Wait… NASA Destroyed the Moon Technology? Blowing Shawn Ryan's Mind

Here is the NASA guy. Go ahead and hit play. Let me know what you think. I'd go to the moon in a nanosecond. The problem is we don't have the technology to do that anymore. We used to, but we destroyed that technology and it's a painful process to build it back again. Is an astronaut the right person to ask this question about the technology? But once you do a thing, do you need to do it again? Now we're wondering if we ******* landed on the moon because a lot of lies have come out of the government. You're a scientist. You understand how to sift through all this data. You've spent many, many years studying all the things that it takes to know about landing on the moon. I'm a Navy SEAL. I spent those years fighting a ******* war. You know what I mean? So what I'm saying is you're looking at straight facts and the rest of us are looking at contexts. And when you add in the context and you see a government that continuously lies to its ******* citizens, citizens are no longer going to believe the government. I guess is a question. Then all these conspiracies start to happen and distrust, and then they start digging into everything. What were you saying about Candace? So Candace, what I'm saying about Candace is that the America firsters and the American patriots and so forth, and I'm not questioning her love of America or whatever, just saying if this is the greatest accomplishment that a human being has ever made, and it happens to come from the country that you profess your love for and allegiance to as I do and as you do, it doesn't mean they're flawless. I mean, who's flawless, right? I mean, who do you agree with 100% of the time? I'll say my wife, right? But that's about it, right? Sometimes you contradict yourself. I contradict myself. You agree with your wife 100% of the time? That's bullshit. Honey, if you're watching, you know what I did? I made her mad the other day. I said, honey, whenever I'm driving you around, I got to turn off the voice-activated directions on the GPS. She's like, oh, that's so romantic. You want to listen to me? I'm like, no, I don't want two women yelling at me while I'm in the car. No. So you don't agree with everybody, right? You don't even agree with yourself. I reserve the right to be wrong all the time, and in fact, that's the best thing a scientist should do. We should have the freaking balls to say when we're wrong, not just when we're right. From the standpoint of having skepticism of your government and whatnot, you always have to ask the question qui bono, who benefits from it, right? Who would benefit from the moon landing not occurring is a question. You can ask that question. You can also say, what are the downstream tangible benefits from doing that work and landing on the moon? You can ask, what were the technological impediments? But if you start with a hypothesis, it's like an atheist. He says, I'm going to start with a hypothesis. God doesn't exist, Sean. And you have the burden of proof to prove to me that God exists or doesn't exist, right? That's not approaching things scientifically. There's a term in that, it's called apologetics. You start with a conclusion, you reason towards the conclusion based on the best available data, but you're not going to refute God, like William Lane Craig or Barron, the Catholic priest, I'm blanking on his name. I think his Barron is the last name, Robert Barron. They're not going to come to a conclusion that disproves God, right? Let's just be honest. That's not necessarily what their focus is going to be on, right? But they're going to give explanations why God is a more plausible hypothesis than anything else. So there's purely scientific reasons you can debate what happened when we went to the moon. How come we didn't go back? I think I gave some credibility to the argument that just because you do something once, it doesn't necessarily make it easier to do it twice. Like a Piers Morgan on his show, to give him credit, to Bart Sibrel, he said, I flew on the Concorde in 2001, and I haven't been on a Concorde since. How come there's no frickin' Mach 2 transportation right now? How come that's not probably ever going to happen again? How did we go back? That was built in 1962, the Concorde. It was before the Apollo landing. We can't do that now. It's an argument that sounds good to people that really might come into a conversation with a predisposition. And that's fine for a person who's not maybe wanting to portray themselves as being a scientist. You're not a scientist. AJ's not a scientist. But there's one more thing about the Van Allen belts, which is the other thing that she, Candace Owens, really got from this guy, Bart Sibrel. And then I think AJ kind of got this too. So there's this radiation belt that surrounds the Earth. And it's called the Van Allen belts. It is supposedly this impenetrable, instantly fatal trajectory. No person can get through it. And there's no way to get to the Moon without going