[exadon]

The wiki informs that the Glat Earth Society believes the Apollo landing program is a hoax.

what is the FET explanation on the retroreflectors left on the moon by the Apollo missions?

[Rounder]

The few posts I’ve seen on the topic (here is the most representative sample I found) seem to hold that there are no such objects on the moon (since nobody landed there to deploy them) and that anyone claiming to have done the laser ranging experiment using the retroreflectors is either mistaken about their results or lying about it.

[Pete Svarrior]

Retroreflectors have been seen in nature. Unless you're calling fish man-made equipment, your argument is not as conclusive as you'd like it to be.

[Curious Squirrel]

Retroreflectors have been seen in nature. Unless you're calling fish man-made equipment, your argument is not as conclusive as you'd like it to be.

Unless you're claiming there are/were living things upon the moon, I'm not sure how this has bearing on the ones on the moon....

[Pete Svarrior]

Unless you're claiming there are/were living things upon the moon, I'm not sure how this has bearing on the ones on the moon....

I'm not claiming anything. Pay attention.

Given that we haven't been to the moon, we don't know all that much about what there is on the moon. However, since retroreflectors have been observed in nature, it would be silly to conclude "There's a retroreflector there, therefore there's a man-made retroreflector there"

[AATW]

Unless you're claiming there are/were living things upon the moon, I'm not sure how this has bearing on the ones on the moon....

I'm not claiming anything. Pay attention.

Given that we haven't been to the moon, we don't know all that much about what there is on the moon. However, since retroreflectors have been observed in nature, it would be silly to conclude "There's a retroreflector there, therefore there's a man-made retroreflector there"

It's weird that none of the 3rd parties who were monitoring the Apollo missions have called NASA out on their fakery.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

[Curious Squirrel]

Unless you're claiming there are/were living things upon the moon, I'm not sure how this has bearing on the ones on the moon....

I'm not claiming anything. Pay attention.

Given that we haven't been to the moon, we don't know all that much about what there is on the moon. However, since retroreflectors have been observed in nature, it would be silly to conclude "There's a retroreflector there, therefore there's a man-made retroreflector there"

So then do you have an example of one NOT from a living being? A rock or something that has somehow naturally become a retro-reflector? Because otherwise yes, your claim requires something living to have bee/be on the moon. *That* is why the retro-reflector's are used as evidence of man on the moon. Because, as far as I'm aware, they don't occur through natural non-living means. Ergo, how are you not positing for life on the moon? Although you do seem to struggle with implication and reading between the lines from previous times we've discussed things, so not sure if this has occurred to you. If I'm wrong, please correct me/show me where. But if retro-reflectors only occur in nature in living things, and they exist on the moon, that must mean living things were/are on the moon. Or at least there is no evidence suggesting otherwise.

[Pete Svarrior]

If I'm wrong, please correct me/show me where.

I'll try once more, although I'm rapidly losing interest in chasing your circular logic.

Because otherwise yes, your claim requires something living to have bee/be on the moon.

No, it does not. Since not all retroreflectors are man-made, there is no reason why a hypothetical naturally-occurring retroreflector couldn't be located on the moon.

But if retro-reflectors only occur in nature in living things, and they exist on the moon, that must mean living things were/are on the moon.

You don't know that. You're assuming it, based on a potentially incomplete sample.

Or at least there is no evidence suggesting otherwise.

Ah, finally, your goalposts are starting to budge. But no; the retroreflectors supposedly present on the moon could be the evidence you're looking for.

[Dr David Thork]

Why would you need retro-reflectors on the moon? Its shiny. If sunlight can bounce off it and hit earth, a laser can.

The moon is a huge mirror. Like a beautiful big disco ball in the sky.

"With earthshine observations, what we do is use the moon as a giant mirror," said study lead author Michael Sterzik, deputy director of the European Southern Observatory's La Silla Paranal Observatory.

Getting a return of a few photons is not evidence there has to be a retro-reflector on the moon.

[nickrulercreator]

Why would you need retro-reflectors on the moon? Its shiny. If sunlight can bounce off it and hit earth, a laser can.

