>> Well, what if you found out that if you just sailed for like an extra 20 hours, there's a whole new continent.
>> So, Gladiator, do you own a boat?
>> Would you not go there?
>> Do you own a boat? I don't own a boat.
>> No, but it's not hard to get a boat.
>> So, it's not hard to get a boat for a boat.
>> Do you own a plane?
>> Do you own a plane, Blitz?
>> Well, wait a minute. So if I wanted you on a plane on a plane >> gladiator if I wanted to fly somewhere there would need to be a company that is >> you know going along that route. So that would mean of course that somebody would have had to have gone there and established a an airport and would have established you know probably a city there and then it would be just the same as being here.
So what you're saying is ultimately like this is the argument that you're both putting forward is that you just don't you wouldn't care if we had been lied to about the nature of our reality and where we actually are.
>> Oh, you're incorrect. So gladiator I would very much saying no I wouldn't go >> rather gladiator rather than straw maning me rather than strawatting me and Dean let me elaborate.
>> That's what you guys think.
>> It's not but I can explain if you want.
So the point is is that the average person is not going to go explore and conquer new territory. That's just not a thing the average person does. The average person stays home, takes care of their family, takes care of their friends. That's what the average person does. Some people will go explore. Sure.
People go on vacation.
>> To say to say >> go on vacation.
>> Going on vacation is not going into the wilderness. To say that you said it's the wilderness.
>> I don't care. Gladiator, let me finish.
To say that I don't care about knowing what's true about the reality is absurd considering that I'm literally a scientist by profession. And so, sure, I absolutely do care and I absolutely You're having a hard time not interrupting. I absolutely do care and I absolutely am interested in figuring out what's true about reality. I wouldn't care to go there. Like that's not super important to me. I would care to know what's true. You, on the other hand, seem like you're not interested in knowing what's true because you're not willing to utilize the scientific method, which is our most reliable method of figuring out what's true about the world to actually establish what is true. For example, you are obligated to think that gravity is fake if you think that the Earth is flat. And considering that you are currently 7030, 70% being the Earth is not a globe, 30% being that maybe the Earth is a globe, that means that you are currently more convinced that gravity doesn't exist than you are that it does exist. And that's crazy because you can just use the scientific method to establish that that's the case. So, who is it really that doesn't care about knowing what's true about the world?
>> You or the two of us?
>> Let's say really me up. I'm going to go ahead and drop down. It's It was good getting into debate with you. Uh it's been a long time.
>> Indeed.
>> I just uh rage baiting myself a little bit too much. Don't know how you're doing.
>> That's the goal. That's the goal. All right, Dean. Have a good one, man.
>> You as well, man. Take care.
>> Take care. So, Gladiator, who really is more interested in knowing what's true?
The person who investigates the natural world using the scientific method or the guy who just denies all scientific evidence?
>> But I I I don't know how to prove Gary.
I can't do it.
>> Sure, you can. Are you familiar with Are you familiar with the Cavendish experiment? It's You can do it in your garage.
>> Why is this Why is this like the only one that you guys have?
>> Well, it's the easiest one. There are far more sophisticated No, no, there are far more sophisticated experiments that you can do.
>> However, this is this experiment because it was designed and performed in the 1700s is sufficiently easy for the modern human that you can just do it in your garage.
>> Okay. And and so you can prove that the Earth is a globe.
>> You can prove that gravity is real.
Sorry. You can you can prove that gravity is really in your garage.
>> Yeah.
>> Is it by dropping an apple?
>> No, it's by doing the Cavendish experiment.
>> What is the Cavendish experiment? How would I do it?
>> So, uh, I can show you a diagram. It might be easier than me trying to explain it.
>> Pictures worth a thousand words and all of that. Uh, essentially what you're doing is you're measuring the gravitational attraction between two objects in the horizontal plane. Um, >> but let me pull up a diagram for you. It might be helpful.
I would like a a nice diagram. Okay, this this diagram is in German, but it'll do because there's not a lot of relevant text, right? So, here's a diagram. Um, so you hang a string from the ceiling, say, um, and then you attach a horizontal bar to it and attached to the ends of that horizontal bar, you put two masses. Usually, we use lead because lead is heavy. Uh, it's heavy and it's dense and so it's you're able to get more mass into a smaller area.
>> So, you attach two small lead balls to either end. Make sure that it's balanced so it's not like tilted one way or the other.
