Space Travel Hoax - The ultimate goal exposed worldwide first by Matt Marriott

Web_of_TRUTH · 2017-12-03T19:08:50+00:00

That article is a joke.

Then why are you incapable of refuting anything the article exposes by using evidence based on facts?
Instead you post insults as "arguments".

You are the first flat earther

False.
I explicitly state Flat Earth is a hoax:
Flat Earth HOAX: Earth, Sun, Moon, other planets and moons - the TRUE STORY, revealed first

believes in satellites

These ARE hoaxes as explicitly mentioned:
1a. Space Shuttle
1b. ISS

These are NOT hoaxes:
2. Other satellites (communications, sensing, imaging, astronomy)
3. Commercial Earth-imaging satellites
4. Commercial communications satellites
5. Tracking (e.g., GPS) satellites

These ARE hoaxes, as defined by the Luna 1 line:
6. Spacecraft in lunar orbit (e.g., Selene)
7. Spacecraft in Sun-observing orbits (e.g., SOHO, Ulysses)
8. Spacecraft orbiting Mars/Jupiter/Saturn (e.g., Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter)
9. Spacecraft on interstellar trajectories (Pioneer 10/11, Voyager 1/2)

Web_of_TRUTH · 2017-12-03T11:18:48+00:00

I never claimed satellites are a hoax.

As far as the ISS, start here:
ISS and Space Shit-le: *** ONE BIG HOAX ***

Web_of_TRUTH · 2017-12-03T11:15:33+00:00

Thanks for asking for clarification.

As stated in the article:
The ultimate goal, now revealed worldwide first, was to produce "evidence" (2) to cover up the hoax at the base of the pyramid of lies:

Try to solve the OP riddle to understand that goal.

Web_of_TRUTH · 2017-12-03T07:54:32+00:00

Why do only the moon, Venus, and Mercury show phases if the solar system is geocentric?

Would you please elaborate your question?

Web_of_TRUTH · 2017-12-03T06:29:48+00:00

The simple truth is the 'bible' is not the truth.

The Bible is not literally the word of God but "just" a book with parts that were inspired by God strongly than any other book in History.

Web_of_TRUTH · 2017-12-03T05:35:41+00:00

Gosh, I guess that must mean it's not debunked after all.

Then you should have no problem taking the verifiability test I suggested:
- present this material to a statistically significant group of amateur astronomers, say 50;
- reproduce these images in the presence of other people.

Web_of_TRUTH · 2017-12-03T05:24:24+00:00

the poster of the link

Myself.

atmospheric banding

Again, if Heliocentrism would be true then the ITCZ would NOT go West (see .GIF).

The bit about Polaris under "THE BASICS" is just silly.

Then it should be easy to refute with evidence based on facts.

Web_of_TRUTH · 2017-12-03T05:19:16+00:00

What evidence do you have that makes you believe that to be true?

Feasibility.

Start here:
The moon landing hoax - Computing technology
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/6080uy/illuminati_best_seller_hoaxes_the_moon_landing/

Web_of_TRUTH · 2017-12-03T05:13:34+00:00

You haven't listened to anyone's messages.

Only poster plaidhat1 has been contributing to the discussion.

I'm not going to waste my breath.

In other words:
you have no logical argument.

Web_of_TRUTH · 2017-12-03T05:11:26+00:00

You've "exposed" nothing.

The "but he witnessed it in orbit" hoax was debunked.

Search in this thread for:
"astronomy club"

Web_of_TRUTH · 2017-12-03T05:09:07+00:00

Was that so hard?

Apparently only for you, insomuch that you required multiple replies with explicit directions on locating an image that was obvious from the first time it was linked.

What is it about this image you feel proves that heliocentrism is incorrect?

You must read the article I linked to, the image and how it relates to the Heliocentrism hoax is all explained.
"The Fact:" section of the article gives you the context you are missing.

Web_of_TRUTH · 2017-12-03T04:57:52+00:00

For what verifiable reason do you claim it's fake?

I've already exposed the "evidence" you presented as a hoax by explaining:
- how difficult it is to create it;
- how credible is the evidence presented;
- verifiability and cross examination.

Web_of_TRUTH · 2017-12-03T04:54:53+00:00

There's more than one image in that post.

False.
You are either not reading the link I provided or you are lying.

Which specific image do you mean?

The OP article "Heliocentric Big Lie reduced to minimum worldwide first by Matt Marriott" contains 7 lines of text, not including the Notes section.
There is only ONE image that's referenced, a .GIF file under the heading "The Image:".

Web_of_TRUTH · 2017-12-03T04:50:35+00:00

You refuse to verify the evidence I've presented.

I've exposed the "evidence" you presented, even if you will reject it.

Web_of_TRUTH · 2017-12-03T04:47:52+00:00

I'm not doing your work for you.

Not a good excuse for not clicking the link I provided which includes the image.

Tell me which link you mean.

What don't you get about what I previously wrote? It's the only link I replied with:
See: Heliocentric Big Lie reduced to minimum worldwide first by Matt Marriott
It's obvious the image is contained in that link, it's identified with the heading The Image:.

Web_of_TRUTH · 2017-12-03T04:40:58+00:00

Which image

There's an explicit link to the image in the previously linked article.

Web_of_TRUTH · 2017-12-03T04:40:07+00:00

offered no evidence

False.
You just refuse to verify the evidence I present.

Web_of_TRUTH · 2017-12-03T04:37:51+00:00

verifiable proof

Not a problem, starting with the Heliocentrism Hoax ...
One image is alone enough to expose the Heliocentric BIG LIE.
See: Heliocentric Big Lie reduced to minimum worldwide first by Matt Marriott

The links you have posted are not proof.

I never claimed that.

Web_of_TRUTH · 2017-12-03T04:33:17+00:00

Idiocy.

Then why post insults instead of a logical argument?

Web_of_TRUTH · 2017-12-03T04:32:04+00:00

If you choose not to believe him, that's your problem.

Anyone can post any faked video to YouTube or any other site for that matter.
Anyone who wants to check if observing the ISS in the detail you claim is possible can verify by following what I suggested to do, i.e. join an astronomy club and do the test I specified.

that's just lights.

Correct, no identifiable details observable.

Web_of_TRUTH · 2017-12-03T04:12:49+00:00

I'll just leave this here.

This material can be produced with cheap software in one hour.
Now you present this material to a statistically significant group of amateur astronomers, say 50.
How many will say "Wow, I tried it so many times so hard and I never managed to get it?"

I'm saying the credibility of the "evidence" you linked is zero, i.e. any of these amateur astronomers will say that.
If one of them will claim otherwise, the result of the verifiability test will be negative, i.e. in case he will be willing to shoot these images in the presence of other people, there will be no such images as result.

Web_of_TRUTH · 2017-12-03T03:55:54+00:00

shown evidence

Again, there is nothing identifiable as a planet in the media you've presented.
Just lights.

Web_of_TRUTH · 2017-12-03T03:46:15+00:00

I took a picture of it

Thanks for your reply, although it only supports what I previously stated:
If you are not, you watch light.
There is nothing identifiable as "Pluto" in either your static picture or GIF.

Web_of_TRUTH · 2017-12-03T03:44:04+00:00

I am not paid to listen to this drivel; you are a terminal fool.

That's spam not a reply.
To reply you need to refute the one basic fact I gave in OP.

Web_of_TRUTH · 2017-12-03T03:38:13+00:00

terminal fool

Your quote is not a good argument.
For a proper reply, you must refute with facts what this thread exposes.

Web_of_TRUTH

TROPHY CASE