Comments by "Kevin Skinner" (@kevinskinner4986) on "Today I Found Out" channel.

  1.  @critthought2866  Bennett's the sketchiest person on that list. They're a professional psychic.
    1
  2.  @xmaseveeve5259  Since when do the hoaxers give one damn about the truth? You've been caught lying about and faking your evidence more times than anybody can count. The creator of the video mentioned in your article used to kill people shilling fake medical cures. Your #1 website is literally co-owned by a lady claiming to have found her hoax information using ESP.. Don't believe me? Go read Aulis's About the Authors page.
    1
  3.  @xmaseveeve5259  You realize I'm referring to the big starters and spreaders of your movement right? The people who brought you the information in the first place and without whom 95% of you wouldn't be here right? Makes me think of that story where the undercover cop joins a criminal organization to find out it's nothing but undercover cops. The truth is that you know that your side is wrong and that you're all a bunch of frauds. You just lie to save face.
    1
  4.  @xmaseveeve5259  Of course there are. There's the truth, and then your side, a group liars and cheats that lie for money and feels that lying about the government makes you feel important. You know.... you basically admitted I was right, right? I must have really struck a nerve for you to still be this upset four months later.
    1
  5.  @jeffersongeorge2227  I mean.... if you actually had a leg to stand on, your leaders wouldn't need to stoop to lying about your evidence. I mean.... outright editing footage to remove sections that disprove you? That's pathetic. Now run along little sheep. Bart SIbrel needs your money more than you do.
    1
  6. Four minutes in. First claim he makes is calling it "Project Slam Dunk". You can stop right there. We can instantly tell that that's fabricated because that's an anachronism. The term Slam Dunk didn't exist in the 1960s. It was created by announcer Chick Hearn in the 70s, AFTER Apollo had already happened.
    1
  7.  @ancientclown  The fuck are you on about? 1972 is that attribution date on most sports pages that actually give a date.
    1
  8.  @awotnot  About six feet-ish. There's a photo of it deployed on one of the training mockups without the insulation materials on you can find pretty easily on Google images.
    1
  9.  @mechanicjobs  He shut down the comments on his channel because he got caught faking evidence. What makes you think he would dare talk to anybody but bobbleheading yes men?
    1
  10. Wide angle cameras make background objects look smaller than they appear to the naked eye.
    1
  11.  @T._Matthew_Phillips  You realize that we're only one single year past the Marianas Trench example right? 53 vs 52. Crystal ball prediction. When the return trip currently planned actually happens, you will immediately lie and claim that was faked too. Answer my question honestly. Did you believe, in 2010 since you were most likely alive then, that the descent to the challenger deep was fake because it "was never repeated?" Because it hadn't been repeated by then for 50 years.
    1
  12.  @T._Matthew_Phillips  Waah waaah computing power. All these complaints about iphones and calculators, but not a single person can even estimate how much it would actually need. You do realize that it doesn't matter how much computing power you have if nobody's building GIANT ROCKETS to carry it right? Just making sure, you mean the same Van Allen Belts your leaders were so desperate to make the "ultimate proof" make up fake bogus claims about "six feet of lead" to cross? Sure, let's believe the claim you obviously have no standing on because you had to lie. You do reallize that the belts aren't uniform in strength right. This isn't a video game. The world is not split into "No radiation" and "instant death" I mean... even Van Allen's own estimates are for DAYS of unshielded exposure for lethal levels and personally called the hoaxers out on their bullshit, but we should go crackpots on the internet who had to lie.
    1
  13. Psylosopher.... you just believing anything that you find on Youtube right? Akers didn't fact check his script. The very first claim he makes about it, that it's called "Project Slam Dunk" immediately gives away that his story is fabricated. The term "slam dunk" was invented in 1972, AFTER the moon landings. Also, the channel that created that video's been caught red-handed fabricating evidence in the past. It is indeed easier to fool somebody that convince them they've been fooled. That's why once you become a conspiracy nutter, nothing will ever bring you back to reality.
    1
  14. Normally, you perform experiments in a controlled environment. First, because you get better, more accurate results. Second, you can't stop viruses and bacteria once you start. Hope you already have your vaccines and antibiotics ready, because it's going to come around and bite you in the ass.
