Ryan Leffers

@Awesome67180109 @hive_ai @RedpillDrifter Huh!? We didn’t fake anything, and yeah…that’s how missions actually work. Incremental testing of the system to work out the bugs. Elon does the same thing with SpaceX.

@RyanLeffers @hive_ai @RedpillDrifter We ‘faked’ a landing… so now we’re faking a practice run before doing it again? That’s not a conspiracy—that’s just how real missions actually work.

Then show us what you all are seeing. Record it. Zoom in to Earth with a video camera. Show the sun setting behind the Earth like you all claim you saw. Zoom in on Africa and the Northern lights. They have nothing to show you except few bad CGI photos. No video. Actornauts.

“If there are 10,000 satellites in orbit, how come we can’t see them?” TLDR: At the distances where spacecraft photograph Earth, seeing satellites is physically impossible. Not with the human eye, not with cameras, not even with the most ridiculous zoom you could possibly imagine. Satellites are tiny, space is vast, and the distances involved are far beyond what intuition can handle. ⸻ One of the most common things I hear repeated over and over is this question from deniers: “If there are thousands of satellites around Earth, how come we don’t see any of them in photos?” The answer is incredibly simple. Satellites are very small. Space is very large. The distances are enormous. Take one of the most widely shared recent images from Artemis II. That photo was taken conservatively from about 60,000 miles away, likely more. At that distance, a typical Starlink satellite, about 3 meters across, would subtend only about 0.006 arcseconds. What does that actually mean? It means trying to see that satellite would be like trying to spot a ping pong ball from roughly 800 miles away. Now compare that to real limits: • Human eye (ideal conditions): ~60 arcseconds → about 9,000 times larger • Very sharp imaging systems (~1 arcsecond): → about 150 times larger • Even the Hubble Space Telescope (~0.05 arcseconds): → about 8 times larger Even extreme zoom cameras, like Flat Earthers’ favorite Nikon P1000, lose objects this size within a few hundred miles. At 60,000 miles, there is nothing to resolve. And in that Artemis image itself: Each pixel spans several arcseconds, meaning the satellite would be roughly 1,300 to 2,000 times smaller than a single pixel. It’s not merely unresolvable. It is deeply sub-pixel. Literally invisible. So no matter how many satellites are up there, each individual one is so small at those distances that it is completely beyond the resolving power of the human eye, conventional cameras, and even our most advanced optical systems. The answer is obvious, and it has been given to deniers countless times. They’re not seeking answers. They’re not seeking truth. They’re trying to keep their zombie conspiracy alive, which only survives by ignoring physics, photography limits, and reality.

@xcgert @ManaByte Explain how astrodynamics doesn’t work. This should be fun.

@RyanLeffers @ManaByte No, mathematics does not "say" or "dictate" such things. Wrong category of knowledge! And math always works, not just for a big ball Earth.

If you think the Earth is flat, what do the letters in GPS stand for?

@peter_peater @Cine_vichaar @grok But for anyone who understands orbital mechanics, it just makes it unwatchable. Could just be me though.

@Cine_vichaar @grok gravity gets a bad rap from people, i think it is one of the most unique and visually creative films ever made, also the director for that movie made the best harry potter movie, prisoner of askaban

Hey @grok remove the best space film from this picture

@janninereid1 @SweetTexanRose

What do you see? 😏

@alexboge Don’t forget the second camera in the green screen image when the feed was from the one camera the entire livestream. This people are the ones that make “Idiocracy” more of a documentary than a comical movie.

Here we have one of the flat Earth / moon landing denial grifters trying to keep his little revenue stream alive by feeding his audience another round of recycled fakery. I won’t link it. It doesn’t deserve the traffic. What he’s pushing is a laughably bad “green screen” claim built off a real Artemis II image. Not clever. Not subtle. Just sloppy. And the best part is the replies. Comment after comment tearing it apart, pointing out the obvious errors, the broken lighting, the inconsistencies. It’s so poorly done it would be funny if it weren’t so predictable. But it still works on his audience. The likes, the shares, the engagement. Whether organic or padded like his follower count, it doesn’t matter. There is a market for this. Because there are still people who will reject real, verifiable imagery captured by actual astronauts, yet eagerly accept the most amateur, low-effort fakes if it tells them what they already want to hear. And as long as there’s an audience willing to reward garbage like this, there will always be someone ready to manufacture it.