through these belts, right? I mean, it surrounds the Earth. So that's like saying, let's say you wanted to land on Saturn, right? For whatever reason, Sean's deciding, we're taking the podcast on the road, we're going to Saturn, right? Saturn has this ring system around it. It's like a belt around it, right? So if you're going to land on Saturn, fine. You probably won't take the trajectory that goes right through the ring system, right? Just because a belt exists doesn't mean that there's not a symmetrical trajectory that you can go through. It's totally safe, right? The asteroid belt. You think about the asteroid belt. You shoot a spaceship through the asteroid belt, you're going to get destroyed. No, you won't. If you shot in any direction, you take any trajectory you want, and you'll go out to the edge of the solar system, there's almost a 0% chance you'll hit anything, even though you kind of depict it as an asteroid belt. The Van Allen belts are like that. They're highly concentrated in certain regions. There's two different belts, an inner belt and an outer belt. They mainly go around the equator. The launches to the moon go around the pole. So there's no danger, there's no exposure to it. We know how to do it. Satellites go through it all the time, and anyone who's ever seen Aurora knows about it. It's not dangerous, it's not fatal. It happens to be about the equivalent of two or three chest x-rays, which you and I get every year, every couple of years, right? It did bring one thing in here, because you gave me a little ---- for saying the NASA guy. So here is the NASA guy. Go ahead and hit play. Let me know what you think. Or we used to, but we are. All right. It sounds stupid to you. So that was, what's this guy's name? Don Pettit, a NASA astronaut. Okay. So I sounded like an idiot because I didn't know his name or what he was, so I had to go find it and show it to you. So what is your take on that? I'm just curious. So no disrespect to Don, again, more courageous than I'll ever be, you know, launch on top of a 60,000 tons of TNT equivalent and risk your life and do everything that he did. So the one thing that's more complicated than physics is psychology, is the human mind. So I'm not going to speculate what he meant by it. I'll just say the technology can't be destroyed, right? Technology means a lot of things. It means the physical rockets. Do we have Apollo, Saturn V boosters anymore? No. So we don't have those. Did we destroy them? Yeah. I mean, I've got a 50 cal bullet that my brother-in-law, Jim Brewer, got me and I use it as a bottle opener. Is it destroyed? Yeah, it's destroyed. It has a hole in it and the gunpowder has been taken out and it's not alive around, right? So do we destroy the know-how on how to do it? That's the way I take that, is they destroyed the know-how. They destroyed the blueprint. Who gives a ---- about the ******* booster or whatever or the rocket or whatever it is? We can build it again. It is true, right. I don't think that that's- That's what everybody's doing with these autonomous systems right now. They're building disposable units that can be very cheaply and easily recreated. I collect aviation antique artifacts. I have a B-17 propeller in my hangar in San Diego where I keep my plane and this thing is amazing. There's zero chance that we could ever get that to work. We could ever reconstruct a B-17 from scrap. There are a couple of B-17s flying. I think there's three left or something like that. Again, if we had an infinite amount of money, infinite amount of money, do you think that Elon or do you think that our greatest engineers and scientists couldn't reassemble and build a P-38 or a B-17? Of course we could, but you have to ask, what's the purpose of that? We have been there. We have done that. I actually think there's a stronger key. What's the purpose of that? What's the purpose of rebuilding- I don't know. What was the purpose of coming to North America again? What was the purpose? So we are- To settle new ******* land, to expand an empire. What would the purpose of going to the moon be? I don't know, but claim the ******* moon. That's true. How do we know there's the ---- up there that we don't need? Same with Antarctica. Why do we go to Antarctica? I interviewed this guy, Steve Quast, and helium-3. He's talking about we need helium-3. It's going to be great for energy. Can't remember everything about the conversation, but you know what I mean? Why aren't we going up there and getting ******* helium-3? Sure. I sense that you get frustrated with skeptics like me or people that don't believe, but what really is the problem? If you have a dog that gets picky about food, you know how frustrating that can be. You put the bowl down, they sniff it, walk away, and now you're trying to figure out if they're bored, if they don't like it, or if they're just holding out for something better. Sundae's just launched a brand new fish recipe designed for dogs with sensitivities, picky eating habits, or parents looking