The moon is a huge mirror. Like a beautiful big disco ball in the sky.

"With earthshine observations, what we do is use the moon as a giant mirror," said study lead author Michael Sterzik, deputy director of the European Southern Observatory's La Silla Paranal Observatory.

Getting a return of a few photons is not evidence there has to be a retro-reflector on the moon.

Sunlight is far more powerful and brighter than a laser. XKCD did calculations to see just how powerful of a laser(s) you'd need to light up the moon's surface: https://what-if.xkcd.com/13 (hint, it's a lot, far more powerful than you could imagine).

Lasers also diverge according to the inverse square law, meaning by the time they hit the surface of the moon, their intensity would be equal to the inverse square of the distance it traveled. To give an example, a light shines with 1-watt intensity at 1 m. At 2m it'd shine with 1/4 intensity. At 3m it'd shine with 1/9 intensity, and so forth. The law doesn't only use meters, it's relative to any distance.

The moon is absolutely not like a mirror or a disco ball in the sense that they reflect all the light. The moon has a higher albedo, which means it can reflect a significant amount of light, but this light needs to be VERY intense (like the sun). A laser shone from the Earth is not powerful enough to make a difference (as seen in the XKCD article).

Oh, and getting a few photons back is perfect evidence that there's a reflector on the moon, why wouldn't it be? Lasers can point to different areas on the moon, not where the reflectors are. They get no photons back. Point to exactly where a reflector is, they do get photons back.

[TomInAustin]

You don't know that. You're assuming it, based on a potentially incomplete sample[/b].


Much like your assumption that we did not land on the moon? 

[Pickel B Gravel]

Unless you're claiming there are/were living things upon the moon, I'm not sure how this has bearing on the ones on the moon....

I'm not claiming anything. Pay attention.

Given that we haven't been to the moon, we don't know all that much about what there is on the moon. However, since retroreflectors have been observed in nature, it would be silly to conclude "There's a retroreflector there, therefore there's a man-made retroreflector there"

So then do you have an example of one NOT from a living being? A rock or something that has somehow naturally become a retro-reflector? Because otherwise yes, your claim requires something living to have bee/be on the moon. *That* is why the retro-reflector's are used as evidence of man on the moon. Because, as far as I'm aware, they don't occur through natural non-living means. Ergo, how are you not positing for life on the moon? Although you do seem to struggle with implication and reading between the lines from previous times we've discussed things, so not sure if this has occurred to you. If I'm wrong, please correct me/show me where. But if retro-reflectors only occur in nature in living things, and they exist on the moon, that must mean living things were/are on the moon. Or at least there is no evidence suggesting otherwise.

You're relying on the appeal to ignorance fallacy when you limit natural retroreflectors to only living organisms.

[Pickel B Gravel]

The wiki informs that the Glat Earth Society believes the Apollo landing program is a hoax.

what is the FET explanation on the retroreflectors left on the moon by the Apollo missions?

Let me get this straight: people are derided for seeing pyramids and architecture on mars and using that as evidence for intelligence on mars. But people who detect retroreflectors on the moon and use that as evidence for intelligence on the moon are applauded and praised. Am I missing something here?

[AATW]

People should be derided for both. There are reflectors on the mood because we put them there.

[PickYerPoison]

Tom- your argument is that retroreflectors have been witnessed on Earth without human intervention, so therefore it may be possible that under different circumstances (i.e. those on the moon), natural retroreflectors from inanimate material could be formed as well, right? I just want to make sure I understood it properly - you spread it out over several posts and I'm not used to that...

Let me get this straight: people are derided for seeing pyramids and architecture on mars and using that as evidence for intelligence on mars. But people who detect retroreflectors on the moon and use that as evidence for intelligence on the moon are applauded and praised. Am I missing something here?

To be fair, they are using it to suggest that intelligent life (humans) visited the moon, not that it exists/lives there (natively or otherwise).

[nickrulercreator]

The wiki informs that the Glat Earth Society believes the Apollo landing program is a hoax.

what is the FET explanation on the retroreflectors left on the moon by the Apollo missions?

