So we can start coming to some conclusions in respect of the Terms of Reference for this thread, as in the thread title, namely the so-called 'hoaxers' versus the 'debunkers'.
Proposition no. 1. As put by Marcus Allen and Trevor Weaver (see OP video): "The Apollo 11 photos cannot have been taken on the Moon because they show a clear secondary source of light other than the Sun".
- Debater Jack by the Hedge (thanks for that) confirms clear details on a boulder on the boulder's shadow side.
- Debater Foster Zygote confirms this (albeit by his deafening silence in his distraught inability to
spit it out verbalize that shadows on the Moon are indeed pitch black).
Conclusion: Debunk fails. Check.
First of all, stop lying. I specifically stated "no" in answer to your question, so your claim regarding my "deafening silence" is utterly dishonest ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊, and further proof of your willingness to lie.
Second, no, the claims that there are secondary light sources only prove Allen and Weaver's lack of knowledge. So called "fill lightning" has been explained by reflected light from terrain, and even the reflective Beta cloth of the A7L suits. "Anomalous" shadows further prove their ineptitude, as multiple light sources would cast multiple shadows from the same object. These "anomalous" shadows only demonstrate their inability to understand 3D geometry, and their failure to understand that irregular terrain can make shadows cast by the sun appear to point in different directions and have different lengths. This can be easily demonstrated, like so:
Your "pitch black shadows" claim reminds me of something I saw in a cartoon when I was a kid. A character dove into deep water to save someone who was sinking, and said "it's lucky things are weightless under water" as he was pulling the other person to the surface. Even as a young kid, I knew that was wrong. But the writer of that story must have believed it was true, and I've since encountered that same misconception elsewhere. Similarly, with your "pitch black shadows", you've come across what you think is a truism, but is in fact only an incorrect assumption.
Proposition no. 2. In the Steve Short Show interview video (up thread)
- (i) Marcus Allen points out that Houston fails to ask whether the guys on the spacecraft are okay after having passed through the highly radioactive Van Allen Belts, as one might expect, given Van Allen was on the NASA team as the expert in this matter.
- (ii) In addition, we see the NASA medic recue crew on 'splashdown' (which we do not see) are completely unconcerned about the radiation hazard risk to the astronauts' health, who are simply sprayed with antiseptic for 'Moon Germs'.
The 'debunker, Pat Norris in the OP video claims - laughingly - the guys could have avoided the highly dangerous radioactivity on the Moon's surface by 'hiding behind a rock'.
Conclusion: The 'debunk' is roundly 'debunked' as utter bunk by Mr. Buncom himself. Check.
We got a
scary one for you this week, kids! It's RADIATION!!!
Not only did the Apollo crews wear dosimeters that were regularly checked and reported to the flight surgeon, but the Command Module had an omnidirectional radiation detector that sent radiation flux readings back to the flight surgeon as part of the telemetry.
If there had been some concern about radiation effecting the astronaut's health, what would you expect the recovery crews do do other than get them to the ship? Again, the procedure you cited in your anecdote has nothing to do with radiation exposure, only with contamination by radioactive materials. Even if they had been exposed to dangerously high levels of ionizing radiation, there's nothing the recovery crew would be expected to do about it.
As it was, the flight surgeon and Mission Control were well aware of the crews' exposure levels, as well as their health status.
And yes, if there had been an unexpected coronal mass ejection toward the moon, one emergency procedures option, for the LM crew on then surface, was to get in the shadow of a large boulder for as long as possible, because the particle radiation from such an event would be coming from the sun. This was part of the "in the unlikely event ◊◊◊◊ goes
really wrong" planning.
Proposition no. 3: It is pointed out by Allen and Weaver in the OP video there are no stars in the black sky in the Apollo 11 photos supposedly taken by a handheld Hasselblad on the Moon surface.
- Patrick Moore at the press conference with the three astronauts asks what stars they saw and Neil Armstrong replies, 'I don't recall'.
- Debunker Jay Utah claims this is because it is impossible to have taken pics of the stars in the sky from the Moon's surface.
Conclusion: It seems highly unlikely the astronauts saw no stars from the Moon surface. As with propositions two and three being rejected as being 'debunked', it remains to be seen whether they were even on the Moon, as claimed. Not debunked as never established to begin with.
Outcome of the debate: "Houston, we have a checkmate!"
◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. You've already conceded that the cameras used couldn't have imaged stars with the settings used to photograph objects in sunlight. This assumption that a black sky equals visible stars is childishly simple.
Jay never claimed that photographing stars from the lunar surface was
impossible. He said it couldn't be done with the film and settings used. You're lying
again. And other than using the sextant on the AGC, they (we're talking the Apollo 11 crew) weren't there to look at stars, so they didn't take time out to create the specific conditions that would be required to view them either from the CM or the lunar surface, so saying they didn't recall seeing any stars is perfectly consistent with the realities of physics, photography and vision.
"Checkmate" isn't what you say when you eat your last remaining pawn.
