Egregious error in ESA Huygen panorama

I draw your attention to

http://esamultimedia.esa.int/images/...d/Picture3.jpg

Near the middle are a pair of adjacent panels from the side-looking
images of triplets #707 and #692 ( from left to right.) #692 has a
prominent figure I call the "hawk's head" facing left just below center.
( You may think it looks more like a cardinal, or a chameleon. )
The "beak" of the figure, appears along the right edge of #707, but is
not matched up. In fact, you can see that it is not matched with anything.

The matches that are made are superficial. #707 is at a significantly
lower altitude ( about .7 km vs. 1.3 km ) and cannot be matched
by the simple "stretching" method apparently used. ( All the side
boundaries are parallel. )

I had already posted a note claiming that the ESA "first best guess"
at the landing site is significantly in error. I have done more
analysis using the principle that straight lines map to straight
lines under projection. This way I can map the center lines of
the low level side-looking images onto higher level images, and
these lines converge to the landing region.

Seeing this outrageous error certainly bolsters my confidence
that my own analysis is correct.

Lew Mammel, Jr.

Heh, how come you can't see these things until you post?

It's weird though. I was talking to a friend of mine on
the phone, and he remarked that he had done a search on
"Huygen" instead of "Huygens", so I guess some kind of
Freudian thing was happening.

Well, I published a stub of a web site, just so I could display
my corrected match of #707 and #692. If you visit my photo gallery at

http://home.att.net/~l.mammel/wsb/ht...tos.html-.html

you will see that there is only one photo there. It shows my
reconstruction of the mismatched panels from the panorama, and
two corrected matches. They are they same except that 707
overlaps 692 in the first ( middle of the three, after the
reconstructed bad match ) and 692 overlaps 707 in the second
( last of the three. )

I hope it's obvious to all that my corrections are in fact correct!

Note that I used MS photo editor, and all three montages were
formed using "height resizing" on 707 only. To be accurate, a
projective transorm is required. The match is pretty good
( in the corrections! ) except at the bottom where there is
distortion, but even with the distortion you can see the
correspondence of the individual features.

Lewis Mammel wrote:

I draw your attention to

http://esamultimedia.esa.int/images/...d/Picture3.jpg

Near the middle are a pair of adjacent panels from the side-looking
images of triplets #707 and #692 ( from left to right.) #692 has a
prominent figure I call the "hawk's head" facing left just below center.
( You may think it looks more like a cardinal, or a chameleon. )
The "beak" of the figure, appears along the right edge of #707, but is
not matched up. In fact, you can see that it is not matched with anything.

The matches that are made are superficial. #707 is at a significantly
lower altitude ( about .7 km vs. 1.3 km ) and cannot be matched
by the simple "stretching" method apparently used. ( All the side
boundaries are parallel. )

I had already posted a note claiming that the ESA "first best guess"
at the landing site is significantly in error. I have done more
analysis using the principle that straight lines map to straight
lines under projection. This way I can map the center lines of
the low level side-looking images onto higher level images, and
these lines converge to the landing region.

Seeing this outrageous error certainly bolsters my confidence
that my own analysis is correct.

Lew Mammel, Jr.