[Dankward]

It isn't entirely irrelevant per se (I think some points that could be made require the nature or the non-nature of space to be discussed) but I think this thread is just focusing on space rather than Flat Earth. Unfortunately there are 3+ FE debate threads going nowhere, this is just focusing on space being the ultimate platform for fαℓѕє fℓαgs and fake happenings. I think the line in the sand as a sanity check is the Moon landings. I am a globetard (reluctantly but it is entirely from independent astronomy rather than others' arguments) and think they were 100% fake. Do any of the multiple Round Earthers in this thread think they are real? If so, why?

I too am a globetard and am not currently convinced the Apollo manned Moon landings did or didn't happen, but am open to good arguments for either side.

There are just some things that are hard to refute when it comes to proving we were actually up there: https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/28172/how-do-we-know-the-apollo-moon-landings-are-real

But then you have the shady official footage of rickety Moon buggies and rattletrap landers and photos were everything other detail just screams fake.

What I think is the most plausible scenario is that we did send unmanned rockets with probes up there several times (this is shown in the article linked above) but no man ever set foot on the Moon.

But perhaps there are some easy "one ends all" arguments to disprove the landings?

[bodeens]

I too am a globetard and am not currently convinced the Apollo manned Moon landings did or didn't happen, but am open to good arguments for either side.

There are just some things that are hard to refute when it comes to proving we were actually up there: https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/28172/how-do-we-know-the-apollo-moon-landings-are-real

But then you have the shady official footage of rickety Moon buggies and rattletrap landers and photos were everything other detail just screams fake.

What I think is the most plausible scenario is that we did send unmanned rockets with probes up there several times (this is shown in the article linked above) but no man ever set foot on the Moon.

But perhaps there are some easy "one ends all" arguments to disprove the landings?

That post is shady for sure, it doesn't sit well that they examine the claim of it being faked by using CGI as a measuring stick. Nobody makes that claim, it is the definition of a strawman. The funny thing about that particular link is that none of the points directly address any concerns surrounding the landing. Sure, the theory behind the rockets and everything else is solid and how we get up there works but once people are up there everything is shady. Astronauts FaceTiming with the entire world is possibly, theoretically doable with S-Band in the 60s, maybe I can buy that possibility but the externalities are too sketchy and there are so many problems with the pictures and video.

Arguments saying we can see astronauts outside the ISS using amateur gear also I find a bit hard to believe, this would 100% require you to use software to clean up the images. This in itself requires me to need to see it to believe it TBH. If you've ever worked with CCD gear you will note how much cleanup and "stacking" goes into a clean looking image. What you see, with the naked eye, is never what is seen when people post pictures online. I took a look at one of the images and the astronaut is 2px large. One of those StackExchange links says you could do it with a Dobsonian but anyone who does astronomy will tell you how hard any kind of astrophotography is with a Dobsonian, let alone spotting men on the ISS . Even with automated mounts the ISS HUSTLES through the sky, it's very difficult to track and to resolve such a small object, have near perfect seeing conditions throughout the sky (not just in one small area) makes me scratch my head a little. It's true that large enough Dobsonians could resolve that level of detail but I'd like to know his mount among other gear, at that point those 2 px could be a "mount smear" from the scope tracking.

A lot of claims these people are making sound good on paper but if you spend any time on a scope they are a bit hard to stomach.

[Dankward]

That post is shady for sure, it doesn't sit well that they examine the claim of it being faked by using CGI as a measuring stick. Nobody makes that claim, it is the definition of a strawman. The funny thing about that particular link is that none of the points directly address any concerns surrounding the landing. Sure, the theory behind the rockets and everything else is solid and how we get up there works but once people are up there everything is shady. Astronauts FaceTiming with the entire world is possibly, theoretically doable with S-Band in the 60s, maybe I can buy that possibility but the externalities are too sketchy and there are so many problems with the pictures and video.

Some believe the Moon landings were faked using CGI. This is supposed to prove how a current CGI model of a Moon lander environment gives the same results as a photo from back in the day, but that's putting the cart before the horse because we have the possibly faked photo from the 60ies and then create CGI 60 years later to more or less mach the photo in question? So yeah, that doesn't prove anything.

I completely agree with you on that.

Arguments saying we can see astronauts outside the ISS using amateur gear also I find a bit hard to believe, this would 100% require you to use software to clean up the images. This in itself requires me to need to see it to believe it TBH. If you've ever worked with CCD gear you will note how much cleanup and "stacking" goes into a clean looking image. What you see, with the naked eye, is never what is seen when people post pictures online. I took a look at one of the images and the astronaut is 2px large. One of those StackExchange links says you could do it with a Dobsonian but anyone who does astronomy will tell you how hard any kind of astrophotography is with a Dobsonian, let alone spotting men on the ISS . Even with automated mounts the ISS HUSTLES through the sky, it's very difficult to track and to resolve such a small object, have near perfect seeing conditions throughout the sky (not just in one small area) makes me scratch my head a little. It's true that large enough Dobsonians could resolve that level of detail but I'd like to know his mount among other gear, at that point those 2 px could be a "mount smear" from the scope tracking.

A lot of claims these people are making sound good on paper but if you spend any time on a scope they are a bit hard to stomach.

Well if you don't clean up / process the images it will just give you lots of atmospheric perturbations but it still works. You can also see the ISS as a bright dot zooming by under the right conditions if it's sunlit but the sky is dark enough so you're in dusk/night already.

I found this intriguing low-tech setup for tracking the ISS and other satellites, he shows his result right at the end:

[Dankward]

A common sense question for us Moon landing doubters:

If you want to perpetrate a gargantuan hoax, you do it once, heave a sigh of relief if you think you've succeeded and leave it at that. You don't go repeating it multiple times with ever-increasing chances of being found out. The hoaxers sometimes forget that there were nine moon missions, six of which landed on the lunar surface...

That really makes me think.

[Dankward]

Tracking the ISS in realtime with a backyard telescope:

[Matthew]

Tracking the ISS in realtime with a backyard telescope:

FACT: The ISS is not much bigger than a 747 jet.
FACT: A 747 is tiny enough at cruising altitude.
FACT: The ISS is supposed to be 50 times higher in the sky.

According to official figures, one should NOT be able to see the ISS. The idea that we can see it from earth is a HUGE joke, which proves that most people don't think, and don't want to know the truth. Just like most everyone wears masks, even though we didn't wear them before 2019 and they in fact do nothing. They just do what they're told, believe what they're told.

Except for some who are awake.

[Matthew]

If we can find ONE ITEM of proof that NASA faked anything in space, we can logically conclude that the WHOLE THING IS FAKE.

(I've seen many dozen such proofs)

Just like a man who is caught in ONE LIE is a LIAR and you can no longer trust him. Ditto for someone caught stealing. You can't trust him with money anymore.

Because the logic is water-tight:

WHY would NASA fake or lie about any aspect of the moon landings? If they had a technical hurdle, glitch, malfunction, etc. why not COME CLEAN about it and TELL US *before they are caught* that they had to CGI or stitch something together? But when they let us THINK it's real/live, and we catch them, well that's called CATCHING A LIAR IN HIS LIE and then you have proof of shenanigans.

Then the big question arises: WHY are they pretending that some space missions took place for real, when they were staged underwater? What else are they lying about?

Logically? I'd say ALL OF IT. It's always cheaper to film something in a desert somewhere, than to go into Low Earth Orbit, much less the Moon and do the same thing. If they are "up for a lie" -- willing to lie to the public -- then they're going to do it a lot more than once!

It's cheaper/easier to remote control a rover in Greenland than it would be to send a rover to Mars.

[DigitalLogos]

Wikileaks cut Apollo moon landing scenes proving it was completely fabricated 

https://www.bitchute.com/video/QmKvPyleG5fL/

[bodeens]

If we can find ONE ITEM of proof that NASA faked anything in space, we can logically conclude that the WHOLE THING IS FAKE.

(I've seen many dozen such proofs)

Just like a man who is caught in ONE LIE is a LIAR and you can no longer trust him. Ditto for someone caught stealing. You can't trust him with money anymore.

Because the logic is water-tight:

WHY would NASA fake or lie about any aspect of the moon landings? If they had a technical hurdle, glitch, malfunction, etc. why not COME CLEAN about it and TELL US *before they are caught* that they had to CGI or stitch something together? But when they let us THINK it's real/live, and we catch them, well that's called CATCHING A LIAR IN HIS LIE and then you have proof of shenanigans.

Then the big question arises: WHY are they pretending that some space missions took place for real, when they were staged underwater? What else are they lying about?

Logically? I'd say ALL OF IT. It's always cheaper to film something in a desert somewhere, than to go into Low Earth Orbit, much less the Moon and do the same thing. If they are "up for a lie" -- willing to lie to the public -- then they're going to do it a lot more than once!

It's cheaper/easier to remote control a rover in Greenland than it would be to send a rover to Mars.

The thing that really irks me is the reasons we supposedly *aren't* going back to the Moon. This is almost more convincing than anything else. Other than the fact that it happened during the decade of everything being a fαℓѕє fℓαg or inside job, the 60s.

[Dingbat]

According to official figures, one should NOT be able to see the ISS. 

Matthew,

It is my understanding that you can pretty much only see the ISS with the naked eye when it passes over during the night time and also is reflecting the sun's light back towards the earth.

https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/4034/can-i-see-the-iss-from-the-surface-with-the-naked-eye

If you look at the second post from this thread, there is a time lapse photo shown of the ISS. In this photo, it appears as a tiny but very bright streak. You cannot see any details, but you notice it because it reflects light.

On an airplane at night you can see the lights better than you can see the whole body of the plane during the day. The lights are way smaller than the plane itself, but since they are bright they are very visible. Can you see any details on the lights themselves? No, not really, but they're still visible.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://optcorp.com/collections/12-inch-telescopes%23:~:text%3D12%252Dinch%2520Telescopes%2520offer%2520exceptional,to%2520see%252016.2%2520magnitude%2520stars!&ved=2ahUKEwjo0cDvmO_0AhWaGTQIHVsXCCcQFnoECAQQBQ&usg=AOvVaw07N-h6qjhUZrTtnc9bBsyR

According to this link, a 12" telescope can magnify objects to 610x the size of what is seen by a human eye. You stated that the ISS is 50x the height of a plane. I believe that 610x magnification should be sufficient to assume you could see the ISS at the claimed height in some detail.

Additionally, from the numbers I was able to find, the ISS averages a height of about 250 miles above the earth. Average cruising altitude for commercial planes seems to be about 36,000 feet, or about 6.8 miles. This would suggest that the ISS is actually only about 36.76x the cruising altitude of a plane.

This seems to not be that large of a stretch to me, unless I am missing something? I wonder how small the shooting stars we see in the night sky are. They look very small but make a very bright streak. I think this might be a somewhat comparable situation.

[Matthew]

According to this link, a 12" telescope can magnify objects to 610x the size of what is seen by a human eye. You stated that the ISS is 50x the height of a plane. I believe that 610x magnification should be sufficient to assume you could see the ISS at the claimed height in some detail.

Additionally, from the numbers I was able to find, the ISS averages a height of about 250 miles above the earth. Average cruising altitude for commercial planes seems to be about 36,000 feet, or about 6.8 miles. This would suggest that the ISS is actually only about 36.76x the cruising altitude of a plane.

I forgot one important detail -- the criticism was that people were claiming they could make out the ISS going across the sky with the naked eye.

As for the cruising altitude of planes, YES I'll admit the source I quoted was a bit "biased" and rounded down the cruising altitude to 5 miles, so it would be a nice round figure (and larger!) 50X difference.

I will concede that it's really only a 36X difference in altitude. Let's agree that the factoid in question was biased, and just a bit over-zealous in their difference estimates of 50X.

However, the point stands. The factoid I'm quoted stated: "If the plane was just 2X higher, it would not be visible. Now imagine it [36X] higher. You're NOT going to see it with the naked eye."

36X, 50X -- even 10X would make the point. If the plane is quite small to the naked eye at 1X cruising altitude, and invisible at 2X, something at 10X or more is NOT going to be visible with the naked eye.

[Dingbat]

I forgot one important detail -- the criticism was that people were claiming they could make out the ISS going across the sky with the naked eye.

