I was fooling around on You Tube doing a vanity search, and I was surprised to see that someone had uploaded the "debate" I had with Moon hoax goofball Bart Sibrel which aired on MSNBC back in 2002. This was the first time I had ever gone head-to-head with a conspiracy theorist, and I don’t think my performance was 100% up to snuff. The format was awful; Dan Abrams’ show gave way too much time to setup and also way too much time to Sibrel. But I blew it on a few fronts here; the worst being that I didn’t lead the discussion, I took my cues from the host. I should have taken control right away and steered the conversation more toward Sibrel’s claims, which were ludicrous. Also, I looked like I was clenching my teeth the whole time. I need to smile more on camera. 
This is one reason I don’t debate antiscientists very much; the format on radio and TV makes it very difficult. I held my own against Joe Rogan, for example, but that hold was tenuous during quite a bit of the second segment.
One good thing came out of this: Sibrel claims I am a NASA employee and "that’s where [I] get my paychecks." That is not true, of course: I’ve never been a NASA employee, and that is something Sibrel should have known before he said that. Either he didn’t know and was making that up, or he did know and said it anyway. Either way, it’s a lie, and so I can honestly, and with evidence, call Bart Sibrel a liar!
There was a lively discussion of this on the bulletin board when the show originally aired, too.
Note: the thread was converted to the new board software a while back, and some of the content didn’t convert correctly, so you’ll see some weird stuff there (links to images and such).
October 30th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
Heehee… the announcer said, “Go Buzz.” He’s a little more, um, enthusiastic than what I’m normally used to in news announcers, but I like him anyway.
October 30th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
The first time I heard of you and came here was when you debated Joe. I like Joe and I like Penn so by association I started to like you.
October 30th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
I don’t think you need to beat yourself up over it, Phil. These hoaxers generally look pretty nutty whenever they open their mouths.
One of the things that I’ve noticed with a lot of these hoaxers is that they seem to be under the impression that late-60’s NASA technology (say, photographic, for example) should somehow be equal to or better than what we have today. However, the fact is, the cameras they used, albeit state-of-the-art in those days, would be laughable by today’s standards.
October 30th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Hey have you seen this web page yet? It is really insane, I mean the idea is cool and I bet this nut has his heart in the right place… But it is almost as crazy as the time cube.
http://www.matter-antimatter.com/
October 30th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
I don’t think you did a bad job; neither side in the debate got the chance to say much of anything. The problem was that they brought on two people to argue their claims, yet spent all their time on the anchor. What’s the point of that?
October 30th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
I also agree that you didn’t do too bad of a job. I’ve seen much worse by people on their first TV performance. And the format for those things is terrible. You’d think an all day news channel could give a debate more than 5 minutes, most of which is used up by lead in.
One minor quibble ( and I do mean minor), it is possible Sibrel was misinformed about your being employed by NASA. I personally prefer not to call someone a liar unless I know they knew what they said was untrue and therefore said it with the intent to deceive. Of course if he didn’t, Sibrel should have checked his facts first. But it is possible he honestly believed you were an employee of NASA. I mean really, he thinks we faked the moon landing, there’s no telling what he believes.
October 30th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
Did anyone else notice that the user who posted this video is dedicated to producing videos “exposing” conspiracies? I understand that this is probably the only copy online, but still…
October 30th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
LOL
Did you see that ignoramous and his little diagram? That almost made me fall back on my chair because I was laughing so hard.
October 30th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
Yeah, generally when I hear this I get the urge to punch someone too, but unfortionately I’m not a 70+ year old man or a national hero. I think if you’re Buzz Aldrin you can get away with punching someone and claim that it’s self defense and have the DA turn a blind eye.
Anyway… what generally angers me is that there are kids or less informed people who eat this up because they don’t know.
That and the fact that it’s always kinda irked me to see people making money by lying. I mean, I’ve got no problem with people making a lot more money than me from hard work… even luck. But when it’s pushing BS, it kinda bothers me… a lot
October 30th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Cameron, FWIW I have a copy on video of this, so i could always digitize it too. I doubt MSNBC would mind since it’s years old.
