ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: AstroBrant on January 16, 2015, 08:33:03 AM
-
I found a picture of earth from Apollo 16, which should be an effective antidote to C-rock claims. (I just ran into another one today.)
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a16/as16-118-18873HR.jpg
Zoom in and look in central Canada to the right of the clouds. You will see a letter "J". I discovered this myself. So if Rene can have his C-rock, by golly, I want credit for my J-continent!
Speaking of "J", Jay, if you have this somewhere on Clavius, I'm going to be seriously upset!
Anyway, now that I've pointed this out, I'm wondering if it is the same photographic phenomenon as the "C", (lint getting into the photo-reproducing process.) There's a lot of debris floating around the craft. Is it possible that some string-like object near the CM might be causing this?
-
Zoom in and look in central Canada to the right of the clouds. You will see a letter "J". I discovered this myself. So if Rene can have his C-rock, by golly, I want credit for my J-continent!
I think you'll have to talk to HRH Elizabeth II for that one.
Speaking of "J", Jay, if you have this somewhere on Clavius, I'm going to be seriously upset!
Fear not, it's your original discovery. If I decide to report it on the relevant Clavius page, naturally you get credit. Well, for the photographic discovery anyway, not necessarily the alleged land mass. ;D
Bennett and Percy go on to claim that in addition to the C on the rock, there's also a C on the ground in front of the rock. The Aulis authors and Rene both argue NASA "airbrushed" the C out of subsequent releases of that photo, but Aulis (Bennett and Percy) go on to argue that the C on the ground confirms that the rock allegedly marked C was meant to be placed there. So in refuting that, I note that in the C-rock photo -- if you want to stick with pareidolic letter identification -- you can see a whole lot more "letters" in the texture of the lunar surface.
So in a sense I've possibly stolen that bit of thunder.
Anyway, now that I've pointed this out, I'm wondering if it is the same photographic phenomenon as the "C", (lint getting into the photo-reproducing process.) There's a lot of debris floating around the craft. Is it possible that some string-like object near the CM might be causing this?
There is indeed a lot of debris; this photo was probably taken not long after transposition and docking. It could be debris outside the spacecraft, or as with the C-rock photo, post-flight contamination of the transparencies or prints.
-
C-rock, exactly what it says on the tin... Crock. I sometimes wonder if Ralph and Bill were trying to tell stories and the Crock was Ralph's message that he was really just extracting the urine by spinning a yarn. A bit like Kaysing and his co-author Randy Reid. Maybe someone else here can throw some light on the latter. Was Randy a real person, or is it possible that Kaysing's orignial manuscript was a fictional work and he only made a big thing about the moon hoax when Fox gave him the coverage? Phil Webb made the Randy Reid observation some time ago.
Also, can anyone remember the thread where someone linked to a magazine cover where the C-rock had no C, the magazine was released shortly after the Apollo 16 landing?
-
https://www.flickr.com/photos/83874396@N06/13325730833/
or
https://www.flickr.com/photos/83874396@N06/13325730833/sizes/o/in/photostream/
-
A bit like Kaysing and his co-author Randy Reid.
He might be talking about "Penthouse"... that's a randy read isn't it?
-
https://www.flickr.com/photos/83874396@N06/13325730833/sizes/o/in/photostream/
Which one is supposed to be a "C" rock.
I can see an "L" rock and an "E" rock, but not a "C" rock
-
https://www.flickr.com/photos/83874396@N06/13325730833/sizes/o/in/photostream/
Which one is supposed to be a "C" rock.
I can see an "L" rock and an "E" rock, but not a "C" rock
Exactly ;D
The big one due left of the gnomon.
-
https://www.flickr.com/photos/83874396@N06/13325730833/
or
https://www.flickr.com/photos/83874396@N06/13325730833/sizes/o/in/photostream/
Many thanks.
-
I think you'll have to talk to HRH Elizabeth II for that one.
That would be HM Elizabeth II. She ain't no heiress presumptive anymore.
-
That would be HM Elizabeth II. She ain't no heiress presumptive anymore.
I didn't spot that. It's the tower for Jay.
-
That would be HM Elizabeth II. She ain't no heiress presumptive anymore.
I didn't spot that. It's the tower for Jay.
In that case, Jay had better hope that "The Tower" isn't a euphemism for transport to the Royals' reptilian home world for vivisection and medical experimentation.*
*On the other hand, maybe this thought is a sign that I shouldn't be reading DIF as much.
