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

  1. "seeking truth" Bart got caught red-handed faking evidence over ten years ago. He had to shut off comments on his channel because he edited his "faking the distance' video to remove shots of them filming without a trick. Bart seeks nothing but your praise and money. Also, that's a red carpet welcome compared to his own interviews with the astronauts.
    14
  2.  @michaelkoshay5969  "In later years there were so many of our astronauts being killed during attempted missions that our NASA government officials decided to pay the Russians millions of dollars just to take our United States astronauts to our International space station which is orbiting at 245 miles above the earth." Um.... Bullshit? Your "so many astronauts being killed" was TWO missions, out of ~130, a 98% success rate. One of them was preventable negligence. The only reason there were "so many astronauts" killed was because there were a lot of them on one ship. The reason we are hitching a ride with the Russians has nothing to do with deaths. It's because Congress refused to pay for both NASA's return plans and to maintain their fleet of 30 year old ships simultaneously. Gee, I thought you worked with cost analysis and money....
    8
  3. I mean... he can't go ten minutes without presenting "evidence" he got red-handed editing to remove parts of it that disproved him. If that's legendary, then even a normal person telling the truth should be akin to the second coming of Jesus.
    8
  4.  @vwilhelm5788  Lying about the footage being "recorded for playback later" using footage from the live scheduled broadcast. Muting the audio so he could pretend they "didn't know they were filming" while they openly discuss the picture quality Lying about them pretending to be against the window while secretly filming across the cabin, then deliberately skipping over the astronauts openly stating they are moving the camera back while you can watch them do so. And hiding that there are shots of them filming without his supposed trick less than 15 seconds after clips he used in A Funny Thing
    7
  5.  @sonjak8265  Bart Sibrel, the man in this video. He's been pushing the video at around 10 minutes in as his "smoking gun" for twenty years. He lied about it being "never before seen footage filmed for later playback" - it's from the live scheduled broadcast that everybody saw. He lied about them pretending to be against the window when they were filming across the cabin, then skipped over a section where they outright say they are moving the camera back and you can watch them move away from the window. He muted and dubbed over the audio so he could pretend that they "didn't know they were filming" despite openly discussing the picture quality. And he's spent twenty years trying to hide that within 15 seconds of another clip he used, there's a shot where the camera zooms out and you can see it about 1-2 feet from a fully illuminated square window (not circular) filming an object that's clearly outside before crossing the cabin to film out one of the triangular ones.
    7
  6. Considering that he got caught red-handed lying about his evidence many, many times, including editing his "faking the distance" video to remove shots of them filming without his trick because people weren't stupid and checked his version against NASA's, I suggest buying a dictionary and looking up what "irrefutable" actually means.
    5
  7. That's not really what happened. A retired ex-politician was given a completely unrelated rock a full year before the moon rocks were actually given out; the Dutch government's actual rocks were presented to their royal family and are both accounted for. He and/or his family ASSUMED it to be a moon rock, despite not resembling the other rocks or being presented in an airtight container like their actual gifts, and had it submitted without any sort of appraisal first. NASA literally has nothing to do with this rock, but you'll blame them anyways and call it "proof of fakery" because lies are more convenient.
    5
  8.  @Roman-yc  Maybe he did some research into him and went "Oh shit. If I say who this is in the title, my ratings will go down because he's a hated fraud" but had already paid him and so couldn't cancel.
    4
  9.  @campar1043  GreaterSapien has a video called Addendum: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon where he plays a piece of Bart's video and an extended version side-by-side. Warning, the audio's fucked up due to copyright claims on the music played over one of the embedded videos. Humans of Earth has a full hour and a half debunk of A Funny Thing. If you search the miniseries on their channel, in Part 9 you can see Bart obviously lying about basically everything and claim the camera was supposed to be pressed against the window, then skip over the astronauts quite obviously moving backward immediately afterwards. I'd give links but the links have been really sketchy lately and usually get flagged as spam.
