Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DataCable
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Humphrey
Also after zooming in i think i have found the "missing" crosshair. Using a ruler i am prety sure that is the correct possition i have circled. I could be in correct, but it looks like it.
Link to my circled image to save bandwith |
That particular fiducial gets obscured by various factors, including the CM surface details which fall under it, the low quality of the scan, and JPEG artifacts. See this page for clearer scans. The fiducial is barly visible in the Low-Res image, but crystal clear in the Medium- and Hi-Res versions.
In fact, in the two larger images, you can see parts of the fiducial bled out by the bright white streaks on the CM hull, and emulsion bleed was what the HB page was attempting to discredit by referencing this image.  |
I opened the hi-res image [in good ol' Microsoft Paint] and shrunk it down to 20% and guess what happened? The fiducial disappeared to the same degree as the image that HBs like to use. It was (and I mean ever-so-) slightly more visible. That, I believe, is due the hi-res image being an overall better quality picture and the image the HBs use appears to be a multigeneration [low-res] JPG (i.e., it gets opened and re-saved multiple times, creating more JPG artifacts, causing the fiducial to blend in more with the surrounding pixels.) And to top it off, the image is virtually gray-scale and the contrast is not great at said fiducial and CM. Each of these things compounds into a crappy picture that HBs present as an infallible picture.
And I love the Apollo 15 pictures [with the astronauts each saluting the flag] where the mountain in the back seems to have been substantially tilted. I guess HBs are not smart enough to determine that the "tilted" mountain is due to camera tilt. HBs fail to point out that if the angle between the [virtually level] mountain top and the [straight] flag pole (or the LM's [straight] leg) in either image measures the same. So, using HB logic, here is a new HB claim: "The tilted mountain was not caused by camera tilt. The cameraman must have been on a level surface and the astronauts must have been on a stage that is capable of tilting; hence the discrepancy between the two images. Even though there is no reason for NASA to have used a stage that tilts, they must have because it fits the theory." :wink:
[edit] I'm sure many of you have already seen what is at this
link. It is funny because it is SO true.