And then you just leave it alone for a long time. Hopefully you're in an area where there's not a lot of earthquakes because earthquakes are obviously going to shake it. But you leave it alone for a long time. Eventually it'll come to rest. Then you then what you want to do is you want to go get two large large lead spheres or they don't have to be lead. They can be anything heavy. But again, lead is good because it's heavy and cheap. Put two large lead spheres in the configuration here. Now, what you're going to want to do is because our eyes are not so good, you're going to want to attach >> Does that have to be spin?
>> No, they don't. But spheres are just they're just convenient because then you don't have to deal with like a higher order effects. Um, so what you're going to want to do is you're going to want to attach a small mirror to this string in the middle so that it so that you can shine a laser onto that small mirror.
Now, you're going to want to set up that laser so that it's like, you know, in a rigid place. Maybe it's on like a table or something. pointed at that small mirror at an angle so it deflects off and lands somewhere else on your uh on your garage's wall. Say now before you move the large lead spheres in place, what you're going to want to do is you're going to want to um let the you know this balance come to rest and then mark where the laser is, where the laser reflection is off of the the mirror on the string. Then you're going to move the large ledge spheres in place and then you're going to wait for it to come to come to rest again with the same laser placed in the same location and you're going to turn it on and mark where it is. And what you can do is you can establish how what the gravitational or what the force is between the large lead spheres and the small lead spheres based off of the change in position of that laser point on the wall because that will mean that the uh that the balance will have rotated a little bit because that would mean that change the angle of the laser the laser dot on the wall and so you can infer how much it's rotated and then using the properties of the string you can infer how much torsion torsion there is and so on. So that's that's what the Cavendish experiment is. Um and this so what makes gravity?
>> So uh the the hanging the hanging bar from the string rotates slightly.
>> It starts to rotate.
>> Yeah. It rotates in the direction that each mass is going towards the uh the heavier mass.
>> But there's two heavier masses.
>> Yeah. The two heavier masses are gravitationally attracting the two lighter masses.
>> Right. So it has to be two lead balls specifically.
>> Well, it doesn't it doesn't have to be lead. You could use gold. You could use copper, just something heavy because the bigger the the heavier the thing, the larger the gravitational force. And the reason why you want them to be particularly dense like lead or like gold is because the gravitational force depends both on the mass, but it also depends on the distance. And so the more dense something is, the closer you can get to the uh the small the small balls on the end of the balance without them like touching, right? So you want a lot of mass concentrated into a little bit of area so that they can get closer so the force is stronger. makes it easier to measure.
>> I mean, it just that just doesn't make any sense to my head.
>> Maybe I'm just too stupid with the whole thing.
>> It's just like how does that prove gravity?
>> Well, so what is causing the smaller lead ball or the smaller lead balls to move towards the larger lead balls?
>> I mean, I'm looking up right now at something hanging down and it's slightly moving.
>> Well, that's why you wait for it to come to rest. I >> have like a little ball hanging down on some >> That's why you That's why you wait for it to come to rest, right?
So, you're telling me that if I put like a hanging lead ball next to this other little ball I've got hanging, it's going to start moving towards it over time.
>> There will there will be a small force there. The reason why you use the mirror is because the mirror will amplify any any small deviation, right? Because even if it just twists by like a 100th of a degree, that will mean that the laser light being reflected will be amplified by roughly the amount that it's twisted times the distance that the laser is being reflected to the wall.
>> So you could see like a one or two inch deflection from even the tiniest tiniest rotation.
>> So if you just left this experiment like in a garage for however long, would would they just eventually touch each other?
>> No, because the uh the the string itself has some torsion. So like you know how if you twist something of if you twist it enough it'll untwist because like the tension in the string. So the tension in the string is an opposing force to the gravitational force. So they'll just find a new equilibrium.
>> They might they they may touch depending on what the equilibrium is. They may not. It just depends on you know what the string is made out of how tense it is. All those things >> that rotates. There are plenty of others.
>> What if you have a laser or something or two big lead balls?
>> Well these are things that you can get for fairly cheap. You asked for an experiment. I gave you one that you can do literally in your garage. If you're asking for an experiment that you can do without any equipment, I'm sorry. Doing science requires equipment >> and a laser.
>> Maybe a different type of experiment. I don't know.
>> So, there are other experiments, but they are more sophisticated. Um, for example, there are experiments that will let you measure the rotation of the earth. This the most common one, the easiest one is doing is building a fukult pendulum, but that requires a fairly tall building. Um there are other there's another experiment or there's another device that you can build called a Compton generator which will also measure the rotation of the Earth.
