Talk:Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings/Archive 4

Retroreflector comment
Can we dispense with the comment "Strictly speaking, although the reflectors are strong evidence that human-manufactured artifacts currently exist on the Moon, and their locations are consistent with NASA's claims, they do not prove humans have visited the Moon."? There are two reasons:
 * 1) I was watching the DVD of the Apollo 11 moonwalk today, and one of the sound options is to listen to the conversations among the flight controllers in Mission Control (which I was doing).  One of the controllers said that Lick Observatory reported a laser return from the retroreflector.  The flight director decided to not relay that information to the Apollo crew.  This was after Aldrin was back in the Lunar Module but while Aldrin was still on the surface.  It was reported by TV news coverage at the time and it is also in the book I cited.
 * 2) There is no specific explanation of how the retroreflectors got there otherwise.  (In a court of law this would be called "assuming facts not in evidence.")  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, the transcript is here, then click on "EASEP Deployment and Closeout". The discussion is at 111:32:09 and Houston told Mike Collins about it at 112:34:29.  But there are comments that they tried but did not succeed at that time.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the statement is needed, since of the five retroreflectors on the moon today, two were not the result of manned landings. Therefore, the presence of reflectors does not prove that people were there.  It's important, especially in a case like this, to stick to *exactly* what the evidence proves, and to not make claims beyond the evidence.   Understanding and explicitly stating the limits of your data boosts, not hurts, the credibility of the person making the claim.  It puts them solidly in the camp of science and engineering, as opposed to law, politics, or religion, where routinely try to ignore any evidence that is not in their favor.   LouScheffer (talk) 04:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * For #2, the obvious alternative explanation is that spacecraft were indeed launched to the moon, but the landings were not manned. LouScheffer (talk) 04:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, but there is no evidence that the three US ones got there any way other than being carried by manned Apollo missions. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * And the point of the retroreflector being detected while the Apollo 11 astronauts were there would be really strong evidence (although comments in the NASA report say that it wasn't actually detected until about 11 days later). But if it was detected while they were still there, how did it get there?  It couldn't have been afterwards.  It couldn't have already been there because they missed the landing site by a few miles.  It certainly was there by August 1, so what unmanned rocket flew to the Moon in that time period and was able to land precisely at the Apollo 11 landing site?  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure, the timing and location is strong evidence that NASA sent the retroreflectors to the moon at that time. But suppose Apollo 11 was unmanned - then you would see exactly what you describe, as far as the retro-reflector is concerned.  A giant rocket takes off, a few days later they announce a landing, and a new retro-reflector appears, just where they claim.  But this is also *exactly* what happened  when the Russians sent up their unmanned moon rovers with retro-reflectors. (You can see the retro-reflector in the picture). So the reflectors are good evidence that the moon missions happened on the times and dates NASA claimed, and landed where they said they did, but it's not good evidence that there were people on board.   LouScheffer (talk) 11:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * But the lunar module couldn't land by itself and the retroreflectors couldn't deploy themselves. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The Soviet landers indeed landed themselves, then on command, deployed their retro-reflectors. So it's certainly possible, and arguably easier than sending humans to do the job.  LouScheffer (talk) 03:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * But there is no evidence that the US had hardware that could did it at the time. You suppose that Apollo 11 was unmanned and took the retroreflector there.  That assumes a multitude of facts for which there is no evidence and is contrary to all known facts.


 * The photo of the Apollo 11 retroreflector on the Moon shows the Lunar Module in the background. The LM couldn't get to the Moon automatically.  The photo also shows footprints around the retroreflector.  How did they get there, if there were no humans? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It doesn't absolutely prove it 100%, but what can be proven absolutely? It is way, way, way beyond reasonable doubt or the shadow of a doubt.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If someone wants to make the argument that the reflectors got there some other way, they have to assume most of the elements of the conspiracy theory. One cannot assume to be true what they are trying to prove to be true - that is a logical fallacy. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I want to reignite this discussion. The sources cited by the controversial statement are not exactly in agreement with it. It appears these statements are supposition or analysis.

I think a better wording might be "Strictly speaking, although reflectors left by Apollo astronauts are strong evidence that human-manufactured artifacts currently exist on the Moon and that human visitors placed them, they are not conclusive evidence, as unmanned missions are known to have placed retroflectors on the Moon as early as 1970."

I would also be a fan of removing this sentence altogether and somehow reworking the paragraph to match the tone of the rest of the section. It reeks of hoax-friendly POV in this editor's opinion.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 21:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC)