cross hairs on lunar landing photos

[Darkpyre]

I watched that fox special on the lunar “hoax” and I could refute all their “evidence” except for the crosshairs in the stills that got covered by objects in the photo. Does anyone know how that happened or
where I can get some info on this?

[Gunslinger]

the glare from the white object behind the crosshair washed it out on the film. hold a piece of black thread between your eyes and a bright light. Same effect.

[friedo]

All the objects “in front” of the crosshairs are overexposed specular highlights. Pick up an intro book on photography to learn about why this cancels out the crosshairs.

[Patty_O_Furniture]

From Irishman’s excellent post in this thread:

This is an effect of overexposure. This is a very common photo effect. Notice that all the pictures that show “missing” crosshair pieces are next to white objects. When white objects in pictures are overexposed, they bleed over onto the dark objects around them, making the edges look a little larger than they are. Ergo, the line is there, but bleed over blocks it. This is an effect at the emulsion layer, so it will override the fact that the image is behind the crosshairs. Now explain why NASA would add fake crosshairs. Wouldn’t it be easier to shoot the hoaxed pictures (if that was their plan) with the crosshair lenses?

The last point is sobering. Your challenge to any conspiracy nut who asserts this as “evidence” should be as follows: What was the means by which the crosshairs were faked? Since they are apparently “behind” certain foreground objects, were the crosshairs painted on the backdrop? If the crosshairs were added afterwards, why would artists go to such pain-staking measures to make sure that they looked as though they were behind some objects?

[Podkayne]

Yeah, I mean, either they used cameras with reseau marks (which is the technical term for those cross-marks) or they didn’t.

Same thing with the “Why aren’t there stars?” argument. If NASA wanted to fake the stars, they could fake the stars. shrug

In both cases, the seeming “incosistency” seems to be more evidential of a real-life, messy, actual event, rather than a cunningly-crafted hoax.

[The_Bad_Astronomer]

All these questions and more are answered on my very own humble (pbbbt) website: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html and links therein.

[Chas.E]

Remember the moon landing hoax idiots don’t have access to the original negatives, just the 3rd or 4th generation copies. The copy negatives tend to spread the black areas, the crosshairs are literally hairlines and extremely fine details tend to get lost in nth generation copies, just like a n-th generation xerox copy tends to blur and spread black type.
I have seen a web page that analyzed the missing crosshairs on information provided by hoaxers vs. 1st generation originals. Most of the crosshairs reappeared in the 1st gen prints.

[Podkayne]

Bad, you rule, of course, and I feel honored to brush shoulders with you in this forum. Our department has been deluged with email questions about the Fox program, and we’ve been sending a lot of traffic your way.