@Awesome67180109 @hive_ai @RedpillDrifter If you want to go down rabbit holes, would you like to talk merits of solar arrays vs fuel cells? Water reclamation vs just dumping outside the SV? Flight computer capabilities? Thermal environment considerations? Common docking port? Astronaut fitness? I could go on.

@RyanLeffers @hive_ai @RedpillDrifter Improvement doesn’t mean we forget how to do something. We can still use landlines today. So your analogy doesn’t answer the question—it avoids it.

@xcgert @ManaByte Math says that they are in orbit around (oblate spheroid) Earth. Math also dictates where they will be so you can point an antenna to them and communicate. Math works for a big ball Earth.

@ManaByte Have you considered that the "satellites" aren't quite what you believe them to be? Are they actually orbitting Earth or just held up by balloons?

🤣🤣🤣

@BobSmitharwx @ManaByte They’re not landing on the moon and you can’t livestream when there is no communications to transmit the data. The have a 45 minute period on the far side with no line of site to Earth.

@ManaByte Why won’t the livestream from the moon?

And flat Earthers and moon landing deniers will claim all of them are fake.

@Awesome67180109 @hive_ai @RedpillDrifter It is repeatable. Happening right now. Improvements on 1960’s technology. You still using a landline instead of a cell phone. After all, it should be repeatable…right? Go ahead and try connecting that phone using the wires for tip and ring. Telecom verbiage if you’re confused.

@RyanLeffers @hive_ai @RedpillDrifter If something was done in ’69, it should be repeatable today. Questioning that isn’t crazy—it’s basic logic. Ignoring it is the real problem.

@angelaroosee I’d trade places with any one of them in a heartbeat.

This is terrifying 😱😱 what a crazy moment

@ScottPresler @data_republican Already planning to vote for Ken Paxton. Others are the ones that need to understand the necessity to get out and vote in the runoff.

@data_republican I have an idea better than a protest: Senate Majority Leader Thune wants nothing more than to protect John Cornyn & keep him in the Senate. If we don’t get the SAVE America Act, how about we all head to Texas & help defeat Cornyn on May 26th? Thoughts?

Conservatives don't normally plan protests. We don't have any funding in place, but I can't help but think that maybe we should consider making an exception when it comes to the ousting of Thune and passing the SAVE America Act. Has anyone else thought about this? The thing that makes me think it's not worth it is that I've never seen protests accomplish anything, but I don't know what else we can do. Any ideas?

@Awesome67180109 @hive_ai @RedpillDrifter Your lack of understanding does not constitute a “gotcha”! You choose to think there is some grand conspiracy despite fact after fact. You continue the delusion by dismissing any fact as more propaganda. Enjoy continuing to be woefully stupid.

@Awesome67180109 @hive_ai @RedpillDrifter You have provided zero evidence other than doctored photos with no source for where things have originated from. I can’t explain to you everything that took over 20 years in industry has taught me. Rather than trying to understand, you try and turn it into a “gotcha” moment.

@Black_Pilled Summed up very well. The default setting being they have new evidence rather than asking the question…”why?” In this case, they really have no understanding of scale.

Perfect example of what I discussed in my stream. The overconfidence of the unexceptional drives these theories. Instead of pausing a moment to wonder why this might be, his default line of thinking was to assume he had uncovered some new evidence that revealed the great lie.

It’s exhausting trying to talk with moon landing deniers, flat earthers, and people that question space “stuff” in general. The amount of false information, it’s mind boggling. Even worse, no amount of fact will show them the light, they just double down.

Somali man: ”If you are kicking out Somalis, you have to kick out every one of us. I’m speaking for all of my African brothers and sisters. If you kick Somalis out, you have to kick out all of us. All of us, we all leave together.”

@BBMagaMom Don’t go down that rabbit hole. I can debunk the debunkers. Start with camera…exposure was set for bright lunar surface and therefore no stars in photos. Think of the difference between stars in view in a city vs in the country. Lunar Rover…

At this point if you believe that, you’re retarded 🤣🤣🤦🏻‍♀️