Author Topic: The Blunder's Crock  (Read 13358 times)

Offline onebigmonkey

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1589
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
The Blunder's Crock
« 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.

Offline Mag40

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 278
Re: The Blunder's Crock
« Reply #1 on: July 05, 2023, 02:40:24 PM »
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."
« Last Edit: July 05, 2023, 03:05:33 PM by Mag40 »

Offline Mag40

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 278
Re: The Blunder's Crock
« Reply #2 on: July 05, 2023, 03:03:46 PM »

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?
« Last Edit: July 05, 2023, 03:05:17 PM by Mag40 »

Offline onebigmonkey

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1589
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
Re: The Blunder's Crock
« Reply #3 on: July 05, 2023, 03:51:34 PM »
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.

Offline smartcooky

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1960
Re: The Blunder's Crock
« Reply #4 on: July 06, 2023, 12:19:12 AM »
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.

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?)
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong.

Offline Ursa

  • Mercury
  • *
  • Posts: 8
Re: The Blunder's Crock
« Reply #5 on: July 06, 2023, 02:57:01 AM »
It's a "C" ? It always looked to me like a little stamp saying "Welcome to Area 51 hope you enjoy your stay".
« Last Edit: July 06, 2023, 02:59:41 AM by Ursa »

Offline TimberWolfAu

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 43
Re: The Blunder's Crock
« Reply #6 on: July 07, 2023, 11:46:34 AM »
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?

I have a copy of that PSR (PDF) but the photo is poor quality, you can't tell if there is a 'C' or not (page 4-15).

Anyone know if you can request reprints or if we're only left with the PDF's these days? The text is fine, but I'd like some better quality pics (I'm fussy like that :) )

Offline onebigmonkey

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1589
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
Re: The Blunder's Crock
« Reply #7 on: July 07, 2023, 02:06:29 PM »
I have an actual original, and it's very definitely not there :)

By sheer coincidence, I'd just purchased the edition of 'Aciation Week and Space Technology (dated May 8th 1972) when JW posted his photo, a scan of which is now uploaded here:

http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/ephemera/specials/specials.html

I'm intrigued by the date of publication, as there is a classified ads section that says adverts for the next edition should be in by May 3rd. I have a recollection of magazine dates being more an 'expiry', so to speak, rather than the date they hit the news stand, can anyone confirm?

If I'm right, this would suggest that the photo used on the AWST was released at the same time as the press photo JW has purchased.

Again, it's all moot - even if someone did airbrush out an obvious blemish, it is not proof that the image was taken on Earth, nor does it prove that it was on the original photo.

Edit to add: My scan of Aviation Weekly isn't the best, I may re-do it, but here's a photo of the PSR page:

« Last Edit: July 07, 2023, 02:56:18 PM by onebigmonkey »

Offline onebigmonkey

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1589
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
Re: The Blunder's Crock
« Reply #8 on: July 07, 2023, 02:58:33 PM »
While I'm at it, these contemporary slides are also from ebay:




Offline TimberWolfAu

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 43
Re: The Blunder's Crock
« Reply #9 on: July 07, 2023, 10:56:56 PM »
Nice

Offline onebigmonkey

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1589
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
Re: The Blunder's Crock
« Reply #10 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.


« Last Edit: July 09, 2023, 05:39:04 AM by onebigmonkey »

Offline smartcooky

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1960
Re: The Blunder's Crock
« Reply #11 on: July 09, 2023, 05:48:35 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:

Of course, the Blunder is welcome to come along here where he won't be banned or policed unless he starts throwing insults and breaking the rules (which is what he usually does when debated into a corner), or throwing a tantrum when he doesn't get his way.

But he won't come here because he's a rank coward, and he knows he will get handed his arse!
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong.

Offline onebigmonkey

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1589
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
Re: The Blunder's Crock
« Reply #12 on: July 09, 2023, 07:10:20 AM »
A couple more from my own collection. Left is a page from Volume 5 of the series 'Peterson's book of man in space from 1974, right is from Lawrence Allen's 1974 book 'Man in Space'.



Same year, one with, one without.

One another note, Jarrah regurgitates the claim made that there is a secondary 'C', supposedly to aid in positioning the 'C' rock.



Here's that same secondary C in high resolution:



Low resolution + poor image quality = paradoleia

Offline raven

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1643
Re: The Blunder's Crock
« Reply #13 on: July 18, 2023, 05:20:01 AM »
And ain't it just the most happy coincidence it's a C, a letter that can be formed by any arc like shape with the bulge vaguely pointing to the left and not something  less ambiguous like an A or a B or a K  ::) drips sarcasm over the forum

Offline smartcooky

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1960
Re: The Blunder's Crock
« Reply #14 on: July 18, 2023, 04:39:50 PM »
And ain't it just the most happy coincidence it's a C, a letter that can be formed by any arc like shape with the bulge vaguely pointing to the left and not something  less ambiguous like an A or a B or a K  ::) drips sarcasm over the forum

Lucky its not a "l" then  8)
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong.