Coke can dating
This is obviously a pretty fantastic story, one which the authors claim holds "great importance." We think we know what Una Ronald's "Coke bottle" might have been, but the authors maintain that what "Una" saw cannot be seen in existing videotapes and kinescopes.
This is how Bennett and Percy deftly attempt to patch up the first large hole in Una Ronald's story, namely that she had to "stay up" to watch the moonwalk live.
We think it's suspicious that Una would already be fairly well versed in the standard allegations of moon hoax conspiracists before seeking out Bennett and Percy.
And all of these allegations use the Hasselblad photography as their basis; the lighting and shadow arguments are generally not arguable from the Apollo 11 video, as these images are of too poor quality.
After all, you don't need the testimony of the editor to establish that a certain letter was or was not published in a widely-circulated newspaper. Clavius researcher Peter Barrett examined surviving copies of The Western Australian dating to the time in question and failed to find any mention whatsoever of Coke bottles in the moonwalk telecast.
Chief librarian Tracey Bennett (no relation to Mary) for The Western Australian has confirmed that no letter or article regarding a Coke bottle in the moonwalk telecast was printed in either of their two newspapers for at least two weeks following the broadcast.
Then we discuss the authors' summer 2003 response to the points we and others have raised.
If we stay true to Una's belief, those hordes of people would have had to see it to. Only, for whatever reason, they didn't recognize it as Una did.
Nevertheless it does fit Una's observation very closely.
But Una said she was suspicious of those shadow directions while watching the telecast, before any of the Hasselblad photographs had been released.
(And, indeed, before many of them had even been taken.) Then why does Una Ronald appear, undisguised, on camera in What Happened on the Moon?