    1
  15. The instant that one of them gets cancer and has no friends or family, there is nothing you can do to prevent a confession except outright kill them. They're going to die anyways so there's nothing you can buy them with and nothing you can threaten them with.
    1
  16. Head's up, A Funny Thing is one of the #1 reasons why the hoaxers shouldn't be trusted. Bart Sibrel got caught red-handed blatantly lying about his "faking the distance" multiple times, including skipping over parts of the footage he used where they are shown filming without his trick. All they had to do was compare his version to NASA's. The trick doesn't actually work, by the way. If the astronauts were actually in orbit, the clouds and landmasses would be moving the past the window at 17,000 miles per hour as the ship.... you know.... moves. The visible features would have completely changed within a few minutes. Also, if you look closely, when they "remove the insert", the image doesn't actually change until the lights come on so i guess it just vaporizes like a vampire.
    1
  17. And both the Apollo 1 fire and Apollo 8 circling the moon happened under LBJ, so Nixon wouldn't have started the hoax, he would have inherrited an existing one. Gosh darn lucky that the incoming president was willing to continue it instead of cancelling the ruse started by the administration he lost to in 1960 to which he would have held zero loyalty. This must be the first and only time in American history when the Democrats and Republicans worked together on literally anything. Meanwhile, Russia's plans to go went up in smoke. Literally. They spent all their time trying to be "first at everything" to the point of neglecting their moon plans and wound up with a piece of shit that blew up when they tried to launch it, and neither they nor China (the only two other countries that have manned space programs) have had any real incentive to go since. US: "Hey Russia, those are some nice firsts you have. So how is your N-1 going? We're halfway done with the Saturn V because we've been working on that instead of competing with you" USSR: "..... fuck"
    1
  18.  @FierceMouse  .... you mean mylar? A material used for electrical and thermal insulation on Earth, including in firefighting equipment that makes the "extreme heat" of the moon look like Antarctica?
    1
  19. You do realize that the coke bottle is an urban legend, right? There is no BBC documentary. There never was. There's zero proof, none, nadda, squat that anybody actually saw and reported it, just fantastical claims you people can't back up. There's only one single person claiming to have actually seen it and she couldn't be more obviously lying if her name was Pinocchio. The actress, who refuses to talk to anybody but proven fraud David Percy, forgot that the Earth has time zones while crafting her bullshit and claimed that she "stayed up late to watch the landings and saw a coke bottle that was missing when it was repeated on the morning news" - even though the landings happened at NOON in Australia where she claims to have lived. And you people are too brainless to notice the obvious lie.
    1
  20. .... but if the manufacturers don't know, they'll try and build for real. Also, despite people claiming that Apollo was to "steal taxdollars", you probably don't get to keep much of it. It MUST be spent as intended, or at least all of it must be given to your contractors. If the manufacturing companies do not receive their billions of dollars in bid money, your hoax goes public immediately when they turn around and sue for breach of contract.
    1
  21.  @unshapingtheearth7916  I'm not sure what universe you are getting three trillion for the rovers, but okay. Um.... America looks a thousand times weaker than simply failing to make it if they fake it, get caught, and Russia calls them out on it. Russia already knows about the "deadly" radiation and all of the other details that make it "impossible" so your chance of actually fooling them is zero. So, your brilliant plan is to deliberately set yourself up to be caught and pray that Russia's content with mere blackmail.
    1
  22. Really? Because the Flat Earthers are 95% Republican and I seem to recall quite a few conspiracy theorists latching onto Trump's ass like a lamprey and swearing that Orange Jesus was going to "reveal the truth"
    1
  23. .... so then why do your leaders constantly need to fake their evidence?
    1
  24. ... the guy that founded the movement, who 90% of the hoax claims were simply copying until a few years ago?
    1
  25. You realize that the golf balls were one astronaut's personal possessions because they had a small payload for random stuff they wanted to bring, right? Come on, you know you'd take something stupid too. I'd be doing my own experiments with a slinky.
    1
  26.  @riddlescom  You mean the wires that don't affect the sand that is kicked everywhere and which will tangle together every single time the actors circle around one another?