As for the cruising altitude of planes, YES I'll admit the source I quoted was a bit "biased" and rounded down the cruising altitude to 5 miles, so it would be a nice round figure (and larger!) 50X difference.

I will concede that it's really only a 36X difference in altitude. Let's agree that the factoid in question was biased, and just a bit over-zealous in their difference estimates of 50X.

However, the point stands. The factoid I'm quoted stated: "If the plane was just 2X higher, it would not be visible. Now imagine it [36X] higher. You're NOT going to see it with the naked eye."

36X, 50X -- even 10X would make the point. If the plane is quite small to the naked eye at 1X cruising altitude, and invisible at 2X, something at 10X or more is NOT going to be visible with the naked eye.

Matthew,

It is my understanding that you can pretty much only see the ISS with the naked eye when it passes over during the night time and also is reflecting the sun's light back towards the earth.

https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/4034/can-i-see-the-iss-from-the-surface-with-the-naked-eye

If you look at the second post from this thread, there is a time lapse photo shown of the ISS. In this photo, it appears as a tiny but very bright streak. You cannot see any details, but you notice it because it reflects light.

On an airplane at night you can see the lights better than you can see the whole body of the plane during the day. The lights are way smaller than the plane itself, but since they are bright they are very visible. Can you see any details on the lights themselves? No, not really, but they're still visible.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://optcorp.com/collections/12-inch-telescopes%23:~:text%3D12%252Dinch%2520Telescopes%2520offer%2520exceptional,to%2520see%252016.2%2520magnitude%2520stars!&ved=2ahUKEwjo0cDvmO_0AhWaGTQIHVsXCCcQFnoECAQQBQ&usg=AOvVaw07N-h6qjhUZrTtnc9bBsyR

According to this link, a 12" telescope can magnify objects to 610x the size of what is seen by a human eye. You stated that the ISS is 50x the height of a plane. I believe that 610x magnification should be sufficient to assume you could see the ISS at the claimed height in some detail.

Additionally, from the numbers I was able to find, the ISS averages a height of about 250 miles above the earth. Average cruising altitude for commercial planes seems to be about 36,000 feet, or about 6.8 miles. This would suggest that the ISS is actually only about 36.76x the cruising altitude of a plane.

This seems to not be that large of a stretch to me, unless I am missing something? I wonder how small the shooting stars we see in the night sky are. They look very small but make a very bright streak. I think this might be a somewhat comparable situation.

I think you may have missed part of my previous post? I haven't seen anyone say they can see details with the naked eye. Maybe I didn't look deep enough? The above is my best response as to why you can see it with the naked eye with everything as I currently understand it. 

[cassini]

My problem with a fake astronaut Moon-landing lies in the fact that there was an ongoing battle between Russia and the USA as to who would get a man (or woman) into space first, then into orbit for a time, and then which of the two would get a man on the moon first. I lived through these times and I can assure you every 'first' that happened in that race was all over the papers much to the prestige of whichever country got there first

This being the case, why didn't Russia join in with the doubters and proclaim a fraud. If anyone could provide evidence of a fraud it would have been Russia. If anyone needed a fake Moon-landing it was Russia, yet they did not make any such claim. If anyone knew if the USA had really put a man on the Moon or not it was the Russians. The fact that they left the historic first man on the moon to the USA has to be one of the main reasons to doubt it was faked.

Neither do I doubt that some of the videos of the Moon landings seem not to have been the actual landings. But this doesn't prove it never happened either. They may have, indeed they probably did, video a similar situation in a desert to give a better view of such a historical event to the world.

[Marion]

This being the case, why didn't Russia join in with the doubters and proclaim a fraud. If anyone could provide evidence of a fraud it would have been Russia. 

They had faked the Gagarin tour.

[cassini]

They had faked the Gagarin tour.

Why then didn't the USA demonstrate a Russian fake or fraud. Both competitors were in the same race watching and checking on each other as no other country or space team could do. And don't tell me each side was not certain as to what the other side was up to or achieving. Can you even imagine the consequences and shame on the fraudsters if either got the opportunity to expose the other as faking their claimed achievements. That would have been as good a victory as anything their space teams could have dreamed of. But neither happened most likely because each country knew the truth.