Where is your evidence for all this?
My evidence is very simple. It's far too simple for you to ever dare look at because you know that the sheer simplicity of it scuppers all the intricacies of the space and space rocketry world, as well as Earth shape....the lot really. And that alone is a scary thing when you think that simple experiments can scupper the massive indoctrinated stories of mainstream that is shrouded in massive cloaks but handed out with little peeks on TV as a supposed reality.
Any experiment shown you you or handed to you to do...you simply ignore or refuse or merely argue against it without a thought.
You're more than welcome to do that but it tells me enough about you to understand and accept the reasons why...of which I do have 3 which I will keep to myself.
If you feel the need to delve into this then use AR.
You just say all this as though you have proven that it really works that way but you haven't and all your great claims are obviously just from your own imagination.
I've done a few experiments. Simple as they may be, it's all that's required. That's the beauty of it.
The trouble is, people think matter just scatters about. They think molecules inside a chamber before evacuation are just pinging about smashing randomly into the chamber and when they're evacuated they somehow just randomly whack about and out of the exit of the chamber.
It's mental to think that intelligent people think this is the case but that's the explanations I get so how in the hell can I explain why a rocket would work in atmosphere to people who think like this?
You claim, with no supporting evidence, that rockets must use a "springboard launch" but big rockets do not and cannot do that.
Of course big rockets cannot do that. Not rockets of the size we are told, like the big 3000 tinne saturn nonsense for starters.
The model rockets that launch are superimposed and launched in slow motion to make it appear like they're mammoth space vehicles just sauntering up. It's comical in one sense but clever.
Also let's not forget the vertically stacked airship or shall I say helium/hydrogen, etc rocketship made of a thin skin and frame.
The thing is, we are a bunch of open mouth film watchers and a clapping audience of amazed onlooking for the magical mysteries bestowed upon us.
It's obvious why people would accept this fiction as fact.
The movies provide everyone with it daily, along with the mainstream news who love a good old mock of the naivety of the average human.
We are all gullible in our own way.
The SpaceX Falcon 9 first stage using 9 rocket engines produces over 775,000 kilograms-force thrust and burns for 2 minutes 42 seconds.
No springboard launch there yet numerous people see and video these launches.
Rab you're entitled to believe that. the figures are there for you to read over. The pictures are there for you to paw over. The videos are there for you to view at your leisure and amaze at.
The feeling of wanting to calculate the fuel to weight ratio of the rocket, handed to you by the books you read, is entirely your prerogative.
Mine is to shake my head at it all for reasons I gave, whether you like it or not.
Of course you, like all flat earthers, declare any contrary evidence to fake for no other reason than your not liking the result - how convenient 
!
Nahhh. If there was a real reason for me to believe in the stuff I am saturated with, I would go with it. the problem (is it a problem?) with me is, once I see one thing that doesn't ring true, I question it.
The only thing is it leads to a mindset of "what else are we being lied to about" and this is why you start to see things in a different way to what you were first in acceptance of.
Once you do a few experiments and had the time and patience to study stuff you start to feel a sense of mind robbery. You literally believe you've had your mind robbed and replaced with junk that you once thought was rational.
One man/woman's rational is another man/woman's naivety but can also turn out to be a naivety in itself in terms of the first rational
if there are no other rational thoughts on offer.
This is where I stood until I started seeing things that didn't ring true and then came here to see that people had alternate thoughts on stuff.
It gave me the chance to actually look at everything and to actually try and fit a reality into the fiction we've been sold in a lot of stuff and how things supposedly work.
You are blinkered and massively hampered by that. Unless there's a reason for it, which as I said, I have 3 but will leave it up to you to ask in AR if you want them to be told.
You claim that "it's a disgrace to think that people have been deliberately duped by this nonsense".
The really sad thing, however, is that there people simply inventing hypotheses like your based on nothing more than an overblown sense of their own "smartness" and knowledge.
I believe it's called the Dunning–Kruger effect
In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people of low ability have illusory superiority and mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is.
This Dunning-Kruger isn't really a discovery. It's a reality for all of us. It just depends which way a person swings towards the most, because this Dunning-Kruger does not cover just one way.
So yes, I have it in both ways but so do we all. So by all means use this as a dig but remember the dig is against everyone.
Read up on the Dunning-Kruger effect to see what I'm saying if you want.
Like it or not and believe it or not but all three of Newton's Laws of Motion are quite accurate without any modification by you.
In their configuration as it stands they are about as worthless as a chocolate fireguard.
Only one, with the addition of a special ingredient that is required, would become a real law.
the other two are basically sci-fi.