General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Kevin Skinner
WatchMojo.com
comments

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

@henthust9784 Um. you are aware that there are substances that burn without visible smoke or flame right? The Indy Racing League has had problems with that because one of the substances that does so is alcohol. Um, dust was blown. That's why there's radial rings under the ship in some of the close-ups. The issue is that there's no air. Dust clouds do not form in a vacuum. Without air resistance, the dust will not stay by the ship's legs. it will be blown away from the ship, at high speed, and will settle immediately. You can see this in the very footage you're claiming there's "no smoke" on. The instant that the ship takes off, everything for hundreds of feet is covered in a gray haze that settles within seconds.
10
.... but a camera can take dozens of pictures a minute. With two people, if they each take ten pictures in two minutes, that's enough to last them another twenty. Nobody said they had to be evenly spread. Also, 99% of those pictures are things like landscapes and rocks that would be "perfectly composed" for looking anywhere in the rough general direction.
4
.... because you can bring your own oxygen in a tank? Black powder burns in a vacuum because it contains saltpeter.
3
@dailyviewstv5323 During the "waving" scenes, the astronauts have the flag in their hands and are moving it. The reason that it looks like it's "waving' the rest of the time is that there's a rod through the top holding it out.
3
The video of them taking off was taken from a remote-controlled camera attached to the rover, which was broadcast and recorded on Earth.
3
Just as a head's up, photographs are NOT size-accurate. The lens you use can make objects look larger or smaller than they look to the naked eye, and wide-angle lenses cause background objects to shrink. There are pictures of the moon taken from Earth that make the moon look barely larger than Venus.
3
Remote control was invented in the 1890s, 70 years before the moon landings. By the time of WWII, Russia was already field testing remote controlled tanks. As far as following the motion, there's nothing stopping a person from simply calculating the rate at which it would ascend and panning the camera a second early to compensate. It's difficult, but by no means impossible with enough practice.
3
Radio stations have been able to convert phone calls into radio broadcasts since the 1930s
3
Yes, and? He called NASA and they relayed the call over their radio broadcasts. Radio stations were taking landline calls and broadcasting them since the Great Depression.
2
Yes, Mickey Mouse is ten thousand times more credible than the "truth seekers" who've spent the last twenty years faking evidence and inventing fabricated "confessions".
2
First of all, pressure is divided by area. The wider an area you spread your force across, the less of an impact you will make. This means that a lighter object can make a deeper footprint than a heavier object at a proper ratio. That's why snowshoes and skis make you sink less in snow, despite being more weight. Also, how much of a crater are you expecting when it's compacted after like... half an inch or so.
2
You can't use prerecorded footage, not if you want to also try and claim that the people in Mission Control were unaware of the fake like most hoaxers do. Pre-recorded footage cannot change in real time. In order to pull it off, mission control themselves would need to be running on a script that is timed to the second and which is never once deviated from. If at any point they pause, or start coughing mid-sentence, or go "I'm sorry can you repeat that", the two will no longer match up as the footage continues oblivious to anything mission control does and your hoax will immediately be blown. If you have a video tape that is able to change in real time to prompts, I suggest calling the SCP Foundation.
2
Rockets don't push on things. They expel their mass and alter their velocity through a law of physics called the Conservation of Momentum. This law states that unless an outside force acts upon it, the total momentum of a system (mass times velocity) remains the same. The mass x velocity of the ship plus the mass x velocity of the combusted mass being shot at high speed out the back end must remain constant minus whatever they lose to gravity. Shooting the rocket's own mass out the back end at high speed will cause the ship to accelerate to match the rate at which it's losing mass. Expeling your mass and not altering speed to match, which you say should happen, violates that law.
2
Looks like it's all of Youtube. Sorry, it's not some "secret censorship because they know we're onto them" unless you have a good reason why the Zionist Illuminati Freemason Jesuit Lizardmen are also censoring Nyan Cat, horror game Let's Player Markiplier, and the official channel of Wheel of Fortune.
2
The camera filming the first steps is mounted to the ship. It's on a drop-down panel for storing their equipment that could be opened from inside. The videos of Apollo 15, 16, and 17 leaving, by the way, were filmed with the camera attached to the rover, which could be operated from Earth via remote control.
