Lurker assistance

[echard]

I don't post here very often at all, but I garner a lot of information I use during my hobby (youtube arguing!) You guys (gals included) are a great resource.

Anyway, I'm having a discussion where the HB indicates he has a book, "The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Space Technology", published in 1981 by Salamander Books, Ltd., in which the "C rock" is pictured. I explained the facts to him and asked him to check out Clavius for even more details.

He reviewed the Clavius information regarding the C rock and there we read, "In 2001 Steve Troy of Lunaranomalies.com undertook a lengthy investigation. After obtaining transparencies from different sources connected with NASA, he failed to see the mark either on the masters used prior to 1997 or on the new masters."

He now concludes the website is not dependable since in his hot little hands is a print from 1981 deemed nonexistent by Clavius. Was the study flawed, or is there a simple explanation (assuming he's not lying) for the apparent discrepancy?

[AtomicDog]

For what it's worth, I have the edition of the encyclopedia in question, and the "c rock" is indeed there.

To me, though, the question is does the "c rock" exist in any publications circa 1972?

[JayUtah]

In what way does Clavius deem the 1981 print "nonexistent?"

I argue that it does not appear on the dupe master transparencies. Therefore it is not actually in the scene. That does not preclude its being on the source used in the 1981 publication.

And as always, supporting that contention is the other photograph of the same rock, which does not show any such mark in any version -- never has.

[echard]

jayutah said:

In what way does Clavius deem the 1981 print "nonexistent?"

I was meaning that on Clavius is a reference to a study in which Steve Troy "failed to see the mark on either of the masters used prior to 1997."

If the mark was not on the masters prior to 1997, how did it get on a print from 1981? Or am I missing something?

Even though a subsequent photo shows no sign of the "c" proving it was not actually on the rock, I would still like to answer his question on how the "c" arrived on that particular print prior to 1997.

[JayUtah]

The mark doesn't have to be on the masters to get onto the print. A small hair on the paper itself will do it. Or a hair lying atop the dupe master during reproduction and then brushed away during handling. By "on the master" we mean it was not photographically in the image in the master -- that's what would have to be the case if the mark were a feature in the scene.

[echard]

Jay & AtomicDog, thanks for your time thus far.

You claim the mark could have occurred anytime during the printing process but was never on the masters themselves. This makes perfect sense.

The confusion stems from the phrase, "he failed to see the mark either on the masters used prior to 1997 or on the new masters." Originally, I interpreted Steve Troy to be implying the mark first appeared after 1997, but he is actually making the assertion the mark has never been on either the set of masters used up to 1997 or the new set used since. I had no idea new masters were created in 1997.

Do we have an idea of when the mark first appeared and how long the defective print was officially in use by NASA?

[JayUtah]

Yes, in retrospect it seems prudent to clarify that new masters were made in 1997.

1994 or 1996 was the previous first instance of the C-rock photo. Thanks to your notice, we can now set the earliest reference date to 1981. Unfortunately I don't know when the LPI print was made, but we can certainly say it was before 1981. It was in LPI's files at least up to 2001. I don't know if LPI continues to use the print.