-
Naw, they just banish you to the J-Continent. It's the new Australia.
-
I find the whole C-rock thing difficult to unravel. Straight out of the box, I thought fibre/crud on the scanner. Hoaksies did not.
The actual image was printed in magazines sans C. Hoaksies claim it was photoshopped out.
It is pointed out that there was no photoshop in the 60's.
Hoaksies claim the ebil gubmint had advanced proto-photoshop.
It is pointed out that were such computational facilities available, the AGC would be practical, and a lot smaller and more efficient.
Hoaksies want it every which way.
-
I find the whole C-rock thing difficult to unravel. Straight out of the box, I thought fibre/crud on the scanner. Hoaksies did not.
I agree completely. In fact, I would go as far as saying that the C-rock is the biggest piece of evidence that the hoaxers have put forward for their theory being absurd and unbelievable. The idea is so ludicrous that I fail to understand how anyone can take the hoax theory seriously.
-
I find the whole C-rock thing difficult to unravel. Straight out of the box, I thought fibre/crud on the scanner. Hoaksies did not.
And what Rene never spoke about, and Bennett and Percy will not speak about, is the other photo taken of the same rock. On no copy of that photo anywhere, anytime, has there been a "C" or anything like unto it on the rock. Of course to the conspiracy theorists that photo doesn't exist.
Contamination somewhere in the duplication chain is the automatic hypothesis any time you see something like that in a photo. The fact that this particular artifact was tracked down to the exact print that LPI scanned to publish some of the initial digital versions is a pretty secure nail in the coffin.
-
I agree completely. In fact, I would go as far as saying that the C-rock is the biggest piece of evidence that the hoaxers have put forward for their theory being absurd and unbelievable.
The sheer presumption and dishonesty that surrounds this particular claim is astounding.
Rene's hypothesis was that it was a label for a prop. Someone had supposedly written a big "C" on the rock, to distinguish it from rocks A, B, and D, and properly locate it on the set. Rene can be forgiven, if not for pretense, then at least for ignorance. He was a construction worker, not a filmmaker. But David Percy cannot be so forgiven. He claims to be a BAFTA-nominated filmmaker, expected therefore to be familiar with the conventions of set and prop handling. And Percy, as the author of the "C on the ground too" claim, should know better than to claim film sets have centerlines, as he claims. Nor is that compatible with the "Put Rock C here" interpretation.
Now I've been building props and sets since I was 11. In the intervening decades my props (or props I've worked on) have appeared on both amateur and professional stages, including in Ford's Theater in Washington DC and Las Vegas production shows. I occasionally work with a local studio here that builds professional "steampunk" type props for film and television. At no time have I seen props marked conspicuously. In fact, I haven't seen them marked at all. A few times I've worked in Hollywood, at Warner Brothers and Paramount, and been on the sets of such illustrious shows as Star Trek Voyager and The West Wing. At no point have I seen props marked that way, or at all. And in my conversations with the folks at The Mill and other professional prop builders and handlers, the opinion has been unanimous that no one would mark props with a big, conspicuous letter, or at all.
On film sets, props are most often kept in boxes or tubs, or specially-built racks and shelves (for things like swords). These containers themselves are labeled -- e.g., "MacDuff's fight sword". But the property master is the one responsible for identifying and accounting for the prop. Similarly on theatrical stages, the prop table is sectioned off with a place for each prop, but the location is labeled -- not the prop. Incidentally, at Paramount the prop table for Star Trek shows had an armed guard; props like phasers have a tendency to walk off otherwise.
The scenario by which the rock allegedly acquired its "C", and why, is so utterly foreign to all of my experience in film and theater, and foreign to the experience of everyone within my circle of acquaintanceship.
Marks on the stage are different. On proscenium stages I sometimes mark the centerline, but only with a small piece of spiking tape. The aim is to help actors find the break in the grand drape for whatever reason. It's often also sometimes useful to the choreographer. On a stage you almost always "spike" set pieces because the lighting design, blocking, and choreography depends on precise repeated positioning of props. I've been on Penn and Teller's stage in Las Vegas, and it's festooned with a baffling array of color-coded spikes. It makes sense to their stage crew.
