I'd like to see more evidence of the claim that 'Russians could track the whole thing from start to finish'.

How? We can barely track an asteroid with todays technology.

Maybe someone can look into this, I've never seen evidence other than the claim.

Asteroids are a bitch because you typically don't know where they are.

If you do know where they are, the problem is solved.

Although we can track asteroids like Apophis - Helps if they're large enough. But we didn't know that one was coming prior to detecting it.

But back to manmade thingies, we're still keeping track of Vogager 1 which is leaving the solar system.

I can understand how distance of something transmitting can be recorded. I cant understand tracking an object as it descends to the moon.

It is my understanding that the last manned mission to the moon apollo 18 , was canceled because it was determined that the russians had developed a radar tracking system capable of tracking the apollo craft. I read it once years ago and remember it but can't find the link.

Also worth pointing out the correlation between moon launches/landings and military operations in the increasingly unpopular Vietnam War. The moon stuff pushed the war stuff out of the media coverage. As soon as the Vietnam War ended, so did the moon landings.

And nobody's tried to go back since? And the Van Allen Belts are now too radioactive for people to pass through? And the space suits could alternate from warming to cooling the human body as the astronauts passed from shadow to light, sometimes at the same time?

I haven't decided whether the moon landings were faked or not, but I'm definitely leaning towards faked. It's pretty clear the society we live under is managed as much as the Russians under Pravda ever were, the US has just done a better job. A masterful job, really.

And nobody's tried to go back since?

Why would anyone? The mission was a success and we proved what w e needed to.

And the Van Allen Belts are now too radioactive for people to pass through?

Who is claiming this? I don't recall reading anything about the Van Allen Belts becoming drastically more radioactive.

And the space suits could alternate from warming to cooling the human body as the astronauts passed from shadow to light, sometimes at the same time?

Heating isn't a problem, only cooling. Spacesuits use a garment which is pretty much identical to one worn by on earth by firefighters and racecar drivers and such

The one big question I have is how did the astronauts get through the radiation belt between the earth & moon? (Serious)

1)Quickly.

2)they flew a trajectory that bypassed the worst of them.

That makes sense. It's always something I wondered but had never been given a plausible answer. Most teachers & professor types would just smile and move on. I gave up for many years because of non answers like that. :-)

http://www.clavius.org/ is a fairly good source of information on such matters.

Don't forget the ridiculous call to space from Nixon which if you listen to it sounds like a commercial. No questions like what's it like, how was the landing? Just pure and plain propaganda.

https://youtu.be/ieGKIh3koAI

Nixon needed the Apollo 11 telephone call to distract the public from other events going on that weekend... primarily the Chappaquiddick incident. Nixon even called a National Holiday on the Monday following the lunar landing. That's a day off work for all government employees.

You are right. Nixon was playing a role in a TV commercial for America. He was an actor, like the actornauts. The White House side was totally scripted with the assistance of Frank Borman. But Neil & Buzz weren't told who the call was coming from. It was a surprise to them.

modern cell phone technology could learn a lesson from "nasa phone the moon" and no dropped call. I remember calling my grandma long distance in the early 70's and at 600 miles away I experienced delay in the transmission.

not a single NASA photograph of stars (starfield shot) from the Moon or from a spaceship.

not one. not even one from Mars either.

not a single NASA photograph of stars (starfield shot) from the Moon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Apollo_16_UV_photo_of_Earth_rotated.jpg

They aren't common because they were there to take photos of the moon and if you set your camera exposure to take photos of the stars you will overexpose the moon (you see the same effect if you try to photograph the moon from earth).

astronomers want/wanted starfield pictures, photos with no atmospheric distortions.

just a handful of pictures from a camera on a stand on the Moon would have been priceless for the astronomy community. we got none, not a single starfield picture outside the atmosphere from NASA, from above the Van Allen belts.

tourist pictures of Moon/Earth with stars in the background were not wanted by them.

special graduated filters and darkroom techniques could have made the tourist pictures for publications.

astronomers want/wanted starfield pictures, photos with no atmospheric distortions.