    4
  10. "Genuine?" Bart's one of your most notorious frauds. He's been repeatably caught faking evidence. That video of them "faking the distance?" It's edited to remove sections of them filming without his trick. He knows that they went, but claiming otherwise makes him a lot of money.
    4
  11. Shouldn't you be thanking him for not preparing? Everybody knows that Bart's a fraud. He got caught red-handed faking evidence more than ten years ago. Should have called him out to his face.
    3
  12.  @SoCalLucifer  The rover only has top speed of about 8 miles per hour, half the speed of a school zone. On Earth, the dust probably wouldn't go more than a few inches. There's a scene from one of the missions, I forget which one, where the astronauts are digging a hole and throwing the dust clear above their heads with scoops that barely reach their knees. One of the astronauts shuffles his foot sideways about one inch and the dust sprays and skips at least ten feet out of the view of the camera.
    3
  13. Have you tried upgrading your phone with a dish larger than your house?
    3
  14.  @rlupara  Don't post on Youtube and drive. It's dangerous for yourself and others.
    3
  15. I'm sorry to hear that considering that he was caught red-handed editing his "faking the distance" video to skip over shots of them filming without his trick ten years ago.
    3
  16. .... but it isn't valid. Bart literally got caught red-handed editing his "faking the distance' video to skip over shots of them filming without his trick ten years ago and had to shut off the comments on his channel after getting confronted about it.
    3
  17. Um.... it took 46 years to return to the South Pole (1912-1958) and 52 years to return to the Marianas Trench (1960-2012).
    3
  18. Sure. A brave man who dares to tell the truth. Is that before or after he got caught lying about his evidence and editing his footage to remove parts that disprove him? He DID tell you about that...... right?
    3
  19. Capricorn One hilariously went crawling to NASA because they ran out of budget and begged to borrow their training props for the movie. The timing isn't really that interesting. Following The Manchurian Candidate, there's about two decades in the 60s and 70s of back to back conspiracy thrillers on basically anything they could come up with. JFK, Frank Serpico's unveiling of the NYPD, fictional assassination attempts against real world people, etc. Fun fact. There's a movie called The China Syndrome about a coverup over a meltdown at a nuclear power plant. The movie bombed because two weeks after release, Three Mile Island went critical. Now THAT'S an interesting coincidence.
    3
  20. No offense, but if I had a nickle for every conspiracy theorist that lied about having a friend or family member "confessing", I'd have enough nickles to pay to go to the moon.
    3
  21. The Jetsons: 1962 HG Wells' First Men in the Moon: 1964 Lost in Space: 1965 Star Trek: 1966 Planet of the Apes: 1968 Any coincidence in here?
    3
  22. Chris, the video is about the damage the radiation can cause the computers and electronics, the things that will cause them to CRASH or be lost in space if they malfunction. Apollo did not use modern computers. They used a completely different type of technology called "magnetic core memory". Magnetic core memory is nearly impervious to EMPs and radiation, but it is not used anymore and hasn't been since the 70s and 80s because integrated circuits, which modern computers use, are cheaper and faster. Meanwhile, integrated circuits constantly have problems with radiation because the smaller you make them, the easier it becomes to corrupt and damage them and protecting them is so difficult and expensive that by the time your specialized parts are produced, they're already obsolete. Would you say that we should drive Flintstones cars because a stone wheel can never get a flat tire? (Also, as an aside, you realize that they're exaggerating... right? It wasn't a technical production. It was a PR video to hype a test they did literally a month later. Keep in mind that what you say depends on who your audience is. Most people that are not scientifically read or part of this hoax debate know little about the belts, if they've even heard of them at all. They won't understand why the ship needs to be tested unless you tell them what you're testing against and why)
    3
  23.  @xanraal8293  For reference: He lies about the footage never being seen before; it was from the live broadcast. He lies about the astronauts not knowing they're filming, then mutes the audio so you can't hear them discussing the picture quality. He lies about them pretending to be against hte window, then skips over them openly discussing the fact that they are moving the camera back. And he has spent a decade trying to hide that within 15 seconds of a clip he tried to claim the "same trick" was being used, the camera zooms out and you can see them filming without a trick before crossing the cabin to film out a different window. Also the trick doesn't even work. If the astronauts were in orbit, the clouds and landmasses would be moving past the window at a rapid speed because the speed to stay in orbit is much, much faster than the Earth's rotation.