    1
  27.  @riddlescom  You're not very smart, are you? The techniques used for training don't mean they'd be good for "faking the world", especially since these videos are HOURS in length, not 30 seconds. If you have two actors on wires, they cannot cross paths. The wires will tangle together if they do because they are being held by physical objects, not being held up by ghosts.
    1
  28. Bart found a video with a window with blue glare and claimed that it was the nearby Earth. We know that he's lying though his teeth because A. the trick doesn't actually work (if the astronauts were actually in orbit, the ship would be moving), and B, he GOT CAUGHT skipping over shots of them filming without his trick
    1
  29. And then they turn around and kiss the ass of proven liars like... well.... the entire hoax movement because their "truth" movement is nothing but blind contrarianism.
    1
  30.  @RobCarmina  "There are no photos of that procedure" ..... you can watch them remove it from one of equipment bays if you search "Lunar Rover Deployment" right here on Youtube and scroll down a few videos. It takes literally 20 seconds to find. ------------- Dumb question but..... HOW exactly would they exert any form of significant dominance from the moon? It's too far away to be a communications hub; satellites will have less delay. It will take DAYS for your attacks to reach a target vs an hour for a much, much cheaper ICBM, and you CAN'T DEFEND IT. Do you know what a siege is? It's a type of battle where you surround an enemy location, cut off their supplies, and wait for them to surrender or die. A five-year-old can siege out the moon. Any country that is actually a threat will simply declare "The moon base surrenders or we drop a missile on your launch facility" and laugh as they immediately do so to prevent a slow, painful, and 100% guaranteed death because there's no food, air, or water on the moon. Until space combat becomes a thing your "domineering base" will consist of five guys doing nothing but watching old recordings of Hogan's Heroes while the rest of the world goes "That's nice dearie. Good job bankrupting yourself over nothing."
    1
  31. We don't have them at the bottom of the ocean either.
    1
  32. Okay, and Armstrong is not a practicing Christian and the person that "asked" him to swear had previously harassed him to the point that Armstrong had to call the police for stalking and trespassing. Three of the other astronauts - Gene Cernan, Edgar Mitchell, and Alan Bean - did swea. You people either lie and pretend they didn't or make excuses as to why their oaths don't count.
    1
  33. First of all, Kaysing's dead. The CIA killed him through the time tested method of ignoring him until he keeled over of natural causes. Second, government entities have no ability to sue for defamation in the United States. NASA is ineligible to sue. Third, there's a Supreme Court case known as New York Times Co vs Sullivan that establishes that public figures such as celebrities, elected officials, prominent business leaders and other persons of noteworthiness have a separate standard of proof called "actual malice". In order for the astronauts to sue a conspiracy theorist, they would need to prove that they KNEW their claims were or were most likely false and intentionally made them to cause harm or in reckless disregard for the truth. Genuine misunderstanding, incompetence, and insanity do not count.
    1
  34. Buzz never said that. You believed liars that told you what he said.
    1
  35. The "photoshopped' crosshairs are the result of the white bleeding across nearby parts of the photographs. That's why they only appear in low-quality reproductions, NOT the originals, and why they appear both in front of and behind the same object. There is zero reason why any sane person would be pasting white stripes onto the flag. Also, head's up, David Percy got caught red-handed twenty years ago cropping photographs to hide that his "non-parallel shadows' change direction on the ground to be parallel to the other shadows. The hoax leaders know that it's the result of the ground not being flat. They simply lied because they know you'll believe every word they say.
    1
  36.  @gervasebarnes  That's probably not the original. Most of the magazine editions are copies of copies. Some of them are copies of copies of copies of copies. The Hasselblad camera uses a magazine. They just swapped cartridges.
    1
  37.  @gervasebarnes  Generation 1: A print made directly from the negatives. Generation 2: A copy made of Gen 1 in order to bring your picture to NZ NASA is not going to let their originals be handled more than necessary. Generation 3: A copy made of Gen 2 for distribution, as your magazine/Newspaper would have almost certainly more than one. A copy of a copy.
