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

@unshapingtheearth7916 Question. If the engines were shut off while the ship was still in the air, wouldn't most of the dust that hits the landing gear hit the BOTTOM, not the top?
1
@pacman4568 ........ um.... what? But the moon landing footage has nothing whatsoever to do with model space battles. Have you WATCHED it? You'd be better off pointing to 2001, at which point we laugh at you because even the mighty Stanley Kubrick was so afraid of trying to do space scenes that he didn't even attempt low gravity on the moon.
1
@pacman4568 .... and your best way to illustrate that was movies created using special effects that were either created 50 years later using technology that didn't exist at the time or which have nothing to do with the footage shown? You do realize that we know what special effects techniques exist and what their shortcomings are right?
1
...... so what exactly is your point? Computing isn't the limiting factor. All of the computing power on the planet will not move you five feet if you don't attach it to a giant rocket. Also, you realize that modern computers are WORSE at leaving orbit right? Modern computer components are WEAKER, not stronger, against radiation. That's one of the side effects of the itty bitty tiny integrated circuits that make your 1,000,000x processing power computer possible. You put your computer anywhere near space and it will be fried before it gets close That's a fancy paperweight you're typing on.
1
@ryanm8965 That's not asking it another way. It's running away like a coward and a completely different question because you couldn't answer. But I'll play your game Deepsea exploration. One descent in 1960 to the Marianas Trench, the deepest part of the ocean, zero attempts to do anything even close until 2012, 52 years later. Not one single conspiracy theorist has a single objection to this half a century of "backwards" progress. This is the point where you make up excuses about how "that's not going backwards because they did other stuff instead" and I get to cough awkwardly.
1
@SlimSlashie A moon base isn't useful until spafe combat becomes a thing. It's too far away to serve as an attack base or communications hub and you can't defend it against a siege. Anybody that wants to neutralize it will simply drop a missile on the launch facilities you send your supplies from and leave them to rot because there's no food, air, or water there.
1
Not only has A Funny Thing been debunked point by point for twenty years, Bart Sibrel got caught red-handed editing his "faking the distance to the moon" to cut out shots of them filming without his trick because he was stupid enough to think that people wouldn't find the footage and compare versions.
1
@GoodCitizen.1 You mean this footage? The one that's being shredded frame by frame here?4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_VVWxqpa_E This is part 9 of an hour and a half full debunk. The footage Bart doesn't show of them filming fully illuminated without his trick, despite being literally 15 seconds after a clip he himself uses, is at about 13 minutes in. Gee, that "round" window they're using to make the shape of the Earth looks awfully flat and boxy..... You know what's more embarrassing than a grown man that believes in Apollo? A grown man that needs to watch Sesame Street because they can't tell the difference between a circle and a square.
1
@Artamusgordon I mean..... some people need hobbies? You see the same conspiracy theorists post over and over and over on some videos. I guess that proves that they're being paid shills too right?
1
There's a scene on one of the missions where the astronauts are digging the hole. Not only do they effortlessly throw the dust around with scoops that don't even reach the knees, one of the astronauts shuffles his foot about one inch and it sprays at least ten feet sideways.
1
Why is there a pressure gradient that reaches 1% hundreds or thousands of miles below the height of the "dome"? Under the same laws that "disprove the globe", the pressure gradient should IMMEDIATELY expand to attempt to equalize pressure inside your dome, the ENTIRE dome not just the lower 1/10th of it, and not a single one of you sniveling cowards will give an answer as to Why. Entropy disproves Flat Earth and you don't have gravity as an excuse.
1
@filmc1999 You know, shouting "Nuh-uh!" usually stops making you correct by the age of 5.
1
That's the one that was made by the guy that killed people shilling fake medicine right? I'm pretty sure that's already been destroyed itself....
1
@darrensice1550 What do you mean how was it possible? He called NASA and NASA relayed the call over their radio broadcast. Radio stations have been broadcasting phone calls since the 30s. By the way, the first satellite phone call was in 1962.
1
@darrensice1550 .... what are you talking about? NASA has giant dishes larger than your house scattered around the planet. You point them at the moon, you broadcast to the universe, and they respond using the antenna that's attached to the ship.
1
@IAMGABRIELnumber1 You can find pictures of it in a little holding vice if you look up pictures of the MESA table. I think NASA has one where it's highlighted. He called NASA and NASA relayed the call over their radio transmissions. This isn't exactly new technology. We already had trans-oceanic telephone calls via satellite and people had been calling radio stations to talk on the air since the 1930s.
1
Ah, the video created by a convicted criminal who's been caught faking evidence!
1
@shellygardner6410 Might I suggest, if somebody tells you to sod off, not chasing them through the streets hurling insults AFTER getting yourself arrested for stalking and trespassing against one of their coworkers?
1
@shellygardner6410 Then go back to school and learn how to read.