That's it's not it's probably not as expensive to make and it doesn't require a large space but it does it does require a little bit more sophisticated manufacturing because essentially you need to get a circular tube that's hollow and somehow you need to fill it with water and also a little bit of coal dust and then you need to seal it off.
So that would require some probably custom glass blowing. So if you're a glass blower, you could probably do it.
But there So there are plenty of ways and then there's obviously more sophisticated ways which you wouldn't believe, but there are plenty of ways. I was just giving you the easiest one.
>> Yeah. Well, I just, you know, I think it's important that people be able to do stuff themselves if it's >> this is something that you can do yourself, you know.
>> And not only can you do this yourself, there are like hundreds of videos of people online doing this experiment.
>> Yeah. Well, I mean, there's hundreds of videos online of Optimus forgery, but you don't seem to believe that.
>> Well, I mean, the point is is if you think that this experiment doesn't work, then it would be very very strange that there aren't like >> I just don't see how it proves gravity.
It's just not really seen in it. So, you need So, there is some force that is causing the smaller masses to be attracted to the bigger masses. What is that force?
>> Um, I don't I don't know. I don't know what it is. Maybe Maybe there's wind. I don't know. in your garage. It's windy. It's windy in your garage after you let it sit and come to rest.
>> Yeah. I mean, my garage door doesn't go all the way down. A bit of wind gets through.
>> So, so when something So, when you leave something to come to rest, it's windy.
>> But if it's come to rest, you're basing this off movement. So, how does it come to rest?
>> No. So, initially it's at rest. You mark where the laser dot is on the wall.
>> Then you put the lead balls next to it.
And then over >> You come back an hour later. You leave it for a few days >> and then you >> Yeah, it's it's a very slow process and you know the the natural oscillations will last for a long time.
>> And how much time how how far will it have moved after a few days?
>> It it just depends on the configuration of the experiment that you have, >> right? Like how big >> well yeah how big the masses are, how tense the wire is, these kinds of things. But the point is is you can actually check that this is you can check that the amount of deflection which from the deflection you can calculate the attractive force. You can check that that attractive force depends on the mass of the thing that's doing the attraction because you can use different sized lead balls and you'll get different amounts.
>> I mean look this can prove you can use different substances. Yeah, that's what gravity is. It's that force.
>> But you're just taking it and you're slapping this word on it. Gravity and you're saying that's >> gravity is the gravity is the name for the force of mass attracting mass.
Gravity is the name for the force of gravity of mass attracting mass. That's all it is.
>> I mean, it's just I just don't know why they're faking stuff, man. I just can't get around that.
>> Well, it's possible that they're not faking stuff and you've just bought into some lies from, you know, Tik Tockers or whatever.
>> But there's just no proof of anything they've done and like proof.
>> I Well, okay. So, there's plenty of evidence. You just don't like the evidence because you have some preconceiv claim and then I said that there's a hundred other pieces of evidence that contradict it.
>> It doesn't contradict it. It's just there. All you need is that one piece.
There's a hundred other pieces of evidence that show that it's not fake.
>> Yeah. The position that you should hold is the position that shows is the position with the most evidence. Right.
>> Right. I I agree. So, if we went to court and we said, "Hey, is the moon landing fake or not?" And the judge goes, "Okay, okay. Where's where's the evidence? Where's all the the telemetry data?"
>> Yeah. You would find >> all the data is there.
>> Oh, it is. It is there. All of the telemetry data is there. Um, what is missing is the >> the original telemetry data for >> No, not not even the original telemetry data is missing.
>> What's missing is that there was a >> original pile missing. No, there was there was like a highdefinition uh video recording. So the one so the way that they sent the data the way that they sent the video from the moon landings is that first you would have video go directly to Houston and then Houston would have it would basically distribute it out to the networks right the TV networks. Now, the video that came from the Apollo landing, Apollo 11 specifically, um that was higher that was in some sense higher definition than what was then distributed to the news networks. But that higher definition version that just went to Houston, the kind of the the higher definition data that just passed through, that is what we don't have. That's the telemetry data that's being referred to. We don't have the highde version of the moon landing that was then passed through in lower definition to the news agencies. Crazy.
That's crazy.
>> But we have literally all of the data, all of like the actual numbers. We have all of that.
>> We don't have the technology.
>> Do we have the technology to build a Model T Ford?
>> Yes, >> we do.
