Did the Americans put a man on the moon?

o1s1n

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120164697#Comment_120164697

Are you telling us you can't tell the difference between B movie footage and actual footage?

Again, you're disproving your points with this nonsense. Nobody would look and that and think it's real.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120166197#Comment_120166197

I think they're trying to imply in their round about way (as they will never admit what they actually believe) that gps can work without satellites just using radio waves, the fact you can see the satellites is neither here nor there.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120166340#Comment_120166340

Even though it is the satellites that discredits the entire premise more so even than GPS...

Wibbs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120166192#Comment_120166192

And the Russians.

Wibbs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120165816#Comment_120165816

Christ... People on the ground, hundreds of them in mission control were interacting back and forth with astronauts on the Moon in real time. They'd have to fake the audio, video, even monitoring of their vital signs, suit pressures, with people asking them to look at this geological feature or other and the astronauts responding, again in real time, while passing all those back and forth signals through a relay on the Moon, so the Soviets, Chinese, British and any other agency with the gear to listen and track its source. That's every radio telescope and a load of research centres and universities on Earth, many of which were helping track and relay data for NASA when their kit was out of range because of the rotation of the Earth.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120166171#Comment_120166171

Good god man, you are talking utter nonsense and with every post you fire up thinking it aids your case proves it. Again you're proving you haven't a bull's notion how film or video works and how it works in the real world. Research the history of slow motion capture and display technology in video cameras and production. In the late 60's and early 70's they didn't even have video cameras capable of recording slow motion for much more than a minute. The sports instant replay with slow motion we'rre familiar with today wasn't invented until after the last Apollo landing and it couldn't replay more than 90 seconds.

Maybe try reading the "blabber", you might actually learn something. Though at this stage the phrase of bringing a horse to water springs readily to mind. Ask any professional camera man or woman to read the same "blabber" and they will confirm every single point, because y'know clearly unlike you, they actually understand what they're talking about.

Markus Antonius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120166707#Comment_120166707

That is absolutely not true. There are films from the 1920s that use slow motion all the time so stop trying to peddle this ridiculous notion that slow motion is high-tech and not possible in the 60s and 70s. All you have to do is adjust the speed of the reel 😣

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120166245#Comment_120166245

GPS works in the exact same way mobile phones do. The only difference being that GPS companies usually have contracts with all network providers which means, unlike mobile phones, they can ping off any antenna to calculate location.

Phones use ground-based antennae, GPS uses ground-based antennae. Anyone who understands how radio signals work knows this.

Satellites have nothing to do with any technology we use.

Bogwoppit

Ah Markus you’re a gas man altogether

Wibbs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120166884#Comment_120166884

That is absolutely not true. There are films from the 1920s that use slow motion all the time so stop trying to peddle this ridiculous notion that slow motion is high-tech and not possible in the 60s and 70s. All you have to do is adjust the speed of the reel 😣

Film not video. You do understand the difference? This is terribly basic stuff here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVNTNeNMH8Q

Video above, not film. Learn the difference. Learn something for pity's sake.

Apparently shot in slomo by a video tech that didn't exist yet, with back and forth chatter, telemetry and bio readings between the ground and the Moon and the physics of lower gravity and a vacuum, on a flat Earth soundstage by Kubrick, while all who worked on it, the crew, the engineers, the scientists of many disciplines, the Brits, Aussies, the commie Russians and the Chinese were bought off in their many hundreds of thousands to keep quiet about it. Aye, that's not insane in the membrane as a theory alright...

GPS works in the exact same way mobile phones do. The only difference being that GPS companies usually have contracts with all network providers which means, unlike mobile phones, they can ping off any antenna to calculate location.

Phones use ground-based antennae, GPS uses ground-based antennae. Anyone who understands how radio signals work knows this.

Satellites have nothing to do with any technology we use.

OK. We're not in Kansas anymore folks.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120166884#Comment_120166884

Are there satellites in orbit yes or no?

Why are you unable to answer this simple question fundamdental to your entire premise?

You are making a statement of fact about satellites which is entirely without merit or foundation, disproved by tech in daily use by you and households across the country.

Your premise is impossible.

robinph

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120166884#Comment_120166884

Where are these ground based GPS signal transmitters?

Why does GPS and mobile network signals behave differently depending on view of the sky or if you are indoors? Mobile phone voice and data works fine in most indoor environments, GPS signal does not work without a view of the sky and even heavy tree cover will mess with the location.

