Jack White Posted December 5, 2008 Share Posted December 5, 2008 Here is an Apollo image badly in need of an Apollogist explanation! Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted December 5, 2008 Share Posted December 5, 2008 Here is an Apollo image badly in need of an Apollogist explanation!Jack If such a thing is possible Duane's and your arguments seem to get weaker and more desperate over time. There is too little detail in the visor reflection to conclude anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted December 5, 2008 Share Posted December 5, 2008 I'd agree with Len - there is insufficient detail. Here is a crop of AS17-141-21608HR increased to 800% of normal size. You can see the pixelation, making it impossible to determine fine detail. I'd say it is another case of an over-active imagination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted December 5, 2008 Author Share Posted December 5, 2008 Here is an Apollo image badly in need of an Apollogist explanation!Jack I would like to point out that there IS NO PIXELIZATION in my study, a complaint some astronuts might theorize. Even if pixelized the PLSS should reflect, because as shown, it it huge in comparison to the astronot. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted December 5, 2008 Author Share Posted December 5, 2008 Pixelization is a desperate red herring non sequitur. The photo is extremely HIGH RESOLUTION. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted December 5, 2008 Share Posted December 5, 2008 Pixelization is a desperate red herring non sequitur. The photo is extremely HIGH RESOLUTION.Jack More ignorant bs from "bs"White. First the ORIGINAL HR scan of this image as found on the web is not "extremely" hig resolution at all. The fact is that the image is 2340 pixels by 2350 pixels. Thats equal to the output of a 5.5 Mega pixel camera. Extremely HIGH resolution images are output by cameras these day at 60 Mega pixels...heck even 35mm based digital now has 24 mega pixel sensors. In othe world 'bs" White is full of ...well..bs. Size wise the HR image on the net is 7.8"x7.833" at 300 dpi. A TRUE extremely high resolution camera such as a Phase 1 P65 produces a native file at 8984x6732 pixels, or 29.9"x22.4" at 300dpi. The image in question was not produced by a digital camera but rather from a scan of a piece of film. High resolution drum scanners can scan down to film grain level, and up to and beyond 4800 dpi. In the case of a 6cm x 6cm image (standard Hasselobad image size) a 4800 dpi scan produces an image of 37" x37" at 300 dpi. THATS exremely high resolution. Second, Evan is correct that the image is quite pixelated. Point of fa5t his crop posted is EXACTLY what is seen in the original scan that is found on the web. "bs" is wrong again. Ther is simply not enough detal in the visor image to support "bs's" claim ( or is this claim actually someone else's claim co-opted by White, DO a google and YOU decide). Regardess of who is the ORIGINAL author, the claim just cant be back by evidence. Third, 'bs" White's crop is a very poor interpolation of the original scan. He has enlarged the image approx 340 percent in some sortof image processor. The process is done by interpolation. The process actually produces new pixels that do not appear in the original image. The process actually MAKES UP the pixels. As such an interpolation is a computer generated APPROXIMATION of the original. Interpolation CANNOT increase the resolution of the original. This stuff is digital imaging 101. "bs" White goes to the back of the class...again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted December 5, 2008 Share Posted December 5, 2008 Here is an Apollo image badly in need of an Apollogist explanation!Jack I would like to point out that there IS NO PIXELIZATION in my study, a complaint some astronuts might theorize. Even if pixelized the PLSS should reflect, because as shown, it it huge in comparison to the astronot. Jack I would like to point out that the area on the original (not altered by Jack White) scan the area the comprises the PLSS and Helmet is only SEVEN pixels wide. Remember that the image is 2340 pixels wide. Hoaxtards want the world to believre that they can see important detail in 7 pixels from a low res scan...detail that is compromised due the reflective convex surface of the visor. Rational people kniow that is just bunk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted December 5, 2008 Share Posted December 5, 2008 If anyone does not believe the image is pixelated, I would recommend they download the image themselves and use the zoom function on their imaging application of choice to go into 800% of the original image size. The image pixelates because of the resolution of the scan. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/...141-21608HR.jpg We should also consider that Jack Schmitt would have been facing roughly towards the visor (about 30 degrees off) and so the PLSS backpack would not have been clearly visible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted December 5, 2008 Share Posted December 5, 2008 (Thanks to Count Zero for pointing this out) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 Just having watch the magnificent documentary IN THE SHADOW OF THE MOON, I think the words said by Gene Cernan (Commander of Apollo 17), when asked about people who claim that Apollo was hoaxed, deserve repeating: "Truth needs no defence. Nobody..... nobody can ever take the footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now