>> Yes. If if if someone wanted to build a model uh the the original car, >> someone wanted to build the plane that the Ry brothers made, they'd be able to do it. They'd be able to use it.
>> Oh, would they? I mean, I'm pretty sure that they would have to at least for the Model T, they would have to build an entire factory, right?
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. We could we could do that for the Apollo for the Apollo uh stuff too. We'd have to build entire factories. Why would we build Why would we build 70 or 60y old technology when we could use modern stuff?
>> It worked perfectly.
>> No. No, it didn't.
>> Well, it did. We got to the moon. We played golf. Did we not play golf from the moon? Yes or no?
>> Wait, hold on. Hold on. There was literally that failed. There was literally a mission that failed.
>> Okay. Yeah, but there was seven missions where >> Apollo 13 had to abort their landing.
>> Yeah, that's that's fine. We still went to the moon.
>> So, wait a minute. A 1 in7 failure rate is good enough for you.
>> We still went to the moon.
>> Yeah. With a 1 in seven failure rate.
Why would we do that now?
>> We made it.
>> Why would we do Why would we use a 1 in seven failure rate now when we could just make it better?
>> Is it better?
>> Yeah.
>> Why didn't Why didn't these astronauts land on the moon?
>> Because they were doing a test run.
>> Why are they doing a test run?
Because they're using new they're using new technology.
>> You see, that just doesn't make any sense because that's not how technology works.
>> What are you talking about? Do you think that when they build a new car that they don't test that new car cuz we've had cars before?
>> No. But you build that car based on the old technology. You don't scrap it. When when the Ry brothers made their first plane, did they scrap it?
>> The current tech scrap the plans.
>> The current tech is built off of old tech.
>> Did they scrap the plans?
>> Who? the Apollo people or the Wright brothers.
>> The the Ry brothers when they made the first plane of it.
>> I don't know. But we have we have all we have all we have all of the blueprints from the Apollo missions.
>> We have all of the plans. All of it.
>> Right.
>> Is that why you don't know actually?
It's just like you haven't done your research.
>> No, I have.
>> Apparently not because you didn't know that we don't have all of the blueprints.
>> Why do NASA astronauts say that we lost the technology?
>> Which one?
>> That doesn't make any sense.
>> You said ast NASA astronauts. Which ones?
>> I can't remember his name. Is there's >> Wait, so you said Astronaut. Is there one? Is there one or is there more than one?
>> Um, well, there's one, right?
>> There's one. There's exactly one. His name is His name is u coincidentally his name is Dean actually. Um, Dean something. Uh, >> let me see. Um, >> no, but it's just a it's just it's a fact that you just said like we wouldn't be able to do it again. So what is true it's sorry it's not Dean it's Don Petite or Don Petit I don't know how to say his last name he is a single NASA astronaut who said this this was not a this was not a statement that NASA ever made this was just like a guy who happened to be >> it's not just a guy that's astronaut >> but the point is this is not an official NASA statement this is a single astronaut >> NASA astronaut >> he wasn't making a statement on behalf of NASA he was just like talking so the point is is that this is a single astronaut not talking on behalf of NASA or onh half of any official mission. And he did not say that we do not have the capability to go to the moon. He never said that.
>> I didn't I didn't say he said that.
>> Okay. What do you think he said?
>> I'm pretty sure he says uh we lost the technology.
>> Yeah. So, did we lo So, did we lose the technology to build a Model T?
>> No, we could do it again. So then we didn't lose the technology to build the Apollo to build the Apollo program.
>> Can we do that again?
>> We could, but why would we use 60-y old technology?
>> Why isn't any Okay. Why hasn't any other country done it? A poor country. Like >> so a poor country.
>> Botswana.
>> Because it's still it's still super expensive. There's only a few space agencies.
>> But why hasn't any other space agency done it?
>> Why haven't they why haven't other space agencies gone to the moon?
>> Yeah. Well, so agency, first of all, I'm not sure I'm not sure how much uh of the like the details of stuff is available to the public. So like obviously the United States is going to have some things and I don't know if it's publicly available. NASA would obviously have it, but I don't know if it would be publicly available. Secondly, it's still really expensive. Thirdly, why would they do it? Why would they put people on the moon when it's dangerous? Why would they use old technology to put people on the human to explore what >> it's already done? Why are we going back? Why are we going back?
>> Good question.
>> Why is Artimus going back?
>> Good question. I think Donald Trump wants to build a moon base.
>> Okay, so then your your argument doesn't make any sense then.
>> Oops.
