Rockets do not work in the vacuum of space. You will believe anything "expert" scientists say.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

I know at least 10 people who play fortnite

originally posted by: NicSign
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

I know at least 10 people who play fortnite

That’s the problem. People don’t explore the real world anymore. And think everything is a fictional conspiracy.

a reply to: neutronflux

Or people can’t explore something that is fake

originally posted by: NicSign
a reply to: neutronflux

Or people can’t explore something that is fake

Then what are people seeing when they can track times to see the international space station go over their location, actually see the ISS track overhead as scheduled, photograph the ISS? What is your proof they are not actually seeing the ISS?

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

Have a photo of the ISS, taken from my back yard:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Capturing the ISS (International Space Station) through my Telescope

m.youtube.com...

The ISS is kind of a moot point in that it’s by no means the only proof rockets work in the vacuum of space....

Care to show evidence any of the below listed items are not in the vacuum of space, or traveled through the vacuum of space?

Besides we know rockers work in space because of:
Satellite TV
Satellite internet
GPS Satellites
Satellite phones
Satellite weather tracking and surveys
Satellite mapping of earth by radar, thermal imaging, UV light.....
Mirrors left on moon used to measure distance
Hubble space telescopes
Various countries space missions to map the moon
The international space station
Skylab space station
The Mir space station
You can actually see satellites and the international space station from earth
Missions to map and explore Mars
Missions to Mercury, Jupiter, Saturn, Venus, Neptune, Uranus, Pluto, asteroids, comets...........

a reply to: NicSign

China just bounced a laser off reflectors on the Moon placed by NASA's Apollo 15 mission

gbtimes.com...

How did this happen?

a reply to: NicSign
Lol I know at least 10 people that play DayZ, with thousands of people playing DayZ, and very few posting vids, is DayZ just a figment of our imaginations? Why does your evidence have anything to do with YouTube in the first place? Is Fortnite more important than some people posting vids of playing games?

a reply to: thov420

That’s a complete lie because I just searched dayz and there are many average users with videos of gameplay

originally posted by: NicSign
a reply to: thov420

That’s a complete lie because I just searched dayz and there are many average users with videos of gameplay

How many people use satellite weather data, subscribe to satellite TV, satellite internet, and satellite phone service?

a reply to: neutronflux

Last week was a free SiriusXM preview, listened to it all week, signal cut out whenever i didn't have line of site to the sky, probably faking it with radio towers, a single tower gets amazing coverage on a flat earth, you see.

a reply to: captainpudding

Satellite radio is just a digital signal and cuts out if it doesn’t get a clear signal unlike analog which you can hear the interference

originally posted by: NicSign
a reply to: captainpudding

Satellite radio is just a digital signal and cuts out if it doesn’t get a clear signal unlike analog which you can hear the interference

I think the argument is what proof do you have concerning SiriusXM doesn’t have broadcast satellites in orbit providing a service that is provided to a large customer base. In some areas proving the only source of radio.

Sirius XM Satellite Radio

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Satellites
As of May 2017, there are five satellites in orbit: two XM and two Sirius satellites and one spare.[92] XM-3 and XM-4 are the active satellites for the XM service and replaced the original XM-1 and XM-2 satellites which were placed into a disposal orbit. Sirius FM-5 and FM-6 function as the primaries for the Sirius side. FM-6 which was launched on October 25, 2013 and declared ready for service on December 2, 2013 initially served as an in orbit spare while the company worked to deploy repeaters for the Sirius side which were needed to transition to full geostationary operation. In 2016 FM-6 was put into active service and officially replaced Sirius originals FM-1 through FM-3 which operated in elliptical orbit. FM-1 through FM-3 were later placed into disposal orbits. With this change FM-5 and FM-6 exclusively serve the Sirius service mirroring XM-3 and 4. Before FM-6 was launched, XM-5 was sent into orbit by Proton from Kazakhstan, on October 14, 2010, and is capable of broadcasting to either service.[93][94] XM-5 serves as the in orbit spare for the entire system and can function in place of either a Sirius or XM satellite. In late 2016 Sirius XM placed an order for two new satellites SXM-7 and SXM-8 which will replace XM-3 and XM-4. These are scheduled for launch in 2019 and 2020 respectively.