Let me get this straight: people are derided for seeing pyramids and architecture on mars and using that as evidence for intelligence on mars. But people who detect retroreflectors on the moon and use that as evidence for intelligence on the moon are applauded and praised. Am I missing something here?

Pickel, the "pyramids and architecture" on Mars was a result of poor quality imaging and/or odd lighting causing an optical illusion. Take, for example, the apparent "face of Mars": https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Martian_face_viking_cropped.jpg. This is an image of the region of Cydonia that was taken in 1976 by the Viking 1 orbiter. When this photo was released, it was thought to be, by some, a product of aliens. This image is of a somewhat poor quality and the shadows do seem to resemble a face. More than 20 years after this photo was taken, NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter took new photos of the feature: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/de/Face_on_Mars_with_Inset.jpg/425px-Face_on_Mars_with_Inset.jpg. As you can see, it was simply an optical illusion, created by odd lighting, and poorer image quality.

The same goes for other features. Pyramids on mars aren't pyramids, they're rocks. I know the image you're likely referencing too. It's possible that the "pyramid" is just a volcanic rock. These rocks tend to have sharp edges. The darker part of the pyramid is just a shadow. Again, optical illusion.

Yes, people are derided for seeing architecture on Mars because we know, for a fact, that there's no sentient aliens on Mars. Any life living on there is likely deep underground, and in the form of tiny microbes, hidden away from the surface of Mars.

As for the reflectors, we put them there. We know they're there. We know they aren't illusions, because we made them.

[Pickel B Gravel]

PickYerPoision,

To be fair, they are using it to suggest that intelligent life (humans) visited the moon, not that it exists/lives there (natively or otherwise).

A lot of people actually believe ancient humans from earth did travel to mars rather than live there, and that the "pyramids" and such are remnants of ancient space exploration.

[Pickel B Gravel]

People should be derided for both. There are reflectors on the mood because we put them there.

Well, I'm glad you admit that round earthers who claim that the lunar retroreflectors prove humans went to the moon should be derided. It takes guts for a round earther to admit that. And saying we put the reflectors on the moon doesn't make it true. All you guys have as proof that it's man-made is because the government and NASA say so, which is fallacious mind you (appeal to authority fallacy).

[Pickel B Gravel]

The wiki informs that the Glat Earth Society believes the Apollo landing program is a hoax.

what is the FET explanation on the retroreflectors left on the moon by the Apollo missions?

Let me get this straight: people are derided for seeing pyramids and architecture on mars and using that as evidence for intelligence on mars. But people who detect retroreflectors on the moon and use that as evidence for intelligence on the moon are applauded and praised. Am I missing something here?

Pickel, the "pyramids and architecture" on Mars was a result of poor quality imaging and/or odd lighting causing an optical illusion. Take, for example, the apparent "face of Mars": https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Martian_face_viking_cropped.jpg. This is an image of the region of Cydonia that was taken in 1976 by the Viking 1 orbiter. When this photo was released, it was thought to be, by some, a product of aliens. This image is of a somewhat poor quality and the shadows do seem to resemble a face. More than 20 years after this photo was taken, NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter took new photos of the feature: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/de/Face_on_Mars_with_Inset.jpg/425px-Face_on_Mars_with_Inset.jpg. As you can see, it was simply an optical illusion, created by odd lighting, and poorer image quality.

The same goes for other features. Pyramids on mars aren't pyramids, they're rocks. I know the image you're likely referencing too. It's possible that the "pyramid" is just a volcanic rock. These rocks tend to have sharp edges. The darker part of the pyramid is just a shadow. Again, optical illusion.

Yes, people are derided for seeing architecture on Mars because we know, for a fact, that there's no sentient aliens on Mars. Any life living on there is likely deep underground, and in the form of tiny microbes, hidden away from the surface of Mars.

As for the reflectors, we put them there. We know they're there. We know they aren't illusions, because we made them.

How can you use "we know that life doesn't exist on mars" as a reason to reject the "architecture" on mars? You're resorting to the appeal to ignorance fallacy. And your premise to the retroreflectors being manmade is also fallacious (appeal to authority). The government and NASA tell you it's theirs, and that's all the "proof" you guys need!