You can see the identity of various GPS satellites you are connected to in real-time on your GPS device or phone, depending on model and software installed. If GPS is ground based how many transmitters are their globally? How does GPS work at sea?

robinph

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120166884#Comment_120166884

Sorry, I missed the bit about "GPS companies usually have contracts with all network providers". Lol

Which GPS companies are these? Can you name any examples which have contracts with mobile phones network companies? Why does GPS work on tablets without mobile network connection, or watches and fitbits etc? Who is paying for the GPS service to those devices?

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120164697#Comment_120164697

Everyone knows Poland cannot into space

Markus Antonius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120167024#Comment_120167024

Ah, so similar to the physics-based debate, I see the technological-based debate getting too hot to handle for you? And now we are resorting to the "Too many people would have to keep it a secret" fallacy? Such a pity...

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120167097#Comment_120167097

Phone and GPS signals have nothing to do with a view of the sky. If it did, planes wouldn't have a 3+hour navigational blackspot over expanses of ocean upon which they have to rely on straight-line trajectory and dead-reckoning to get within range of the radar of their destined airport. This is a well known fact of aeronautics. If satellites were so useful then Elon Musk would have sent one of his many thousands of satellites up to address this problem in the aviation industry...

There is a lot of ignorance of how radar and cellular communications work on the internet, even despite the fact that 99% of communications occur by undersea cable.... Surely NASA, given that they recieve billions in funding a year, could have modified the google algorithms to credit more than 1% of communications load to their (and Elon Musk's) satellite systems?

I guess the 1% lie is sufficient to be peddled to the gullible. If this thread is anything to go by, it's working after all... 🙄

Wibbs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120167332#Comment_120167332

Ah, so similar to the physics-based debate, I see the technological-based debate getting too hot to handle for you? And now we are resorting to the "Too many people would have to keep it a secret" fallacy? Such a pity...

Well they would. Too many people, including America's enemies at the very height of the Cold War, one of the main reasons for the Space Race in the first place. If the US had spotted Sputnik or Gargarin and all the other Soviet firsts in space were all fake, according to your fantasy they'd ignore that and/or were somehow in cahoots with each other to fake it for public consumption. Do you realise how utterly mental that sounds?

I note you avoided the film/video stuff. We'll you clearly know bugger all about either so par for the course. As for your "well known fact of aeronatics" you're spouting utter piffle there too. Again read some books, or ask a pilot, one that's been flying the last 20 years. There are radar deadzones in the middle of oceans, or certain landmasses where the lack of ATC and radar means you're more on your own. There aren't GPS blackspots. This is 24 carat bollocks of the finest quality. Get the app Flightradar on your phone.

See all those tracked aircraft? They use a combination of things to display this information, primarily ADS-B which uses guess what SatNav and ground based locators. It actually relies far more on satnav/GPS over oceans.

And for a tech that according to you only accounts for 1% of comms(it doesn't. More bollocks), it's worth 30 billion a year as an industry.

Bogwoppit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120167332#Comment_120167332

Ah good man Markus. Thanks for clearing things up a little there for us.

You're correct about the radar black spot over the ocean, what’s the explanation? Well it’s not distance surprisingly, it’s the curve of the earth!

Now, I’m sure you’ll disagree with me (more likely you’ll just ignore me), you’ll probably claim that it is due to the distance. Little fly in the ointment there though, I’m lucky enough to get to fly business class across the Atlantic and even the pacific sometimes and guess what? I can make phone calls from the middle of the ocean!! Amazing stuff altogether this satellite technology.

Now I’m sure you’ll say actually the signal is just bouncing off radar masts or some such fantasy stuff, but then what about the navigational black spot?

Backed yourself into an aul corner there Marko me little matey.

Markus Antonius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120167502#Comment_120167502

The "too many people would have to keep it a secret" argument is a well known cop-out among the sceptics of this forum and the internet in general. Anyone who has ever worked for any company would know that this is bollocks.

Why are you showing that flightradar24 image? That proves my point perfectly!

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120167658#Comment_120167658

The US president couldn't get a blowjob with an intern in the privacy of the Oval Office without the world finding out.

Your conspiracy that all of space flight is faked involves vast numbers of people keeping a perfect secret over 50 years. The hundreds of thousands from NASA alone, the hundreds of thousands of space agency employees and staff from Russia, China, Japan, Europe and all the world's space agencies. People involved in the satellite industry, from TV companies to Google to GPS. A huge tract of science, physicists, astronomers, etc. The private space flight industry, Musk, Bezos, Virgin and their employees.

Can't keep a secret between three married men, but millions of people for half a century, no prob.

Wibbs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120167658#Comment_120167658

It really, really doesn't. It and the tech behind it disproves your point. I struggled to type "point".

