Cowell wrote:How about, you prove to me that man had to personally place them there and that it couldn't have been done during the over 30 unmanned missions to the moon before Apollo 11.
First of all Cowell, there is no proof. There is no "proof" of anything. You can't even prove you exist. Go ahead and try, you can't do it.
In reality, there is no proof, only stipulation. So I can't prove that man had to do anything. But the official claim, which includes the testimony of sober men with first hand knowledge, is that they did put those reflectors there. So the burden of "proof" lies with you, not me.
Cowell wrote:Well, going into your 10th year of study, it might be helpful for you to know the government claims there were six manned missions to the moon, not three. (Just joking with you.)
Joking or not, maybe you misunderstood what I was referring to. I was referring to the number of reflector sites, not the number of manned flights.
Cowell wrote:Why could they not have been put there by any number of expeditions to the moon that didn't involve man going there?
They could have Cowell. And if you can prove that, and I accept your "proof" (because you can't prove anything), then I acquiesce. Can you do it? No, no more than I can prove man put them there. But I am not aware of any evidence they were put there by machines, not men, but I do have evidence and testimony men put them there, not machines.
Cowell wrote:...they know how illogical most fellow citizens are ...
If you want a discussion on logic, start using some. As I have just shown, your logic is backwards.
Cowell wrote:I find the argument very silly that man had to place the reflectors on the moon.
It's not an argument, it is a so called "fact", one which I have accepted by stipulation, in the face of a lack of proof of anything. Cowell, how about this: I conditionally accept your proposition that the reflectors were put on the moon by machine, upon proof of claim that there are no testimonies by sober men that they put them there themselves. There. Since I have accepted your claim (conditionally), there cannot be an argument. But, the ball is now in your court. You need to now show me there are no testimonies that the reflectors were put there by man. You could start refuting any way you like, by showing the men were drunk when they uttered their statements, experiencing duress, part of a conspiracy, or whatever. I'm waiting. What evidence do you have, other than your word only?
Cowell wrote:It is not the simplest.
If man went to the moon, it is the simplest. That is where we are Cowell. The statement is as follows: "Man went to the moon". You can try to refute that by showing the reflectors were put there by robots. But you will try in vain, because you will then need to explain how robots putting reflectors on the moon precluded any man from standing on the moon at that time, or any other time. In other words, is the presence of reflectors, or flags waving in the "wind", or shadows, or angry astronauts exclusive to man standing on the moon? If NASA faked all the footage and robots put reflectors on the moon, does that preclude them from having been there?
Cowell wrote:Space probes and robots were also used to gather moon rocks as early as 1970
1970? A little late, isn't it?
Cowell wrote:By the way, isn't the point of this thread a discussion around how much of the evidence is or can be refuted
No, the thread is whether a guy messed up in saying men would never stand on the moon, when they apparently did, at least according to the best evidence available right now.
"Sometimes we LDS members seem not as concerned about being the light of the world as being lit up in the lights of the world".