2
That video is one of the reasons we don't trust a word that come out of the hoaxers' mouths. Bart got caught red-handed lying through his teeth. Turns out that when his version was compared to NASA, he had selectively edited his footage to skip over parts of it that disproved him. This includes avoiding showing parts where NASA asks them to move the camera away from the window to prepare for interior shots and you can watch the Earth shrink as they do so, and shots of them filming the Earth WITHOUT his trick. Both of these are within seconds of clips he uses, by the way. By the way, the trick doesn't work in a moving vehicle. No amount of cropping will stop the visible features taht can be clealry seen when zoomed in from changing as the orbiting ship... well... orbits. The minimum speed to stay in orbit, by the way, is about 17,000 miles per hour - fast enough to circle the entire planet in about an hour and a half - and the uncut clips Bart uses are about 12-15 minutes long each. If the astronauts were actually in orbit, the footage would show entire oceans or continents passing by.
2
Five fatal incidents out of 363 total manned flights is a 98.6% success rate.....
2
Conan loses but only for reasons that have nothing to do with intelligence. L is simply better equipped. He starts off the show with a fortune and enough weight to get the law enforcement agencies of the world to do his bidding and Conan is running his investigation out of his neighbor's basement and has had to win back most of his clout from scratch; even then he still doesn't have all of the information his FBI contacts do. Conan simply does not have the ability to do the LInd L Taylor stunt needed to draw him out and even if he did, it'd be against his morality to do so. After that, he's more than capable of making most of the same logical deductions that L could.
2
The voice actor for the Joker in animation and video games for twenty years was Mark Hamill (Luke Skywalker) Mark Hamill mARK HAMill ARKHAM Arkham Asylum
2
.... but the astronauts were SPECIFICALLY asked if they could see them through the solar corona. in other words, while they were LOOKING AT THE SUN. Also, it's not exactly unusual for people not pay attention to miscellaneous background details while busy doing their job, especially since this was TWO MONTHS later.
2
@Iam_Dunn Armstrong was actually asked TWO questions: whether the stars could be seen from the moon, and whether they could be seen through the solar corona. His answer to the first one, which was made without hesitation, was that they could NOT be seen on the daytime side of the moon and daytime areas of space except through their navigation equipment. This is why context is important and why the hoaxers go out of their way to hide and ignore it.
2
Light's a villain. Just because you're the main character doesn't make you the hero.
2
@founderafrica3844 First of all, pressure is divided by area. The wider area you exert force on, the less of an impact you make and yes, this means that a heavier object can leave less of an impact than a lighter one. This is how snowshoes work. Keep in mind that gas rapidly expands in a vacuum and you have to turn your thrust way, way down otherwise your ship goes UP. Second, you do realize that the ground can have a thin layer of loose dust on a hardened or compacted surface underneath, right? If I spill a bag of flour on my kitchen floor, I will most definitely be able to make footprints in it, but I will not be able to blow a hole in the tile underneath. If the loose dust is only about half an inch or so deep, how deep of a crater are you expecting? Oh, it should be there because Bill Kaysing said so. Third, if you look closely at some of the pictures, you can see rings of lines radiating out from under the engine bell, which would be consistent with wind-based erosion emanating from a central point. Fourth, did you know that both Armstrong and Aldrin call out the lack of a crater live among their observations of the lunar surface? That's right, you didn't cathc them. NASA outed themselves! That's very strange if it was faked, because if you know that it's there, normally you'd either fix your problem or ignore it, not have your actors deliberately bring attention to it. Also, minor gripe. Jet is a specific type of engine. It is not a synonym for "powerful". Now, VTOL aircraft have jet engines with about 3x the maximum thrust of the lander, and as far as I'm aware, they normally don't create massive craters either.
2
Why do you perpetuate the lies of a cult that has spent 20 years faking "evidence?"
1
@trendynow1369 "a Walmart watch has more computing power than all the Apollo moon missions COMBINED times a million." So what? Unless computing power is the limiting factor, it doesn't fucking matter. You know, I've heard people bitch about the "technology of cell phones/watches/calculators" until they're blue in the face, but not one single time have I ever seen a conspiracy theorist grow a pair of balls and venture an estimate at what would actually be needed. So what's your point? Also, there is literally nothing between 400 and 240,000 miles except empty space and the Van Allen Belts themselves. Unless they have a NEED to cross them, nobody is going to do so until they're going to the moon or beyond because no sane person is going to spend billions upon billions of dollars building larger ships requiring more fuel to cross a "deadly impossible radiation field" for the sole purpose of floating around in the middle of nowhere just to say they can.
