I don't doubt at the slightest that you "get something measurable back" from the moon. That was never the question. Of course it is a highly reflective celestial body. What I ask for is a justification that this in itself constitutes evidence for man-made objects being the source of those signals. How do you compare, what's the baseline here? According to the pictures those mirrors are very small, the error rate for positioning purposes must be huge in the best of cases. With atmospheric fracturing and intervening micro-particles factored in? Yeah, I remain sceptical.
Certainly a very interesting video about various Earth-based aeronautical vehicles. You'll agree, though, that this by no means constitutes evidence for the landings themselves.
i just don't know. The evidence I've encountered to this day does not convince me of that claim. The paperclip scientists were instrumental in developing ICBMs, though, that much is true. The space stuff was always secondary to the military Cold War efforts.
Of course not. But it should at least raise SOME eyebrows. All that talk about "mountains of evidence", "irrefutable data" etc. when the original recordings are missing is simply irrational. This is not how scepticism is supposed to work. In fact, the "moon-landers" seem the quasi-religious, true-believer types here.
This. One can laugh about ''moon-hoaxers" all one wants, but NASA definitely brought this upon themselves. The greatest technological and engineering feat of all human history, and they didn't bother to correctly document it, backups and all? For fuck's sake, if it's not a conspiracy, it's at least fuck-up of the highest order, one for which literal heads should roll. It's an embarassment, a gaffe of unbelievable magnitude.
No. It's certainly a valiant effort at digital reconstruction based on second-hand recordings and surviving copies, but it's NOT the original tape-set. Read the article carefully:
"[…] The photos were stored with remarkably high fidelity on the tapes, but at the time had to be copied from projection screens onto paper, sometimes at sizes so large that warehouses and even old churches were rented out to hang them up. The results were pretty grainy, but clear enough to identify landing sites and potential hazards. After the low-fi printing, the tapes were shoved into boxes and forgotten. […]"
Highly dubious.
Source on that data? Again, have you verified this, or did you simply take their word for it?
Highly questionable. The original picture sets are lost, attempts at reconstruction like this nonwithstanding.
We're not talking about the existence of rockets and computers - those were and are part and parcel of ICBM development, after all. We're talking specifically about the alleged landings.
Exactly - plans, and projects. Nothing more.
Sworn to secrecy. We're talking about highly classified projects during the Cold War here. How do YOU know? You don't. You just beleive what somebody told you.
There doesn't exist even one - ONE - piece of unequivocal physicasl evidence. Not ONE. Not this or that rocket part, no "moon rocks" (I'm sure you heard of the faux Amsterdam sample), nothing.