For the relatively wide angle lenses the cameras were using (60mm on medium format~ 30mm on full frame) atmospheric distortion isn't really an issue.

For luna astronomy to be worthwhile you are going to need something with a fairly long focal length, a decent sized mirror and a tracking mount. That's a lot of weight and realistically you are better off putting the system into earth orbit where you don't have to worry about dust.

They did do some UV astronomy (which you can't really do from earth) and in those images you can see stars:

http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/luceneweb/fullimage.jsp?photoId=AS16-123-19657

A chest-mounted photo of the stars from the moon would be inferior to the photos of the stars we can get from Earth.

It's not like the astronauts landed on the moon with massive photography equipment.

your shill/PR stupidity is astounding.

Get real.

How would chest mounted star-photos trump the heavy telescopes on earth?

You will never see a Hollywood recreation of the moon landings because everyone would be forced to ask some serious questions about the difference between illusion and reality.

Reminder that it's been 46 years since the Freemasons at NASA claimed we landed humans on the moon.

You wrote: "HARD FACTS, not OPINIONS" and right after that you started with: "people have argued", "NASA could have", etc.

You are not offering any evidence to the contrary of the official narrative. You are hardly asking any relevant questions. You are mostly suggesting some possible alternatives to parts of the official narrative.

Not sure what is your question now. It's an illogical question.

Do we have to prove that your alternatives are nonsense? Which is not logical. If you believe that the whole surface of the moon is reflective and that scientists are actually using that instead of the mirrors, the burden of proof is on you. The best one could do in the response to eg. your Laser lunar ranging point is to repeat word-for-word the official narrative. What else do you expect? Is there any part of the official claims on the laser lunar ranging that you believe needs additional evidence? What kind of proof you expect on moon rocks?

The bullet points are not facts and I did not represent them as facts.

And no, the burden of proof is not on me to prove that the Apollo missions were faked. The burden of proof is on NASA to prove that they were real, and I am reacting to the evidence that they presented.

Why don't you believe the evidence NASA presented?

You can't say "there might be another possible way to maybe obtain the same evidence, therefore NASA is lying". That's a logical fallacy.

If you are really open minded and want to have a rational argument, like you said, you have to ask rational questions.

If, in the other hand, you just want to build straw man arguments and get praises for your "research" from the less intelligent participants in this sub, continue as you are.

there might be another possible way to maybe obtain the same evidence, therefore NASA is lying

I don't say this. What I am implying is actually this:

there might be another possible way to maybe obtain the same evidence, therefore for arguments sake NASA could be lying

Do you think that is a logical fallacy? Because that is the definition of logic.

We agree. NASA could be lying. Now we are back to my original question - what would it take to prove that NASA is not lying?

The facts as NASA presented them are known. If you are not directly questioning those facts, what else are you looking for?

Alternatively, are we to prove that your proposed alternatives are less likely than the NASA version?

what would it take to prove that NASA is not lying?

I dunno, I guess that is what I am looking for. I am not convinced one way or the other honestly. I lean more toward the fact that we did go. But the more I examine the evidence, the more shocked I am at how flimsy it is.

Why don't you believe the evidence NASA presented?

For the same reason I am skeptical about T-mobile presenting evidence that they have the best calling plans.

This is common sense.

people have argued that the entire surface of the moon is reflective and these experiments can be conducted without reflectors

But don't you need the laser to reflect back at you with enough strength to be detectable?

A laser reflecting off of the surface won't return with sufficient strength, whereas a laser reflecting off of a retroreflector will.

"A laser reflecting off of the surface won't return with sufficient strength"

is this the best false pseudo science gibberish you can come up with !?