1
@shellygardner6410 Sorry, i forgot that conspiracy theorists that spam emojis aren't usually very smart. Let me rephrase for the kids on the short bus. Bart Sibrel got punched for being a lying, harassing stalker. This was after he got arrested for stalking and trespassing against Armstrong.
1
Holy cowJimmy, That's the biggest lie I've ever seen about the petrified wood. Stop right now before your nose hits the wall and you break your neck. The petrified wood has nothing to do with the astronauts or NASA. It most certainly wasn't pawned by them. It was gifted to an ex prime minister of the Netherlands who ASSUMED it to be a moon rock based on when he got it (despite being a full year before anybody else in the world did and not resembling their samples at all) and then his family donated it without having it appraised after he died. Uh yeah, they had an intern steal some of their moon rocks so he could spread them on his bed and be the first person to have sex on the moon.
1
You realize that Bart damaged YOUR SIDE right? He got caught blatantly and repeatedly lying when his video was compared to NASA's version. This includes: Lying about the footage being "intended for playback later" - despite being from the live scheduled broadcast. Lying about the astronauts pretending to be pressed against the window, when both NASA and the astronauts outright say they are moving the camera back and you can watch them do so. Lying about the astronauts not knowing they were filming, despite discussing the picture quality with NASA uninterrupted., And editing his footage to skip over shots of them filming WITHOUT his trick. Ooops. Also, his trick doesn't actually work. If the astronauts were actually in orbit, we'd see the clouds and landmasses moving outside because the minimum speed to stay in orbit is 17,000 miles per hour, fast enough to cross about 1/6 of the entire planet during the 15 minute long clips he used. Also, if you actually watch, when Bart claims they're "rem0oving the insert", they don't actually remove anything. The terminator line stays in place the entire time until the lights come on so it apparently magically vanished.
1
Proof that the went: Conspiracy theorists said we didn't, and conspiracy theorists make the government look honest.
1
No. The moon hasn't gotten sick and left us.
1
Define "destroyed". All of the equipment that was used build and test them would have been dismantled and cannibalized by the factory contractors once they were no longer needed to save costs on their other projects, the training simulators have almost certainly been dismantled, and we know that NASA tore up their launch equipment to reuse the land for the space shuttle in the 1970s. Doesn't matter how much knowledge you have, without your physical infrastructure, you do not move five feet.
1
@magiccheeseball I forget which of the stations its on. If you go through the footage, you'll eventually see it. It's definitely 17 though.
1
@magiccheeseball Found one. Video title is "Apollo 17 - station 4 with earth view"
1
Because it cost about 130 billion dollars (adjusted for inflation) and nobody really wants to pay that much. Also, there is no military advantage to going to the moon, not until space combat becomes a thing. It's too far away to be a communications hub; satellites are better. Any missile attack launched from there will take days to reach its target, as opposed to an hour from a ICBM. And as far as a safehouse for VIPS and command, it's probably the worst position. You can't defend it from a siege. Any enemy that poses an actual threat is simply going to drop a missile on your launch pad and laugh as the supply chain is cut because there's no food, air, or water on the moon.
1
...... your cell signal is being blocked by the metal and cement that make up the walls and ceiling of the building, genius. There's no walls between the Earth and the moon.
1
.... but three other astronauts did and it didn't do jack shit.
1
The suits have like.... ten or twelve layers. What you're seeing is akin to wearing a skiing jacket over a T-shirt over a leotard. Even if it did puff out, only the bottom layers are pressurized so you wouldn't see it. Also, one of those layers works like a net that bends but doesn't stretch, preventing it from bulging out. I believe they also have specialized joints. By the way, radiant heat sources are the easiest to deal with because you can reflect them. That's why the suits are white.
1
So then why does your side need to constantly lie about their evidence? Twenty years of Youtube and still lie after lie after lie after lie. I mean.... that doesn't mean much to somebody high on horse de-wormer or whatever the latest miracle drug is.
1
@codetech5598 Yes yes, a "Scam" to fool somebody that would know you're lying from day 1 and to "steal money" for seeeecret projects you have no evidence of and to get rich without a single scrap of evidence that a single penny was actually embezzled. I mean.... billions pocketed and they don't immediately buy ten mansions like most white collar criminals do? NASA's apparently run by dragons who do nothing with their stolen money but sleep on it. Don't forget how they "hoaxed Apollo 13 to scam more money" - even though the missions were paid in advance so no new money would have been generated from it and the "hoax" did nothing but convince the people that were in charge to end the program sooner. And meanwhile your fellow "truth" seekers have so little evidence that you have to scam.... I mean.... give 'alternative facts for money" in order to "disprove" it.
1
@gww5385 I've seen that video before. That's that one where he goes "You can see the panels bulging out and not sealed" while deliberately neglecting to tell the audience that those panels are a cover, not the hull of the ship, right?
