Jack White Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 Second Fetzer/Burton Debate images, REFLECTIONS IN HELMET VISORS: NUMBER FOUR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 Second Fetzer/Burton Debate images, REFLECTIONS IN HELMET VISORS: NUMBER FIVE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 Second Fetzer/Burton Debate images, REFLECTIONS IN HELMET VISORS: NUMBER SIX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 (edited) Second Fetzer/Burton Debate images, REFLECTIONS IN HELMET VISORS: NUMBER SEVEN (typo fixed) Edited September 23, 2010 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 Second Fetzer/Burton Debate images, REFLECTIONS IN HELMET VISORS: NUMBER EIGHT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 Second Fetzer/Burton Debate images, REFLECTIONS IN HELMET VISORS: NUMBER NINE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 "Perspective distortion ... "Compression distortion", blah blah blah .... It looks as though John has now joined the team and is even giving away their rebuttals excuses to the visor reflection anomalies BEFORE the debate has even begun! Nothing like giving your game away in advance guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 The images are now posted. Instead of the monotonous COMPRESSION ARTIFACTS and DUST ON THE LENS, let these people address specifics, like why was a 2005 scan retouched by 2007 to black out a reflection, and in 2010 it has been removed entirely. Not dust, not compression...just opaque black over a troublesome area. Huh? Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 (edited) The images are now posted. Instead of the monotonous COMPRESSION ARTIFACTS and DUST ON THE LENS, let these people address specifics, like why was a 2005 scan retouched by 2007 to black out a reflection, and in 2010 it has been removed entirely. Not dust, not compression...just opaque black over a troublesome area. Huh? Jack Jack, the image was never removed, you just can't find it because you're looking for the wrong image number. You have it incorrectly labeled as as17-137-20477 when it's as17-134-20477. Edited September 23, 2010 by Kevin M. West Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 If I made a typo (it WAS 134) I will investigate and revise the graphic. I was using THE CORRECT NUMBER when I looked for it. Thanks. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 Jack, why do you crop and scale up low quality images when there are higher resolution images available to begin with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 If I made a typo (it WAS 134) I will investigate and revise the graphic. I was using THE CORRECT NUMBER when I looked for it. Thanks. Jack If you were using the correct number you would have found it, it's on NASA's page and several third party sites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 "Perspective distortion ... "Compression distortion", blah blah blah .... It looks as though John has now joined the team and is even giving away their rebuttals excuses to the visor reflection anomalies BEFORE the debate has even begun! Nothing like giving your game away in advance guys. Duane, you truly are a nut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 If I made a typo (it WAS 134) I will investigate and revise the graphic. I was using THE CORRECT NUMBER when I looked for it. Thanks. Jack If you were using the correct number you would have found it, it's on NASA's page and several third party sites. West is right about my TYPO. He is WRONG about it not having been removed from NASA's APOLLO IMAGE GALLERY. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 Jack, they aren't all in order on that site. Hit ctrl-f, type in the image number, it's there. 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