>> We clearly do want to go back. We've we've always been talking about going back.
>> Why is like no country gone, hey, we'll just take this old >> gladiator. Did you know that after Apollo 7 or by the time Apollo 17 was landing on the moon, um the US public interest was so low that it was only airing on two channels?
>> Oh wow. So public interest stops the government from >> publication. Public interest was basically zero by the time Apollo 17. In fact, that's why the Apollo program was canceled because the public wasn't interested in continuing to dump money into this program that, you know, they had already landed on the moon once. Why do they need to do it 100 more times?
>> So, why are we going back now?
>> I guess there's more public interest, >> is there? That's why that's really why the public interest is why we're going back to the moon. That's why we stopped.
I I don't I don't know the motivations of like the NASA director, but like we could just go look at >> why >> why don't why don't I think that I can't read minds, dude.
>> No, no, no. But no, what I'm asking is why do do you not think it's strange that we the public don't even know why we're going back?
>> Why don't we go look it up? Why don't we look it up together? How about that?
>> But that's in all this whole mission and no one even knows why we're going back.
>> Why don't we just Google it? Okay, let's see. Let's see if there have been any interviews by Isaac. Whatever. Whatever.
Isaac men. I forget his name. Um, so this is an article from the BBC. I actually won an interview with like the head of NASA. Um, >> I mean, I can tell you why they are >> Jared, sorry, Jared Isaac. Jared Isaacman. Here's a transcript from NASA administrator Jared Isaacman on April 5th. Um, so, uh, the primary objective right now for this phase of the mission is to continue gathering data from the ECLSS system, the life support system on the Orion spacecraft. This is the first time we've ever had humans on board the Orion spacecraft. We want to gather as much data as we possibly can for that. Of course, there's various science experiments. Let me show you what I'm reading. Um, that way then we can read together. Of course, there's various science experiments. There's lunar observations, but learning as much as we can about Orion is critically important because Artemis 3 is a year away. That's where we're going to test the same spacecraft with our lunar landers followed up in 2028 by Artemis 4 where we're going to use the spacecraft transfer crew or we're going to use this spacecraft I guess you just misspoke transfer crew to the to the landers and put American astronauts back on the surface of the moon. Okay. So um then this is a test miss test mission. What are they looking for? Um uh they're going to have to spend some time on Monday essentially looking out the windows and looking for parts of the moon that they were essentially have not seen before. So, they're going to be, you know, okay, that's not particularly interesting. Series of cameras. Um, all of this is to inform subsequent missions, which is where we're going to actually get those astronauts back on the surface. You want to land one and possibly two missions on the moon just two years from now. Um, what are you go what are you doing to ensure that at least one of those two companies? Okay, that's about the company. Um, this is about the budget.
>> Um, it looks like it doesn't say. Well, so yeah, I just pulled up a random interview. I'm I'm looking to find some interview where he says I'm telling you, we don't know. Okay. So, um I'm sure that we can find some sort of explanation, but even if we don't have an explanation, then you're right.
That's weird that they wouldn't tell us.
Oh, okay. Here we go. Um here's here is a interview. This is the conversation with with Dasha Burns. Jarick Eisen Jared Isaacman says, "I think it's in our destiny. We cross the seas. We climb the mountains." Sorry, let me put this in the center. Make it a little bit smaller. Uh we're explorers. astronauts are going to Mars someday and they're going to go beyond Mars. Okay, so this he's at least saying this is the head of NASA saying that we're explorers. That's why we're going.
I want to see if there's more uh >> um >> that's why humans do anything.
>> There's a lot going on here on Earth, too. So, do you think that you can successfully reignite America's fascination with with space? I have no doubt. I mean I mean, you know, I think I mean what kid has grown up that hasn't looked up at the night sky and just imagine the possibilities? space captivates everyone. Um, so, you know, it sounds like what he's saying is because we want to, because we're explorers, blah blah blah blah blah.
Also, we build a moon base and then we start thinking about what comes next, which is Mars.
You know, we've got to, you know, kind of keep their attention as we uh set up for subsequent moon landings because they're trying to build a moon base to get to Mars. So, that's that's another explanation. So, there you have it. It's like you didn't even do any reading or any research on this.
>> No, I did.
>> Okay. Why didn't you find the explanations? Why didn't you find these explanations?
>> Because it just they they don't make sense to me. They don't >> Look, I understand that a lot of things don't make sense to you, but that doesn't mean that they're not good explanations.