Dude, The first successful tests were carried out in 1962 when a team from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology succeeded in observing laser pulses reflected from moon's surface using a laser with a millisecond pulse length.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment

And the next line reads " Greater accuracy was achieved following the installation of a retroreflector array on July 21, 1969, by the crew of Apollo 11"

Who wouldn't want greater accuracy?

accuracy of what !?

its about the literal arrival timing of individual photons into a photo-multiplier-detector, not what colour or sound they make...

http://www.universetoday.com/59310/it%E2%80%99s-not-just-the-astronauts-that-are-getting-older/

Here are the questions I would ask:

1) can we trust that the few organization with the technology to conduct these experiment are truly unbiased and not affiliated or influenced by NASA

2) like most things concerning space or the moon, we really have to take NASA's word, because we have no idea if the moon can or cannot reflect like a mirror, or what kind of returning reflection constitutes "good enough" for proof

3) reflectors on the moon do not prove that MAN put them there, unmanned robots could have left them

4) strictly for arguments sake, reflectors on the moon do not prove that humans are involved, as far as we know, life outside of Earth exists and they left or have reflective structures on the moon

Now I know that I am just going out of my way to poke holes here. But I also feel like Apollo enthusiasts go out of their way to trust NASA and to rationalize the inconsistencies.

I am still on the fence about all this. So I think that questions should be asked (even slightly ridiculous ones) to counterbalance the amount of blind faith and irrational responses used to justify that we did go.

1 & 2 you seem to think that NASA has a monopoly on space travel/knowledge, almost as if the Russians or anyone else have never ventured beyond Earth.

NASA doesn't have a monopoly, NASA can't even reach the ISS anymore.

3 - It does if you look at the list of missions to the moon.

Just look at what missions did what, and which were manned. If the reflectors were placed there by unmanned missions - Which NASA mission did it?

4 - So teh alienz? How about no.

1 & 2 you seem to think that NASA has a monopoly on space travel/knowledge

Yes, I do believe that they have a monopoly on space travel/knowledge. And I believe the Russians are in bed with them and have been since the beginning.

3 - It does if you look at the list of missions to the moon.

Just look at what missions did what, and which were manned. If the reflectors were placed there by unmanned missions - Which NASA mission did it?

The unmanned Russian missions. Also, if NASA was willing to lie about the Apollo missions, it would stand to logic that they would be willing to lie about a prior unmanned mission to the moon to leave reflectors. Or, for example, the Apollo footage was faked and was broadcast while an unmanned mission went to the moon.

4 - So teh alienz? How about no.

Sorry but you are in no position to make statements like that. If Carl Sagan believes that life outside of Earth could exist, then that is good enough for me to entertain the thought.

And I believe the Russians are in bed with them and have been since the beginning.

The reason for the moon landing was the space race between Russia and the US.

So Russia and the US faked a war of swinging dicks to see who could fake the moon landing first?

it would stand to logic that they would be willing to lie about a prior unmanned mission to the moon to leave reflectors

How do you cover up a space launch?

Or, for example, the Apollo footage was faked and was broadcast while an unmanned mission went to the moon.

Then where did the command module that landed in the ocean come from?

If Carl Sagan believes that life outside of Earth could exist, then that is good enough for me to entertain the thought.

There's a difference between entertaining a thought and believing it.

The reason for the moon landing was the space race between Russia and the US.

Allegedly.

How do you cover up a space launch?

You don't. You launch it without people aboard and then sell it as a "manned mission" when it is really an unmanned mission.

Then where did the command module that landed in the ocean come from?

LEO. Or it could have been the unmanned mission returning.

There's a difference between entertaining a thought and believing it.

You are exactly right. And when I look up at the night sky and see billions of suns, and know that our planet has life, it becomes much harder to dismiss extraterrestrial life as a fantasy.

1) can we trust that the few organization with the technology to conduct these experiment are truly unbiased and not affiliated or influenced by NASA

If you want useful timing data the limiting factor for doing it is the telescope size. The lasers and detector/filtering systems are within the range of an awful lot of groups. There are about 30 telescopes around that are big enough to pull it off.

In terms of separation from NASA BTA-6 and possibly LAMOST would be the most obvious.

