So are you actually asserting that for the last 40 years, all around the globe, in various countries, and unrelated companies, they ALL decided to lie about using blimps instead of satellites to...to....to...what would be the point of lying, Tom? To trick all the rubes out there that the Earth is round? That is seriously the LOGICAL argument you are going to try to make here? And not just lie about it, but create a false history of supposed sats that they used. THAT is your argument???
PROVE IT!
The private companies worked with NASA to get their technology correct and in place. What makes you think that the companies need to be "in" on anything? In many cases, such as with SpaceX, those private companies are working for NASA and doing its bidding.
There is a motive on the Wiki. Feel free to check it out.
Well, how about we do just that.
It starts off with this fascinating statement:
"
There is no Flat Earth Conspiracy. NASA is not hiding the shape of the earth from anyone. The purpose of NASA is not to 'hide the shape of the earth' or 'trick people into thinking it's round' or anything of the sort."
Well, that's certainly an interesting assertion. But then it says:
"
There is a Space Travel Conspiracy. The purpose of NASA is to fake the concept of space travel to further America's militaristic dominance of space. That was the purpose of NASA's creation from the very start: To put ICBMs and other weapons into space (or at least appear to)."
OK...then it says...
"
NASA's early rocket research is well documented to have been a complete failure, plagued by one disaster after another. At some point, perhaps after the Apollo 1 disaster, it was decided to fake the space program outright and use rockets which only needed to fly into the air until they disappeared from sight."
Aha! But isn't there a problem here? Apollo 1 caught fire in January 1967. If that was when NASA decided to start faking things - then BEFORE 1967, it must all have been "real".
So the entire set of seven Mercury and ten Gemini manned missions - all of which were prior to '67 and were successful must have happened as advertised.
Then the Wiki says:
"
NASA went from nearly every launch being a failure to a near flawless track record"
...but every one of the manned Mercury and Gemini missions went well. Sure not absolutely flawlessly - but "within mission parameters". The Apollo 1 disaster was a consequence of using pure oxygen in the crew compartment and lots of nylon in spacesuits, etc. Those things were fixed by using only 60% oxygen during launch and ruthlessly replacing anything flammable from within the capsule - nylon was replaced with fiberglass and teflon.
With those (relatively simple) fixes - why wouldn't they continue? Abandoning all of everything after such a minor setback - and especially abandoning satellite launches - seems like a crazy overreaction.
But from the Wiki - we can assume that those Mercury and Gemini missions were "real"? They get the Tom Bishop/TFES stamp of approval?
That's rather interesting!
So where is the "evidence" that this abandonment of space flight happened?
I know you zetetics will only accept new facts with evidence - so there must be some kind of proof here. Do enlighten us!