    3
  24. Come on, don't try and fool people. Everybody knows that when Artemis lands, every single one of you will turn around and lie that "That's fake too!"
    3
  25. You know that he's talking about the other half of Antarctica opposite where he started from, right?
    3
  26. "Facts" Bart Sibrel got caught red-handed editing that "faking the distance" video to mute audio and skip over footage that disproved him ten years ago.
    3
  27. "How are you guys going to say that you believe the moon landing still happened after this man has presented his evidence" Easily, if Bart's "evidence' is shown to be a lie. And he has been shown to be a liar, many, many times.
    3
  28. He's a grifter. He got caught editing his "faking the distance" video to skip over parts that disproved him ages ago.
    2
  29. ... Russia never crossed the belts and circled the moon. The animals they sent had no problems. Also, the Apollo 11 astronauts were away from the public eye in quarantine for almost a month.
    2
  30. The first book of the Bible also says that humans die because a woman made from a rib fed a man made of clay a magical fruit at the behest of a talking snake. Also, if you're talking about Dark Side of the Moon, that video is a spoof made by chopping up pieces of stock footage and combining them together.
    2
  31. It takes a real brave man to lie about your evidence for twenty years huh?
    2
  32. You wish you had more scam artists lying for your money?
    2
  33. There was no camera man. The camera was unmanned and attached to the ship on a drop-down panel for storing equipment that could be opened from inside.
    2
  34. ..... but there's a 0% chance that the soviets would be fooled. Tell me though, if it was hoaxed, why does Bart here have to resort to lying about his evidence?
    2
  35. You should probably ask how they got that number, considering that Bart's been.... you know.... lying and making shit up for about 20 years.
    2
  36. ..... except the fact that he was caught red-handed editing his "faking the distance" video to skip over shots of them filming without his trick by simply comparing his version to NASA's.
    2
  37. No. The hoaxers cut the comment short so you couldn't hear him clearly talking about going back and blaming it on money.
    2
  38. Bart honestly shouldn't be taken seriously. He didn't go even ten minutes without blatantly and deliberately lying about his evidence.
    2
  39.  @funkybluestuff5519  And? It's a big fucking place. By the way, it took more than 50 years to return to the Marianas Trench. You people knowingly avoid talking this because you know that it means your "50 years to return proves they didn't got to the moon" doesn't hold water, pun absolutely intended.
    2
  40.  @ericmagz9927  So how exactly did the US know that the soviets would go for the deal when the global famine it was in response to for HADN'T HAPPENED YET? That occured in.... 1971-1972 I believe? The first moon landing was in 1969 and the Russians would have known the Americans were faking the landings at least 8 months before that when Apollo 8 claimed to go through the "impossible to cross Van Allen Belts" which the Russians already knew about and were putting animals through for testing. So.... at the height of the cold war, with a year of time to prepare and even longer to act on it, the Soviets chose not to do anything and sat on their ass for three years waiting to be bailed out of a problem they didn't know was going to happen yet? Sorry, I don't like plans that rely on people having the mystical ability to see the future. Unlike your fraud leaders at Aulis, NASA does not claim to have psychic powers.
    2
  41. Telescopes have a finite resolution based on their physical size. The largest ones we have can barely make out anything at that distance smaller than a football field. You'd need a much, much larger one to see objects only a few feet across.
    2
  42. Was that before or after he made the claims about how there was a secret US moon base built with alien technology and they had a shootout with the Russians that left dozens dead?