Telescopio Nazionale Galileo and Calar Alto Observatory are other options.

If you were prepared to throw more observing time at the problem the Nordic Optical Telescope or the Thai National Telescope become potential options.

If you don't want timing data then its just about doable with a 1 meter telescope. Steerable 1 meter telescopes aren't that uncommon.

2) like most things concerning space or the moon, we really have to take NASA's word, because we have no idea if the moon can or cannot reflect like a mirror, or what kind of returning reflection constitutes "good enough" for proof

Actually both of those can be worked out from conventional luna observations

Moonrocks: Definitely not "proof" that Americans walked on the lunar surface. The Soviets collected lunar samples, too, on their unmanned Luna missions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_programme

What's more, large numbers of NASA "moonrocks" gifted to foreign nations by the US have since been removed from public view or declared lost. This may have something to do with this highly suspect and embarrassing episode: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html

We've been through this, yet you still cling to the same arguments, then vanish once you're tired of repeating the same, easily contradicted points:

1) the Luna missions collected 1/1000th the mass of Lunar rocks as the Apollo missions. Unmanned craft would not have been able to retrieve rocks as large as Big Muley, where did Big Muley come from if not from the Apollo missions? Note, it doesn't have a fusion crust.

2) The Apollo missions collected 2,415 samples. Of these, 270 were gifted to other nations. Of those 270, only 180 are missing or unaccounted for. How does this 0.7% of unaccounted for material prove anything?

3) One rock out of thousands has been proven to be fake, which could have several reasonable explanations compared to all of them being fake. Why is 1/2,415 enough for you to believe something is a conclusive piece of evidence?

You have yet to sufficiently answer any of these questions, yet continue spouting the same tired lines.

A "fusion crust" can be removed, and then there would be nothing to prove it wasn't a lunar meteorite harvested in Antarctica.

Also your maths sucks. 180 missing moonrocks is 7% of the total claimed to have been collected by NASA (not 0.07%), but even that stat is irrelevant. The key issue is that according to your figures, fully 2/3 of the moonrocks gifted by NASA to foreign nations have mysteriously disappeared. If that doesn't ring alarm bells, there's no hope for you.

You are correct, I misplaced a decimal. Nevertheless, the gifted lunar samples are tiny, which when totalled, are nowhere near the total mass of rocks collected:

http://www.collectspace.com/resources/moonrocks_apollo11.html

http://www.collectspace.com/resources/moonrocks_goodwill.html

A "fusion crust" can be removed, and then there would be nothing to prove it wasn't a lunar meteorite harvested in Antarctica.

Have you ever in your life spoken to a geologist about this? What about a meteorite scientist? I didn't think so, you are clueless as to how easily this king of tampering would be detected, so I'm assuming it's just something you've come up with, with no basis, once again.

Please provide your methodology for "removing" the fusion crust that couldn't be detected by an experienced geologist or meteorite scientist, include references to where this has been done in the past and how it was undetected.

The key issue is that according to your figures, fully 2/3 of the moonrocks gifted by NASA to foreign nations have mysteriously disappeared. If that doesn't ring alarm bells, there's no hope for you.

They haven't disappeared, they simply aren't accounted for. Indeed, if they had disappeared, I would be very suspicious, as that would violate the laws of thermodynamics.

It isn't NASA's job to go tracking down all of these tiny pieces of moonrocks that they gave as gifts to satisfy people who don't take evidence seriously in the first place.

Have you ever in your life spoken to a geologist about this? What about a meteorite scientist? I didn't think so, you are clueless as to how easily this king of tampering would be detected, so I'm assuming it's just something you've come up with, with no basis, once again.

You haven't either. So the argument remains at a standstill.

Please provide your methodology for "removing" the fusion crust that couldn't be detected by an experienced geologist or meteorite scientist, include references to where this has been done in the past and how it was undetected.

Do you really think this would be well-documented? It would be part of a paper-trail that would incriminate NASA and the US government.

You haven't either. So the argument remains at a standstill.

I'm providing you with evidence of what actually happened and some random person on the internet says that "oh you could just remove the fusion crust" and you believe them? Over the mountains of overwhelming evidence to the contrary? Do you realize how ridiculous this is?

Finally, meteorites are very different in appearance from the Apollo lunar samples. Samples brought back from the moon have very small pits on the surface. These so-called "zap pits" are caused by micrometeoroid impacts and are generally only visible under a microscope. But they are completely absent from recovered lunar meteorites because the outer layers have been burned away by passage through the earth's atmosphere.

/

Do you really think this would be well-documented? It would be part of a paper-trail that would incriminate NASA and the US government.

Of course not, because the process doesn't exist.

Are you religious, by any chance? Because you are citing NASA data in order to "prove" NASA claims with the same circular logic that evangelical christians quote the Bible to "prove" the existence of God.

Everything you think you know about "Big Muley" is courtesy of NASA. It was "discovered" by them, analysed by them and is behind lock and key at the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center where nobody else can verify their claims about its provenance or geological constitution.

So once again, you have zero evidence and all you can say is that we need to trust you in saying NASA is lying? Without any evidence whatsoever???*

It seems as though you're just being intentionally ignorant at this point, going through your post history reads like the ramblings of a deranged sociopath. No matter what NASA does, you don't believe it, even when unequivocally proven otherwise!

In addition, now that you have no additional relevant counterpoints, you've backed into your "well NASA saying so doesn't make it so" even in regards to Big Muley. Slowly moving away from your "well the fusion crust could've been chipped away" to "it might not even be a moon rock at all!" At least you've managed to eliminate one idiotic bullet point from your list of mindless critiques.

It isn't NASA's job to eliminate your ignorance, it's something you should be capable of doing with some critical thought. You have zero evidence and are just appealing to your lack of belief in NASA. Every piece of evidence you have provided is easily dismissed or even completely incorrect.

You have nothing, this is pointless. You'll believe what you want in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This is the very definition of being willfully ignorant, you live in a bubble, a horrifying, strange bubble of absolute idiocy.

Dude, what is this overwhelming evidence to the contrary you speak of. I don't see it . This big muley you talk about is said to be from the moon because it is a type of rock that has experience shock wave like from a nearby asteroid hit. Asteroids hit earth. look at the arizona crater. The rock could have been from an earth asteroid event. There is no proof of lunar origin. Interesting, you glom on to the lack of fusion crust as if it a prerequisite of earthbound lunar like material. Every single piece of nasa "evidence" is questionable and some is downright anomalous.

There are over 2,000 samples collected from the Apollo missions, Big Muley isn't the only one. I bring it up because it was too large to be collected by unmanned craft.

But not too large to be loaded into the back of the van.

Your refusal to question NASA is creating cognitive dissonance for you, and that is making you sound whiny and desperate. You can avoid this in future by letting go of your ludicrous childhood fairy tales and accepting that grown ups sometimes lie. Sorry, but that realisation is just part of growing up!

Your refusal to question NASA is creating cognitive dissonance for you, and that is making you sound whiny and desperate. You can avoid this in future by letting go of your ludicrous childhood fairy tales and accepting that grown ups sometimes lie. Sorry, but that realisation is just part of growing up!

Sorry, I think you mean, NASA, the Soviet space program, geologists, meteorite scientists and amateur astronomers.

Once again, you have provided zero evidence how do you not notice this as something odd when trying to convince somebody of something?

Just look at your post history, seriously, just browse it yourself. There is nothing NASA has done that you believed, even when you were demonstrably, completely, 100% wrong.

You're in the weeds, hopefully you're still young enough to grow out of it.

even when you were demonstrably, completely, 100% wrong.

Such as? I suggest you need to consult a dictionary to find out what "demonstrably" means, because you haven't come close to proving anything I said regarding NASA is wrong. That cognitive dissonance of yours is making you delusional as well.

