Exposing PseudoAstronomy

September 6, 2008

The Apollo Moon Hoax: There Is a “Prop Rock” Labeled with a “C” (Updated)


Introduction

This was my first entry is what is becoming a large series on the Apollo Moon Hoax — the conspiracy theory that NASA faked the Apollo moon landings. This is/was one of my first blog posts, which was relatively unorganized compared with my present posts. It was originally made on September 6, 2008, but it has been re-organized as of June 26, 2009.

All posts in this series:

The Claim

In Apollo photograph AS16-107-17446 (Apollo 16, film roll 107, photo #17446), shown below, there is a large rock in the foreground. After the photograph had been duplicated many times by many people and sent out to the public, an apparent “C” was superimposed over the rock (shown below). Conspiracists claim that this is obvious evidence of a hoax because it’s a prop rock — they believe that the prop man forgot to turn the rock over because NASA took the time to label all the rocks to make sure they go where they’re supposed to.

Apollo Photo AS16-107-17446

Let’s Think Logically

Before I actually get into why this “C” is there, there are a few basic logical questions that one should ask when presented with this claim:

  1. Does anyone actually label props on sets? When Penn & Teller addressed this claim on their Showtime program (I won’t name it because I want to keep this blog at least G or PG), they asked their propman if he’s ever labeled sets. The answer was a resounding “No.” You may claim this is an argument from authority, but you should really ask movie producers if they label their props. Seriously.
  2. Even if Hollywood labels their props, why would NASA? Why would they risk accidentally putting a prop “label-side up?” After all, they must have had literally thousands of “prop rocks” to keep track of and make sure that they were put in their exact locations, which leads me to …
  3. … If NASA had hundreds or thousands of props to keep track of, why didn’t they set up their scenes ONCE, make certain that it looked alright (as in no props with the label facing up), and then do all of their filming? They should’ve checked everything and then filmed. Which leads to …
  4. … A major problem with this conspiracy theory, and many others, is that it lends the conspirators incredible power. After all, they must have been able to keep the lid on this for decades despite the half-million people involved in the project (1 out of ever 360 Americans, according to the 1970 US Census). And yet, with all this incredible power at their disposal, they miss something like a rock that’s flipped the wrong way?

Refuting This Claim the Standard Way

If you have managed to get this far and still believe this claim, then let’s actually get to what’s really going on. Have you ever scanned or photocopied something? If so, you know that any little piece of dirt, hair, dust, or whatever that gets between your original and your imaging device will show up in the copy. That is what happened in the case of the infamous “C” rock – a hair (such as an eyelash) or a small piece of lint got caught between the image and the imager when they were making copies of it. Plain and simple. In the original photograph (closeup shown below), there is no “C.”

Refuting This Claim My Way

That is the fairly standard way to explain/debunk this claim – it’s simply a hair in the copy and the original doesn’t show it. But there’s another way: The ONLY photograph that conspiracy theorists point to with the “C” rock is AS16-107-17446. The photograph taken just before it, AS16-107-17445, shows the bottom-half of #17446, including the rock in question. The rock is in the exact same position, orientation, etc. And yet … there is no “C” on it!

No hoax proponent has ever looked at photo #17445 and claimed that it has the “C” on the rock. In other words, their conspiracy “theory” is not internally consistent even in this one single claim. The photo is shown below, first in full, then in detail.

Apollo Photo AS16-107-17445
Apollo Photo AS16-107-17445 Detail (Pre-C Rock)

Why This Claim Is Not Consistent with Another Hoax Claim

Another hoax claim that I have not addressed as of the time of writing or updating this post is that photographs that NASA claims from Apollos 16 and 17 that were taken hours and miles apart show “identical” backgrounds. This would seem to imply that NASA had one set that they used for each mission. The next logical assumption is that they would set up the set once, check it over, and then do all their filming. But, that can’t possibly be true given the differences in Apollo photos AS16-107-17445 and AS16-107-17446.

Final Thoughts

In sum, there are three main reasons why this claim doesn’t hold up to any scrutiny: (1) It simply doesn’t make sense that a rock would be labeled and “accidentally” left label-side up, (2) It is very easily explained by a simple hair getting caught in the copying device, and (3) the claim is internally inconsistent because no hoax proponent has ever looked at other photographs of the same scene and claimed that there is a labeled rock or a cover-up.

This is, hence, another example of anomaly hunting to create a false dichotomy: There is something that appears anomalous in the Apollo footage (anomaly hunting), therefore the moon landings were faked (false dichotomy).

