You are right, it comes out as 48 m and not 42 mm. I didn’t say it was used by Zahi to calculate the distance, I simply am trying to see other simple ways to validate his results. I did try few times to work through this report, but I couldn’t do it, with all those equations and the rest.
But I did tell Zahi and Lock a simple way to add more credibility and soundness to their conclusions, and it is by using their same techniques on Langdon’s photos and prove that it is a small object. But for some reason they declined to do it. Is it because their equations proved that the object in Langdon’s photo came up to be a large object as well? I don’t know. It would only take them a few minutes of time but for some reason has evaded to do it for years. May be you can do it since you seem to have read and understood the entire Zahi’s report. Are you interested?
p.s.: And by the way, is there and equation for the camera-object-distance for a nearby object? And where is this M = D/d = H/h = f/(f-D) used?