Are you seriously asking me to go through your history because you don't have the ability, courage or mental fortitude to admit that you're simply a NASA naysayer? Everything you post about NASA lacks any credible evidence whatsoever, yet you believe it, because you are ignorant. If you want me to find a specific example of you being absolutely wrong in a proven instance I'm sure I could, but I honestly don't feel like doing it at the moment. The fact that you seem to think that you don't simply disagree with NASA as a reflex is laughable. According to you, they have effectively done nothing of substance in addition to intentionally misleading people. An organization of nearly 20,000 people out to trick you, it must be terrifying existence.

Once again, you've provided zero evidence and are just parrying at this point.

According to you, they have effectively done nothing of substance in addition to intentionally misleading people.

You've gone stark raving mad and started attacking straw men!

According to you:

• Moon landing - fake.

• Curiosity - fake.

• Mars Reconnaissance orbiter results - fake.

• ISS being manned - fake.

should I go on?

Broadly yes, although I would attribute different probabilities of "fakeness" to each of those. But surely you're not claiming that NASA "has done nothing of substance" (sic) apart from this little list?

Of course not, but going through your posts more, it seems even the most minute things that NASA does are inexplicably questioned by you. It really seems as though you truly doubt nearly every piece of information that NASA provides.

But what do I know, maybe you're a professional astronomer, or work in an observatory or with a telescope which has data that NASA doesn't have access to. There's no other reasonable or logical explanation for your continuous doubts regarding NASA's achievements, unless you somehow know more than them. It's just odd that you have all of this information which proves your serious doubts regarding NASA yet seem so unwilling to provide it here.

So please, I beg you, if you have any single piece of actual evidence for any of what you are saying provide it now or else this is pointless as it's a person with evidence on one side facing a conjecture artist on the other.

I'm calling time, but if you were to obsessively check my comments page several times a day (and we both know you will), you'll find an opportunity to resuscitate this dead horse flogging exercise in another thread at a later date. xx

Fair enough, in the face of overwhelming evidence contrary to your beliefs it is definitely easier to just walk away rather than actually try to learn something.

1) Big Muley is not really that big. I don't think it proves that a manned craft was needed. Wouldn't an unmanned craft actually have more room? Also, it could have been collected from Antarctica or the numerous other places that lunar rocks fall. The fusion crust I will address at the end.

2) Honestly, 180 missing out of 270 is sketchy as fuck. Its not like you give someone a moon rock and they just put it in a drawer. But yes, I can concede that maybe people stole them because stealing a moon rock would be high priority. So I am on the fence about this point.

3) Honestly, if one rock was proven fake, it kind of opens a can of worms. Like if one photo were proven to be fake, it immediately brings the rest into question. Because the 180 rocks that are now missing cannot exactly be tested anymore. For all we know, half of them or more were faked. Just saying, we have no answer to that question, we can only make assumptions from both ends of the argument.

4) Fusion crust. Unfortunately, the absence of "fusion crust" or anything that defines a moon rock as being " directly from the moon" is just one more thing that we have to take NASA's word for. Since we have no other moon rocks "directly from the moon" except for the ones brought back by NASA and the Russians.

Also, as far as we know, they could use a myriad of scientific processes to achieve an effect that they can then sell as "see, these rocks are different".

Fusion crust

a simple mechanics air hammer with a nail-end would remove a 'fusion crust' with ease.

mechanics and similar remove encrustations every day using these tools.

Amazing, please point me to a single example, with proof, where this was done in a manner that went completely undetected by the top geologists and meteorite scientists on the planet.

Otherwise it's simply blind conjecture.

2) Honestly, 180 missing out of 270 is sketchy as fuck.

In fact the missing number is probably far lower. At the present time fewer than 20 are known to be missing.

Its not like you give someone a moon rock and they just put it in a drawer.

In fact that's precisely what a lot of governments will do. These things aren't actually that impressive to look at. An acrylic ball with a few chips of rock in them. Some will have gone on public display but a lot will have gone to archives (which in many cases are literary a draw or a shelf in a warehouse). Even those that did go on display didn't all stay on display. Cataloguing in museums isn't always what it should be.

