Nickrulercreator,
Straw man. I never claimed that life not existing on mars is a reason to reject the architecture. I said sentient aliens can't exist on Mars and people who believe so can be derided.
Strawman? In YOUR own words:
Yes, people are derided for seeing architecture on Mars because we know, for a fact, that there's no sentient aliens on Mars.
The implication of what you typed was that there can't be architecture on mars because life there doesn't exist. How is that strawman?
As for the apparent appeal to authority, no, it isn't fallacious. We have significant proof that there does indeed exist a reflector or device of some sort on the moon where we claimed to have placed them. It may not be a retro-reflector, but it has to be a man-made object up there.
Why must it be man-made? Because NASA and the government say it is? That's the very definition of appeal to authority logical fallacity that you're resorting to again. You have no evidence that the retroreflectors are man-made placed on the moon during an alleged lunar landing. All you have is "the government and NASA say so, so it must be fact".
Independent scientists and organizations, with the right equipment, have confirmed the existence of some reflecting object up there.
No one is denying the existence of these. But where is the evidence that they're man-made left behind during a visit by humans to the moon?
NASA isn't a lone source. The soviet agency also put a reflector up on their probe missions. This has been confirmed. Independent agencies have bounced lasers off the reflectors. They aren't affiliated with NASA.
No, it hasn't been confirmed that any nation went to the moon and set up man-made retroreflectors there. All that is known is that there are some sort of reflectors up there which could very well be natural objects on the moon.
I apologize for the first part, I had misread your comment and I see my mistake.
As for why it must be manmade? What other objects, not manmade, can be found on the surface of the moon, that reflects back photons in such a way that only a retroreflector can match? Normal reflecting objects, such as mirrors, shiny rocks, etc, reflect light back at an angle opposite to the angle it is being projected at. Retroreflectors do the opposite. They're designed so that light or photons hitting them will reflect back in the direction the light/photons came from. Take this diagram as a visual aid:
http://www.glimling.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/how_a_retroreflector_works_compared_with_mirror.jpg. The only way a mirror could reflect light back to the source is if the light was being projected perfectly perpendicular to the mirror. The difficulty of this when taking into effect of the movement of the moon, the moon's rotation, the earth's movements, etc, is insurmountable. It doesn't have to be manmade because NASA said so, it has to be manmade because there's no other option. Perfect retroreflectors don't exist in natural rocks or other geological formations. In only 1 example does this happen in nature that we know of, and that is in flashlight fish of the family Anomalopidae:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroreflector#In_fish. The only way a mirror could reflect light back to the source is if the light was being projected perfectly perpendicular to the mirror. The difficulty of this when taking into effect of the movement of the moon, the moon's rotation, the earth's movements, etc, is insurmountable. It doesn't have to be manmade because NASA said so, it has to be manmade because there's no other option. Perfect retroreflectors don't exist in natural rocks or other geological formations. In only 1 example does this happen in biology that we know of, and that is in flashlight fish of the family Anomalopidae:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroreflector#In_fish. Additionally, the reflection of the photons back to the source matches perfectly with the retroreflectors. Shine the laser at the moon where we didn't put a reflector, and you get nothing. Shine it where we did put a reflector, and you get back photons. This isn't because NASA says so. This is strong evidence that a retroreflector is placed on the moon. From a distance of 240,000 miles away, you would need an insurmountably powerful laser (or actually set of lasers) to even see any sort of light emitted from the moon reflecting the lasers. If the moon is just a few thousand miles away, or however far FEs claim it to be, the laser would still have to be crazy powerful. For the math for 240,000 miles away, check here:
https://what-if.xkcd.com/13/Now, your last paragraph. What natural object could it be? A rock? How is this rock so perfectly formed to be able to mimic a retroreflector? We have confirmed that objects are up there. They coincide with where the landings of probes/LMs are. This isn't 100% proof it's manmade, but the evidence for a manmade object up there rather than natural formations is substantial. I'd like you to answer those questions. Creating a perfectly-working retroreflector isn't something nature can do easily. Not to mention in a rock, which was likely on an asteroid that hit the moon, or part of magma from when the moon was still in its volcanic phase of formation. How was this rock formed? If it was natural, how did it happen so perfectly 5 times (Apollos 11,14,15, and Lunokhods 1 and 2)? How, exactly, did NASA or their discoverer find these rocks? Why is there no evidence of any sort of reflection from these rocks, or whatever they are, before the dates they were supposedly placed there? Who discovered them?
Oh and you can just call me Nick, no need for the full username.