Comments by "Kevin Skinner" (@kevinskinner4986) on "Motherboard" channel.

  1. Wilbur Wright, one of the inventors of the airplane, was once asked to give a speech about it. He gave a flowery two line "speech" that boiled down to "I hate public speaking" and sat right back down.
    209
  2.  @3deanes958  Armstrong had a reputation for hating and avoiding interviews BEFORE he joined NASA. There is no 'stark contrast" in staying exactly the same Aldrin's personal life is shit. Not only did his marriage start falling apart about this time or shortly after, he had a history of depression and alcoholism that started BEFORE Apollo 11 stemming from his mother's own battle with depression and eventual suicide about a year before the mission, something he partially blames himself for because his fame got her swamped with unwanted attention she could no longer handle. We also know that Aldrin may be rather salty and bitter because he was originally supposed to have been the first man on the moon instead, a fact that apparently led him to having a big shouting match with NASA's admins. Collins mostly looks bored. Also, this mission was either after 3 weeks of quarantine, or another month of being shipped from country to country ever 3 days (I don't remember the exact date.) Either way, that means it's highly likely that they have some amount of mental and physical exhaustion and depression is extremely common in professions that spend a lot of time traveling. Gee, you seem to have ignored quite a few experiences and emotions.
    181
  3.  @3deanes958  Um, no... Armstrong was asked TWO questions. Collins responded to Armstrong's comment about the SECOND question regarding photographs of the solar corona, which were taken in his presence, and Armstrong shifts in his chair before the next question. Clean your ears out and listen. You realize that the "shut up elbow" is a BLATANT LIE, right? We know for a fact that this is the case because there are two camera angles. Of course, your fellow hoaxers will likely ban you if you ask on the "shut up elbow" videos why they're too cowardly to show the front camera, where you can see that he does no such thing.
    53
  4. ​ @3deanes958  "We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the moon by eye without looking through the optics. Uh... I don't recall, during the period of time we were filming the sonar corolla, what stars we could see" Gee, I think you missed a bit there. Why did you deliberately ignore the fact that Armstrong was referring to a set of photographs taken from the command module? Why would I need to be an expert when I can just lie like you people do?
    44
  5.  @3deanes958  ..... what difference does it make that you would choose to willingly ignore objective facts that change the context of the statements and invalidate your entire premise of "why Armstrong would be angry", and then tell that to other people to try and convince them? It's called LYING dearie and it makes it less likely that people will believe anything else you claim. Maybe you've heard of it. It's pretty sad that your "truth" movement is just as dishonest as the people you claim to be fighting. So, do you have a source for this claim of NASA's? Because you people don't exactly have the most honest track record for accurately recounting what NASA says.
    40
  6.  @3deanes958  I've seen those videos before. I wasn't impressed. I actually got called a "blind brainwashed shill" for asking questions such as "If the astronauts are on wires, why is there a magical anti-gravity necklace flopping around in midair in the background" and "You realize that the wire grab is a sham and that you can watch him stick a finger down the other guy's pocket and watch the fabric bulge as he yanks it" because apparently the people that tell you to 'question everything" expect blind loyalty.
    25
  7.  @3deanes958  I didn't say that they weren't talking about stars. The usual argument is that 99% of you use is that Armstrong is upset because Collins wasn't on the moon to answer that question. Wouldn't have Collins known the answer from Gemini anyways?
    22
  8.  @3deanes958  Really? And how pray tell do you do so and why can't you ever notice the hoaxers lying through their teeth even after they get caught? Sounds to me like you're seeing what you want to see. Are you not looking, or are the hoaxers just better liars and so smug because they know you're too stupid to catch them?
    17
  9.  @3deanes958  The argument is that Collins was out of line by answering because he wasn't on the moon. The photographs he's responding too were taken from Lunar Orbit, in the Command Module, in his presence, meaning there is no contradiction. As far as "contradicting NASA" doesn't Armstrong himself do that first by claiming the stars weren't visible from the daylight side of the moon? Collins's remark (which is about a set of photographs taken of the SUN) is still in line with Armstrong's previous remark made two sentences prior, so why is he angry again? You cannot claim that he's angry about contradicting ISS astronauts because those statements are THIRTY YEARS IN THE FUTURE (and arguably NASA's problem for not keeping the story consistent with Apollo), so you only have contradicting NASA's current claims at the time. If it was faked, wouldn't NASA have given them official answers to the most obvious questions during rehearsal which, again means that Armstrong himself would be the one who contradicted them? If they were forced to ad-lib everything for some bizarre reason, wouldn't they make a best guess based on their Gemini experiences since this is not their first space mission? If you're claiming that all space missions are fake, we have bigger problems.