13 Comments »

  1. Nice companion to your observatory talk.

    Comment by RockinRobbins — September 7, 2008 @ 2:04 pm | Reply

  2. The ‘C’ doesn’t look like a hair or eyelash to me, and it’s position on the rock is much more likely to be a prop-label than an accident.

    But okay, you can have this one because there are dozens of other pieces of evidence. Taken together, it’s all rather convincing. Individually, I admit there’s no one thing that was enough to convince me (of the hoax).

    What really convinced me was Apollo 13. They must have gotten careless with this one because of its theater/drama significance. The landing site they selected “Frau Marau”, in itself an occult figure, is suspicious enough. Much more suspicious is the fact that it wouldn’t have been illuminated yet at the time they were scheduled to land.

    You have to understand the mindset of these guys, capable of the big lying, who must sign all their works with their mafia signature. In this case, Apollo 13’s “problem” occurred on April 13th, at 13:13 hours into the mission.

    Those who don’t have the eyes to see, ears to hear, or otherwise have too much pride to maintain an open mind, are going to write it off as a coincidence.

    Fine. Most people would rather believe in a lie that gives them pride than face an ugly truth that not only it’s a lie but they are dupes.

    Open mind first, THEN the skepticism.

    Comment by Astronomy Enthusiast — October 22, 2008 @ 8:25 am | Reply

  3. “The ‘C’ doesn’t look like a hair or eyelash to me, and it’s position on the rock is much more likely to be a prop-label than an accident.”

    To me it looks like an eyelash or small string of dust, but that specific thing is reasonably subjective. But why would a label on a rock, something that’s fairly circular, be in any particular position or orientation? That doesn’t make any sense.

    “But okay, you can have this one because there are dozens of other pieces of evidence. Taken together, it’s all rather convincing. Individually, I admit there’s no one thing that was enough to convince me (of the hoax).”

    One of the hardest parts in convincing people such as yourself that this is not a hoax is that you look at the “all together” picture rather than the evidence. Think of it like a court case: Lots of evidence is presented, to show that someone is guilty. However, the defense then picks apart every single piece of evidence with logic, context, science, eye-witnesses, historic documents, etc. Yes, taken all together the prosecution has a case, but once you examine each individual claim, the house of cards falls.

    It’s like that with the moon hoax, and indeed many other conspiracies. A major difference is that it’s even harder to disprove hoaxes because you have to know about history, classical physics, heat transfer, optics, photography, geology, social history, radiation, particle physics, and many many other things in order to go through all the claims.

    In my 1-hr planetarium show, I address over two dozen claims, but I barely scratch the surface. Besides that, it is so easy to keep coming up with new claims because all you have to do is to see something or hear something that doesn’t quite make sense, or seems too coincidental, and you have a new claim. The work that goes into disproving that claim is tremendously more complicated (usually).

    For example …

    “What really convinced me was Apollo 13. They must have gotten careless with this one because of its theater/drama significance. The landing site they selected “Frau Marau”, in itself an occult figure, is suspicious enough. Much more suspicious is the fact that it wouldn’t have been illuminated yet at the time they were scheduled to land. You have to understand the mindset of these guys, capable of the big lying, who must sign all their works with their mafia signature. In this case, Apollo 13’s “problem” occurred on April 13th, at 13:13 hours into the mission.”

    … I have heard literally over 100 different hoax claims for the Apollo landings. I have never heard this one. I’ve heard a variant of it that the public had gotten bored with the landings and this was dramatized to drum up interest and keep funding, which is disappointing to hear, along with the people who say NASA killed the Apollo 1 astronauts because they were going to “spill the beans” and tell the world NASA was faking it.

    But then the question is raised as I alluded to above: I can disprove dozens of Apollo landing hoax claims, including the “Big Six” (my terms) which are the C Rock, no stars, deadly radiation, deadly temperatures, the flag waving, and the cross-hair “anomalies” in photos. Plus, I can give you independent evidence that we did go to the moon, including results from the seismometers that were left, the currently ongoing laser ranging experiment based off the reflectors left by the astronauts, the properties of the rocks from the Apollo sample returns, and the UV photography. (And these will be the subjects of future blog posts.)

    So if I can do all that, should one obscure claim that you can make that I personally can’t refute (because I don’t have the background information nor time to research it) really convince you or anyone else that it’s all fake?

    Comment by astrostu206265 — October 22, 2008 @ 10:35 am | Reply

  4. I got something for you, what is with all of the + signs in the original photograph that the conspiracists use to say there is a ‘C’ in the rock? Not to mention, look at the boldness and thickness of the C in the blown up imangen, then look at the super fine + on the right side of the rock and then look at the original…you can still see the + but can’t see the C even though the C is way more bold and prominent. But what is with all the + signs all over the photo? I believe we landed on the moon, so… and I believe we will land Mars too!

