Did the Americans put a man on the moon?

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.

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)

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.

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.

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?

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).

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.

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?

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

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?

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.

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.)