Comments by "MRA" (@yassassin6425) on "The Faux Documentary That 'Proves' Kubrick Faked the Moon Landing" video.

  1. I"t's weird why 99.9% of videos of YT are just debunking videos Not in the slightest, since the platform was facing imminent brand damage for nurturing and hosting misinformation and lucrative online conspiracy theories since its creation. And your claim of 99% is plucked out of your arse. Meanwhile, you can find all of this horseshit through the confirmation bias of a quick google search....and guess who owns You Tube genius? "Armstrong wouldn't swear on the bible. Watch his reaction. Guilty as sin." Why should he? Why should anyone after years of harassment be forced to swear on a magic book brandished in front of them by that deranged stalker and conspiracy nutjob Bart Sibrel? Imagine that you did something truly revolutionary, at unimaginable risk to yourself. You did it on national TV, with the whole world watching. Hundreds of thousands of people can personally attest to what you did. Then some opportunistic grifter with a camera crew comes up to you - again - and demands that you go through some pseudo-formal rigmarole to “prove” that you actually did it. Now, not only is this charlatan insinuating that you faked your great accomplishment, based on half-baked theories and zero hard evidence, but he’s also arrogantly making himself the supreme arbiter of truth (i.e., “If you don’t pass my test, then that proves you faked it”). When Neil Armstrong was approached he retorted, “Mr. Sibrel, knowing you, that’s probably a fake Bible.” And why should he have sworn on it? he wasn’t Christian. His NASA paperwork marks his religious preference as “none.” However, Jim Lovell, Al Bean and Eugene Cernan all did. You therefore have no choice but to accept that - but you won't.
    3
  2. What on Earth are you talking about? Did you even watch this video?
    1
  3. No one gets "uptight", simply weary of debunking the same junk conspiracy claims over and over and over again. And Sibrel? Right, because nothing says honest and accurate like a convicted felon, former taxi driving cult member, stalker and proven liar and fraud with no specialist expertise on the subject whatsoever. It doesn't show anything of the sort. What is does prove is that Bart Sibrel deceives gullible dullards such as yourself. If you watched the full length original footage that it came from that you are clearly completely oblivious to, you'd discover several things: In the longer footage, you can see that, after a while, the camera backs away from its position where it had been up close to the window so that you can see the square corner of the window with the shape of the Earth clearly in the distance on the outside. You can tell that the Earth is on the outside because the perspective of the view changes between the window and the Earth as the camera moves. This proves several key things about the narrated story: Sibrel’s account specifically states that the camera was “at the back of the ship” and not up close to the window. The narrator makes a distinct point of this because it is important to the rest of Sibrel’s story. The narrator even insinuates that the astronauts were lying about the camera being up close to the window. The camera backing away from the window proves that this part of Sibrel’s story is a lie. Sibrel’s story specifically states that the camera was looking through the “round window.” The square corner of the window also proves that this part of Sibrel’s story is a lie. Sibrel’s story claims that the shape of the Earth was created by the “round window” (or, in some later stories, hilariously, that there was a “template” of the Earth on the window that caused the “round” shape of the Earth. The change in perspective between the earth, which is clearly outside of the window glass, and the square corner of the window proves that this part of Sibrel’s story is a lie. So Bart Sibrel cut out the part of the video in which the camera backs away from the window, shows the square corner of the window, and clearly shows that the shape of the Earth is on the outside of the glass. You can clearly see that he cut this part out because the longer length video is continuous through to where the camera backs away from the window where Sibrel’s version makes a sharp cut at that point and transitions to another view. The video then transitions to a time after the interior lights of the space ship are turned on. At this point, you can see a blue glow from a window. (The CM had 5 different windows.) Sibrel’s narration at this point tries to convince you that the blue glow is not glare from the interior lights but is actually the Earth as seen from “low Earth orbit.If what you were actually looking at through that window were really “the Earth as seen from low Earth orbit,” all the features that you do see in the window would be flying past the window at nearly 18,000 miles per hour and only a hundred miles away. The blue glow comes up when they turn on the interior lights — just as glare appears in a window any time you turn on your interior lights at home. (It’s blue because the Apollo window glass is multiple layers of thick quartz glass with protective coatings.) Perhaps most hilariously, Bart Sibrel puts a header at the front of the video that he has inserted to the original which claims that the video which follows is some sort of “secret.” And he claims that NASA must have sent it to him by mistake. Aside from this obviously being complete horseshit, this claim is utterly hilarious because at the time of release the footage in full had been available to the public for decades. Seriously, you couldn't make this up - only he did and fools such as yourself fall for it because you are the target audience.
    1