>> It does because they don't make sense to me.
>> Look, it should make sense to me.
>> So, do you think that you could explain to a fish how to do calculus?
>> Uh, no.
>> Okay. Does that mean that calculus it like isn't actually useful or effective because you can't explain it to a fish?
No, but so what? So everyone who who doubts the moon missions are fish.
>> No. Well, yes. Yes. Uh, basically.
>> Yeah, that's basically what you're trying to say. Yeah.
>> What I'm saying is just because you don't understand it doesn't mean that it's not a good explanation or it's not useful or it's not effective.
>> Yeah. And you know, just because you're getting told something doesn't mean you have to assume it, especially when they are blatantly fake.
>> Fortunately, we have data that uh that disagrees with the end of this. We don't have to rely on just like random videos.
But there are there are just no videos as well from this whole Artemis mission.
There's nothing.
>> There are so many videos.
>> We watch them. We watch them live >> of there's there's nothing. If you go in the NASA gallery, there's really nothing. There's like >> we literally you referenced a live video.
>> Skim through that video right now and and tell me what you see. It's 99% animation.
>> It's an interview.
>> That interview is a small maybe 20 minute extract of a 10hour live stream.
>> Is video. It's video of mission control hours of video. It's video of animations of visualizations and then there's >> there's literally hours there's literally hours worth of video days even.
>> It's terrible footage. It's 2026. Why is it so bad?
>> It's 4K.
>> It's not 4K.
>> Hold on.
>> You can't tell me that's 4K.
>> A picture a video of the live Orion capsule traveling through space with the moon in the background or Earth in the background. It's terrible footage and there's no footage. Why Why hadn't the astronauts got got their phones out and just taken endless videos of what they're saying?
>> I think they were actually.
>> They really weren't. I mean, well, they're not available to us.
>> There's nothing.
>> By the way, here's footage. It's kind of boring, but here's footage.
>> So, that's 4K.
>> I don't I I don't I didn't make the claim that every single video is 4K.
>> Well, but what is that? That's a That's nothing.
>> Oh, um, apparently it's uh Well, I actually don't know. I actually don't know what the resolution of this is.
>> It's terrible. And it's and it's and it's a nothing video of nothing. No.
>> It turns out space up there.
>> Space is mostly empty, by the way.
>> They had their iPhones up there.
>> Yeah, but this is a camera on the outside, not on the inside.
>> Where's all the videos of them in the inside? Where's all >> I We watched some videos from of them from the inside.
>> No, no, no. That's the camera mounted for the interviews, and it's a 20-minute extra. I'm saying when they're about just doing their business. So, you want you want the videos >> you want the videos from their you want the videos from their personal iPhones that they couldn't transmit.
>> That would be cool. Well, they're back now, so >> Okay. Well, yeah. So, keep your eyes open. I'm sure that we'll get some. Um, >> I'm sure we won't.
>> I'm sure we won't.
>> If we do, would you believe that the Artemis mission was real?
>> I would. I actually would. If there was a video of uncut of their re-entry or uncut or uncut of them in >> Now we're changing the goal post. So So wait, you require video from their iPhone >> to where?
>> No, no, no. I'm just giving you different examples of what I would like a video of them on the inside when they're halfway to the moon and they can see the moon and the the sun's behind it and you're like, "Oh, that's a cool shot." And they get their phone out and they they float to the other side of the cabin. and they put their phone up to the inside of the glass. Like, give me some documentation on this footage. Let me find you something.
>> You want me to be bothered about this historic footage? This historic moment?
>> Hold on.
>> There's no footage.
>> I'm going to find you something.
>> There's nothing.
>> I'm going to find you something.
>> You should You shouldn't even have to find me. The whole public should see it.
It should be viral like >> literally on Instagram, my guy. Okay, this is the footage. This isn't what I was referring to. It was the earlier clip. One sec.
>> Here's a Here's a picture. Here's a picture. Yeah, it's a still image. It's a still image.
>> Hold on. Let me Let me rewind to earlier in the video.
>> Why can't I Does does Instagram not let you rewind in a video? Here's Look, literally here's video.
>> Here's video of him videoing.
>> Here's a video of someone videoing something that you don't even know what it is.
>> Wait a minute. But you said that you said that there's no >> Here's more video. Oh, I'm sorry. What was that? Why was that iPhone just floating across the screen?
>> Because they're faking it, man.