    17
  10.  @3deanes958  Your first clip is false. I have personally examined this one before trying to figure out how the trick worked. It's actually braindead simple. If you look closely and slow it down, you can watch him stick a finger down his left front pocket and yank on his pants. The fabric bulges as he does. This admittedly took me quite a while to find so I won't fault this one too hard. By the way both the first and third "wire" clips have floating necklaces. ------------- I've seen the second clip before. My immediate thought was "Are you sure he's not pulling himself on one of the footholds that are everywhere on the ship?" ---------------------------- That's not a chromakey screen. it's a grid for filming motion experiments and there are videos of it being used for this. Chromakey screens, by the way, are usually either solid blue or solid green (no grid) and you can never wear the same color clothes otherwise it will appear on you too. That means no green shirts with a green screen or blue shirts with a blue screen and your "forgot to teleport" clip has BOTH so I guess they're using a third screen. I think the third most common color is....... pink? By the way, your "screen" doesn't reach the ceiling and you can see the objects behind it have changed. Are you sure that they don't have more than one of that same off-screen object? ------------------------------- Please show the full clip of the "forgot to teleport the object" scene so we can make sure it's not something either transparent that is difficult to see or small and easily concealed. ----------------- The motion of the guy going down the hall is weird. If you tried to turn like that on a wire rig, the wires would most likely wrap around your body like the string on a yoyo. This isn't the only video I've seen shit like this on; the ISS tour video constantly turns and pivots in ways that should get him tangled up. --------------------------------- I'm sorry, but I have to call you out. Your "Bubble comes from the helmet" is the same deceptive bullshit that the Apollo hoaxers pull. Your clip starts with the "bubble" already visible against the helmet. You need to show the clips BEFORE (and preferably AFTER) this happens if you want to claim that it "came from the helmet" because we only have your word on that when you (or whoever you took this clip from) could have EASILY cut your footage to avoid showing it flying in from the side. Do you know why don't trust short clips from conspiracy sources? THAT.
    16
  11.  @3deanes958  I have watched your video. I do have a number of criticisms of it. I can go over some of them later if you want. Keep in mind that unbiased does not mean that I'll automatically believe you if your claims are wrong.
    15
  12.  @3deanes958  Here's a question for you. The hoax authors have repeatedly lied while on camera. Why can you people NEVER notice any suspicious body language from the likes of David Percy, or Bart Sibrel who have both been caught outright manipulating their evidence, or Bill Kaysing, who couldn't keep his story of why he started the hoax movement straight and eventually made up fictional "FBI hits" to try and get people to think he was onto something, or the Australian Coke Bottle lady that forgot her story needs to take place in Australia? The matter of fact is that you aren't actually looking. You're just reading what you want to be true into things.
    13
  13. And yet neither you nor anybody else ever comments on any suspicious body language coming off the hoax leaders and video makers when they're on camera, even after they've been caught blatantly lying about their evidence. Why is that? Are you choosing to ignore it, or are the hoaxers just better liars?
    10
  14. That's not any different than his other interviews. His Gemini 8 press conference has him talking about "the most exciting experiences mankind has ever experienced" (I don't remember his exact words but you get the point) in a stilted monotone while squirming in his seat, several years before this.
    6
  15.  @3deanes958  Sorry for the slow response. I've been rather busy the last week and I'm coming home with a migraine a lot from the masks. I won't post everything I've thought of partly because it was getting pretty long, partly because I can't be bothered to dig more and don't really care, and partly because I type my comments in another window and lost my even longer post when I had to forcibly restart the computer and am too lazy to rewrite it all. I have also lost interest a bit so am probably not going to argue with you much past this. ---------- I will start by saying two things. First, for fuck's sake, please show or give links to the FULL clips you are using so that I can watch them for myself, in their entirety, in their original context, without being told what to think. I'm sorry, but I'm too used to the Apollo hoaxers cherry picking details and hiding things in the clip that disproved them to trust conspiracy video editing. Second, I have nothing to say about the jumpy picture or the swirly afterimages. I admit I have no clue what's happening in some of the artifacting clips, but do not have enough knowledge on either CGI or communication equipment to make an informed opinion of whether you are correct or if it's some sort of data corruption artifact I am not aware of so I would rather discuss topics I can reason beyond "If you say so."