October 30th, 2007 at 11:55 pm
Oh wow, I love that little diagram Sibrel made and held up to the camera. The power of the whiteboard compels you! Seriously though, the host was dead-on: “go Buzz”.
I’d be curious to know how the demographics of hoax conspiracy theory believers break down. Is it mostly younger people who weren’t alive during the Apollo missions or what? Or what the international perspective is. I imagine the older generations in particular in this country would have a lot of their national pride invested in the (correct) belief that we DID go to the moon, but who knows?
October 31st, 2007 at 1:07 am
Well… Up until tonight I thought you worked for NASA, because of the NASA cap you wear (on the photo at the top of this page).
October 31st, 2007 at 4:01 am
Has anyone seen In the Shadow of the Moon, Jonathan Ross gave it a really good review last night on BBC, previously unseen footage etc, I can’t wait to see this movie.
October 31st, 2007 at 5:48 am
That other feller has got eye contact issues…
October 31st, 2007 at 6:32 am
I wondered to myself “What the heck is Bar trying to show with a crude drawing? His artistic skills?”
I also noticed he pronounced your name wrong, Phil.
Sibrel says “Plat”, ryming with “flat”. As in “Sibrel’s arguments fall flat in the light of science.”
October 31st, 2007 at 8:13 am
Eugenie Scott was on the Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe Podcast a while back (I just listened to it the day before yesterday) and she said it’s best NOT to debate nutjobs at all. In her case it was anti-evolutionists, not conspiracy theorists. No matter how the “debate” turns out they come out the winner. They can videotape you and edit the tape in such a fashion that you look shifty eyed or incoherent. Not only that, but they are legitimized just by your being there. They can announce on their websites: “We took on the scientists and won!” even if they really lost.
That said, though, (and speaking as a TV/video producer myself) your appearance here was not bad at all, you did a good job on the missing stars crap. You didn’t smile -TOO- much, which is good. I have The Teaching Company’s “Understanding the Universe” DVD series with your buddy Alex Filipenko here (good DVD, BTW) and he smiles a bit too much. I think it’s possible to overdo it.
You and I both have beards and I’ve discovered that if I don’t smile broadly it looks like I am not smiling at all. I think in my case it’s the droopiness of my mustache… So in my case I have to “overdo” it with the smiling in order not to look too glum. You might want to videotape yourself giving a speech and do a critique with your friends, and even a random “man on the street” to see how you come off (for future reference).
The Nixon/Kennedy debates showed us that “outside” looks can be decieving and darned important, even though its what’s “inside” that counts. The radio audience got a different opinion than the TV audience because they didn’t see Tricky Dick sweat & JFK look cool as a cucumber.
Gilles makes a good point about the NASA “meatball” (this is the nickname for the blue logo) hat and appearances. I have a NASA Wallops Island t-shirt and I’m confusededly believed to be a NASA employee by many. Sibrel (whose initials are BS, BTW, coincidence? I think not!) may well have seen the photo and the references to doing EPO for NASA missions and made an incorrect 1+1=3 assumption. Easy enough to do, though it ignores academia altogether…
OK, off soapbox now!
Rich
October 31st, 2007 at 8:38 am
The NASA cap thing cracks me up. I bought it at the Goddard Space Flight Center visitor’s center gift shop for 18 bucks. So you too can be a NASA employee if you have a 20.
October 31st, 2007 at 8:52 am
Ha ha, I think you did pretty well. Sibrel and his little diagram were hilarious! The newsman seemed real enthusiastic, I haven’t seen anybody tell the news like that.
October 31st, 2007 at 9:14 am
Did you notice that when they introduced the guests, they put up Phil’s picture when hey said Bart’s name and Bart’s picture when they said Phil’s name?
October 31st, 2007 at 1:39 pm
I don’t know if this is the same debate I heard on audio a couple years back (I can’t watch online videos here at work), but I remember him pinning / trying to pin you as a NASA employee to make you ipso facto part of his conspiracy. As I recall you said you get NASA grants, but you’re not an employee, and he immediately twisted it into “Oh, so you’re paid by NASA, but you’re not a NASA employee?”, as if he’s never heard of independent contractors or college professors working under federal research grants.
