tratlyre wrote:
19 pages in and you still haven’t addressed the third party confirmation evidence.
Here is my answer. I fully endorse & support this response from another poster on page 10 of this thread. The change I would make is to correct the spelling from "boffins" to "buffoobu."
Let's go thru the non-"evidence" of Wikipedia (the only evidence that exists, it seems by LRC boffins) one by one. Clearly they don't understand how to make a logical argument. My comments in italics.
SELENE photographs.,
" On the right is a 2008 reconstruction from images taken by the SELENE terrain camera and 3D projected to the same vantage point as the surface photos. "
"The terrain is a close match within the SELENE camera resolution of 10 metres. "
Poor resolution, and the "reconstruction" method is open to debate.
Chandrayaan-1,
"Chandrayaan-1 probe did not have enough resolution to record Apollo hardware. Nevertheless, as with SELENE, Chandrayaan-1 independently recorded evidence of lighter, disturbed soil around the Apollo 15 site"
Same as above. Also, the "Apollo 15 site" could just be where an *unmanned* space probe landed (timed to coincidence with Hollywood's A-15 of course). The evidential value of this (or above) as proof of *man on moon* is essentially zero.
Chang'e 2
"It claims to have spotted traces of the Apollo landings, though the relevant imagery has not been publicly identified"
This doesn't even qualify as anything?!
Observers of all missions
All of these fail to "observe" whether the missions were actually *manned* ... duh!
Independent research consistent with NASA claims
Consistency doesn't imply actuality, but I'll humor you.
Existence and age of Moon rocks
"The rocks returned by Apollo are very close in composition to the samples returned by the independent Soviet Luna programme."
Indeed, so independent that it didn't even need to be *manned*! Why didn't USA think of that, and save the cost and risk factors?
Retroreflectors
Just as before, famed Soviet Luna program (unmanned) did these too... Net evidential value for *manned* moon landing, evidently zero (0.00).
Photographs (of artifacts/debris left)
Again, there's zero reason these couldn't be from *unmanned* moon probe mission, which everyone admits have occurred
Ultraviolet photographs
Becoming a broken record, no reason for the UV camera of "Apollo 16" to be *manned*
Apollo missions tracked by non-NASA personnel (Observers of all missions)
Isn't this category redundant with the above?
Plans
"As new research facilities such as orbiters and telescopes are built, the question arises whether they can see Apollo artifacts on the Moon."
As above, "Apollo artifacts" could just be from *unmanned* space probes
" In 2002, astronomers suggested using the Very Large Telescope to search for the landing sites."
Sixteen years later, they still haven't obliged this... not that it would prove a *manned* mission(s) anyway...