    Comment by Justin — July 17, 2009 @ 2:09 pm | Reply

    • Justin – I have just posted a new entry on the crosshairs in the photos. Please see it and let me know in the comments there if you still have questions: The Apollo Moon Hoax: What’s Up with All Those Crosshairs? – Disappearing, Not Centered, and Tilted.

      Comment by astrostu206265 — July 17, 2009 @ 5:43 pm | Reply

  5. This is a good series, overall. Good work.

    I’ll check, but I wonder if you have anything on the old lunar lander recovered by a later flight, and the mirror planted on the Moon by Apollo astronauts now used to check the distance between the Earth and the Moon.

    Comment by Ed Darrell — July 17, 2009 @ 3:59 pm | Reply

    • I don’t have anything on the former, but I have mentioned the latter (the Apollo Lunar Laser Ranging experiment). However, I do not have a full-blown post on it.

      Comment by astrostu206265 — July 17, 2009 @ 11:36 pm | Reply

  6. Rock “C”.

    Good god, does anyone notice how NASA labels anything?

    Look at the image names: AS16-107-17446
    Look at any part number on the command/service/lunar modules.

    If it had something like: mr16-107-10000, then maybe.

    Comment by Doofus — July 17, 2009 @ 5:53 pm | Reply

    • Good point – I hadn’t thought of that one.

      Comment by astrostu206265 — July 17, 2009 @ 11:34 pm | Reply

    • to go with that thought, if your only methodology of labeling is alphabetic (rather than say alpha-numeric) you are going to run out of labeling options pretty quick for those thousands of prop rocks.

      here’s a reverse conspiracy theory for you… why is it the letter (or number or whatever) is always oriented correctly in a shot? Another mere coincidence? I think NOT!

      my god how do you have the fortitude to keep up such a battle against such insanity? keep up the good work and know you’re greatly appreciated and not alone.

      Comment by danish — July 18, 2009 @ 3:40 am | Reply

  7. I’ve read this “c” thing before and although I think the moon landing is a hoax I checked both original sources of the pictures here: http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html and here: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS16-107-17445.

    None of these pictures show a “c”.

    But the comparison of AS15-89-12015 is for real and shows two different pictures on the two sites (one with lamps at the top other w/o).

    Comment by Dick — July 21, 2009 @ 6:42 am | Reply

  8. I just came across this site and found it to be an excellent resource.

    Astronomy Enthusiast,

    I believe you are incorrect in your statement that the Apollo 13 landing would have happened in darkness. I used a planetarium program (in this case XEphem) and plugged in the landing dates for the successful Apollo missions. They all appear to have occurred after lunar dawn at the landing sites. The Moon view on XEphem also marks the landing sites. Very convenient.

    I used http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/ as my source. It appears that launch to moon touchdown for the Apollo missions varied between 103 to 110 hours. Taking 103 as a conservative value for what would have been an Apollo 13 landing, we have just about 4 days and 7 hours. Apollo 13 launched April 11 1970, 02:13:00 pm EST and landing would have been April 15, 9:13 pm. Given that Apollo 14 landed where Apollo 13 would have been, according to XEphem Apollo 13 would indeed have landed on a sunlit surface. That would have been 1 day after the terminator had crossed the landing site. This is consistent with the other soon-after-dawn landings.

    Thanks for playing.

    “But okay, you can have this one because there are dozens of other pieces of evidence.”

    Please list these dozens of other evidence and we’ll see if they hold up.

    “You have to understand the mindset of these guys, capable of the big lying, who must sign all their works with their mafia signature. In this case, Apollo 13’s “problem” occurred on April 13th, at 13:13 hours into the mission.

    Those who don’t have the eyes to see, ears to hear, or otherwise have too much pride to maintain an open mind, are going to write it off as a coincidence.”

    Wow, prejudice mixed in with superstition.

    Comment by ND — September 7, 2009 @ 11:08 pm | Reply

  9. I agree with danish — I don’t understand how you have the patience to politely address the people who insist on believing the so thoroughly refuted nonsense that the landing is a hoax. Danish calls it “insanity” — let’s call it like it is: this is not insanity, it is stupidity. Furthermore, it is willful stupidity. All you can do is try, and we thank you for it.

    I suppose the only thing that will actually convince people like Dick and Astronomy Enthusiast will be if somehow we can purchase telescopes powerful enough to point at the moon and see the landing sites for ourselves. I swear to god that they will then claim that NASA has hung an artificial moon between us and the real moon, complete with miniature fake LMs and flagpoles.

    Comment by Clayton — September 18, 2009 @ 6:45 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Blog at WordPress.com.