1
This is a list for heroes. Light is a villain protagonist.
1
What do Russia and China gain from doing this? What possible incentive do they have to do so? If the moon landings were faked, Russia and China would be tripping over each other to take our crown and shove it down our throats. When they inevitably put a man there, they WILL with 100% certainty put out their own official debunking before they do so because then they get to be the first on the moon instead.
1
..... even if they did go back, the original astronauts are in their 80s and 90s.
1
When has Gin shown to be smarter than Conan?
1
Robots?
1
Is a baseball not a ball because it has stitches, a basketball not a ball because it has bumps, a golf ball not a ball because it has dimples, or a tennis ball not a ball because it has fuzz?
1
Kind of surprised that La Mulana wasn't on the list.
1
They had overshoes that were worn on top of the suit boots. It takes less than a minute to find pictures of both together. The fact that your side would rather blatantly lie than do thirty seconds of research should leave you questioning what else your "truth" movement is lying about.
1
@danhan6254 Suuuuuuure. I'm sure cameras capable of taking a dozen pictures a minute weren't invented until the early 2000s. Right.
1
@danhan6254 ...... did you hear that? It was the sound of sarcasm flying straight over your head.
1
@rocketrabble6737 I was being sarcastic to an idiot that thought that only modern cameras could shoot fast.
1
Okay. So. You know how the hoaxers bitch and bitch and bitch about how primitive the computers on Apollo are? Well, modern computers are many WEAKER, not stronger, against radiation. The smaller you make all of those itty bitty tiny computer chips you use in everything, the easier it becomes for them to be damaged by both radiation and static electricity. This is one of the downsides of circuit miniaturization and it is a pain because hardware technology progresses faster than the technology to protect it does. Of course... the video explicitly calls out that they're talking about computer damage and yet people try and claim that that's not what they mean and they're actually talking about radiation poisoning because that is literally the only thing you can think of that radiation does, despite radiation poisoning not being mentioned in that video. That or you people are just super dishonest about it.
1
..... but it wouldn't prove anything. Any die-hard conspiracy theorist would simply call the new pictures and video faked as well.
1
Lying much? 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17 all went. 13 is the only one that had a major problem, and you fake posers pretend that doesn't count for anything.
1
@Haddley333 Several. I'll dig a few up after work.
1
@trendynow1369 You know, usually when Youtube marks my links as spam, it deletes the entire comment, but I still see it in this thread, so either Youtube's glitching more than usual, or you're lying Pinocchio.
1
@trendynow1369 For the record, by the way, Bart's trick doesn't actually work. A ship in orbit needs to constantly move in order to not crash back to the ground and geosynchronous orbit is INSIDE the Van Allen Belts. No amount of cropping will stop the clouds, seas, and land from changing as the ship passes over them and the clips Bart took his footage from are long enough to have crossed entire continents. If you want to see what it would really look like, go put an insert on the side window of your car.
1
@trendynow1369 Testing, testing is this going through? Can you hear me? I did link them to you. Youtube must have marked them as spam again, so here are the videos and users. The first two I linked was parts 8 and 9 of an hour and a half-long video series called A Funny Thing Happened on the Moon - Debunked (the two parts dealing with Bart's "smoking gun"). The channel is Humans of Earth. The video of the astronauts filming without the "insert" is at the end of part 9. There's a shorter video called Addendum: A Funny Thing Happens on the Way to the Moon by GreaterSapien where he shows a clip from A Funny Thing and the clip of them filming without the "trick" and showing that it's literally 10-20 seconds after a clip Sibrel uses. Head's up though, GreaterSapien's video has borked audio because a copyright claim was made against the music in one of the embedded videos.
1
@ambienceization So... if the landings were fake, why do you "truth seekers" have to constantly lie? It's really funny seeing a hoaxer talk about "critical thinking skills" while the rest of their ilk still line up to kiss Bart Sibrel's ass ten years after he got caught red-handed faking his evidence.
