YouTube recently recommended a Skylab-related video from the "ClassicAerospaceHistory" channel, which seemed interesting enough, so I clicked through.

It was interesting enough, but I noticed an error, so I commented on the video, pointing out the error. Then I noticed another error, and then another. I commented for each error, in some cases pointing to the NASA documentation which contradicted the video's script.

For example, the video claimed that "Despite a lightning strike that knocked a gyroscope offline, Skylab 2 lifted off the pad early in the morning with a near flawless ascent."

My comment noted that the Saturn IB Launch Vehicle Flight Evaluation Report, SA-206 (Skylab-2) didn't mention a lightning strike, and in fact it noted that "[l]ightning was not observed at launch time." I also mentioned that the Skylab Mission Report: First Visit was also silent on the topic of a lightning strike.

I also noted that the Flight Evaluation Report didn't mention a gyroscope being knocked offline, but it did mention that, approximately an hour after the spacecraft separated from the S-IVB, one of the Instrument Unit's gyros did experience an anomaly regarding a spike in current, but that was quite a bit later in the mission.

I also mentioned that the Mission Report noted that the Launch Umbilical Tower was struck by lightning sometime prior to the launch of Skylab 3, the second manned mission, but that only affected some of the quantity measurement sensors in one of the Service Module's thruster quads.

ClassicAerospaceHistory did not appreciate the correction of his errors or me quoting applicable NASA documentation, messaging me, "I'm just going to hide you from the channel for being an irritating pedantic pissant."

Nice!

Now, personally, I welcome people correcting my errors (assuming they provide backing evidence), because I don't want errors in my work, and I certainly don't want to be a source of false information. So keep those corrections coming, and keep pointing out typos.

I'm not sure of the process by which ClassicAerospaceHistory decided to include false information in his video, or why he was so touchy about it. While I have no insight into how he prepares scripts for his videos, I do know that AI can sometimes just make things up (they call it "hallucinating"), so I can't help but wonder if that had anything to do with it. Again, I don't know.

But, I just wanted to warn readers about that channel (since he's got a lot of videos which might be of interest) on the assumption that he has other videos where fictitious information is presented as factual.