Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Moon landing hoax

1212224262732

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,012 ✭✭✭✭Giblet


    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?

    Post edited by Giblet on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,729 ✭✭✭Markus Antonius


    As you said in your post above "ignorance of something is not an argument against it" - this post is yet another example of not practicing what you preach. You are using your belief in NASA as evidence for NASA fakery. It's no wonder the lies propagate so easily.

    As an engineer, I simply can't let you spread dangerious disinformation with point 4. You seriously need to do some more in depth study on how relative motion works.

    I am currently not moving (or am at least moving within a boundary of a few mm). The earth is currently not moving relative to me. You say "our galaxy is moving through space". Space is not a an object, a point of reference, a thing that moves. You are essentially saying our galaxy moving relative to nothing. What data do you have to prove that we are moving relative to nothing? Can't wait to hear the response to this.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,012 ✭✭✭✭Giblet


    The non-inertial engineer.



  • Posts: 25,874 [Deleted User]


    Sorry Markus, no one believes you are an engineer.

    You have demonstrated that you do not understand basics of physics like Newton's laws and motion.

    You are simply lying here.



  • Posts: 25,874 [Deleted User]


    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.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,146 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    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.


    There are loads of websites and phone apps which will show you the location of satellites at any moment in time. You can even search for ones which are visible to the naked eye in you location and it will tell you exactly where to look in the sky and at what time. Of course you need clear sky and minimal light pollution.


    Now of course you'll now tell us that the flares from satellites are being faked by someone flashing a torch from a high tree out past your back garden, or someone in a plane just waiting around for the exact moment that you happen to look up at the sky... But who is then faking it for someone else's night sky viewing a few hundred miles away, and how do they know who is going to be looking at the sky and when so that they have someone with a torch sat in the right tree at the right time?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,024 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    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)




  • Subscribers Posts: 43,185 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Don't look up!!!!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,829 ✭✭✭Hoop66




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38 BailenaMbocht


    not sure what point you're making. I was guessing a propulsion would be needed to avoid collisions or for it to be placed where needed



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38 BailenaMbocht


    #1 not how I've seen them described.

    #2 maybe a few but far from common place

    #3 Nobody is driving/steering these things around with or without predictions and relative accuracy

    #4 I am wrong there. I was referring to the speed of earths orbit around the sun said to be 66,600(often rounded up of late to 67,000). Saying a speed is relative doesn't completely remove it from existence.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38 BailenaMbocht


    You saw a light move across the sky. If that's all the evidence you need to defend the fact the ISS is 250 miles above, our discussion should end here.

    That is very weak proof of anything imo



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,024 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    #1 not how I've seen them described.


    "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."

    #2 maybe a few but far from common place

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

    There have been some collisions.

    #3 Nobody is driving/steering these things around with or without predictions and relative accuracy

    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.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,146 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    A light which moves at specific speeds and directions and in predictable course. If you really want to you could make the obvervations of that lights movements from multiple times and places, and back calculate what the speed is it is travelling at and at what altitude. Which would be very much like how the movements of the planets such as Mars, Jupiter, Venus etc would have been calculated centuries ago.


    Of course if you can come up with another explanation as to the source of that light in the sky which follows a predictable course and speed, and are then able to show that it isn't actually the ISS then you would really be onto something in the world of conspiracy theorists.


    Should be simple for you to disprove the existence of the ISS with some basic maths.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,024 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    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




  • Posts: 25,874 [Deleted User]


    All fake cgi and planes no doubt.

    There will be no comment or speculation of how these are actually achieved or explanation for why all of this time money and effort is being wasted in this deception.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,495 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


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

    I'm partial to your abracadabra,

    I'm raptured by the joy of it all.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,146 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    I wonder what the purpose of the conspiracy is to have dishes stuck on the side of people's houses and all pointing at the same bit of sky? The angle even changes depending on the location of each house so you could triangulate where they are all pointing to and it's altitude if you wanted just from looking at the side of a few houses across Europe.

