but...but...it has spooky techno music!!
The smears one is interesting, as I do believe he has correctly identified when the smear arrived on the reseau plate, but his conclusions are total bs from there on in.
He claims that the astronauts report cleaning the reseau plate, and that the mission report says that the smearing occurred between EVA-2 and EVA-3.
The wording in the mission report is ambiguous - a simple reading of it that it implies that it occurred at some point during 2 & 3. He is being specific and pedantic in his interpretation of it being between 2 & 3 - mainly because this fits his narrative better.
The wording in the debrief is not ambiguous. At no point do either Duke or Young say they cleaned the reseau plate between EVAs, yet this is precisely what he claims they say, even though the words are in front of him.
His claim is that 114 was swapped in at station 9 on EVA 2 and that the smears first appear at that time and that all of the shots taken with cam 39 between the LM and station 9 were clear, thus proving that the smear was introduced at station 9.
In reality, the smear was introduced in the LM between EVA 1 and EVA 2. 114 was in camera during EVA 1 frames 18383-18443. On EVA 2 frames 18444-18470 exhibit the smear, so clearly it was introduced during the sojourn in the LM between EVA 1 and EVA 2. While in the LM, as well as the cleaning attempt, cam 39 had mag 114 removed and replaced with mag 107. 114 was never used on EVA 3 so the whole house of cards falls.
116, however was entirely shot on EVA 3 and has the smear in every shot. No other mags were used on cam 39, so the sequence of events with cam 39 seems to be:
1. Mag 114 was used on cam 39 from the outset of EVA 1.
2. In the LM, between EVA 1 and EVA 2 some cleaning was performed and mag 114 was replaced with mag 107. In the process, mag 114 was contaminated.
3. EVA 2 proceeded as normal with cam 39 loaded with mag 107.
4. When mag 107 was expended on cam 39 it was replaced with the contaminated mag 114.
5. The contamination was transferred to the reseau plate of cam 39.
6. The remainder of mag 114 was then expended on EVA 2 using cam 39.
7. For EVA 3, cam 39 was loaded with mag 116. Every shot exhibits the smear. 114, having been exhausted, was not used on any camera for EVA 3.
8. Only mag 116 was used in cam 39 on EVA 3, no others were used.
So, really, there is no anomaly. I have no idea what he thinks this proves.
My interpretation of events is that the magazine has some sticky residue on it, that gets lunar dust stuck to it, and when it is transferred to the camera the mechanism of opening the magazine for use smears it on the reseau.
Between EVA 1 and EVA 2 they attempted to clean up the cameras. Seems to me that is when the gunk was unintentional smeared on the reseau plate by whatever means.
He suggests that it may be on the lens and identifies when this might have happened, but offers no explanation as to how orange juice soaking through the chest of the suit gets on a lens that is nowhere near it. His invention of the orange juice theory then gets extrapolated into more ludicrous notions of dead astronauts by conflation of two totally imaginary scenarios.
The whole OJ baloney is hilarious.