    6
  16. @Versaro And how many interviews have you actually analyzed like this and would you have even thought to have looked unless you had been told by another person that they looked "suspicious"? Are you taking into account the fact that Armstrong had a reputation for hating interviews before he joined NASA? Becoming the most famous man in the world isn't going to make a shy withdrawn introvert suddenly like attention. The fact that Aldrin's personal life is falling apart around him, with a family member that committed suicide from depression within the last year and a failing marriage and that he has other reasons for anxiety and depression than just this? The fact that they may be physically or mentally fatigued from their trip, quarantine, and/or the solid month of being flown around the world every two days? (I don't remember if this is before or after the tour) The fact that public speaking is one of the most common human fears and that people are TRAINED, either by coaching or experience, to get over it? I'm going to blunt. I'd be a wreck if you put me up there because I detest public speaking in front of even small crowds, and if you dragged the armchair psychologists here up on stage and made them give a press conference in front of a large crowd, broadcast to the entire world, and recorded for all eternity, I bet a large number of the blowhards here would shit their pants like they were still in diapers. No, you probably didn't even stop and consider any of these for even a moment. Most of you people immediately assume that it MUST be "because they're lying" because that is what you are told before you watch this and that is what you want to hear. I'm going to say this again. You people can't even notice the Australian Coke Bottle lady lying through her teeth despite forgetting that her story needs to actually take place in Australia. "They look like they're lying" really doesn't convince me when you people can't spot easy lies.
    5
  17.  @yourfuture3687  Yeah, I'm sure that the moon scene is "proof of fakery" and not "Hey, the moon landings are popular right now. Let's find a way to put this in the movie to jump on the bandwagon. It's not like it would make it any more campy than it already is." I mean, filming actors could only mean it was faked; it's not like the landings had hundreds of hours of practice and rehearsal before them. Besides, it makes total sense that the missions were "compartmentalized" to the point that even the people working on the project didn't know that it was faked, but the entire movie industry knows because "they're the movie industry" even when they themselves haven't stepped a hundred miles from the set. I mean, what's the point of compartmentalizing it at all if tens of thousands of strangers will instantly know what you did and be able to tell the world anyways? But sure, let's take it as a "serious revelation" from a movie with wrestling strippers.
    5
  18. Armstrong had a reputation for hating interviews even before he joined NASA.
    4
  19.  @hutrillz.official  Three of the astronauts swore. Gene Ceran, Edgar Mitchell, and Alan Bean. All three of them do it in the full Astronauts Gone Wild though I can't be bothered to find the timestamps right now. Just so that you're aware, by the way, the man that 'asked" them to swear not only lied to, harassed, and insulted them numerous times, but had to have the police called on him for stalking and trespassing. Do you know why he's no longer a network cameraman? The network fired his ass after he decided that being declined interviews gave him the right to follow Armstrong home and go sneaking around outside his house, property laws be damned. If somebody treated me the way Sibrel treated them, I wouldn't swear to what I had to breakfast and would refuse to do anything he asked of me out of pure spite. If he asked me where the bathroom was, I'd tell him to shit his pants like the toddler he is and try not to get it on the carpet.
    4
  20. I don't see Jarrah White, Bart Sibrel, and Bill Kaysing there.....
    4
  21. The author had to shut the comments off on his Youtube channel because he was caught red-handed lying about and faking evidence a long time ago. If that's the best you can do, then the bar's been set so low that there's a limbo party in the Marianas Trench.
    4
  22.  @manetrigolini2967  That's nice and all, but you'd have a far stronger argument if the people telling you that weren't so desperate they had to lie about their evidence over, and over, and over, and over.
    4
  23.  @fiveowaf454  I'm going to be blunt with you. No offense, but the people here that have actual experience or skill in detecting that are basically non-existent. The majority here are just making shit up to confirm their already existing biases or think that having read an internet summary once (for a field that is highly subjective to begin with) makes them an expert. They're doing no more than "They look nervous and depressed and not how I personally think it should look, therefore it's FAAAAAKE" and willingly choose to ignore any other possible factor or explanation.
    4
  24.  @wildboar7473  You do realize that part of the reason for the 2024 date was almost certainly for our egotistical president to masturbate to how amazing he is to because 2024 is the last year of his potential presidency and to score a win for the 2024 election, right?