A good comeback to that dishonest tactic might be to point out that you get grants from NASA, not a salary (Do you know the difference, Bart? It means I do occasional work for them; my employer is the University of _________, where I do _________).
Another thing about that debate that always stuck in my craw was at the end where the moderator asked Bart what would make him change his beliefs if it happened. He immediately dodged the question, shuffling it off to you and the other fellow who was on, and pressured you to answer first, and since you gave reasonable answers he got what looked like a concession. Then when it came back to his turn he gave a flippant response saying nothing would ever convince him because he KNOWS he’s right.
I’ve been wanting to mention that if you’re ever on with this fraud again and find yourself in this position, don’t let him evade the question! Insist that he answer first, and when he says he’ll never be convinced, point out to the audience that your opponent has just said he’ll never be convinced of any evidence whatsoever, and that that’s usually the sign of someone who’s making stuff up and has no real substance to back up his beliefs.
October 31st, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Phil -
You are absolutely correct about keeping control. The thing I always hate about those “debates” is that they let the MHB’s go first, which always puts you on the defensive and makes it look like your covering up things since you only “explain” the parts they bring up.
I would rather go on the offensive and have them address the following:
1) The ones with the most to lose from our landing on the moon was the Soviet Union. If this were a conspiracy, why didn’t they blow the lid off? Why have they been silent all these years?
2) At what level, exactly, was the conspiracy administrated? Who were the participants? If your readers will trundle over to the Clavius website (http://www.clavius.org/why.html) there’s a great logical treatise on how the concept of a conspiracy with this many people working on the project is essentially self-cancelling.
3) I have a tactic that I use, but it’s only viable for those of us who were alive during the time of the Apollo program. I ask the MHB, “How do you know that Michael Jackson/Britney Spears/Lindsey Lohan/Paris Hilton or any other high profile celebrity exists? Have you ever met them? Couldn’t their entire “story” be nothing but an elaborate hoax by media companies to sell magazines and web space?
It’s the same thing growing up in the ’60s. The space program was on the news, if not daily, then several times every week. The Mercury and Gemini missions were covered in almost total launch-to-landing coverage. All of the networks had “filler” shows with endless parades of astronauts, scientists, engineers and other folks who did color commentary by chatting at great length about the tiniest details of the hardware, the science, the training. No conspiracy, government or otherwise, can be that detailed or that complete. This will become even more significant after you read the “vast conspiracy” portion of the Clavius site.
- Jack
October 31st, 2007 at 7:40 pm
Trick or Treat, Trick me once shame on you…………….
I’m a skeptic too concerning many theories in science today– but all of our moon landings a hoax? Just the first one? What? There’s nothing wrong with looking at their “evidence”, maybe we did a little “enhanced” photography but it’s a rediculous theory in general. As Spock might say, completely illogical!! These guys better get a lot of play now because whoever goes back to our previous landing sites first (or gets current photos other than us) will have the goods. I believe everyone that openly ascribed to this hoax will then have egg on their face and will look very foolish.
October 31st, 2007 at 9:43 pm
forrest noble says: “These guys better get a lot of play now because whoever goes back to our previous landing sites first (or gets current photos other than us) will have the goods.”
They could always claim that the new mission is faked as well, except that the reality of the situation (see my previous post) will be overwhelmingly convincing since it will take a decade for us to do it.
Just like before.
- Jack
October 31st, 2007 at 10:11 pm
That is some old footage…
Phil, you didn’t have anywhere near enough speaking time compared to Sibrel. It was pretty poor journalism by the crew of the show. A real interview would give equal airtime to each person being interviewed, but I am sure that most logical people realize that Sibrel is a fool by now. Folks just need to be encouraged to look at the facts without bias. BTW, I think you handled the argument well considering the circumstances.
November 1st, 2007 at 6:33 am
I thought you handled yourself just fine considering the time constraints Phil
November 3rd, 2007 at 8:30 am
I have long believed that if the moon landing had truly been faked, then the special effects would have been much better.