Please do. I believe it's this one though:-
Here's the transcript Apollo 11 - Technical Air-to-Ground Voice Transcription
Watching it unedited thoroughly debunks Siebrel because he has edited it deceptively in his video, as explained in this thorough debunking of "A Funny thing.." that I just came across:-
No, to me he seems to be telling the truth and enthusiastically explaining things he noticed about it, and how it once happened on the moon too. I'm not seeing any signs on deceit.
I haven't been able to find the full uncut interview. I found one with a stupid edit, then I also found this where Bean swears (which is something you shouldn't do) on the Bible that they went to the moon.
They could avoid the worst part of the Van Allen Belt and on Apollo 12 it probably wasn't a big deal anymore so it hasn't made a big imprint in his memory.
Besides, Alan Bean seems to be over 80 in this interview.
He starts off by saying:-
"No, i'm not sure we went far enough to encounter the Van Allen Radiation belt. maybe we did".
If one says "i'm not sure" does that not often mean "I don't remember"?
He might also have separated in his mind the most dangerous part of it with the part of it that they crossed on their route.
Then he recollects and explains what it looks like when you close your eyes and observe radiation hitting you and to me it seems as genuine memories and not lying.
Not even briefed on phenomena? What's your source, or did you make that up?
Not that it is a problem that they used an electrical light but you can get shadows that look like they intersect from sunlight too. Uneven surfaces and perspective are the reason.
SImilarly many flat earthers believe that crepuscular rays prove that the sun is local (and just above the clouds) when it's just perspective that makes them look not pararell.
Also, Siebrel has slightly exaggerated the apparent angles of the shadows in his example image (He's file named titled Shadow.tif, source uknown (which I believe is AS17-136-20744).
I believe that something like this (below) is a more accurate interpretation of the angles of the shadows, converging normally at the vanishing point. There are two rocks that have shadows that appear to be angled differently that surface irregularities can cause (+ see note about multiple light source below)
source of the analysis below
That first image illustrates another property of shadows that shows there is a single light source - if the shadow of the camera is in the photo, then lines drawn from an object through its own shadow (eg the tips of the posts here) will converge at the shadow of the camera:
AS17-136-20744 from Apollo 17 is an extreme example of "non-parallel shadows", but they obey this rule, meeting in the chest area where the camera was mounted.
It's not always easy to tell exactly which part of an irregular rock casts the shadow, and of course irregularities in the surface mean that the alignment will not always be 100% perfect, but it's pretty clear what is happening.)
I hope you don't take a quick and easy way to dismiss the above analysis from Metabunk by saying it's a source that can't be trusted.
And again, if multiple light sources were used there would be multiple shadows per object, has never been seen in NASA moon images.
Example:
Well, Bart Siebrel is featuring it on his site for some reason. If the paths of moon missions were recorded in telemetry I don't think moon-doubters would be able to decode it or that it satisfy them as evidence.
Presidents/NASA saying they are going to the moon again but not going / postponing it still isn't proof that the moon missions were faked.
Or slightly better from the 70s... Apollo 17.
6 moon missions, all looking consistent.
And at 4:27 Siebrel takes up this article: https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1157145/Moon-landing-NASA-chief-admits-Apollo-technology-cannot-land-Moon-Jim-Bridenstine which for some reason has the stupid clickbaity wording "Half-a-century later, however, NASA’s top brass has admitted Apollo’s lunar landers are no longer adequate for modern lunar exploration."
The material to the article originates from this blog post Artemis is Our Future – Former NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine which clearly explains the reasons.
And he doesn't have to explain the following which I'm going to quote without naming the source because it will be attacked:
...So, when the Apollo program ended, the factories that assembled those vehicles were retasked or shut down. The jigs were disassembled. The molds were destroyed. The technicians, engineers, scientists, and flight controllers moved onto other jobs. Over time, some of the materials used became obsolete.
If we, today, said - "Let us build another Saturn V rocket and Apollo CSM/LEM and go to the moon!" it would not be a simple task of pulling out the blueprints and bending and cutting metal.
We don't have the factories or tools. We don't have the materials. We don't have the expertise to understand how the real vehicle differed from the drawings. We don't have the expertise to operate the vehicle.
We would have to substitute modern materials. That changes the vehicle. It changes the mass, it changes the stresses and strains, it changes the interactions. It changes the possible malfunctions. It changes the capabilities of the vehicle.
We would have to spend a few years re-developing the expertise. We would have to conduct new tests and simulations. We would have to draft new flight rules and procedures. We would have to certify new flight controllers and crew.
We would essentially be building a new vehicle.
Not that many years ago when everyone was switching from vinyl records to CD records almost all vinyl factories shut down and there was a real risk of us losing that technology and knowhow. Now we could say, "now that we have CD technology which is lightyears ahead of vinyl records how is it that we can't create a simply vinyl record anymore, that's bullcrap"
Another one: "Are we led to believe that now 45 years later with much more modern printing press technology and know how that we couldn't spin up this old printing press"
Sibrel uses the fact that B-52s are still being used today but I don't believe that comparison is that simple. It's comparing apples and oranges.
Interesting reading:-
Siebrel also says that "NASA threw away the blueprints obviously to cover up" but that's not true. (Good insights on this here: https://www.quora.com/Did-NASA-lose-the-blueprint-plans-for-the-Apollo-spacecraft-How-and-why-What-about-some-of-the-the-videos-or-photos-of-the-Apollo-missions-Again-how-or-why