Film is different. Yes, actors have "marks" to hit, and often those marks are laid down with spiking tape. But that's only when the camera is known not to aim at the ground. If a shot includes the ground, the actor's mark is -- more often than not -- a miniscule chalk tick, or something as innocuous as a pebble. Marking a stage that is to be photographed, with large spikes or references, is just not done. The standard method for decades to ensure repeated placement of items on a photographable set is the Polaroid, now replaced by the digital camera. The set dresser places items where they belong -- without reference -- and the continuity production assistant photographs it. The photographs then become the reference for resetting the set.
-
And what Rene never spoke about, and Bennett and Percy will not speak about, is the other photo taken of the same rock. On no copy of that photo anywhere, anytime, has there been a "C" or anything like unto it on the rock. Of course to the conspiracy theorists that photo doesn't exist.
They photoshopped that one out, they just forgot to photoshop the picture with the C. I've heard that as a rebuke when asked about the other photo.
Talk about moving the goalposts. Sheeesh ::)
-
I find the whole C-rock thing difficult to unravel. Straight out of the box, I thought fibre/crud on the scanner. Hoaksies did not.
The actual image was printed in magazines sans C. Hoaksies claim it was photoshopped out.
It is pointed out that there was no photoshop in the 60's.
Hoaksies claim the ebil gubmint had advanced proto-photoshop.
It is pointed out that were such computational facilities available, the AGC would be practical, and a lot smaller and more efficient.
Hoaksies want it every which way.
It would be very interesting to view the other photos in the same series of scans. If the same "c" is present on exactly the same spot in the previous and following pictures, it would further indicate that the "letter" is a small fibre.
-
But David Percy cannot be so forgiven. He claims to be a BAFTA-nominated filmmaker, expected therefore to be familiar with the conventions of set and prop handling. And Percy, as the author of the "C on the ground too" claim, should know better than to claim film sets have centerlines, as he claims. Nor is that compatible with the "Put Rock C here" interpretation.
Don't mention Percy around these parts. I really don't know how I would react if I met him in the street. The way he packaged his product with erudite charm and pseudo-intellectual waffle really gripes me. His methods were cynical and calculating to the end.
The standard method for decades to ensure repeated placement of items on a photographable set is the Polaroid, now replaced by the digital camera. The set dresser places items where they belong -- without reference -- and the continuity production assistant photographs it. The photographs then become the reference for resetting the set.
Interestingly, a video technique is used in snooker when a referee needs to replace snooker balls after a miss shot. He is shown a still of the ball positions before the balls were moved, overlaid with a real time picture as he replaces the balls.
-
I find the whole C-rock thing difficult to unravel. Straight out of the box, I thought fibre/crud on the scanner
As a person who scans photos, negatives and transparencies (and sometimes even glass plates) as a major part of earning his daily crust, I can testify to this. Tiny pieces of dust, sometimes shaped like odd things, including letters, are a common cause of frustration, especially when scanning negatives and transparencies where the scale factor is often much greater than it is for scanning prints. The most minuscule piece of dust, too small to see with the naked eye (well, my naked eye anyway) on a 35mm tranny can become very obvious when the scale of the final image is 600% or over. Letter shaped pieces of dust and hair are quite common; "C" lower case "L", "J" and "U" are the most common, and you don't have to be Einstein to understand why.
Given the massive number of photos taken by the Apollo astronauts, all of which have been scanned for publication, I'm quite surprised that more "dust letters" haven't shown up!
-
Don't mention Percy around these parts. I really don't know how I would react if I met him in the street. The way he packaged his product with erudite charm and pseudo-intellectual waffle really gripes me. His methods were cynical and calculating to the end.
Yes, this raises my hackles too. I remarked on the front page of the Adrian thread that Percy doesn't really fit the mold of conspiracy theorists, from outward appearance and manner. Conspiracists who come out of the mold -- Rene, Kaysing, Blunder, Sibrel, Adrian -- usually demonstrate one or two traits in the way they present themselves that makes many reasonable people take them with a grain of salt. Jarrah's initial bouts of abject fury let most reasonable readers know there was a screw loose. Adrian's approach conveys the solidity of fastening smoke to porridge by means of chewing gum.
Percy doesn't fit that mold. He's affable, polite, charming, well-spoken, and utterly convincing. He even published his early claims in the Fortean Times. The deluge of rebuttals he got -- that in itself a feat for that readership -- should have told him the objective credibility of his claims. And I'm convinced it did, but he went ahead and made money off of it anyway. The number of lies he's been caught in is staggering.
