Knowledge

Moon landing deniers show an image with a crosshair behind an object. How can this be explained by someone who doesn’t believe the conspiracy?

 The crosshair was etched into a glass plate called a Reseau plate in front of the photographic film. It allows examiners to see whether the film is warped, determine sizes from angular resolutions etc.

These lines are pretty thin. That means that they can disappear if you make a bad or lo-res scan, or if the light into the camera is bright.

On this image, the crosshair and the red stripes disappeared in the scan, so that it appears that the crosshair is behind the stereo camera.

This is a better scan of the same negative. The crosshair is in front.

On this image, from Apollo 15, you can barely see the crosshair on the flag. On the white parts, the black lines almost disappear.

And that’s because the white is so bright that it simply washed out the crosshair on the film.


It’s both easier than you might think and harder.

First of all, how do you show a crosshair BEHIND an object. I mean that’s sort of obvious. So actually their argument sort of fails there.

Really what they’re trying to claim is that the object prevents the entire crosshair from being seen.

So let’s discuss this a minute: why would there be crosshairs? And even then, why would it presumably be BEHIND an object? Their arguments here don’t make sense.

But, here’s the thing. They’re sort of right. In some of the photographs they present (and many that are commonly available) you see only part of a crosshair. What’s up with that?

Well, first of all, what’s up with the crosshair? It’s actually thin lines etched into a glass plate called a reseau plate. Typically called reticles (though I see some places call them fiducials). The reason they’re there is so that afterwards experts can align things up, figure out measurements and other factors. Basically they provide a known reference point. So for example, one way they can be used is take a photograph of some rocks, take a step to the right, take another picture. Now, using the reticles you can line everything up and create a 3-D photo of the scene. This helps you determine distances and how things are arranged.

So, crosshairs exist on all the photos (I believe, I don’t think the reseau plate was ever removed).

So what happens in some photos?

Ever take a picture of something dark in front of a bright background and not be able to see it? It’s washed out.

Here’s a photo (NASA, detail of AS15-88-11863) taken from Photography – crosshairs

Notice how in the white area you can’t see the reticle? It’s there, but it’s washed out.

Now here’s a screen grab from a high-res version of the same photo directly from NASA’s site: Photo-as15-88-11863

Notice now you can actually faintly see it. It’s still washed out, but the compression in the copy above hasn’t completely removed it.

So really in most cases, there’s two factors going on:

In the original it’s sometimes washed out, especially if it’s against a very bright background (like the white stripe on the flag) and then often deniers are looking at copies of originals that often have been compressed and have compression artifacts that remove detail.

So, the crosshairs exist, but sometimes can’t be seen for very simple reasons.

Related Posts

What’s it like inside an aircraft carrier during a heavy storm?

During my time on a carrier, we went through a hurricane not once, but twice. We were in the Atlantic returning to our home port but first, we…

If the Soviets had decided to push the Allies out of Western Europe at the end of WW2, could they have done it?

Stalin asked Marshal Zhukov that very question in 1945. His answer: No. Westerns have a myth about the Red Army being this enormous inexhaustible machine that steamrolled its…

How long can an Ohio-class submarine stay submerged?

The Ohio-class nuclear submarine was designed for extended strategic deterrent patrols. Each submarine is assigned two complete crews, called the Blue crew and the Gold crew, each typically serving…

Why is the F-35 terribly flawed but the F-22 wasn’t?

The F-35 has been clubbing F-15s, F-16s, F-18s, like baby seals in recent exercises. And In Red Flag 17–1 when the F-35 was declared out of weapons, the…

How large can an aircraft carrier be made to accommodate as many aircraft as possible?

HMS Habakukk was planned to be 2000′ long, 300′ wide, and able to carry 200 planes including heavy bombers! While it was theoretically possible to build it, the…

Which US Navy jet was the most difficult or the easiest to land on the Aircraft Carrier?

Most difficult or worst? Almost certainly the Voight F7U Cutlass. 25% of the production run was lost to landing accident. Carrier Captains started ordering them off their ships…