    4
  25.  @narajuna  NOAA? I'm pretty sure I said "Scientific" so either I'm going crazy you can't read. Yes, the military, and CIA, and such act as consultants in movies when needed. But yeah, I'm sure that Top Gun was filmed with a squadron of F-14 Tomcats that the director had sitting in his basement.
    3
  26. They're more trustworthy than your leaders. Ten years since Bart Sibrel was caught faking evidence and people STILL pay him to lie to them, that's pretty sad huh?
    3
  27. Ah yes, the proof that the hoaxers are lying scumbags. I guess they didn't tell you that Sibrel GOT CAUGHT editing his footage to remove parts of his "smoking gun" that disproved him, did they?
    3
  28. Well, it doesn't help that your leaders are a bunch of frauds that have been repeatedly caught outright lying about your evidence. Maybe more people would believe the "truth" if you had the balls to call Sibrel, and Percy, and the like out on it instead of sitting back with a smile as they deceive you. After all, it doesn't matter if you're lied to as long as it opposes the big bad evil government.
    3
  29.  @wildboar7473  Sure. You're a triggered shill sheeple for the Flat Earth Society, and there are plenty of people that are shilling for that magazine that Marcus Allen shills for because there's no way that people can genuinely be that stupid.
    3
  30. "Intrusive coke bottle" .... you mean.... the one there's literally zero evidence of actually being there, supported entirely by urban legend rumors and the say-so of one lady that forgot the Earth has time zones when fabricating her story?
    3
  31.  @zhanki_8064  ..... what exactly does their service or education record have to do with public speaking? There are plenty of people in every branch of the military and every university in the country who would have glossophobia if you put them in an interview in front of the entire world. No offense, but are you a robot or an alien? I ask because you've clearly never met a human.
    3
  32.  @chefmike4414  Uh-huh. And that's why Armstrong had a reputation for being uncomfortable with interviews before he joined NASA. You know, back when he was a test pilot putting his life on the line on a daily basis flying experimental untested aircraft.
    3
  33. But Alfred Hitchcock's a massive troll. He would have slipped fake "I faked the moon landings" garbage into his movies if he were ever suspected even if it was completely bogus.
    3
  34.  @fiveowaf454  They don't do it on the videos that are about it either. They NEVER do it, even on videos where they couldn't be more blatantly lying if their name was Pinocchio like "Australian coke bottle" interview, where the lady forgot that her story needs to actually take place in Australia. And yet they expect us to believe them when they claim "You can clearly see from their body language that they're lying?" Bullshit. Most of the people here see "fakery" and "strange happenings" because they WANT to see it. They attribute anything that seems "off" to them as "proof that they're right" and willingly ignore it on the hoax videos because they don't want to see it and aren't looking for it it there. It's as simple as that.
    3
  35.  @DontTreadOnMe_  You do realize telescope resolution is physically limited to the size of your telescope right? All of those distant galaxies are COLOSSAL. Meanwhile, you are complaining that you can't see objects that are only a few feet across with telescopes that can't see anything smaller than about the size of a football field. It is impossible to have resolution that small without a much larger telescope that is hundreds of feet across. Claiming otherwise is like the joke about how you can download more ram. Facts are facts no matter how much you whine.
    3
  36. You wouldn't need to. If the astronauts were on trial, NASA is just going to trot the likes of Bart Sibrel and David Percy out during cross-examination and gleefully show the jury how they blatantly lied about about their evidence, destroying your credibility and making it near-impossible for an unbiased jury to overcome reasonable doubt. Just as a reminder, the burden of proof in a trial is on the prosecution. NASA wouldn't need to prove they went. YOUR SIDE needs to prove they didn't beyond a reasonable doubt and get a unanimous verdict. Good luck with that.
    3
  37. So explain to me why your "truth" movement has had to resort to faking evidence. Oh wait, you'll never do that, because you'll chop your own wedding tackle off before you ever admit to it. "Truther" is another word of "Liar"
    3
  38.  @narajuna  So then why do the Apollo hoaxers need to lie about their evidence constantly? They make the government look honest. I keep asking this, and none of you "truth seekers" have the balls to answer. Come on, Open. Stop wetting your pants like you're two years old and do it already.
    3
  39. Yeah, the truth that it's real. After all, if it were legitimately faked, NASA wouldn't have directly helped make the movie to the point of lending their own training props for it.