1
@gww5385 Lying to your audience isn't relevant. Got it. So let me get this straight. The LEM is "fake" because it doesn't look like something that looks like it was designed by a rocket scienitst (IE it doesn't look like Hollywood). The actual functionality (IE the fact that that the "poorly manufactured" exterior is just a cover) should be promptly ignored. And yet not a single rocket scientist has a problem with it Clearly that means that every single rocket designer in the world is being paid off. ...... so why didn't NASA just pay off a rocket designer to design a "more realistic" model to begin with? With all of the leaps, twists, and hoops needed to keep this logic afloat, you should join the circus.
1
@jamesesslinger1976 I'm not entirely sure what universe you're from where it only cost 10 million. Apollo cost about 130 billion adjusted for inflation to put 2 men on the moon at a time for less than a week and you people complain that we don't have Space Vegas up there. Also, I would like to point out that space travel isn't a particularly USEFUL and you claim that anything that isn't "more moon landings" isn't progress no matter what purpose it serves because only bigger numbers count. I mean... research into making more efficient spacecraft capable of being used multiple times as opposed to the single use Apollo craft and all of the other shit they do in orbit isn't "progress" because it's not waving the flag from a farther and farther distance. You know what field has progressed? Robotics, and robots don't need to eat, sleep, or drink like a fleshy human does. Given enough advancement, robots are eventually going to be able to perform any actions that a human research crew would, for a fraction of the cost, and stay active for much longer.
1
Hey, Michael? I sincerely suggest you wash your face and change your shirt. You're bleeding from your nose growing ten feet and slamming the wall. Armstrong never landed is is an outright lie. The training vehicles were successfully flown hundreds of times. Armstrong himself landed it more than twenty times before it had a mechanical failure mid-flight.
1
@michaelclark6283 Bullshit. YOU are the one rewriting history and Armstrong for your information explicitly says they could NOT be seen from the daylight side of the moon without their equipment. The "I don't recall" was in regards to a second question of whether the stars could be seen through the solar corona despite the glare. In other words, while staring at the sun itself.
1
@michaelclark6283 That's an awful lot of very expensive paperweights you have there, because that's what'll happen to all of your "far more advanced" technology thanks to the wonderful side effects of circuit miniaturization.
1
Question. Operation Fishbowl is supposed to be an attempt to bomb through the firmament right? The fact that this is SUICIDAL because breaking the firmament will cause the world to flood as all of the water outside comes rushing in should promptly be ignored. Operation Fishbowl was only a few hundred miles high as I recall The sun and moon are supposed to be inside the firmament. The sun and moon are claimed to be 3,000 miles high. Therefore, the firmament is at least 3,000 miles high. You see the problem with this.... right? Apparently, NASA's trying to destroy something that's nowhere even close. #1 rule of lying: keep your story straight.
1
@johnwhiting6663 The one that proved your "truth" movement is a bigger fraud than NASA after Bart SIbrel got caught red-handed skipping over shots of them filming without his trick?
1
@johnwhiting6663 ..... lean backwards on top of the life support pack that will kill you when you break it?
1
You do realize that the Mythbusters caused your side to move the goalposts, right? Before the episode, it was "diverging shadows are caused by multiple light sources." After it, it became "diverging shadows caused by close light." You got proven wrong, lied, and changed your story so that you could claim you were proven right. I would also like to remind you that they took TWO sets of photographs. The first, with that same studio light in that same position, creates PARALLEL shadows despite being close.
1
You can see the "prop line" constantly while driving through rural PA. That's just a hill or dip between the camera and the background many miles away. There are parts where the astronauts walk up to those lines and disappear behind them. Keep in mind that the haze that distant objects on Earth have is caused by the atmosphere. There's no distance haze on the moon. It is impossible to accurately recreate low gravity on Earth without CGI that did not exist at the time. Wires don't affect the dust and will tangle every time the actors cross paths, and speeding up to counteract slow motion causes their other movements like arms and legs to start jerking way too fast. Just as a reminder, a hollywood special effect normally lasts 3-5 seconds, not hours straight. It would be extremely hard to take pictures of the astronauts and the Earth because it will NEVER be in the background to a camera attached to your chest. The tidal locking means that the Earth sits in one place in the sky and never moves, and that's almost straight up from most of the Apollo sites. 3 Kelvin would be the MINIMUM it would get to in interstellar space outside of our solar system or galaxy. The moon's still within influence of the sun. What do you mean "filming by hand?" It spent like... 99% of the time either on a tripod, in a vice on the LEM, or attached to the little turret on the rover. The parts where they hold it are very shaky. The satellite photographs taken of the sites were taken by craft designed for mapping large areas of terrain miles and miles across. Footprints are tiny compared to what they're designed to take pictures of.
1
@mitchellsims2600 The truth is that NASA went to moon and that your leaders are a bunch of manipulative frauds. But that's not the story you want to hear. The truth is that you want lies to prevail.
1
@mitchellsims2600 If that were even remotely true, why the bloody hell do you believe a single word that the hoaxers tell you when they've been caught in thousands of lies over the last twenty years?
1