[nickrulercreator]

The wiki informs that the Glat Earth Society believes the Apollo landing program is a hoax.

what is the FET explanation on the retroreflectors left on the moon by the Apollo missions?

Let me get this straight: people are derided for seeing pyramids and architecture on mars and using that as evidence for intelligence on mars. But people who detect retroreflectors on the moon and use that as evidence for intelligence on the moon are applauded and praised. Am I missing something here?

Pickel, the "pyramids and architecture" on Mars was a result of poor quality imaging and/or odd lighting causing an optical illusion. Take, for example, the apparent "face of Mars": https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Martian_face_viking_cropped.jpg. This is an image of the region of Cydonia that was taken in 1976 by the Viking 1 orbiter. When this photo was released, it was thought to be, by some, a product of aliens. This image is of a somewhat poor quality and the shadows do seem to resemble a face. More than 20 years after this photo was taken, NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter took new photos of the feature: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/de/Face_on_Mars_with_Inset.jpg/425px-Face_on_Mars_with_Inset.jpg. As you can see, it was simply an optical illusion, created by odd lighting, and poorer image quality.

The same goes for other features. Pyramids on mars aren't pyramids, they're rocks. I know the image you're likely referencing too. It's possible that the "pyramid" is just a volcanic rock. These rocks tend to have sharp edges. The darker part of the pyramid is just a shadow. Again, optical illusion.

Yes, people are derided for seeing architecture on Mars because we know, for a fact, that there's no sentient aliens on Mars. Any life living on there is likely deep underground, and in the form of tiny microbes, hidden away from the surface of Mars.

As for the reflectors, we put them there. We know they're there. We know they aren't illusions, because we made them.

How can you use "we know that life doesn't exist on mars" as a reason to reject the "architecture" on mars? You're resorting to the appeal to ignorance fallacy. And your premise to the retroreflectors being manmade is also fallacious (appeal to authority). The government and NASA tell you it's theirs, and that's all the "proof" you guys need!

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. We have multiple reasons why sentient, complex life can't exist on Mars: 1. The environment of Mars in its barren atmosphere is deadly to all life exposed on it, except maybe tardigrades. 2. There's no liquid water currently on Mars. Life needs liquid water in some form. 3. Going along with 1, Curiosity rover measured the radiation to be 76 mGy/year. This essentially sterilizes the surface of any exposed life. 4. Mars has no magnetic field, meaning that cosmic radiation kills any exposed life. 5. Tardigrades would barely survive a few days as a result, and no cell, no matter how hardy, would survive for reasons mentioned before. Proof: https://www.space.com/g00/3396-study-surface-mars-devoid-life.html?i10c.encReferrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9lbi53aWtpcGVkaWEub3JnLw%3D%3D&i10c.ua=1 and https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2011/pdf/1977.pdf. 5. Martian regolith contains perchlorates, which are harmful to most life. 6. Nitrogen is basically essential for life, after Carbon of course. There's some N2 in Mars's lower atmosphere, but it is insignificant, and can't support nitrogen fixation. Proof: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23560417. 7. Mars's atmosphere is thin, too thin for nearly all life. Very few microorganisms are able to survive at Mars's atmospheric pressure (1-14mbar). There's some evidence that some bacteria are capable of cell replication at 25mbar, but this is greater than Mars's atmosphere. Now. Is life on Mars? Evidence leans to no. BUT, it is certainly possible that microorganisms exist a few meters underground, or in the polar caps. If you want to read more on it, here's the wiki article. It basically highlights all I've mentioned above and more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_on_Mars

Though it may be a fallacy of ignorance, the evidence we have that there is no life on Mars is overwhelming and provides some scientific backing to the rejection of sentient life on Mars. YES, there's a possibility of life on Mars, but is it sentient, complex life? That answer is a nearly certain no. We have satellites orbiting and taking photos of Mars on the daily. Would life not be visible to them?

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. Independent scientists and organizations, with the right equipment, have confirmed the existence of some reflecting object up there. 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.