However, when you dissect each point one by one, it is patently obvious that this is merely a business venture that exploits those who take little convincing.
Continuing Disk 1 of 2
Minutes 26-28 Percy shows us a modern composite of a Honda commercial and begs the question of the viewer. Nowhere has he demonstrated the same effect in an Apollo picture, yet he leaves the impression that he has. He cites a ludicrous example from Apollo 17, again missing the multiple light sources equals multiple shadows fact.
Here is a link to the high resolution picture:-
The rocks that he says have different shadow directions are in undulating areas, where the shadow falls down subtle small slopes. Anybody looking at that picture who thinks it is a composite from 1972, is either lying, uninformed about 70s technology or just plain wrong.
Here are some Earth shadows demonstrating his whole contention as just a pack of lies:-
Minutes 28-29 He looks at the famous C rock picture itself clearly on a slope with undulations and draws these same idiotic shadow conclusions.Then he parrots the theory about the letter "C" (a piece of lint on a copy of the original that has no "C"!). He postulates that the "C" is a prop, and stands for either "center" or some rambling about it meaning light, since C is the constant for the speed of light!! Just pure bunkum.
Completely debunked here:-
Minute 29 Bizzarely the film starts talking about the speed of light constant varying with local gravity fields!?? I can only assume they are trying to bamboozle those viewers who have no real scientific background.
Minutes 29-31 The film lays the premise that backlighting had to have been used, since objects would show up as black with the light source behind them. This is patently wrong. Percy uses an Earth shot, where the backlight shows up in the visor as an example, yet as expected could find no examples of pictures with any such backlighting reflections in the visor. Further, any backlighting not from the surface, would wash out the shadows. Always in every shot, we have crisp dark shadows, something you simply would not get outdoors with an atmosphere either.
The backlighting is from surface reflection. I already analysed that on Link 2 of this page:-
Minutes 32-33 Percy makes the astonishing comparison of the light capabilities of a modified 10 frames per second TV camera which had a high intensity night lens, to a Hasselblad stills camera which has variable shutter and aperture! He makes the claim that because one had a night lens, so should the other. Bunkum. Actually he is just lying, this man is supposed to be a cameraman and would know this.
Minutes 33-49 This is more about supposed backlighting, again covered in detail on the same Link 2 here:-
As further demonstration of the surface being the backlight source, the picture directly before Percy's example where he cites something that should be in shadow, actually shows the bottom of the PLSS much brighter than other parts of his suit. In addition it is much brighter than the actual area we would expect to be bright, if Groves "analysis" of his phantom light source was correct!
Here is a link to the actual picture:-
Here is why Groves analysis is contrived hogwash:-
Minutes 50-51 The presenter Ronnie Stronge now offers more conjecture aimed at swaying the audience. He presents a "case proven" on the supposed fake images with vague strawman references saying how even one suspect photograph proves the case. Since I have shown that no such proof has been given, we can assume that it is aimed at promoting the idea in the viewer that it has been.
Minutes 51-55 We now have possibly the most contrived, dishonest and ludicrous of statements in this whole film. A woman nobody has heard of, talking about a coke bottle that nobody else saw, not reported in any publication, and supposedly put there by a Goldstone whistleblower!! Bunkum of the highest order.
"Una Ronald claims to have “stayed up late” to watch the live broadcast of the Apollo 11 moonwalk when living in or near Perth, Western Australia. She was amazed to see a “coke bottle” kicked across the lunar surface. This object was only seen during the live broadcast and was removed from replays in the days following. She also claims to have seen, about 7 to 10 days later, several letters mentioning the same thing in her local paper (The West Australian).
This claim has many irregularities, and researchers have discovered what might be an explanation. To begin, it is claimed that she “stayed up” to watch the live broadcast. This might have been the case in the United States, but it was not in Perth. The first step onto the Moon occurred at 2.56am on 21 July 1969 – Greenwich Mean Time (GMT). Perth is 8 hours ahead of GMT, so it occurred at 10.56am in Perth. That’s in the morning.
The moonwalk video was actually received by ground stations in the eastern states before being transmitted to Perth (see http://www.honeysucklecreek.net/Apollo_11/index.html for more details).
The claim regarding the newspaper reports are also incorrect. For at least two weeks following the broadcast, there were no articles or letters regarding sightings of a “coke bottle” in either The West Australian or the Daily News, the only two daily newspapers in Perth at the time. I have personally checked this, and any interested party can examine copies of the various editions of the papers on microfiche at the Batte library (State Reference Library) in Perth.
What Una Ronald probably saw was a reflection of Buzz Aldrin’s visor, reflected inside the television camera lens. This effect is known as catadioptrism, or “ghosting”."
I should point out the continual references being made to "people in the know" having the opportunity to "whistleblow"! Hoax believers cite that it would take only a handful of people with knowledge of this "hoax" to pull such a thing off, yet here we have all these numerous people supposedly with first hand knowledge of it. None of whom has ever come forward, made a deathbed confession or said anything about it whatsoever to anybody. Bunkum.
Minutes 55-56 Bill Kaysing gives us his opinion with no references or proof as per usual. Kaysing already discussed in Link 1 of this analysis:-
Minutes 56-57 Begs the question about what "we know" about Apollo 11 TV transmissions(this is the referback method, meaning his debunked "transparency on the window" nonsense) , and then more back references to Coke bottles and whistleblowers.
At this point we are treated to some mysterious music and a few clips of video from Apollo.
Minutes 57-59 Talks about how easy it was to use the camera and align the subject of each photograph. We are told quite correctly that the astronauts spent quite some time practicing with the camera before their missions. His motive in doing this, is to later present the claim that it shouldn't have been possible with "cumbersome" pressurised gloves.
"There are two protective envelopes employed in the space suit: an Inner pressurizable envelope, and an outer thermal and micrometeoroid protective envelope. The inner pressurizable envelope Is called the Torso and Limb Suit Assembly (TLSA); this assembly Interfaces with a detachable helmet, and a pair of removable gloves.
The outer envelope used for thermal and micrometeoroid protection Includes an Integrated Thermal Micrometeoroid Garment (ITMG), a Lunar Extravehicular Visor Assembly (LEVA)..."
Minutes 59-60 Percy cites the example of setting up the TV camera on uneven surface and aligning it, to suggest that it is the same as a chest mounted camera that they had practiced with. He also uses one of his throw away lines to further suggest that all the photography was studio quality and perfectly aligned.