Recent Posts91
The Hoax Theory / Re: The Blunder's Crock
« Last post by onebigmonkey on July 09, 2023, 04:59:42 AM »It's quite ironic that Jarrah finds it "amusing" to observe us in our "echo chamber" when his main platform at the moment is a group that actively bans and polices people who oppose the moon hoax claim:
Let's clarify things: I am not claiming it is an expiry date, show me where I stated deinfitely that it was.
What I did was query whether it might be based on this:
It merely seemed off that a deadline for adverts is 5 days before the magazine was actually published.
He has deliberately misinterpreted what I posted above. If the date on the cover is the date it hit the news stands then fair enough, I am happy that I have misunderstood the dates given above.
He is, however, factually incorrect about the first release of Apollo 11 images - the first release was on July 29th, not August 1st - UK & North American newspapers were featuring them on July 30th. See here:
http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/CATM2/ch5/4/discusq4.html
Not everywhere is Australia. A book I have suggests a few select images were released on the 27th (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Apollo-11-Photography-Journey-Magazine/dp/0956240410).
It's not desperation Jarrah, it's fact checking, exploring all the possible answers to questions, making sure you've explored all the options rather than deciding on an a priori conclusion and sticking with it regardless of how stupid it is.
Just for fun, here's a high resolution scan of the rock from my copy of AWST:
and here's the same rock in the 'March to the moon' positive
Show me where the air brushing is. Show me how it differs from same rock in the preceding photograph in the magazine.
All he's done is prove that the LPI's suggested date for the origin of C-rock photo is incorrect. Anyone who bothers to collect contemporary Apollo memorabilia, as I do, could have told him that. I have many books and magazines published at the time that feature it. I also own many things that don't. Other people do as well, here's a NASA issue 'red number' version clearly showing it:
http://stellar-views.com/Photos_Apollo_P6.html
An official NASA photo, available to anyone who asked for it, where NASA were so clever as to faithfully recreate a view shown on live TV but so dumb as to leave a letter visible on a rock. Uh-huh.
The real issue here is not when the photo first appeared, but what the photo shows.
The photo shows a fibre trapped on some versions of the photo made for public release. You have not proven otherwise. You have not demonstrated that it is not a fibre, you have not proved that it was deliberately airbrushed out to hide it, you have not proved that it existed on the original positive as it came out of the camera, and even if it was, you have not proved that the photograph was taken here on Earth.
Occam's razor alone should tell you that it is a fault introduced during reproduction of the original, and not some ludicrous 'set dressing' artefact.
Let's clarify things: I am not claiming it is an expiry date, show me where I stated deinfitely that it was.
What I did was query whether it might be based on this:
It merely seemed off that a deadline for adverts is 5 days before the magazine was actually published.
He has deliberately misinterpreted what I posted above. If the date on the cover is the date it hit the news stands then fair enough, I am happy that I have misunderstood the dates given above.
He is, however, factually incorrect about the first release of Apollo 11 images - the first release was on July 29th, not August 1st - UK & North American newspapers were featuring them on July 30th. See here:
http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/CATM2/ch5/4/discusq4.html
Not everywhere is Australia. A book I have suggests a few select images were released on the 27th (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Apollo-11-Photography-Journey-Magazine/dp/0956240410).
It's not desperation Jarrah, it's fact checking, exploring all the possible answers to questions, making sure you've explored all the options rather than deciding on an a priori conclusion and sticking with it regardless of how stupid it is.
Just for fun, here's a high resolution scan of the rock from my copy of AWST:
and here's the same rock in the 'March to the moon' positive
Show me where the air brushing is. Show me how it differs from same rock in the preceding photograph in the magazine.
All he's done is prove that the LPI's suggested date for the origin of C-rock photo is incorrect. Anyone who bothers to collect contemporary Apollo memorabilia, as I do, could have told him that. I have many books and magazines published at the time that feature it. I also own many things that don't. Other people do as well, here's a NASA issue 'red number' version clearly showing it:
http://stellar-views.com/Photos_Apollo_P6.html
An official NASA photo, available to anyone who asked for it, where NASA were so clever as to faithfully recreate a view shown on live TV but so dumb as to leave a letter visible on a rock. Uh-huh.
The real issue here is not when the photo first appeared, but what the photo shows.
The photo shows a fibre trapped on some versions of the photo made for public release. You have not proven otherwise. You have not demonstrated that it is not a fibre, you have not proved that it was deliberately airbrushed out to hide it, you have not proved that it existed on the original positive as it came out of the camera, and even if it was, you have not proved that the photograph was taken here on Earth.
Occam's razor alone should tell you that it is a fault introduced during reproduction of the original, and not some ludicrous 'set dressing' artefact.