    2
  40.  @narajuna  It's almost like the movie industry routinely consults with NASA and other scientific organizations on a daily basis. Whodathunk!
    2
  41. Why would they be excited? Let's ignore the fact that Armstrong has a prior histroy of hating interviews and that Aldrin's personal life is shit. After coming home, they spent three weeks in a quarantine trailer and constant debriefings. If I were them, the only thing I'd be excited for would be going home, seeing my family, and sleeping for the next week.
    2
  42.  @ironhitz  Um..... you do realize that ti's the same stars we see from Earth with even less variation on position than season to season right? Unless you're doing something NEW (like the ultraviolet photographs on Apollo 16), WHY would you waste film on this compared to using it to film to film the fucking moon, the thing you're spending hundreds of billions of dollars to study? No handheld camera is going to outperform NASA's already existing ground-based stationary telescopes.
    2
  43.  @wildboar7473  And yet when Armstrong, whose personal records have listed him as either non-religious or deist, refuses to swear, people hit the siren on the waaahmbulance because apparently a non-Christian not swearing on the holy book of a religion he doesn't follow is "proof" Lovely double standard, huh?
    2
  44.  @AbdulAhad-wy3hi  The hoax information is false and the people putting it have been caught lying many times. Do not trust them.
    2
  45.  @AbdulAhad-wy3hi  The hoaxers lied about the Van Allen Belts. The "lead shielding" claim is made up; it's the wrong type of radiation for lead. Don't trust the hoaxers on radiation, they've already lied about it. Grissom had been complaining for some time before that too. It's not suspicious timing if you keep doing it. Also, a lemon does not mean fake. It's a machine that constantly needs to be repaired, in other words, incompetence, not fakery. The investigator, who lied to Congress by the way, is known to have had mental health problems and a history of rash actions when his "findings" were ignored. He may have been in a foul mood from being ridiculed in court and aggressively drove around the barrier because he was too impatient to wait. People get killed doing this every single year. The shooting star streaks were discovered during Apollo. 16 and 17 tried to measure them. The hoaxers hide this from you. Just as a head's up, the hoaxers have been caught creating fake scientists to write their articles.
    2
  46.  @AbdulAhad-wy3hi  Grissom wasn't against going to the moon. He was complaining about problems and incompetence. You should go read Baron's testimony to congress. He lies to them about a meeting with one of the other witnesses that never happened and they flat out tell him that they aren't going to even read his other files because the ones they had seen were 100% unproven hearsay and not admissible evidence. He also admits to seeing a doctor for psychiatric help. No, the Belts are real. The hoaxers are so desperate to claim that they are the ultimate proof that they LIED about them because they know you'll never check the details.
    2
  47. You should do a body language analysis of the hoax videos. We KNOW that the hoax leaders are lying through their teeth because they were too stupid to realize that people would track down the originals and compare versions, and yet you people NEVER notice their fishy behavior. Why is that?
    2
  48. Armstrong looks almost identical to his other post-mission press conferences, where the describes how going into space is one of the biggest thrills humans have ever done in a tone of voice like he's reading from the dictionary while squirming like he's sitting on an anthill. He's also somewhat notorious for having come seconds from death in a training accident and walking straight back to his office to fill out paperwork like nothing happened. Aldrin's personal life is absolute garbage and is known to have had a big fight with NASA prior to the mission over them changing First from him to Armstrong and making excuses as to why. Collins mostly looks bored.
    2
  49. And yet you NEVER notice the likes of David Percy or Bart Sibrel lying when they're on camera, even though they've been caught red-handed pulling bullshit like editing their footage to remove portions of the raw footage that flat-out contradicted and disproved them? If it's so easy to spot a liar, how come you NEVER manage to do so with your own side's liars?
    2
  50. I looked at the Gemini 8 press conference earlier. It's very interesting. Do you know why that is? Because Armstrong acts exactly the bloody same as he does here. Same depressed funeral vibe, same awkward pauses and stammering and ums, same nervous fidgeting, the works, while Scott next to him is acting "normal". So either NASA was already faking missions a year before Apollo 1 and they should have put Scott on Apollo 11 instead because Armstrong can't lie to save his life, or the people claiming "the nervous depressed look proves it's fake" are full of shit. Fun fact, by the way, we know that Aldrin's pissed off at NASA because he feels they cheated him out of First Man and made excuses to have Armstrong instead. He had a big fight with them before the mission. None of hoaxers ever mention that when trying to claim "they're angry because it was fake".
    2