    2
  43. Well, ideally Bart's interview should be getting a lot of thumbs down considering that he's.... you know.... a well-known con artist that's single-handedly the biggest reason not to believe a word that comes out of these peoples' mouths.
    2
  44. The chance that Bart's lying is 1 in 1
    2
  45. No..... he made a landline call to NASA and NASA relayed the call over their radio transmissions. I know that you people don't understand how technology works but come on man, get with the times. Civilian radio stations have been doing that since the 1930s.
    2
  46. You know that Eric Dubay censors his comment section and routinely bans people because he gets caught lying, right? Go ask him why Level contains his cronies trying to openly scam the audience with sleight of hand bullshit, where he pretends you "can't see the light source with the darknes" - with the rim of the flashlight between the camera and the bulb. He'll ban you immediately if you try, Flat Earth is like the church. They talk a lot of bullshit about "finding the truth", then if you contradict them, you get silenced.
    2
  47.  @ChrisRWoods-px9hy  You are looking at probably another 1-200 billion to develop the heavy transport ships and infrastructure you would need to transport your equipment and carry your goods and workers and set up your mining operations. You are not doing this with two men in an ship with less room than an outhouse.. Furthermore, you need to be able to retrieve probably a couple hundred million dollars worth of goods PER LAUNCH to cover the fuel and maintenance for your ships. That's just to break even, not to profit or work off your initial investment. Meanwhile, the only resource of any real value is Helium 3, which is mostly wanted as a POTENTIAL fuel source for fusion power - which doesn't work reliably and isn't expected to be commercially viable for another 30-50 years. Helium 3 can be synthesized on Earth in a lab for a couple thousand per liter. The greedy billionaires aren't going to touch that with a ten foot pole. they're smart enough to realize that until technology vastly, vastly improves past its current level, they are going to LOSE money trying.
    2
  48. No, it's real. It's just not anything important. Bart got into one of the astronauts houses by lying about his identity, then refused to leave when told to get out. After literally being booted out of the door with a kick to the rear, the astronaut's son came out and started smack talking him.
    2
  49.  @appletongallery  Apple, about ten years ago, I took a digitla photography class because I needed some sort of art class for my major. I did an assignment where I took panning shots of the cars driving by my house. Now being the master class photographer I am, i held my camera at arm's length and took pictures without using the viewfinder. I STILL got about 10-20% good shots and that was with one afternoon. Taking photographs without a view finder is a skill that can be PRACTICED, and they had months of training with their equipment. It is nowhere near as impressive as blind people that paint. Furthermore, there are THOUSANDS of photographs. Many of them are bad. Why don't you see them?? Because NASA aren't idiots and hire professional editors to sort through the trash and select the best ones for publication. Unless you've actively gone looking fot hem, you've seen maybe 40-50. You haven't seen the out of focus ones. You haven't seen the badly exposed ones. You generally only see the ones that have been deemed fit for publication and the rest sit in a vault gathering dust.. Also, i would like to point out that 95% of them are rocks and terrain, things that would be "perfectly framed" if you were in the same post code. The real kicker here is that even the ones they do show are NOT perfect. You know that famous photographs of the Man on the Moon? It's EDITED. The original photograph is badly framed, so they cropped it and added a fake black sky because the top of the pack was cut off. Gee, i guess the professional studio photographic crew didn't use their viewfinder on that one.
    2
  50. This is actually one of the oddities of science. The thermosphere actually registers as very cold despite being very hot. You would FREEZE before you melted. The reason for this is that heat and temperature are NOT the same thing. The gas particles may be very, very hot, but they are also very, very dilute. Convection simply doesn't work when there's not a meaningful quantity of air. It doesn't matter how hot the particles are if you aren't touching enough of them at a time to transfer heat faster than the rest of your surface loses heat via infrared radiation. It'd be like trying to burn a whale to death with a handful of red-hot sewing needles. You aren't going to give it more than an itch.
    2