NASA: AS16-107-17446. ANNOTATIONS BY UNKNOWN PARTY.
ANNOTATIONS BY UNKNOWN
Note Q: The area is
enlarged at left (Note P). The crosshairs which are in every NASA
photograph are obscured by part of the image.
See here for a general discussion of
missing crosshairs. Not all the cameras had reseau plates, but the
ones used in the actual moonwalks did.
Note R: The letter 'C'
appears on the rock. This is a designation by the props
Having worked for a number of years in both amateur and
professional theatrical and motion picture productions, I can't accept
the theory that this is a prop marking. First, no property master
would mark a prop in such a way as to be visible. Prop markings, if
any are used, go on the bottoms or backsides of objects where they
cannot be seen. Second, using only one letter to mark props limits
you to 26 props. If a property master is being so anal retentive as
to catalogue even the rocks used on the "set" he would certainly need
a more elaborate system.
It's more accurate to say that the letter (if it is, in fact, a
letter, and not just a semi-elliptical marking) appears on the
photograph. The crosshairs also appear on the photograph, but
are not on the objects photographed.
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. Yet
the photos on official NASA web sites clearly show it. Following up
with the Lunar and Planetary Institute (LPI) in Houston, they
discovered that one of the prints in their collection was the source
of the mark. At some point that print had been scanned and has since
been widely distributed on the Internet.
NASA: AS16-107-17446, SCAN BY LPI, COURTESY
Troy and LPI officials studied the print under a microscope and
discovered that it was indeed far more likely to be a hair or other
fiber on the photographic paper onto which AS16-107-17446 had been
printed. A secondary mark that appears to be a shadow is clearly
visible under the top portion of the mark.
Note S: The rover tracks
appear too well defined. To make this kind of impression you'd need a
compound mixed with water.
Nonsense. The lunar soil is remarkably cohesive. Read more about it.
The level of detail
abruptly changes just beyond the rover. In the foreground there are
rocks, but there are no rocks in the background. This indicates the
use of a painted backdrop. [Jack White]
Or it indicates the brink of a hill. Traverse maps for Apollo 16
show this photo was taken high up on a mountain. The terrain visible
above the demarcation is actually hundreds or thousands of meters
away, and so the small rocks visible in foreground should not be
visible in the background.