to add more variety to the bowl. It's made with 80% whole and minced fish, including eco-friendly invasive carp sourced from American rivers. And it's packed with omega-3 fatty acids to help support healthy skin, shiny coats, joints, and brain function. Like every Sundae's recipe, it's human-grade, vet-developed, and gently air-dried instead of heavily processed. No synthetic additives, no meat meals, no artificial flavors, and no fillers. Stanley's been loving it too. What do you think, Stanley? You like Sundae's? For dog owners, it's simple too. No fridge, no thawing, no prep. Just scoop and serve. Make the switch to Sundae's. Go right now to SundaysForDogs.com slash SRS50 and get 50% off your first order. Or you can use code SRS50 at checkout. That's 50% off your first order at SundaysForDogs.com slash SRS50. SundaysForDogs.com slash SRS50. Or use code SRS50 at checkout. As the scientists are doing a very shitty job of explaining why the **** we haven't been back to the moon. To pea brains like me. A, you're not a pea brain. B, my job is to answer questions. And I get paid to answer questions, right? I'm a teacher. At heart, I'm a scientist, right? And scientists answer questions. I'm a professor. I'm a teacher. When they say something like that, there's different reads to saying that. Like, where's the car to your 16-year-old? Oh, I destroyed it. It's destroyed. Is it destroyed? Is it beyond the laws of physics to reconstruct it? Is an astronaut the right person to ask this question about the technology? Do you know the astronauts have almost no knowledge of the engineering and the building of it? Some of them weren't even pilots, right? So that's why I kind of asked you before. Is my lack of domain expertise in the operator, special teams, and Navy aviators, does that preclude me from being able to ask questions that might be uncomfortable for people that believe things that they've seen that I don't believe there's evidence at the scientific evidentiary level for? So that one clip, it doesn't shake me. It doesn't frustrate me. It doesn't make me feel like, well, I really got me. It makes me feel like this guy said something. I don't know the full context, but I know for sure if we had wanted to, there's absolutely no reason not to. Now, why didn't we want to? What was the Cold War? I mean, do we go back and keep bombing Japan and bombing the Soviet Union? The Soviet Union collapsed, right? Part of it was because of the vast military expenditures that we spent during the space race, and it was no longer sustainable in the late 1980s, and then Berlin wouldn't fall. Do we fire a shot? No. I mean, not really. I mean, you guys probably know. But once you do a thing, do you need to do it again? It's not like running a marathon, right? Roger Bannister broke the four-minute mile 80 years ago, something like that. People still want to break the four-minute mile, right? They keep getting better and better. The second person to break the four-minute mile, do you know his name? No, but I mean, yes, we do need to do it again. I mean, since the beginning of time, it's been expansion of empires. The entire ******* planet's occupied now, except Antarctica, so we got 800 people down there. Sell you some land there. But you know what I mean? And what is the fastest-growing- Is the world overpopulated? I don't think so. I think it's the opposite. I think we're running low on population. If you took every person on Earth, Sean- I guess what I'm saying is it's all been settled. I'm not talking about an overpopulation or anything. I'm talking about expansion of empires, which humanity has been doing since the beginning of time. The new expansion is space. I don't know the correct terminology, but it's been told to me by several people on the show that the real estate law or whatever the **** you call it in space, space law is the fastest-growing sector of legal or whatever. Legal real estate. Space force was created. The first provision of the US military created in 50 years, 60 years. So you can't tell me that it's not important. And then Steve Quast is saying China is basically on the moon. I don't know if that's correct or not, but that's what he says. But whatever, somebody's going to ******* go there and somebody's going to claim it. Why haven't we been back? It's been how long? 60 years maybe? If we had this conversation 46 days ago, we could say we haven't been back to the moon in 56 years or whatever, but now we haven't. We've been around the moon. We went farther than we went even during the Apollo mission. We're testing this thing out. I always say, someone said to me, do you want to go on a SpaceX rocket and go to the moon? I'm like, yeah, I want to be customer 10,000. No matter where you're watching the Sean Ryan show from, if you get anything out of this at all, anything, please like, comment, and subscribe. And most importantly, share this everywhere you possibly can. And if you're feeling extra generous, head to Apple Podcasts and Spotify and leave us a review.