Landing on the Moon Would Be Easier Than Faking It | Joe Rogan and Adam Conovor

Did you see our video on the moon landing? No. Oh, this is one of my favorite videos we ever did. So it's about how the moon land, the thesis is the moon landing could not have been faked. It would have been harder to fake the moon landing than it would have been to actually go to the moon because the technology to fake it did not exist. Like when we talked to a forensic film guy, right, who's like spends, he's got like a, he's got a fucking Oscar for, you know, analyzing old films, right? And he walked us through it. Like, look, the shadows are parallel, right? They're not diverging, you know, a close light source, the shadows would, would diverge. Right. So wait a minute. You know that that's like one of the big arguments for the moon hoax is that the shadows intersect. The shadows indicate multiple light sources. Well, that is because when that's one of the main arguments, that's that, that is a, I believe that's reflected light. Okay. I'm getting past my memory of this segment. Yeah. I do. I'm a moon hoaxer. I fully believed we never went to the moon. I shouldn't have brought this up. I watched the documentary that was on Fox TV while I was on news radio. It was like 1995 or something like that. I was fucking convinced. But it was on Fox television. It was on news radio, one of my favorite sitcoms ever, by the way. Thank you very much. That is a unacknowledged classic. I have watched the whole series like three times. That show is so, I'm sorry, just go ahead. I said this to you that much. Thank you. Well, anyway, back then, Fox News actually aired a full one hour show called, called conspiracy theory. Did we land on the moon? And it had me fully convinced. There was all this shit that they showed like the same background being used in multiple moon missions that were supposed to be on completely different parts of the moon. Like how is this possible? They're supposed to be like nowhere near each other, but they have the same background. And that is, it looks like the astronauts are on wires and it looks like the light sources are there multiple light sources and the shadows are intersecting. All the fucking astronauts when they came back, they did this Apollo 11 post flight press conference and it looked like they're completely full of shit. I was all in, dude. All in. All in. And now you're all out? No, I realize, I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about. That's one of the real problems with being all in with anything. But we also found that they did fake some things for publicity purposes. Photographs that were used that were photographs from tests that they did inside a warehouse with all safety equipment. And then they blacked out all the safety equipment in the background and pawn those photos off as spacewalk photos. But I think that's overzealous publicist. It doesn't mean no one went to space. It's like making leaps. What's the simplest explanation if they did fake some footage? Well, it's probably a bunch of simple explanations, but overzealous publicist people wanted to show people video that they didn't have video of. Maybe the photos didn't come out so well, so they faked some of them. Well, the thing about the shadows diverging, my memory of this is, when people say they see the shadows diverge, if you actually go outside on a sunny day when you have a single point of light like that with light reflecting, you will see two shadows of yourself going in different directions. There's one dominant shadow and then there's a secondary one. But if the sun is actually far away, for the main shadow, you will see the same shadows be parallel. You get a close light source on a film set. You see the shadows diverge. So we had this film forensic guy come on and tell us, look, if you wanted to get perfectly straight light like that, you would need lasers. But you'd also need multicolored lasers because at the time, all that existed were red lasers. They had not invented anything other than red lasers. So NASA would have had to have multi-decade advanced laser light technology in order to fake this. Another part of it is that... What if they really thought, oh, if they just hired Kubrick? I think he'd figured out the same guy as the 2001. This is what we demonstrated in our segment. Another part of it is people forget, the moon broadcast, the moon landing broadcast was something like a six hour live broadcast with no cuts. And at the time, that was something you could do with TV, but you literally couldn't do it with film. There was no way to record film. Sorry, there was no way to record TV at the time. You had live TV and you had recorded film. So if they were going to record it in advance and then play it back, they would have needed a six hour long reel of tape. There was no commercials? I don't believe so. And so they would have had to... What is that? So we should probably know if there was commercials because that changed the game. But you would have needed an enormous film canister that also didn't exist at the time. But if anybody's going to have an enormous film canister, it would be those fucking hoaxers at NASA. Well, part of the premise of the, part of the premise of the, we didn't go to the moon argument is that we didn't have the technology to go to the moon, so they faked it. But it's like, okay, well, if you have to postulate that they had decades ahead of its time filmmaking technology, why can't you accept that they just went to the fucking moon? So at the end, when you go through all the things that would have to happen in order to make it happen, you really go through it and look at what is the simplest explanation? The simplest explanation is that we went to the moon because it would have been fucking easier. I don't know if it would have been easier if it was impossible to go to the moon. It would be insanely difficult to fake, no doubt. But if you had an incredible budget and if you had someone who really had the very top of the food chain knowledge in terms of special effects, what Kubrick did in 2001, when was that? When did 2001 come out? I want to say like 71 or some shit. Yeah, it's not like that. When did that come out? Let's see. I think it goes earlier than that maybe. 68. 68. Okay, so we're talking about before the moon landings. Kubrick had some pretty astonishing special effects in 2001. Yeah, but the argument is that like even given, again, this is like filmmakers saying this, given the film technology of the time, the specific features that we see in the moon footage are not fakable. Another part of it is, for instance, the slow jumping, right? The slow boom, boom, you know you're on the moon, right? The big argument that the moon truthers make is that it was regular speed footage and it was slowed down, right? And there's this dude on, I can't remember the name of it, but if you search, he's a filmmaker on YouTube, right? And he just breaks down why like the ability to overcrank and like shoot in slow-mo like that, like didn't, that wasn't how film cameras worked at the time, you know? And so, you know. They couldn't air things in slow-mo back then? Look, you're good at asking questions because you asked me to get into details that I don't have off the top of my head. But that's the argument that the dude makes. It's not one of the arguments that we make specifically on our show because we only had six minutes, so we did the best ones. It's always an interesting argument when you're talking about the moon landing. I also know about how much of your audience do you think is going to be fucking furious at me for talking about this because they believe the moon landing was faked? Like 15%. That was exactly going to be my guess.