Interestingly, a video technique is used in snooker when a referee needs to replace snooker balls after a miss shot.
Hollywood in the Polaroid era was never that high tech. Even today, you don't have to get fractional-centimeter accuracy for feature films. It's more like, "Did we have a vase on that desk yesterday?"
-
"Did we have a vase on that desk yesterday?"
And even then, of course, they make the occasional continuity mistake, which is, in itself, a form of entertainment.
the alleged land mass. ;D
Oh, my, that one did give me a good belly-laugh!
Thank you. And this one, too:
Adrian's approach conveys the solidity of fastening smoke to porridge by means of chewing gum.
I would love to be credited for the discovery of the J-continent. And I did that without even having a Pookie! Nothing like DataCable's discovery of Venus in the Apollo 14 pics by Shepard, but it's something.
A potentially more valuable addition to Clavius might be a very interesting "anomaly" that I have just recently noticed making the rounds. Be on the lookout for my next thread.
-
I like the idea of miles and miles of racking to keep rocks on according to size and shape etc. So you can find them easily.
So, we have rocks a-z. Ah, need to label up a couple of hundred thousand more. OK, what we gonna do now, ah, aa-zz, aaa-zzz. Right, "youth!" (apprentice, gofa, unpaid school person on work experience etc.) "nip down the shops and buy a couple of thousand marker pens.
But what if it was an O rock and a bit of fluff had obscured the letter and they assume it is a C. Ah, not thought of that had they, could even be a 0 rock...
-
Talk about moving the goalposts. Sheeesh ::)
It's typical for hoax heads and conspiracy nuts. It's called Hoax Usange.
-
Jay's excellent post covered practically everything (as usual) but since theater is my sole distinguishing ability I just have to chime in.
Some set pieces get marked on the back. Never where they can be seen by audience. I can't recall a prop ever being marked for the convenience of the set crew, even with something with so many similar parts as the stack of presents by the tree in first act Nutcracker. It's always "put the big green one slightly left of the two of the medium-sized red ones that has the little dent on the upstage corner."
Drawings, charts, even photographs yes. Markings...pretty much never. Even two nearly identical lamp-posts, it will be someone remembering, "The one with the missing screw on the back is the one with the longer cord and has to go stage left so they can both be plugged in."
Best I can do is when that prop is a rental or loaner it may have a label. On the underside, or inside, or otherwise where it will never be seen by audience. But that label has never in my thirty-odd years in the business been used as an identifier when changing the scene.
As for spikes -- add to the maze of spike tape, the bits of glow tape around obstructions the actors might encounter during a blackout. But the typical spike is upstage; the majority of set spikes are hidden during the scene in which they are used.
I will quibble in one point; as Jay well knows, the Ballet world marks quarters as well as center line. But these are at the edge of the stage, out of the light and the visual picture (I am actually, as we speak, soldering up another set of LED-based quarter marker lights for a ballet designer I know).
-
Jay's excellent post covered practically everything (as usual)...
Salt Lake Comic Con. I spent an hour with John Eaves (NCC-1701E) talking set and prop design. I think I might get a motion picture conceptual design gig out of this.
I can't recall a prop ever being marked for the convenience of the set crew...
I work with really good stage crews. They know the sets and props as well as the people who designed and built them.
Drawings, charts, even photographs yes. Markings...pretty much never.
Today I held in my hands the original set-plan layouts for the Serenity interiors for Firefly. None of this "C" crap. Not even an elided C-L for the centerline of the linear, continuous interior.
Best I can do is when that prop is a rental or loaner it may have a label.
We do that on separate paperwork. We have a sheet for each rental source we use and a detailed description of the object we borrow. There are three professional theater organizations in our state that we habitually borrow from.
...actors might encounter during a blackout.
Funny story involving the lip of a lift and a set piece having wheels on one end and handles on the other, to be moved wheelbarrow-fashion. Never push such a prop at crotch level during a blackout.
But the typical spike is upstage; the majority of set spikes are hidden during the scene in which they are used.
Yes, but we have an arena stage -- theater in the round. We literally train the set crew to position pieces based on the paint features on the floor. We have really, really good stagehands.
I will quibble in one point; as Jay well knows, the Ballet world marks quarters as well as center line.
Indeed, as well as the centerline light in the back. But these are never used in photography or film.