The point is - all the supposed problems/errors etc. are easily explained -often, as you pointed out, with a simple one-liner such as 'Er - he was standing on higher ground!'
You've hit the nail on the head here Jim. I don't wish to seem obtuse or flippant, but to precede an exclamation with 'Er ... ' tends to denote a pause before a wild guess, the latter then tending to be met with laughter, only to be followed by another wild guess, then another, then another ... Try your example above out loud jim, and make sure you hold the pause, then continue with surprise in your voice. See what I mean? I think this is telling of the way you're really thinking.
All the 'anomalous light sources' photos overlook the fact that there were a number of other light-reflecting surfaces (including a 20 foot high silver and white lunar module) to provide extra illumination. And yes, light does reflect in a vacuum as well as in atmosphere, otherwise we wouldn't be able to see the moon.
By 'other light-reflecting surfaces' do you mean those that seem to have had absolutely no impact on 'lightening' the pitch-black shadow of the lunar module, but that seem instead to have an unexplainable and amazing ability to direct just the right amount of reflected light only onto the 'subject matter' such that the part of the photo which affords it the greatest visual impact is presented nice and clear, and exposed just right?!
I'm well aware that light reflects in a vacuum, and thank you for raising this too. You'll also be aware, I assume, that light becomes scattered when passing through the atmosphere, which partially accounts for the indirect lighting of surfaces in addition to directly reflected light. Conversely, scattering of light is eliminated when passing through a (true) vacuum, hence the clarity of the images acquired by the likes of the Hubble telescope. Your pointing out that there is no atmosphere on the Moon actually serves to
weaken the 'reflected' light argument!
The reason that the thorough debunking (and by thorough I mean that each and every hoax-theory point has been addressed and dismissed individually) is relatively short is that the alleged 'anomalies' are very easily and convincingly, to my mind at least, explained.
Well, to my mind 'easy' explanations of anomalies tend not to be convincing, especially when offered to counter the sceptical views and opinions of pre-eminent people within the respective applicable fields of study.
Are you familiar with the concept of Occam's Razor?
Yes I am. Thank you for reminding me, because you're actually the one who's fallen foul of it! Whereas the 'simplistic' explanations might seem to some to be the most attractive on account of their increased likelihood of being discredited, they are, in this case, ironically, the explanations that harbour the most assumptions! You see, whereas Dark Moon generally seeks to analyse the seeming anomalies to a high degree of detail, thereby systematically eliminating the need to make assumptions (but, admittedly, exposing itself to a higher likelihood of scrutinization at the detailed, albeit less relevant, level), simple explanations, almost by definition, are riddled with assumptions, especially those that are selected from a whole host of possible alternative simple explanations or combinations thereof. In such cases (like the 'inclined' surface in the Buzz Aldrin photo) the entire explanation is indeed an assumption!
As I wrote earlier Jim, I'd be inclined to conclude that, on balance, we probably have walked on the moon, if I had to bet my house. My main beef is with the contrasting shallowness of the counter-arguments put up to seek to disprove the allegations and the seemingly damning analyses and studies. Moreover, I find it intriguing that there doesn't seem to be one blatantly indisputable piece of evidence that simply blows the allegations completely out of the water, particularly given the significance of such a monumental event in history. Is there no subsequent photographic or other unfalsifiable record of the artefacts that surely remain intact on the lunar surface? It seems ludicrous to me that given that physical evidence does indeed exist, albeit some 380,000km away, that people, including yourself Jim, are forced to resort to ascribing the Soviets' backing down from the race to the moon as the main source of evidence, circumstantial at that, that supports man's landing on the Moon!
