Is there real scientific proof of moon landing?

Let's say the government lied, Stanley Kubrick filmed the video, all the rockets and ships were manufactured just for show, and a bunch of people were silenced to keep the truth from getting out.

Does it make any difference?

>>9102472
Yes, because it harms NASAs scientific credibility, if i cant trust NASA in moon landing, how can I trust their data about climate change and so on?

Mirror retroreflectors on Moons surface used by independent observatories, Russian tracking of our space ships (Russia would have high motivation to expose any American lies during the cold war, especially in regards to the space race), by now the files would have been declassified if it was faked

>>9102466
That bloody great moon rocket, I reckon.

moon hoax not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGXTF6bs1IU&
it was actually technically more feasible to land on the moon than to fake it

File: 1396499199539.jpg (271KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 1920x1080px

>>9102466
Suppose I don't believe human visited Moon. Let my argument be it is too far away (4 E8 meters) for that much weight (3 E6 kg). Current satellites of that time were 100x closer (3 to 4 E6 meters) and 100-1000x times lighter.

Distance from Earth to Moon (meter): 4 E8
Distance from Earth to satellites of that time (meter): 3 to 4 E6

Mass of rocket that is claimed to brought humans to Moon (integrale of kg per meter):
>3 E6 to 5 E4 from Earth to 2 E5 (at that point module was separated from carrier rocket)
>5 E4 to 5 E3 from 2 E5 to surface of Moon
>With 5 E3 from surface of Moon to Earth

Mass of satellites of that time (kg): order of magnitude E3 to E4

I accept that unmanned devices did land on Moon. Latest lunar orbiter had a mass of 4 E3, 10x lighter than manned spacecraft.

In anticipation to the most common counterarguments
>There is a reflective surface in Moon that the men installed. You can shine laser onto it
Unmanned device could've easily planted that. I accept that reflective surface of that kind couldn't have formed spontaneously.
>Why would they fake a moon landing?
Power display. USSR and USA were heavily influenced by competition that could've driven them to such acts.
>What difference does it make whether they were on the Moon or not?
Humans have unrealistic expectations on space transportation possibilities. I want to reinforce the concept that humanity will (1) never live on any other celestial body other than Earth (2) never be able to transport any instrument outside the Solar system (3) never find extraterrestrial life. These realistic expectations will possibly lead to better environmental policies.


In conclusion: I claim a human has never touched the surface of Moon and returned alive.

How would you attack my claim so that I myself could reproduce the results? Merit of science is that in principle anyone could verify what you say, and that for a claim to be true, it must also be verified by someone else (for example, not USA).

>>9102614
fucking hell is this seriously a pasta now

File: M175252641LR_ap15.png (421KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

421KB, 900x900px

>>9102466
well, we have high res images of the arizona state university lroc mission which took nice pictures of a couple of apollo landing sites, you can see the descent stage, even the tracks of the astronauts as they moved out to place the scientific experiments, and the tracks of the moon buggy. they also managed a flyover of the russian luna 17 and lunokhod 1 landing site and took a nice composite image of its path as it drove around on the moon.
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/images?page=4&query=apollo

>>9102494
the russians were in on it

>>9102478
Could you trust any part of the government to begin with?
The thing about the lunar missions is that amount of people involved of them, from the astronauts, to the scientists, to the engineers, to airspace operators, government officials, etc. no less than 200,000 people would have direct knowledge that the moon landings were certainly fake with irrefutable proof to offer. That's a paranoid schizophrenic level conspiracy right there.

>>9102614
Tasty pasta

Seriously OP just read all of this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
tldr: Tons of people who aren't NASA tracked the missions and they brought back so many Moon rocks that there's no way they didn't

>>9102671
The flat earther would argue that the astronauts are the only ones they have to silence since no one else went into (((space)))

>>9102466
The moon landings dunno. The mars rovers definitely didnt.

>>9102466
Well they bought back a whole lot of rocks.

>>9102614
>Suppose I don't believe
Suppose anyone shives a git what you don't believe.

>>9102958
Suppose you have no argument.

>>9102466
>scientific proof
L0Lno, Lrn2proof fgt pls