    1
  38.  @gervasebarnes  ..... you can't be serious. Use your head. NASA would have made one or a small number of master prints. Those prints would be duplicated and the copies would be sent to the various publishers while they hold onto the master print. The publishers would duplicate their copies. That's how distribution works buddy. Only a fool think that NASA would use the original film for every single magazine on the goddamned planet and if you really think NASA would just give their master print to your middle of nowhere island, you're awfully arrogant.
    1
  39.  @gervasebarnes  Multiple light sources will cause faint shadows. That's because the light from one source will be shining on top of the shadow caused by the other one. You can see this in photographs where multiple light sources are actually used. Gervase, YOUR OWN SIDE doesn't claim that multiple lights were used anymore. They changed their story to "non-parallel shadows prove the light was close" 15 years ago after Mythbusters recreated the shots with a single light source. Also, YOUR OWN SIDE got caught editing photographs to remove sections of the pictures in order to hide that their "non-parallel shadows" can be seen changing direction to match the shadows they were compared to. They know that it's bullshit, but keep telling it because they know you'll gobble it up.
    1
  40.  @gervasebarnes  Not this shit again Collins was not talking about from the surface of the moon. He was responding to a question they were directly asked as to whether they could see the stars through the solar corona despite the glare, in response to a set of photographs they took from the command module in orbit, not the moon's surface. In other words, he did not recall seeing any stars while STARING AT THE MOTHERFUCKING SUN.
    1
  41.  @gervasebarnes  Uh yeah, because ten years ago Youtube was flooded with bots spamming links to suspicious phishing sites, but I don't see how that's relevant
    1
  42. What are you on about? You do NOT create a vacuum inside the suit to counter a vacuum. You seal the suit, pump it with air, and then wrap it in a net that bends but does not stretch to prevent it from ballooning outwards. If he passed out from the suit, that means the suit wasn't sealed properly. The sunny side of the moon does not almost always face the sun. It faces the Earth. It's in sunlight for two weeks and the darkness for two weeks. Moonlight has nothing to do with being irradiated. It's visible form Earth because the sunlight is hitting the surface and bouncing off. if the surface was actually glowing, it wouldn't have phases. Also, 250 degrees is far below what firefighting equipment gets up to and, the Van Allen Belts aren't radioactive from solar rays. They scoop up particle radiation and trap them for centuries, allowing them to accumulate, like your liver traps toxins in your blood. Why should the difference between a jet and a rocket matter? The only difference is how the thrust is generated, whether it's caused by a chemical reaction or by sucking air through. Both types expel exhaust out the other end.
    1
  43. .............. You do realize that Dr Groves was revealed as a fraud 15 years ago, right? Not only did he expose his film to levels of radiation thousands of times higher than they would have actually been exposed to, he also did heat "tests" where he threw film in a household oven hundreds of degrees hotter than on the moon AND deliberately ignoring that a convection oven uses the one type of heat transfer that doesn't exist in space.
    1
  44. Bill Kaysing's true motivation was revenge against the government for Vietnam.
    1
  45. Alex.... there are multiple versions of that photograph. NASA edited the photograph you usually see by rotating the Earth so that north faced up so it'd look prettier on their magazine covers. They fully admit to doing this and this is not the only photograph that was edited for publication. The famous "Man on the moon" picture was reframed with a black background edited because the original is cropping part of the suit off. You want to know who's lying? Answer this question. Have the conspiracy theorists ever, one single time, shown you the versions where the continents are upside down? Or did they pretend that this is the only version.
    1
  46. I'm going to let you in a little secret. The hoaxers have lied so many times about the Belts that it's all "Wah wah wah wah wah wah wah" like the adults on Charlie Brown now.
    1
  47. ...... you realize that the "China finds no evidence of Apollo" is fake right? That's from World News Daily Report, a satire website. Congratulations, you got your "news" from a knockoff of The Onion. By the way, China's most recent robot is on the complete opposite of Oceanus Procellarum from the nearest Apollo site. That's like claiming the Disney World is fake because you didn't spot it from Texas.
    1
  48. ..... you've not actually seen 2001 have you?
    1
  49.  @appletongallery  And you can debunk hoax claims with that movie because it shows that having multiple light sources creates multiple shadows.
    1
  50. As opposed to the right news, who tried to spread fake "inside information" about Obama and wound up with their "insiders" arrested for felony impersonation of law enforcement?
    1