Apollo Discussions > The Hoax Theory
The Blunder's Crock
onebigmonkey:
He who shall not be named has a new 'article' over at aulis:
https://www.aulis.com/j_white_col7.htm
in which he proudly displays something he paid an inordinate amount of money for: a press photo of the famous 'C-rock' Apollo 16 image, dated the day it was released to the media.
It's a lot of strawmen bundled together, in which he triumphantly proclaims "See! See! The 'C' was always there".
He relies heavily on Ralph Rene's alleged difficulty in getting the photos from NASA, and criticises the extremely simple explanations given by many (including the Clavius site). He's extremely dismissive of the analysis done by Lunar Anomalies, but fails to note that even a broken clock can be right twice a day, and that just because someone sees alien cities on the moon it doesn't mean they aren't capable of recognising a stray fibre when they see one (even if they were wrong about the source of the original C rock photo).
His claim now is that all other versions of the photo have had the 'C' airbrushed out, and he has the one true image in his sweaty over-excitable hands.
What he fails to do, however, is firstly prove that the "it's a fibre put on the image as it was reproduced" isn't the correct explanation, secondly, recognise that there might, just might, be more than one version of the image released and that the hair free version was used in (eg) the Preliminary Science Report, and that finally, if someone airbrushed out an obvious defect, so what?
If someone looked at that image and drew the very obvious conclusion that it's not actually part of the image and decided to remove it, what exactly does that prove? It certainly doesn't prove that the photo wasn't taken on the moon, nor does it prove that the apparent 'C' was on the rock itself.
tl:dr: man spends AUS$100 on a photo, doesn't understand what's in it.
Mag40:
It's definitely not been airbrushed out, they handed out duplicates of the internegatives.
https://www.scribd.com/document/500270912/Authenticating-Vintage-NASA-Photography
"Through this process, the PTL used the internegative as an intermediate between what was exposed in the camera on the Moon, and the final print now sought by collectors. [Kodak global product manager Robert] Shanebrook estimates that NASA probably produced about 100 internegative copies and shared them with individuals or companies close to the mission's development. For instance, Kodak, a devoted supplier to NASA, received an internegative copy of the Apollo 11 images, which Shanebrook used in 1969 to create several prints as a memento of his time with Kodak."
Mag40:
This is so funny. He actually uses this image to suggest it was a marker pen, a special marker pen that you can see through on the thick section. Why? Just why would they scrawl on rocks? Is there any precedent at all in theatrical or movie sets?
onebigmonkey:
I found the lunar anomalies site on the wayback machine and for all I think the authors are deluded in many areas, their write up on this is very interesting.
JW's main 'gotcha' seems to be their conclusion that the 'C' post-dates Apollo 16 by a good decade, based on discussions with people at the LPI (an organisation that was only founded in 1978). His example is immediately post-mission so something something something A-HA!!
This evil airbrushers then realised their mistake and airbrushed out the C, while simultaneously releasing the photo with it present to anyone who asked, and letting it be reprinted, for years afterwards. His logic kind of falls apart there.
It is self-evidently not on the rock. Neither is there a secondary 'C' on the ground - it's shadows on a smaller more degraded rock, easily discerned on high resolution images.
The rock can also be seen from different angles in photos from magazine 110 (eg AS16-110-17961 and 17947, and on the live TV. It would have taken more than 1 letter to get any kind of set dressed accurately.
smartcooky:
--- Quote from: onebigmonkey on July 05, 2023, 12:33:37 PM ---He who shall not be named has a new 'article' over at aulis:
https://www.aulis.com/j_white_col7.htm
in which he proudly displays something he paid an inordinate amount of money for: a press photo of the famous 'C-rock' Apollo 16 image, dated the day it was released to the media.
It's a lot of strawmen bundled together, in which he triumphantly proclaims "See! See! The 'C' was always there".
He relies heavily on Ralph Rene's alleged difficulty in getting the photos from NASA, and criticises the extremely simple explanations given by many (including the Clavius site). He's extremely dismissive of the analysis done by Lunar Anomalies, but fails to note that even a broken clock can be right twice a day, and that just because someone sees alien cities on the moon it doesn't mean they aren't capable of recognising a stray fibre when they see one (even if they were wrong about the source of the original C rock photo).
His claim now is that all other versions of the photo have had the 'C' airbrushed out, and he has the one true image in his sweaty over-excitable hands.
What he fails to do, however, is firstly prove that the "it's a fibre put on the image as it was reproduced" isn't the correct explanation, secondly, recognise that there might, just might, be more than one version of the image released and that the hair free version was used in (eg) the Preliminary Science Report, and that finally, if someone airbrushed out an obvious defect, so what?
If someone looked at that image and drew the very obvious conclusion that it's not actually part of the image and decided to remove it, what exactly does that prove? It certainly doesn't prove that the photo wasn't taken on the moon, nor does it prove that the apparent 'C' was on the rock itself.
tl:dr: man spends AUS$100 on a photo, doesn't understand what's in it.
--- End quote ---
The guy is just a blathering idiot, and he just keeps proving it over and over. For example, too stupid to understand that human hair is translucent...
Even more obvious when its out of focus.
(love the clever thread title by the way?)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version