    Seems to be an awful lot of effort to get all these dishes installed and pointing at something which isn't there, but that if you don't point it at the correct bit of sky then the TV doesn't work. How do they fake that for each house?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,182 ✭✭✭Bogwoppit


    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.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,024 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Don't need to, when unconstrained by actually having to provide proper evidence, anything can be invented or dreamt up to explain anything.

    • There are no satellites, modern communications just work over long distances
    • There are no satellites, aircraft all over the globe relay signals
    • There are no satellites, signals work really well over the sea which is why ships in the middle of nowhere can get "GPS"
    • The earth is flat There are no satellites, the atmosphere just acts as a perfect medium to amplify signals

    Insert whatever made-up-on-the-spot crap takes your fancy



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38 BailenaMbocht


    Your argument stating the earth's rotation and it's orbit mean nothing because it's relative to your position on earth. You state space is nothing so earth's stated motions and speeds cannot be factored.

    It's really is simple. This is the model given to us by nasa/ASTRO physicist or whoever approves the model.

    The description we are given cannot stand up to gentle questions. The answers to these questions hardly ever clarify and typically muddy the waters further. Just like your answer above. No real answer or description.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38 BailenaMbocht


    I stand corrected . that speed of 666,000 is in fact incorrect. I attempted to reference the speed of earths orbit around the sun. We are told this speed is 66,600mph. Lately I've seen it rounded up to 67,000. It's possible for most to imagine these speeds anyhow.



  • Posts: 25,874 [Deleted User]


    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.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38 BailenaMbocht


    "they don't just lob them up and hope" That's kind of my point exactly. There's no way 20,000 plus satellites are whizzing around at speeds impossible for any ordinary person to comprehend.

    If I'm wrong about the propulsion systems then I'm wrong and my argument is no more. For me though those simple thrusters would not be enough to avoid guaranteed chaos up there considering the quantity and speeds given to us.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38 BailenaMbocht




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38 BailenaMbocht


    image.png

    This is from nasa's own website. A picture of the moon lander. Looks like it's made fro shower rods and cardboard. This space craft landed 2 men safely while withstanding the 500 degree temperature swings. Also returned to the mother ship . This craft leaving the moon and returning to mother ship was filmed and broadcast to earth, probably with the same used to call the moon from a landline in the 1960's

    Don't forget this thing carried a moon buggy too. It can't be seen because the engineering was so precise it just blends right in.

    Surely nobody believes this is how man landed on the moon.



  • Posts: 25,874 [Deleted User]


    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.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38 BailenaMbocht


    i try to answer any questions I can and keep discussions civil. If i had more answers I would gladly offer them.

    I only claim that the world around us is misdescribed to us for unknown reasons.

    You are correct, I did not read the entire thread.



  • Posts: 25,874 [Deleted User]


    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.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,297 ✭✭✭Count Dracula


    Never understood how they managed to disembark from a spaceship, shaped like a washing up liquid bottle, before then landing this ridiculous looking contraption with metal legs on a moon that is phucking absolutely humongous.... and then actually take back off and find the fairy liquid bottle again .... before re-engaging with it ( must have used a tractor beam like they used in Sci Fi movies like battlestar or Buck Rogers??? )... and then after all that manage to fly through near space back to earth before landing in the sea with a parachute.

    No sale mortals, it just didn't happen. Interesting the way the evil Ruskies get the animal cruelty mud flicked at them whilst the Sceptics manage to rename a lane in a park in Tralee after a plain faced liar?

    Not convinced on the Stanley Kubrick rumours either, but when those two twins start screaming at Charlie after he sees them up the hotel corridor, followed by the slow motion blood gushing out the elevator ....you begin to realise and fathom why the ghosts of massacred Comanche warriors, enjoy spreading mental psychotic illness, telekinetically, though the minds of teenage spree killers. That is a fact.



Advertisement