And it's not a "cop out? It's one of those uncomfortable realities, though reality can be a strange bedfellow for moon landing conspriacy types

Markus Antonius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120167962#Comment_120167962

Lewinsky was practically a teenager at the time. Bill should have known how gossipy they are. I can assure you the blowjobs that Trump, Macron, Draghi, Johnson, Winnie the Pooh, Putin, LeGarde are all coming from more mature women who know where their bread is buttered and will forever remain behind closed doors.

ForestFire

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120167962#Comment_120167962

Sorry to jump in on such an interesting topic, but I must correct some inaccuracies here:-

The reason the Oval Office indiscretion got out was that one of the participants reported it to the media for personal gain.....

She just couldn't hold in any longer.....poor girl😉

So nobody's going to swallow that cock and Bill story!!😃

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120167332#Comment_120167332

A reminder: the "physics based debate" was you arguing that rockets cannot work in space because there is no air and ended up with you tying yourself into a knot when it was pointed out that your concept of physics contradicted itself.

You promptly ignored this and changed the subject.

And yes too many people would need to be involved in your conspiracy.

You are claiming that all scientists are involved.

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120154809#Comment_120154809

I think that's a recording of my 20th attempt to land on the Mun in Kerbal Space program

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120154272#Comment_120154272

This video is awesome BTW. Such an incredible achievement, no wonder the credulous don't believe it happened

(by credulous I mean too ready to believe things with no evidence, while the moon landings were incredible, which literally means impossible to believe even if the evidence to support them are overwhelming. It's a funny juxtaposition of meanings that make me chuckle)

robinph

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120167332#Comment_120167332

Phone and GPS signals have nothing to do with a view of the sky.

Really? Get a watch with GPS built-in, or your car sat nav, or a phone and turn off mobile data and leave the GPS turned on. Now go to the bottom floor of a multi story car park, or a church, or pretty much any building with a solid roof. (don't drive your car into the building, do that test in a car park), or even a dense forest in the summer when there are plenty of leaves on the trees.

Do you get a location fix based on the GPS signal?

You didn't explain to us how many of your ground based GPS transmitters there are, or where exactly they are located? Also GPS most definitely does work in the middle of oceans, so how do the ground based transmitters work for the middle of oceans?

Edit: ... And how do undersea cables make mobile phones work exactly?

King Mob

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HPH3xpE6qA

another great video from Astrum.

It details the successes of the recent Artemis missions and has some great footage from it.

Particularly ones at 9:09 and 10:42 that I think are pretty relevant given how Markus's original appearance on the forum was falsely claiming there were no pictures of Earth from space.

According to him, all of the things in the video are fake, and all of the people involved are part of a conspiracy to keep people away from realising the Earth is flat.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120168079#Comment_120168079

All the scandals and leaks about Trump. Likewise Johnson. US presidents can't even keep secret documents without being found out.

But a gigantic conspiracy involving millions of people, who never gossip, where documents are never found - no problem whatsoever. A walk in the park.

Markus Antonius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120168519#Comment_120168519

Yes, planes go through radar blackspots over expanses of ocean. This should not happen if there are satellites there to communicate with. Why do you think they couldn't find the wreckage of MH370? Do you think a whale stole the wreckage?

The ground based transmitters are the same ones used by network providers - they are dotted all over the country. Did you not know this? And yes they do use undersea cables for 99% of telecommunications (your mobile phone is a form of telecommunication btw). The 1% they credit to satellites is purely to appease people like you who think GPS and phone signals are only possible because of unmanned spaceships.

This isn't even conspiracy related, this is common knowledge that I'm not sure why I'm wasting my time telling you about.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120171215#Comment_120171215

There are satellites. In orbit.

You ignore any question put to you on this point because you know you cannot refute it and continue with your impossible tale.

Proof positive of the falsehood of your theory.

So maybe you are wasting your time (the words are yours) because your theory cant pass a basic test and everyone reading the thread is aware of it.

Also you disproved your own theory by posting a video shot in orbit.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120171215#Comment_120171215

As asked before, what about satellites we can see with the naked eye (or binoculars), what are they according to you?

Likewise, you claim all International Space Station footage is shot underwater, okay, how is the below 50 minutes of footage "underwater", he is breathing, his clothes aren't wet, how do you rationalise it yourself?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvTmdIhYnes

robinph

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120171215#Comment_120171215

Radar is not GPS.

Radar will tell you where something else is, and yes the range that radar can see is limited because it is ground based, or ship or plane based so they can detect other objects or obstacles.

You do not have radar on your phone, watch or car.

