Moon landing hoax

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"

#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.

"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.

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.

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.

actornouts

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.