Sirius satellites broadcast within the S band frequencies from 2.3200–2.3325 GHz, while XM radio uses adjacent frequencies 2.3325–2.3450 GHz.[95][96]

Do you have any proof the five main SiriusXM satellites are not broadcasting from orbit in the vacuum of space?

a reply to: NicSign

Okay, I'll use a different example then, can you explain why a satellite dish has to be pointed at a specific direction in the sky to get a signal and if you move it a few degrees off that direction you lose the signal? Or what are all those bright, moving objects in the sky that are in the exact locations of known satellites? You can literally take a picture of the ISS with consumer grade optics, has every telescope ever made been modified to include some kind of holographic projector that activates whenever it's pointed at the ISS? Your belief system is in direct contradiction to observable reality, you have yet to explain that part of your faith.

a reply to: captainpudding

Have you seen satellites. Why aren’t there millions and millions of independent photos if they can be seen using consumer grade optics?

Your only proof of rockets working in space is not science but other lies

a reply to: NicSign

You are making a fool of yourself. There are plenty of photos out there of the ISS taken by amateur astronomers but plainly even if someone took you up into space and showed you the ISS you would find some pathetic excuse to call it fake. Give it up, stop flogging this very dead horse of yours. It's starting to smell.

originally posted by: NicSign
a reply to: captainpudding

Have you seen satellites. Why aren’t there millions and millions of independent photos if they can be seen using consumer grade optics?

Your only proof of rockets working in space is not science but other lies

There are photos of satellites. And its an argument that has noting to do with actual existence. Did nothing exist before the development of the camera?

If satellites are not real, what is transmitting the services they provide?

What’s being seen when individuals spot the International space station.

You seem to provide no alternate explanation? So. Satellites and the ISS are very real.

So the crux of your argument is they are tracked, spotted, tuned into, and photographed. Just not photographed enough?

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: NicSign

You are making a fool of yourself. There are plenty of photos out there of the ISS taken by amateur astronomers but plainly even if someone took you up into space and showed you the ISS you would find some pathetic excuse to call it fake. Give it up, stop flogging this very dead horse of yours. It's starting to smell.

I think the individual was wanting to get famous off junk science like flat earther Mark Sargent, and is just bitter only ending up looking stupid as their only award.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: NicSign

You are making a fool of yourself. There are plenty of photos out there of the ISS taken by amateur astronomers but plainly even if someone took you up into space and showed you the ISS you would find some pathetic excuse to call it fake. Give it up, stop flogging this very dead horse of yours. It's starting to smell.

I think the individual was wanting to get famous off junk science like flat earther Mark Sargent, and is just bitter only ending up looking stupid as their only award.

Probably right. I saw a Youtube video a while back that claimed the ISS was fake (a hologram or a balloon or somesuch nonsense) because it would be impossible for a spacewalk outside the station because the speed it was travelling at would cause the astronauts to be ripped away from it by the wind. In space.

You can't argue with stupid, but in this case I doubt this poster actually believes any of his/her guff. At least, I hope not.

a reply to: oldcarpy

Show some 20 different independent amateur photos of the iss.

Google results in cgi and fakes

Google Xbox one console and you see hundreds of them , all independent of each other

a reply to: NicSign

Why should we bother when you'll just claim they are fake?

The one I took of it was posted earlier. Prove it's fake. I've downloaded images from satellites in the 1980s. Prove I didn't. Prove my satellite TV isn't from a satellite.

originally posted by: NicSign
a reply to: oldcarpy

Show some 20 different independent amateur photos of the iss.

Google results in cgi and fakes

Google Xbox one console and you see hundreds of them , all independent of each other

Provide proof satellites are fake, first. You cannot even create reasonable doubt Satellites are broadcasting from the vacuum of space, and providing services millions subscribe to.

You sure are no Mark Sargent. At least he can get a following.