In past installments of Who Mourns For Apollo, we definitively explained and resolved many of the discrepancies and absurdities put forth by the moon hoax crowd who claim we never went to the moon. Included in this group are many who profess to have done "arduous research" to try to prove that the Apollo legacy was a fraud and have subsequently tried to push this fallacy to a large portion of the public, many of whom still remain uninformed and susceptible to such drivel.

In any scientific quest for truth, it essential for anyone or any group endeavoring to challenge accepted and conventional scientific information to first properly investigate said information before reporting on or releasing any new data that may challenge it. In the case of the moon hoax conclave that keeps declaring they have found information that is suspiciously in error (regarding Apollo), the tack that they’ve chosen to follow is now blatantly predictable.

They have repeatedly donned the disguise of legitimate scientific inquiry to fatuously dare the facts, yet haven’t done the investigative research necessary to find out that the information they disagree with so vehemently is indeed, irrefutably valid. They don’t want to know the truth and not one has done the homework to find it. They instead irresponsibly accept the shared tidbits of data they’ve seen at a glance to generally discredit and debunk the validity of Apollo as a whole. As a result of their unexplained lapses of judgment (as reflected in their web postings), there is confusion among the impressionable masses as to what is true or not.

French amateur astronomer Phillipe Lheureux is the latest to jump on the moon hoax-bandwagon. In his book, Lights on the Moon, his twist reflects the errant notion that NASA, in order not to give out the real Apollo photos containing scientific information about the moon which could be exploited by the Russians (?), released faked photos taken during training stages that reflected the Apollo cover-up. He lays out several of the familiar Apollo photographs in an attempt to substantiate his accusations. These are among the same tired photographs used by other moon hoaxers in their arguments. These people are simply oblivious to the certainty that there is a scientific explanation for all of them.

A classic example of unexamined data, which is included in Lheureux’s gallery and other hoax-sites, involves a controversial lunar rock: a Type 4, complex gray and white breccia seen at Station #4 during the Apollo 16 mission. It can be seen on NASA photographs AS16-107-17445 and 17446. We refer to it as the "C-rock" because of the mark on it resembling the letter "C." Hoaxers claim that this rock that was a deliberately labeled special theatrical property used as part of a desert sound-stage of the Station #4 scene. According to them it was inadvertently leaked out in this picture.

What may seem more convincing to their case is that the ‘C-rock’ is also seen in an archived shot on a NASA website. It follows that they would jump on this one full force and say that this rock is a proverbial smoking gun.

Now we strongly suspect that most of the ‘moon hoax crowd’ has neither had the time nor desire to even find the frame numbers so that they could check the veracity of their claim. Those who were tempted to do this and could have – DIDN’T. If they had gone to just one of the many NASA photographic archives to investigate the negatives, they would have discovered that in reality, the ‘C’-rock is just an ordinary lunar breccia absent of any alphabetical embellishment whatsoever. Since we’ve been able to find an easy explanation for everything erroneously claimed by the hoaxers to date, we decided to investigate this issue to once again set the record straight.

We first ordered 8X10 negatives of these frames from three Apollo archives including NSSDC, Greenbelt, MD, The Lunar and Planetary Institute (LPI)- Houston, and Johnson Space Center (JSC)- Houston. We discovered from examining all three sets from all three archives along with developed print sectionals from each, that the "C" did not appear on the rock on any of the photographic negatives.

Yet the "C" was still evident on the print on the NASA website. We knew that this print had to have been made from a negative yet we knew now that the negatives from all the archives were ‘clean.’ We therefore had some questions regarding the printing procedure. We spent some time with photographic and research people at JSC and LPI to dig a little deeper about how it could have gotten there.

Initially, the personnel at both at LPI and JSC agreed that the close-up ‘C’-rock photo shown in the first photo in this piece is indeed a hoaxed, embellished version of the NASA website photo. They assumed someone took the liberty to deliberately enhance the "C" seen on this photo. There isn’t, of course, a feasible way that they could have taken the NASA web version and blown up the image to the resolution seen in the debunkers-close-up photo due to pixelation distortion. But what if someone had somehow obtained a duplicate print of the version seen on the NASA website?