The fact that they were given as gifts via diplomatic channels rather than strait to relivant museums also complicates matters. For example even the fairly well organised UK only the goodwill moon rock is in the natural history museum. The Apollo 11 moon rock is in 10 Downing street.

Honestly, if one rock was proven fake, it kind of opens a can of worms.

However it has a completely different chain of custody to all the others.

TV stations were forced to point their cameras at a small screen that was being projected onto

This was a regular practice and how many broadcasts were done, it mostly has to do with incongruent refresh rates.

despite the lie that the film technology didn't exist to fake it, it has been proven without a doubt that the technology DID exist

That video provides neither evidence, nor "proof without a doubt"

hundreds of lighting inconsistencies, indicating alternate lighting and studio spotlights

I see no inconsistencies.

You linked to a wikipedia page debunking all of those claims.

questions about how astronauts took such good photos with no viewfinders, through their visors, and while the cameras were mounted awkwardly to their stomach

Something tells me they weren't just winging it.

the same backgrounds appearing

Why wouldn't they?

Steroparallax imaging claims that the photos are fake

No it doesn't. It makes assumptions about both the status of the cameras, the difference between shot distances and focal lengths, the distance between objects and the movement between shots.

pixelated and unclear

Well yes. It wasn't taken by a $6000 NikonD4. What were you expecting

why can't we get a clear shot?

I dunno, maybe because it was either unimportant to get a super-high-resolution 30 megapixel HDR image?

1 & 2 you seem to think that NASA has a monopoly on space travel/knowledge, almost as if the Russians or anyone else have never ventured beyond Earth.

NASA doesn't have a monopoly, NASA can't even reach the ISS anymore.

3 - It does if you look at the list of missions to the moon.

Just look at what missions did what, and which were manned. If the reflectors were placed there by unmanned missions - Which NASA mission did it?

4 - So teh alienz? How about no.

So once again, you have zero evidence and all you can say is that we need to trust you in saying NASA is lying? Without any evidence whatsoever???*

It seems as though you're just being intentionally ignorant at this point, going through your post history reads like the ramblings of a deranged sociopath. No matter what NASA does, you don't believe it, even when unequivocally proven otherwise!

In addition, now that you have no additional relevant counterpoints, you've backed into your "well NASA saying so doesn't make it so" even in regards to Big Muley. Slowly moving away from your "well the fusion crust could've been chipped away" to "it might not even be a moon rock at all!" At least you've managed to eliminate one idiotic bullet point from your list of mindless critiques.

It isn't NASA's job to eliminate your ignorance, it's something you should be capable of doing with some critical thought. You have zero evidence and are just appealing to your lack of belief in NASA. Every piece of evidence you have provided is easily dismissed or even completely incorrect.

You have nothing, this is pointless. You'll believe what you want in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This is the very definition of being willfully ignorant, you live in a bubble, a horrifying, strange bubble of absolute idiocy.

1) can we trust that the few organization with the technology to conduct these experiment are truly unbiased and not affiliated or influenced by NASA

If you want useful timing data the limiting factor for doing it is the telescope size. The lasers and detector/filtering systems are within the range of an awful lot of groups. There are about 30 telescopes around that are big enough to pull it off.

In terms of separation from NASA BTA-6 and possibly LAMOST would be the most obvious.

Telescopio Nazionale Galileo and Calar Alto Observatory are other options.

If you were prepared to throw more observing time at the problem the Nordic Optical Telescope or the Thai National Telescope become potential options.

If you don't want timing data then its just about doable with a 1 meter telescope. Steerable 1 meter telescopes aren't that uncommon.

2) like most things concerning space or the moon, we really have to take NASA's word, because we have no idea if the moon can or cannot reflect like a mirror, or what kind of returning reflection constitutes "good enough" for proof

Actually both of those can be worked out from conventional luna observations