1
This is a list of heroes. Light is a villian
1
Well, for starters Trump has the ego the size of Jupiter and the 2024 deadline was probably set with the intention back during his first term so that he could claim to put them back during his term. Which is funny because he originally tried to cancel it and flush billions of tax payer dollars down the toilet for literally zero reason because one person at Fox whined about having already done it.
1
In physics, an object that is launched from another moving object keeps its momentum and instead moves at the COMBINED speeds. If you're driving a car at 60 miles an hour, and you launch a ball backwards at 20 miles per hour, an outside observer does NOT see the ball move backwards at 20 mph. They see it move FORWARD at 40 (60-20). This is observed, recorded, and proven many times over. If this weren't the case, you would be arrested for having loose objects on a train or airplane, since the instant they left your hand, they would fly "backwards" and kill whoever was behind them as the vehicle and everybody inside moved beneath them.
1
..... but speed doesn't matter in space because there is no air resistance to rip things apart. You could fly an origami crane through space if you could get it to go fast enough. Also, you do realize that the "foil and cardboard" appearance is a cover on top of a hard metal shell, right? For somebody that talks about "doing your homework", you seem to have been plagiarizing off the school dunce.
1
Battletoads doesn't qualify, since these are games from 2000+
1
You know all of those itty bitty tiny computer chips you use in everything you take for granted? They're many, many times WEAKER to both radiation and static electricity than 1960s circuits are because the microscopic, ultra compact construction makes it ridiculously easy for even a single spark to do a lot of damage. This is a constant bugbear in the tech industry because the parts progress faster than the technology to protect it does to the point that by the time your radiation hardened circuits are finished, they are already obsolete.
1
That may or may not happen, considering that the author was in prison. I think he just got out not too long ago.
1
Do you just believe everything that the hoaxers tell you? You have like five different motives that you can't agree on for why Kennedy was killed. Also, have you considered the possibility that Oswald may have been killed by the KGB to silence him because he was an attempted defector? If the US thinks that he did it on their orders, they're going to start WW3 and nuke Moscow. Russia didn't get to the moon because they BLEW THEIR LEAD. They were so obsessed with being "first at everything'" that they wasted their time and money on meaningless bullshit and wound up several years behind the Americans on actually building their heavy lift rocket. They then tried to to rush development and wound up with a piece of garbage that blew up when they tried to launch it. They ended up so far behind they had to shelve it to stay relevant because the Americans weren't going to sit there waiting for them to catch up and continuing that dead end would result in them losing at everything else. Also, their lead rocket designer died halfway through the project. Russia's the first country to put animals through the Van Allen Belts genius. The only deaths they had weren't from radiation poisoning, they were from the ship malfunctioning. That's about as close to radiation poisoning as falling asleep in the bathtub. By the way, the ISS runs through the lowest levels of it about every hour and a half. Russia has declared no such intention, but keep believing that if you want. Also, if Russia were going to attempt that, China would be attempting it too in order to beat them.
1
@Adonai3886 .... the Van Allen Belts aren't stronger around the moon. They aren't around the moon. At all. They only surround the Earth and the larger belt is both weaker than the inner belt and doesn't even reach halfway there. It can be cleared completely with a few hours of a three day flight. So yes you just blindly believe the hoaxers.
1
Hero and main character are not the same thing. Light is what we call a villain protagonist.
