4 ms·

I would like more clarifications on the sort of arguments that allow for retroreflectors to legitimately be on the moon without the moon landing. I was not maki

I would like more clarifications on the sort of arguments that allow for retroreflectors to legitimately be on the moon without the moon landing. I was not making fun of anyone; at most, I have frustration and confusion about how the belief of a hoax can exist in the face of repeatable verifiable proof that we put something on the moon. The section on that wikipedia page on retroreflectors does not mention any theories that allows for it to be there, and glossing over the page a bit, it states that "the foremost idea is that the whole manned landing program was a hoax from start to end." I would appreciate a discussion of any argument you have found that allows for retroreflectors.

burningion 11y ago
The argument about retroreflectors is right there on the page, although it's buried if you don't have the arguments raised previously in the Wikipedia article. The main argument is that the lunar landings weren't manned for one or more of the landings. And indeed, right there on the page, it says: > Smaller retroreflectors were also put on the Moon by the Russians; they were attached to the unmanned lunar rovers Lunokhod 1 and Lunokhod 2. The existence of the Russian retroreflectors shows reflectors could be deployed without human intervention. And further: > Lick Observatory attempted to detect from Apollo 11's retroreflector while Armstrong and Aldrin were still on the Moon but did not succeed until August 1, 1969.[197] The Apollo 14 astronauts deployed a retroreflector on February 5, 1971, and McDonald Observatory detected it the same day. The argument here is that if the retroreflectors were deployed by Apollo 11, they should have been detectable within the day, not 10 days after their supposed human caused deployment. Again, this is just the argument presented, not an endorsement.

burningion 11y ago

The argument about retroreflectors is right there on the page, although it's buried if you don't have the arguments raised previously in the Wikipedia article. The main argument is that the lunar landings weren't manned for one or more of the landings. And indeed, right there on the page, it says: > Smaller retroreflectors were also put on the Moon by the Russians; they were attached to the unmanned lunar rovers Lunokhod 1 and Lunokhod 2. The existence of the Russian retroreflectors shows reflectors could be deployed without human intervention. And further: > Lick Observatory attempted to detect from Apollo 11's retroreflector while Armstrong and Aldrin were still on the Moon but did not succeed until August 1, 1969.[197] The Apollo 14 astronauts deployed a retroreflector on February 5, 1971, and McDonald Observatory detected it the same day. The argument here is that if the retroreflectors were deployed by Apollo 11, they should have been detectable within the day, not 10 days after their supposed human caused deployment. Again, this is just the argument presented, not an endorsement.