>> Oh, okay. I thought you said that there was if there was iPhone video from the inside of the spacecraft that you >> flip like one of the astronauts flips it around like a selfie and like if they don't do some stuff if they don't get you iPhone footage that is exactly as you want it to be then it's fake >> anything I literally gave you I literally gave you a video just now but you said that it was fake and it wasn't long enough >> and you believe so your your back must be jacked from carrying the goalposts all over the place.
>> I'm not carrying any goalposts.
>> The goal posts have moved. The goalposts have moved.
>> A huge mistake.
>> Literally literally you said any video and then I showed you a video like that's not long enough.
>> What?
>> I literally I explained the video that would be cool and that's and that video didn't tell me I'm moving.
>> It started off It started off as any video then it was any video taken by the uh or it started off as any video. I can tell you what it originally was. It started off as any video. Then it was any video in 4K. Then it was any video in 4K taken by the iPhone. Then it was any video in 4K taken by the iPhone from the start all the way up until they got into space. Then it was then it was a video taken from the iPhone 4K from launch up until they can see the moon out the window.
>> You're putting words in my mouth. You're being very disingenuous. It's not a good look. And it just makes my argument.
>> Maybe you shouldn't move the goalposts all over the place.
>> I'm not moving the goalposts. I'm I'm I'm >> really >> So it's the fact that it's good enough for you is what m is boggles my mind.
It's like would do you not want to see cooler footage?
>> Would you not like to see some cooler footage?
>> I love like I I'd love to see what >> you love space.
>> I'd love to I'd love to see cool footage. I'd love to see it.
>> Where is it?
>> Not Look, do you understand that like just because you want Do you understand that just because you want something doesn't mean that you get that thing?
>> That's I know it's sad, right? You're never going to get it.
>> You understand? And you're never going to get good photo.
>> You understand that just because I want something doesn't mean that I get it.
You have the 5-year-old.
>> You don't understand how just because you want something doesn't mean that you get that thing.
>> I I do understand that. But I'm asking you, do you want it? Yes or no?
>> It It would be super rad if they had like 8K footage from like 360 degrees the whole time live stream. But like I understand that I don't get everything that I want. Why? Why do we have that?
>> Because I don't control NASA.
>> But why are they not giving that to us?
>> Because they have other priorities than what some 32year-old on TikTok wants.
>> Other priorities?
>> They have other things to be concerned with.
>> Really?
>> What do you mean really?
>> That's really the way you're going to like mentally block this.
>> Wait, do you think do you think that anything you can conceptualize they should have done?
>> No.
>> Okay. So then maybe this is not something that they would have done even if I can conceptualize it.
>> But I would like to see some stuff. I would like to see >> there there's plenty of stuff.
>> There's there's some still images.
>> There there's also video.
>> You shouldn't like it.
>> I shouldn't like it. Some of it's great.
>> It's really not, man. You're talking about still images.
>> It's nothing.
>> Still, you know that photography is literally a kind of art, right?
>> Yeah, it is. And look. Okay. Yeah. One picture can look cool, but it's the fact that there's such little interesting footage. There's nothing, man. There's nothing.
>> Did you watch from the moon?
>> Did you watch the re-entry >> videos?
>> I did. And I've got another question. It >> was rad as hell.
>> Right. So, why why is there no steam when it lands in the water?
>> Why is it Because it cooled down?
Because the >> It would cool down that much. There should be steam.
>> Yeah, it would literally like what 100,000°?
>> No, it wasn't 100,000°. You understand that? Like we use fans to cool things down. Literally literally pushing air at something is how we cool down rooms. And you're telling me that if something falls at hundreds of miles an hour through the air, it wouldn't cool down >> if if it's hot enough.
>> It wouldn't cool down.
>> You're moving at like 20,000 miles per hour or whatever it is.
>> Okay. So, your incredility isn't an argument. I'm sorry.
>> What?
>> I'm sorry. Incredility isn't an argument. Now look, before I let you go, I just want to mention one thing that is partic No, there shouldn't be. And just because you don't understand how there's not >> that's basic science.
>> It's not basic science. Do you understand how a heat shield works? A heat shield doesn't work by just getting hot. It gets hot and then it breaks off.
So it takes the heat.
>> So what happens to the part under it?
>> What part under it? The the whole heat shield doesn't break off. It breaks off bit by bit.
>> Is it just not hot? If >> if it if it got hot, then the heat shield wouldn't be doing its job.
So when So the heat shield burns off and then the part that's takes the heat with it doesn't get hot.
>> That's the whole point. Yeah.
>> Okay.