1
You're right, the fact that they "can't recall seeing seeing the stars AT ALL during the mission" IS bullshit, because that's NOT what they said. The hoaxers like to outright lie about this because dishonesty is an easy victory. During the interview, the astronauts were asked TWO questions about the stars: whether they could be seen from the moon's surface, and whether they could be seen through the solar corona (the haze around the sun that's normally invisible) despite the glare. Armstrong's answers were (paraphrased because I'm too lazy to get a direct quote at this time) this: They could NOT see the stars from the daylight side of the moon without their equipment. That';s a straight up, unquestionable "No" and explicitly specifies the daytime side. And: He could not recall - during the time they were filming the solar corona - what stars were visible which is what Collins responded to, because he was there when they were taking those pictures from the command module in lunar orbit. In other words, they don't remember seeing any during a specific part of the mission where they were looking at the sun itself and not paying attention to the stars. Head's up, by the way, the "Shut up elbow" is a blatant lie. You can clearly see that he does NOT elbow Collins because there's a second version of the interview shot from a front camera; the hoaxers NEVER show this one when discussing this on purpose. At no point do they ever once say they couldn't se them at all, but that doesn't stop the hoaxers from lying and deliberately generalizing it away. By the way, if you read the transcripts of the radio communication during the mission, Armstrong himself also points out that the stars became visible once they entered the moon's shadow. That's just not what they were asked. This is a baffling "proof" when you think on it. If the landings were faked, wouldn't the three of them have simply used their Gemini missions for reference? This isn't their first space mission. And if ALL space missions were faked, wouldn't NASA have calculated the answers and given the a script for the most likely questions? There wouldn't be any fumbling or "elbowing because they disagreed on answers or who saw what*
1
@neilarmstrongsson795 You left out the part where he says "in the solar corona despite the glare" and didn't mention that Armstrong started talking about the photographs they took of the solar corona, which were taken from the ship in Collins's presence. Of course, you might have noticed that or been man enough to tell the truth if you were actually the son of Armstrong and not just that of a drunk that knocked up a prostitute.
1
The wider an area pressure id deployed over, the less of an impact you make. This means that a lighter object can make a deeper impact than a heavier one if it is concentrated in a much smaller area. This is how snowshoes work.
1
Ah yes, those things that Russia would have realized immediately were being put up because they would have been watching everything that the US launched, making the deception entirely pointless.
1
@richard_zanormous3648 Yes, and if we hadn't, the "truth" movement would have no reason to be up to their eyeballs in lies.
1
@richard_zanormous3648 ...... just making sure, you do realize that you gave away that you just blindly accept whatever the hoaxers tell you right? I'm about to head to bed, I have a migraine and can barely see the screen right now. I'll respond in the morning when i feel like arguing. Until then, here's your answer: Shielding the Van Allen Belts with lead is SUICIDE. Do you know why?
1
@richard_zanormous3648 Yes, that's right, Bremsstahlung. The Van Allen belts are beta radiation, not x or gamma radiation. Beta radiation CREATES x-rays when it hits lead, which is why it is industrially shielded with LOW-DENSITY materials. No space agency would ever use lead shielding. That claim you people make about needing six inches/feet of lead? That was pulled straight out of somebody's ass. You're awfully arrogant if you think the feds give a damn what you think. Both Bill Kaysing and Bart Sibrel, who did have that influence, had to invent fake stories about fictional "assassination attempts" beacuse people started asking them why the government didn't drop them at the bottom of a lake twenty year ago.
1
@richard_zanormous3648 I would assume an unmanned rocket. How exactly are you proposing they deplayed them. The astronauts flew them into place and released them into position? You do realize where geosynchronous orbit is located right? It's about 25,000 miles out, smack dab in the middle of the Outer Van Allen Belt. So if the astronauts don't give a toss about the radiation that's supposed to be the entire reason for the hoax in the first place, why aren't they going to the moon?
1
Let me guess. You're going to bring up Bart Sibrel's work despite the fact that he got caught fabricating evidence?
1
Why? Every bank and 7/11 in the country has cameras mounted on the walls and ceilings. Mounting it to the ship on a drop-down equipment table (which is what they did) would be child's play.
1
Light's not a hero.
1
@Clouds Which is obviously bull. I could argue the logistics of it all day, but just remember that the hoaxers claim that Bill Kaysing - who was NOT a qualified engineer and who left Rocketdyne more than five years before Apollo 11 - supposedly figured this out because he worked for one of the companies despite being in a position who according to the hoaxers themselves would not have been one of the people in on the hoax. SO, clearly this compartmentalization isn't actually working...
1
@tino_mug So then explain why the "truth" movement has spent twenty years lying about your evidence. Inventing fake scientists to write their articles, editing photographs and claiming your own edits are "anomalies", selectively editing damning parts out of footage to hide details that disproved you, inventing fake "science" facts, etc etc etc Go on, do it little man. Grow some balls and answer why. You know you're a fraud, don't you?
1
@Xernive As opposed to "Shut up sheeple!" when asked why your leaders keep lying and lying and lying?
1
Pressure is divided by area. The wider an area, the less of an impact you make. This is how anything designed to be used in snow works.
1