Moon landing hoax

So you've entirely abandoned the green screen claim? Numerous links have been provided that gps exists over the ocean, so you should probably just pretend you didn't make that claim as well. There's no debate about gps working in aviation or sailing.

Heres a screen grab from a video on Youtube of an Irish guy on passage from Bermuda to The Azores.

He is 334nm from nearest land (Bermuda) in this screenshot, yet knows his exact latitude & longitude... How? Is he in on it too?

You've gone awful quiet @Markus Antonius ? Or is it a case now we'll just see another moon/spaceflight hoax thread pop up in a few days saying "yeah but"...... "all those people in the other thread are in on it too"

Here he is 845nm from Bermuda and 845nm from the Azores... so 845nm from the nearest land.

I get that some people don't believe man landed on the moon, and thats fine, good luck to them.... but to claim spaceflight is a hoax...... I mean thats right up there with flat earthers in the loony bin!!!

Another success from India.

I wonder why the decision was made to make it a success. I imagine if someone had actually figured out the conspiracy, they'd be able to make predictions of this before hand.

Also, I can only assume that the Indian government and space industry is also in on the conspiracy that only involves a few ex-CIA freemasons.

"Alternative facts" magazine, aka fanciful BS.

The usual claim from the majority of believers were that the Apollo craft actually went around the moon, but didn't land. (Or didn't land people.) All of the transmissions were sent from the capsule that was in orbit around the moon and all the radio traffic and telemetry was scripted to pretend that they were doing the landing.

The missions were tracked and listened to by sites around the world as well as amateurs and if course the Russians, so these scripts would have had to have been perfect so that no inconsistencies existed. Also they wouldn't have been able to communicate the real situations as they'd have been different from the scripted one. For example Michael Collins would have had to pretend that he wasn't cramped up in a tiny space with Neil and Buzz while they were supposedly on the lunar surface.

The major issue here though is that we are being told that all space flight is impossible and fake, so this can't be the method the transmissions were faked.

We can only assume that anyone with the capability of tracking the craft were also in on it. So we have to at least add the Australian government to the small team of ex-CIA masons.

Yes.

They'll claim those rockets went up beyond visual range, or went into space, or maybe even went close to the moon, but never that they landed on the moon.

As for the 400k employees, they'll claim that most wouldn't have known, would have been tied up designing whatever systems. And that only a core group knew of the secret plan.

More people who are ‘in on it’

At any given time there are between 8,000 & 13,000 planes flying at the same time, in a much much smaller operating space than outer space… when is the last time 2 of them crashed into each other?

Do please share a tiny bit of research that proves satellites are fake.

You do realise you can literally see them with your naked eye. The starlink satellites have been annoying astronomers for years, the ISS is very easy to observe if its not cloudy....

Iridium flares...

Satellite TV. Point your dish at satellite, it works. Point it elsewhere, it doesn't. What's going on there?

Also why would millions of people be involved in a giant conspiracy for over 70 years to fake GPS, communications, TV, space launches, private commercial launches, satellite phones, everything?

All commercial communications systems use either cable or ground-based antenna/dish transmission. No magical floating satellites I'm afraid. Having said that, there are means of transmitting signal through battery powered, balloon mounted mechanisms, drones or manned craft but only in exceptional military related applications. You often see US antenna craft flying around the ukrainian border in Romania or in the black sea. These are likely aiding US surveillance in the region or potentially the ukrainian military themselves with much needed communications capability. Here's one flying around right now:

These would be typical models used:

Starlink satellite network is nothing more than fraudulent marketing for Musk's internet provider and his own ego. There are no satellites.

The very fact that he cut off the use of these "satellites" to ukrainians is proof that commercial internet does not use satellites but is ground based like all the others, starlink is no different.

Why would he cut off the use of the internet to Ukrainians? Because there are no satellites as we are told. All ground based.

OK. So all commercial communications systems ans their employees are involved in this conspiracy to pretend the world is a globe.

Previously you where claiming that it was just a small number of CIA guys doing it.

Any evidence against the conspiracy can be dismissed as part of the conspiracy with no evidence or reasoning to support that accusation.

Even if you give a conspiracy theorist the evidence and proof they ask for, they will ignore it.

Moon landing conspiracies are a bit of fun and a useful tool to teach critical thinking skills to children. If you're an adult who still believes in them then I'm very embarrassed for you.

1. Most satellites have small boosters and can maneuver (some without boosters can use drag to do basic maneuvers)
2. There have been collisions in the past.
3. Human beings, using computers, can predict the orbits of thousands of objects in orbit with a relatively high degree of accuracy
4. Satellites aren't "moving through the solar system at 666,000 mph" in additional speed. Movement in space is relative. Standing still you are standing still, but relative to space outside our solar system, you are moving at hundreds of thousands of mph.

Ignorance (or disbelief) of something is not an argument against it.

But a lot of satellites do have propulsion systems. This is easy to verify, but will no doubt be dismissed as part of the conspiracy.

Must be nice to have that kind of out and never have to be wrong about something.

On a clear night you can see the ISS for yourself. I've seen it. Here's a site you can use to calculate when and where it will be visible in the night sky

Can also see Starlink

Amazing how convincing someone can be when they say it with confidence.

1. No air in space therefore no drag
2. So much contradiction with this in the astronomy fantasy circles. You have endless stream of articles with headlines "Satellite hit with asteroid" "ISS threatened with space junk" or other such sensationalist crap. I have argued this very point with the sceptics in the forum before, there are 16-25 thousand manned airborne craft at any one time and none of them collide with each other over prolonged periods. The chances of anything colliding within the expanse we are told the satellites occupy is practically zero.
3. No they can't. If there were satellites and a means of tracking them, then there would be a tracking app such as flightradar24 etc. The US didn't even know there was a giant chinese balloon flying over them until civilians spotted it.
4. You have a very bizarre perspective on relativity. No data to show that space outside our solar system moving at hundreds of thousands of mph relative to your standing position.

This has been the skeptics greatest tool for years

Oh you're back again? No answers to all the previous points your brought up being destroyed before you ran off with your tail between your legs huh Markus?

Why were you so convinced the "Blue sheet" was used for CGI purposes? How do you feel now it was debunked? Do you think 20,000 is a large number or something? Did you not check there were websites that track satellites before you pulled point 3 out of your hole? Do the public need to track them over say, flights considering their orbits are stable for long periods of times?

The non-inertial engineer.

Yea, it's the usual tactic of believers to simply ignore difficult points that they cannot answer.

You should take the fact thay Markus is pretending he can't see your post as his admission of this.

I know engineers, and wish the bevy of bizarre beliefs you've expressed here, I don't believe you are an engineer for one second.

You didn't address any of the points. Motion is space is relative. I was addressing the post by the other poster who posited that satellites were moving at "660,000 mph", which is major red flag and likely arrived at by adding up all the numbers of relative motion in the universe (which is something I'm aware only flat-earth believers do)

If conditions are right, why aren't you looking up to the night sky to see the ISS passing over?

There are apps that will literally hold your hand and show you exactly where and when it will pass over your location, if conditions are clear you will see it with your own eyes (it's pretty hard to miss, one of the brightest objects in the night sky)

"As an engineer"