GPS tell you where you are on the surface of the planet, and makes a pretty good guess for altitude as well but the triangulation isn't as good in the vertical. GPS does not tell anyone else about your location, there is no way to use GPS to detect other objects (that is what you use radar for).

GPS transmitters are most definitely NOT in those masts that you see dotted around the landscape. Those are for mobile phone voice and data signals.

Mobile phone masts can be used for triangulation by phones to give you a rough ground location, but it is way less accurate than GPS... But is a bit quicker so when you open the maps app on your phone it will initially use the triangulation from mobile phone mast locations to approximate your location... Then the more precise location will normally pop up a short time later as you get the lock on multiple GPS satellite signals.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120171469#Comment_120171469

It must also be noted that Rolls Royce were tracking the MH370 engines via ACARS and track them when cruising via satellite and ground based comms, since MH370, this has been enabled by default and the pings are much more frequent (it was optional before and was only tracked at specific times, take-off/landing and after cruising at high altitude for a set amount of time).

The poster is trying to use MH370 to show that there are black spots when what occurred with MH370 has now eliminated those black spots by having better processes around tracking (the plane must be able to make the comms, so it doesn't stop a disappearance, just narrows the search field significantly).

The corollary of course is that on a flat earth, those distances/black spots don't exist in the first place and ground based comms could always be used, so they have inadvertently proven that the earth is round (the pilot should have been spending their time circling to maintain the illusion of distance).

Markus Antonius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120171323#Comment_120171323

I had this debate with you before and it goes down the same idiotic line of thinking as the moonlanding footage "This was shown live. It's impossible to have footage like this in a single-take. We don't have the technology to fake this". For as long as you can't let go of these presumptions, it's a waste of time discussing it with you. This footage is shot over weeks/months using different techniques and is heavily edited and revised over and over until it is suitable for public viewing.

If you can hear a buzzing in the background (like the one you linked) then it is a parabolic flight - often requiring many of them that they seamlessly stitch together. You can even see at 11:30 he goes off balance and pulled towards the wall. It's clear evidence of a parabolic flight.

If there is no buzzing then it is a greenscreen with harnesses. They will always use this for interviews where they will have 1-8 of the clowns lined up with a microphone. They may have shot these live in the past but they made so many gaffes/blunders that they don't do them any more. They replaced them with school Q&As where the children have fixed questions to ask. This allows them to just playback a heavily edited video to give a sense that they are doing a live interview. You can't see the harnesses as they are edited out computationally (unless they mistakenly miss one) but sometimes you will see them grab what looks like thin air but really it's the harness. Or other times you will hear a snap or something in the rigging going wrong...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_k3kkhcEQkI

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120171537#Comment_120171537

Nonsense arguments that have have trotted out before.

Weightlessness during parabolic flights last seconds. There is no why for them to record such an interview in bursts of seconds between equally long bursts of high g when they have to go up again.

Like last time and with all of your previous claims, you contradict your own argument.

You are claiming that they are "seemlessly" editing things together. But you also argue that they leave in mistakes like people being pulled or a harness showing. Why didn't they edit these things out? If they didn't then they weren't "seemless".

And again, you fail to explain why they would even do this. You can't explain why they would spend billions and add thousands of people to set up these videos to trick a handful of people who watch them. That's absurd and seems more like you are desperate for clues than have an actual coherent theory.

You will of course ignore all of these points and the points other have made because conspiracy theorists are desperate to stop and kill any discussion here.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120171537#Comment_120171537

Okay. You seem to have entirely missed the first question again

(what about satellites we can see with the naked eye (or binoculars), what are they according to you?)

Thanks for trying to address the 2nd question, so according to you the ISS is a giant set on a plane that does parabolic flight or it's green screen sets with harnesses.

You know you can buy an off the shelf telescope or binoculars and see it for yourself, lots of people do it, what are they seeing according to you?

Markus Antonius

First you say "satellites we can see" then you say "lots of people do it". Have you seen them yourself or not?

I'm guessing it is a trustworthy friend of yours who saw it, not you yourself. Would he be willing to share any footage/images he acquired?

robinph

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120173532#Comment_120173532

Yes. Have seen Iridium satellite flares a couple of times myself, but I think that set of satellites have since been retired. There is a bunch of other stuff that you can see, and there are apps available which will tell you when different things will be visible from your location. Helps if you are not in the middle of a light polluted city at the time.

https://spotthestation.nasa.gov/

You can literally see the ISS if you're bothered to try.

silliussoddius

This troll must be fois grais at this stage

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120173532#Comment_120173532

Yes I've seen satellites on a clear night with the naked eye and I'm not any sort of astronomer.

Here's info on it

https://www.space.com/6870-spot-satellites.html

There are countless videos of satellites, the star-link satellites and the ISS orbiting from people on the internet, just go to Youtube.

Again none of this is to "convince you", you are way, way beyond that, you will just claim it's CGI, they are paid, it's fake, etc as usual. I'm just trying to understand how you rationalise to yourself what these "things" are up there?

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120173532#Comment_120173532

Why ask for footage that you will just declare as fake without any evidence?

You are clearly trying to argue that anyone who claims to have seen satellites is lying and is part of a conspiracy.

But again you are jamming up and killing the discussion by avoiding this point and by avoiding others.

robinph

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120174971#Comment_120174971

When do we receive our payment for being part of the conspiracy of people who have seen satellites with the naked eye, or taken pictures with basic camera and telescope setups?

@Markus Antonius Either I'm part of the conspiracy, or there is some elaborate setup to make the satellites or ISS visible to me and also my family and friends around the globe who have also seen these things. And I do mean all around the globe as it includes a friend who spent a year in Antarctica... But I suppose Antarctica is also fake isn't it?

Markus Antonius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120174244#Comment_120174244

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120175782#Comment_120175782

Right, so both of you have seen satellites or ISS with the naked eye and have many friends (including one in Antarctica) who has also seen it.

Surely, given you are all so fond of waiting around to see one of these, one of you managed to nab a few seconds of footage for all our benefit?

o1s1n

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120175888#Comment_120175888

Here's an idea, stand up from your computer, go outside, look up at a clear nights sky for a while and you are bound to see a satellite yourself. It's as difficult as craning your neck back and looking up.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120175888#Comment_120175888

Why would I record footage of a passing satellite in case, in the future, I came across one person on the internet who needed proof that satellites existed?

There's plenty of footage on Youtube. You can literally see the ISS yourself, with the naked eye, as it passes over on a clear night.

Here are websites explaining how

https://www.astroviewer.net/iss/en/observation.php#:~:text=Observing%20the%20International%20Space%20Station,the%20Space%20Station%20is%20sunlit.

https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/how-can-i-spot-the-international-space-station/

I expect you to automatically respond with "lol, it's not real", "lol thats fake", etc, however if you do go bother to go out and see it, my question is: what are you seeing according to you?

Remember, this is something real you can verify yourself.

robinph

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120175888#Comment_120175888

Because I didn't have my decent camera on me at the time, and other people have taken way better pictures than I could. Seeing with my own eyes was simpler than setting up the camera for a couple of seconds shot. But if you want to try it yourself here is the instructions :

https://www.americaspace.com/2017/10/22/how-to-photograph-the-iss-transiting-the-moon-and-sun/

Go and have a look and see what you see. Then have another look another evening from another location.

Then get back to us with an explanation of how they faked it for the spot that you were standing in at the time, obviously don't tell us when or where you are going to go first as "they" would then know and just send someone out with a long fishing rod to dangle above your head at the right moment to fool you.

Big Bag of Chips

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120175888#Comment_120175888

@Markus Antonius - quit it. It's no longer funny. I personally have seen the ISS a number of times. On a clear night it is very easy to see by simply looking up. It passed over on Christmas Eve a few years ago and my children saw it, believing it to be Santa's sleigh.

This ridiculous line of argument from you stops now. It's tedious and idiotic.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120175782#Comment_120175782

Notice how we're still waiting for an answer as to what satellites and the ISS actually are.

So far Markus can only resort to complete denial of that evidence. (Though he Is still doing his level best to avoid stating that directly.)

o1s1n

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120176184#Comment_120176184

When the only thing stopping someone from getting the evidence they need is looking at the night sky, you definitely have to start questioning the motives behind their argument.

sydthebeat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120176361#Comment_120176361

"dont look up" was a documentary according to markus :P

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120176361#Comment_120176361

That's the thing that Markus demonstrates very nicely.

Often conspiracy claims are incredibly easy to debunk by only googling to see if something is actually true or not. Conspiracy theorists aren't interested is testing their beliefs or seeing if they are true or not.

He also demonstrates the very hypocritical point that conspiracy theorists don't seem all that bothered by a hole in their theory they can't explain.

Markus came into this thread specifically and this forum generally declaring us non-conspiracy theorists can't explain something, so therefore there must be a conspiracy.

But when he is unable to explain the hole in his theory caused by easily visible evidence, that's not a problem for him.

And on top of that, he is not at all interested in discussing or even acknowledging this hole in the theory. Doesn't want to try and find an explanation for it. Doesn't want to try out different speculative answers. Definitely doesn't want to consider how that hole might make other people not believe as he does.