>> That's the whole point. Anyway, before I let you go, uh there is one thing that you should probably look up and you're going to laugh at this so much, but it's going to be uh your you your incredility will be all for not. So here I want you to look at this uh this footage.
>> Of course I'm going to laugh at that.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So here's footage from 1972. You people believe that?
>> Well, it's footage of something, right?
>> Come on.
>> It's footage of something, right?
>> For sure.
>> What is it footage of?
>> It's footage of NASA lying to us about where >> what is it footage of?
>> It's footage of a man driving a car on the moon.
>> Oh, okay. So, you agree that you agree that man was man was on the moon?
>> Well, does it not say Lun Luna rover testers on the moon?
>> Okay. That's what the video is. I'm telling you >> I'm telling you what the video is suggesting. I'm telling you I'm saying it's NASA Bakery.
>> I'm telling you what >> that's what I said first. NASA was lying to us about where we are.
>> I'm asking what do you think this is actually footage of?
>> What it really really is it's a guy in a big studio set and there's a fake background and he's driving around. I don't know. He slowed down and he slowed down a bit.
>> So okay. So it slowed down.
>> We could do this in 1969.
>> So So okay, so it's slowed down. So he's actually driving like So he's actually like driving 80 mph >> maybe. Yeah.
>> Okay. So he's driving 80 mph in a in a set that is a few football fields across >> probably. Yeah.
>> And it's also in a pure it's also in an almost pure vacuum, right?
>> Probably not. I don't know.
>> Unfortunately, the data disagrees with you on that.
>> Nah, I don't need data. The video's right there. Right.
>> I don't need data. That's how we do analyses, my guy. We do analyses by >> I can't verify the data.
>> Sure you can. I've actually done it myself. Here >> you went to the moon. You drive around the moon.
>> I've verified the data.
>> Golf.
>> I verified the data >> here. Let me pull it up for you. So, this is this is an analysis of that footage. They in particular, they analyze the dust particles, right? They analyze the the clouds of dust that's being kicked up by the rover. And you can track the dust as it moves through the uh environment. And the important point is that the dust moves with zero air resistance, meaning that it's in a vacuum.
Right.
>> So, you're telling me that they had a vacuum chamber the size of several football fields and they were driving at 80 miles an hour inside of this vacuum chamber that's several football fields across in 197.
>> That's what you're telling me. That's what >> No, no. I'm telling you that they went to the moon.
>> Well, I mean what you just said. Yeah, that sure. That's what they did.
>> They went to the moon. I'm glad we agree.
>> No, the football field vacuum stuff.
>> Okay. So, where's the vacuum chamber?
Where's the Where's the vacuum chamber that's several football fields across?
Which, by the way, we don't have the tech to do that now.
>> We don't have the tech to do it now.
>> No, >> but we can send someone to the moon.
>> Yep. It's easier to do that.
>> It's easier to send someone to the moon >> then to build a vacuum chamber a few a few uh football to the moon so they can drive over the moon and play golf. And why is >> it's easier?
>> Why? Just because it's easier doesn't mean it's easy.
>> Yeah, but that doesn't stop people from doing stuff. That doesn't stop human innovation.
>> Sure. I mean, you just have to convince a country to put up the money and to try to do it. But anyway, that's what I wanted to show you. You should consider that uh the lunar rover.
You should consider that your brain is the size of being >> science like he shatters limits breaks fears.
Related Videos
VALORANT's Latest 'Exclusive' Tier Bundle is Rough...
KangaValorant
17K views•2026-05-28
Flight Attendant Mocks Poor Looking Black Woman — Mid Air Announcement Exposes Her Real Power
SkyboundStories-b4r
184 views•2026-05-28
I FIXED My Friend’s Blown Turbo RX-8… Then Sold It
Cameron-RX8
134 views•2026-05-28
NewsWatch 12 at 5: Top Stories
NewsWatch12
1K views•2026-05-28
Simon Jordan & Danny Murphy deliver PREDICTIONS for Arsenal's Champions League FINAL with PSG
talkSPORTArsenal
6K views•2026-05-28
Botting is OUT OF CONTROL in Classic WoW (Again)...
SolheimGaming
108 views•2026-05-28
The "AI Job Apocalypse" is CANCELLED!
WesRoth
9K views•2026-05-28
STREET FIGHTER 6 - INGRID Story Walkthrough @ 4K 60ᶠᵖˢ ✔
RajmanGamingHD
12K views•2026-05-28