With more detective work from LPI photographic personnel, things began to get interesting, and some revelatory information came to light. First, LPI examined the transparencies of AS16-17445-46 from their collection and they discovered what we had found: that neither showed the "C" or any other questionable suspicious marking. They then checked their prints. They have two prints of both 17445 and 17446, and on one of the 17446 prints, they found the "C." They noticed that when the "C" on the rock was seen through a magnifying loupe, it looked like a piece of hair or string resting on the print. It definitely does not appear to be imprinted on or engraved into the rock itself. In fact they noted that there was a shadow under part of it suggesting that whatever it was, was not lying completely flat. Their conclusion was that it was indeed a hair or fiber more likely on the paper when the print was made.

The problem with a hair or fiber on the film or paper is that normally, an object such as this on photo paper or film would produce a white mark on the print. They discussed this with their LPI staff photographer and she accurately explained that Apollo prints were produced from positive film (like slide film) and not from negative film (the originals being color reversal ektachromes.) This meant that an object like a "C" shaped fiber on the film or paper would produce a dark mark on the print, which it did. If the hair or fiber was on the film, they thought that all copies of 17446 made in that print run would have the "C" on them. If the "C" was on the paper, they say it is likely that the 17446 ‘C’-rock print in their collection is the only one. We were told that this particular print had been from a NASA produced set. Since our investigation, LPI says they have found a special place for it in their archive.

LPI then scanned the rock from the anomalous 17446 print at highest resolution available with their equipment. A 14MB file was compressed to 1.5MB and a maximum jpg was saved and sent to us. The image is a 4X enlargement of the highest resolution scan of the rock. Although somewhat blurry, it clearly represents what the infamous "C" really is as seen under magnification: a hair or fiber! It is even a different color from the lunar color seen on the developed prints. This represents a classic bit of crucial information the hoaxers haven’t known about, because they failed to do the homework to verify it!

JSC concurred with LPI’s analysis and found the NASA website print intriguing. Like LPI, they determined that the negative of 17446 in their repository was ‘clean.’ They believe somewhere at sometime, something got onto an enlarger lens and a print came out with the "C" on it. They said one of these prints was then scanned for the NASA website in the late 1980’s or early 90’s. The person we talked to at JSC told us he had no control over getting the image replaced by a clean one or removed, but he assured us that their prints didn’t bear this mark.

If this information weren’t enough to nail the hoaxers’ coffin shut on this issue, we found other pertinent data about Station #4 including the classification, composition and geology of the rocks at this EVA site. From examining the Apollo 16 Preliminary Science Report, NASA SP-315, we know in all probability that the ‘C’-rock is a Type 4 lunar breccia because we have a returned breccia sample (#64335) that was taken from the surface not 7 feet away from it. We also have other surface photography taken from different angles that shows the #64335 sample as well as the arrangement and distribution of other rocks including the ‘C’-rock, as seen on 17445 and 17446.

Researchers who have explored the Apollo program know that there continues to be, as there always has been, meticulous cataloging and report on every detail about every lunar sample returned from the moon. Some relevant information for Station #4 is presented below for perusal. Those (including the hoaxers) who wish to learn about more about detailed geologic reports of the area that include the rocks at Station #4 as well as the scientific reports on any aspect of any Apollo mission, are encouraged to contact the Lunar and Planetary Institute, Houston.

The opportunity is always there for anyone to challenge science with integrity. Unfortunately, there hasn’t been much of it shown by the moon-hoax crowd. Hey guys, the information is out there. You can’t keep your cogent outward appearance by merely saying you have proof we never went to the moon with data like your ‘C’-rock, and then cast your disinformation about Apollo to the public. One would think these purveyors of disinformation would at least have common sense enough to police their own ranks. It only serves to demonstrate one thing: They cannot and never will be recognized as a part of the legitimate scientific community.

In solving the "C"-rock issue, NASA was most cordial and helpful in helping us get to the truth. When they heard we were trying to find answers to debunk the debunkers, they were right there to assist us in every way they could. There are however, some questions involving our specific area of lunar investigation that to date, have remained unanswered. We therefore ask the cogent question relating to the real issue:

Now guys, will you help us get to what's REALLY waiting for us on our moon?"

COPYRIGHT © 2001 STEVE TROY

Click Here For Part III