Moon landing hoax

"Most satellites have simple reliable chemical thrusters (often monopropellant rockets) or resistojet rockets for orbital station-keeping and some use momentum wheels for attitude control. Russian and antecedant Soviet bloc satellites have used electric propulsion for decades,[not verified in body] and newer Western geo-orbiting spacecraft are starting to use them for north–south station-keeping and orbit raising. Interplanetary vehicles mostly use chemical rockets as well, although a few have used ion thrusters and Hall-effect thrusters (two different types of electric propulsion) to great success."

You wrote: "20,000 of them flying around at 17,500 mph without propulsion systems but no collisions ever."

There have been some collisions.

It's predicted. Orbital mechanics. As mentioned, they don't lob this stuff up into space and "just hope" it doesn't hit anything else.

Someone not understanding that or getting it is not evidence it doesn't happen.

There are websites and apps which will show you exactly when the ISS is going to pass over your position. It's a decent size with reflectors so it reflects sunlight, and appears as a bright light moving. Likewise on a clear night it's possible to see Starlink satellites passing overhead.

With a telescope or decent camera you can actually make out details on the ISS.

Starlink

8 hour space walk from the ISS

Another 8 hour space walk from the ISS

7 hour spacewalk ISS

Tour of the ISS

Never mind that, Marcus still hasn't answered me about how he gets his TV...

They’re pointing at the same really tall towers that do the gps.

Nobody has yet been able to show us one of these towers which is disappointing as they would be an excellent piece of evidence to prove their theories.

No, you flat earthers recieve answers to your questions all the time. You just don't accept them.

Meanwhile, when you are asked direct, simple questions, you cannot answer them and have to ignore and dodge.

What's funny is that you didn't read the thread and don't realise that Markus agrees with you.

I will take this to mean that you are indeed claiming that they are part of the conspiracy to make people believe in a round Earth.

That doesn't help your case.

But you and your fellow flat earther have already engaged in the ignoring tactic. You've avoided and dodged several points that you can't address, as has Markus.

Satellites are being put up there on controlled orbits compatible with everything else. Some of them have to maneuver every once in awhile. For example, the ISS has to maneuver if experts detect a 1 in 10,000 chance something might hit it.

Everything is calculated, computers and radar help. Just because you personally have difficulty understanding or believing is not evidence that satellites don't exist. As mentioned, you can look up at the night sky and see certain ones yourself. If you tell yourself that's just a "light" travelling across the night sky, think, what is making that light.

It's disinformation, carefully framed to make people (like you), doubt the event happened.

For example, this is indeed the phone used by Nixon to speak to the astronauts.

What isn't mentioned is that the phone was simply routed to Houston, to mission control, which was constantly communicating with the astronauts via CapCom all the time. See how context is important.

Now watch this short video which explains the lunar module (if you don't want to watch the full 10 mins, start at around 5:30)

TLDR On the moon there is no air, little atmosphere and gravity was a sixth less, so the inner aluminum hull only needed to be a few mm thick, the pressure only needed to be a few PSI, it was in direct sunlight during it's mission for heating, the "crumpled foil" was done on purpose to limit the effects of over-heating..

But we can see how easy it is to leave all that context out in order to trick people into believing something else.

This is one of those lovely examples of a conspiracy theorist self-own, because it indicates the poster either didn't bother to research that particular communication before confidently announcing that it couldn't have happened, or did know about it but didn't mention it, and thus is either incompetent at research or is simply a liar.

Yup. This is always the case.

Original ideas are never actually presented here. It's all just factoids copy and pasted from YouTube videos that none of them even dared to question, never mind verify. It makes it even funnier how we're being told that we're swallowing everything we're told atm.

There's 6 reflectors on the moon, point a laser and it'll reflect back. First was placed there during Apollo 11.

A lot of the time, the video they're copy pasting from is itself copy pasting from older conspiracy stuff.

No conspiracy theorists are actually interested in looking into their own theories. That defeats the goal as they'd run the risk of realising the theory is nonsense.

Unfortunately, scientific terms do not work like they do on TV. You cannot just put words you think are difficult to understand in random orders and assume that what you said makes any kind of sense.

Your observation doesn't need to be challenged because it's meaningless.

If you want a question answered maybe try restating it in a meaningful way.

Or you could simply Google how gravity works. There's lots of explained out there.

See you next time 🖐️

NASA – Ok, so we have 9 years to get to the moon and back. We’re getting billions of dollars and literally hundreds of thousands of the best and brightest in the country, we'll be getting an unprecedented mix of 20,000 companies, institutions and university departments but we’ve just decided that we can’t actually do it so here’s what we’re going to do.

We’ll come up with a flight plan for a moon landing that even someone with the most basic grasp of physics can understand as perfectly feasible/possible. We’ll go so far as to broadcast cartoons for those who don’t so they can at least (at a high level) try and understand what we won’t be doing. 

We'll tell the world (and our geopolitical enemy) exactly what this flight plan is down to the minutest of detail. Then we will build the infrastructure necessary to test, house and actually launch rockets which we'll ensure will have the super heavy and mind boggling thrust/lift capability required to get the equipment and crew all the way to the moon. In parallel, we’ll use smaller rockets to launch the crafts we’ll need for such a mission into low earth orbit so we can, over the course of a few years, make sure they (and their crew) can do the endurance operational job/rendezvous techniques required of them according to that Moon landing flight plan we’ve created.

We'll also continue to launch, for a laugh, rangers, surveyors, orbiters and unmanned landers to the moon so we can hone and perfect our ground tracking and communication network. We'll also build a massive control center complex to handle such operations again just because we're not landing on the moon.

Quite ridiculously, we’ll make sure it all actually works to the point we're confident a moon landing is possible. We'll have collectively devoted years to doing all of this in front of the world but then (lol!) right before the end of decade deadline and after we’ve used a quarter of a trillion of federal (inflation adjusted) tax dollars and exhausted every ounce of our collective talents and capablities we'll hoax the whole thing in the Nevada desert/Hollywood basement and we'll then hoax it another six times just for the sh*ts and giggles until, decades later, the actual real geniuses on the internet do their "research" and expose us all because they saw stuff like the flag on the moon "moving" because of wind (despite not taking whatever time was necessary to understand something basic like inertia and how it applies in a vacuum).

Here is a photo of dwarf planet Pluto taken from about 20k miles out from the New Horizons probe. You think this probe didn't do a fly-by of this planet because someone can imagine a cartoon image on it somewhere?

Painful reading, absolutely painful.