This post is not about identifying the source of the blue lights on Apollo 17 photos, nor is it about the wider debate over similar blue lights reported or photographed on other Apollo missions.
I'm not arguing that the blue lights seen in those photographs were caused by Lunar Module control panel lights.
This post is about research methodology.
Specifically, it concerns:
- making categorical factual claims;
- relying on memory and expert opinion;
- and whether readily available primary sources should be checked before publicly stating that something is "absolutely, categorically" true.
In the Reality Check episode "Inside lunar triangle, STS-48 anomaly: The footage the Pentagon has not explained," Ross Coulthart and Dr Max Derakhshani, discuss an Apollo 17 photograph showing apparent blue "lights" photographed through the window of the Lunar Module.
Dr Derakhshani mentions a possible explanation offered by others (which he doesn't subscribe to): "It might be due to some internal reflection ...of something inside the lunar module because the photo was taken from ...within the lunar module through the window...if there was some blue lights on some dashboard inside the lunar module..."
Ross interjected and said: "I can cut you off there, I know there weren't. I've actually checked this when I was writing my book". One of the the things that I, um, wrote about was the blue lights on the lunar surface. And I asked people with a detailed knowledge of the lunar module whether there were any blue lights in the lunar module control panel, and there were not. ABSOLUTELY, CATEGORICALLY, NO BLUE LIGHTS."
X user Sixmorefeet (through whose post I became aware of this) contacted Ross, pointing him to NASA documentation indicating that the Lunar Module did in fact have blue Lunar Contact indicator lights. To his credit, Ross replied publicly that he had checked again with one of his knowledgeable contacts and acknowledged that there was a blue light in the Lunar Module.
The issue isn't whether the blue lights in the Apollo 17 photograph originated from the Lunar Contact indicators. The issue is that a claim presented as "absolutely, categorically" true was subsequently revised after further checking.
Everyone makes mistakes. That's not the point. The point is that the original statement wasn't presented as a recollection or opinion. It was presented as fact, based on previous research for a published book and discussions with knowledgeable people.
Having since checked the relevant NASA documentation myself, it appears that the Lunar Contact indicator lights were intentionally blue (to easily distinguish them from the other control panel lights) and were standard equipment on the Lunar Module.
The point isn't the blue lights. It's that an "absolutely, categorically" claim was later revised.
Shouldn't that have been the starting point before making a categorical factual claim?
It also raises a broader question: what other factual claims in past or future episodes are being accepted on the basis of non-public expert sources?
Edit: Link to X post: https://x.com/Twomorefeet1/status/2075278080680005843?s=20