Size does matter

[HECTOP]

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/573107/M/

HECTOP
PP-ASEL-IA
http://www.maxho.com
maxho_at_maxho.com

[Greg Copeland]

On Tue, 11 May 2004 10:27:36 -0400, HECTOP wrote:

> http://www.airliners.net/open.file/573107/M/
>
> HECTOP
> PP-ASEL-IA
> http://www.maxho.com
> maxho_at_maxho.com

Why does it look like that plane was "photoshopped" in?

[Al]

There is no shadow.


> Why does it look like that plane was "photoshopped" in?

[HECTOP]

Greg Copeland > wrote:
> Why does it look like that plane was "photoshopped" in?

You won't get a photoshopped photo past the Gestapo over at airliners.net.
Try getting a photo displayed there and see for yourself.


--
HECTOP
PP-ASEL-IA
http://www.maxho.com
maxho_at_maxho.com

[Greg Copeland]

On Tue, 11 May 2004 16:36:31 +0000, Al wrote:

> There is no shadow.
>
>
>> Why does it look like that plane was "photoshopped" in?

Ya, it was a rhetorical question. Aside from the fact that there is no
shadow, the other objects in the photo have fairly soft edges whereas the
plane has a harsh anti-aliased outline. To me, it jumps out as being fake
before you even notice the lack of shadow. In otherwords, the "crispness"
of the phane does not match that of other objects at the same distance.
There is also no motion blurr on the plane even though it obvious on the
cars. ;)

Cheers!

[G.R. Patterson III]

Al wrote:
>
> There is no shadow.

Yes, there is. The fuselage shadow runs along the top of the crest of the road.
Shadows of the wings and tail extend into the green field behind the plane. From the
angle of the wing shadow on the side of the fuselage, the ground shadows are where
one would expect them to be.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[Peter R.]

Greg Copeland ) wrote:

> Aside from the fact that there is no shadow,

Look again. There is a shadow, just at the crest of the road.

--
Peter

[Greg Copeland]

On Tue, 11 May 2004 12:57:13 -0400, Peter R. wrote:

> Greg Copeland ) wrote:
>
>> Aside from the fact that there is no shadow,
>
> Look again. There is a shadow, just at the crest of the road.

If that's the shadow to the plane, the angle doesn't appear to match any
others. All the other shadows would appear to place the sun directly
overhead. Which means, if what you're calling a shadow is supposed to be
coming from the plane, it was put in badly. Otherwise, we'd have to
simply call it an unidentified dark area in the picture. Furthermore,
look at where the shadow is cast under the wing.

[Peter R.]

Greg Copeland ) wrote:

> On Tue, 11 May 2004 12:57:13 -0400, Peter R. wrote:
>
> > Greg Copeland ) wrote:
> >
> >> Aside from the fact that there is no shadow,
> >
> > Look again. There is a shadow, just at the crest of the road.
>
> If that's the shadow to the plane, the angle doesn't appear to match any
> others. All the other shadows would appear to place the sun directly
> overhead. Which means, if what you're calling a shadow is supposed to be
> coming from the plane, it was put in badly. Otherwise, we'd have to
> simply call it an unidentified dark area in the picture. Furthermore,
> look at where the shadow is cast under the wing.

Whatever... Everyone is a photo detective these days.

--
Peter

[Greg Copeland]

On Tue, 11 May 2004 13:29:24 -0400, Peter R. wrote:

> Greg Copeland ) wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 11 May 2004 12:57:13 -0400, Peter R. wrote:
>>
>> > Greg Copeland ) wrote:
>> >
>> >> Aside from the fact that there is no shadow,
>> >
>> > Look again. There is a shadow, just at the crest of the road.
>>
>> If that's the shadow to the plane, the angle doesn't appear to match any
>> others. All the other shadows would appear to place the sun directly
>> overhead. Which means, if what you're calling a shadow is supposed to be
>> coming from the plane, it was put in badly. Otherwise, we'd have to
>> simply call it an unidentified dark area in the picture. Furthermore,
>> look at where the shadow is cast under the wing.
>
> Whatever... Everyone is a photo detective these days.

You might want to take a look at the other reasons I listed which make it
look like a fake too.

[Peter R.]

Greg Copeland ) wrote:

> On Tue, 11 May 2004 13:29:24 -0400, Peter R. wrote:
>
> > Greg Copeland ) wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 11 May 2004 12:57:13 -0400, Peter R. wrote:
> >>
> >> > Greg Copeland ) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Aside from the fact that there is no shadow,
> >> >
> >> > Look again. There is a shadow, just at the crest of the road.
> >>
> >> If that's the shadow to the plane, the angle doesn't appear to match any
> >> others. All the other shadows would appear to place the sun directly
> >> overhead. Which means, if what you're calling a shadow is supposed to be
> >> coming from the plane, it was put in badly. Otherwise, we'd have to
> >> simply call it an unidentified dark area in the picture. Furthermore,
> >> look at where the shadow is cast under the wing.
> >
> > Whatever... Everyone is a photo detective these days.
>
> You might want to take a look at the other reasons I listed which make it
> look like a fake too.

I did and I do not agree with you. I believe the picture is authentic, for
in my opinion the shadows line up correctly.

What's not to believe? The aircraft is on short final at a major US
airport. Instead some have to make yet another conspiracy out of nothing.
Sheesh.


--
Peter

[Greg Copeland]

On Tue, 11 May 2004 13:40:42 -0400, Peter R. wrote:

> Greg Copeland ) wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 11 May 2004 13:29:24 -0400, Peter R. wrote:
>>
>> > Greg Copeland ) wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 11 May 2004 12:57:13 -0400, Peter R. wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Greg Copeland ) wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Aside from the fact that there is no shadow,
>> >> >
>> >> > Look again. There is a shadow, just at the crest of the road.
>> >>
>> >> If that's the shadow to the plane, the angle doesn't appear to match any
>> >> others. All the other shadows would appear to place the sun directly
>> >> overhead. Which means, if what you're calling a shadow is supposed to be
>> >> coming from the plane, it was put in badly. Otherwise, we'd have to
>> >> simply call it an unidentified dark area in the picture. Furthermore,
>> >> look at where the shadow is cast under the wing.
>> >
>> > Whatever... Everyone is a photo detective these days.
>>
>> You might want to take a look at the other reasons I listed which make it
>> look like a fake too.
>
> I did and I do not agree with you. I believe the picture is authentic, for
> in my opinion the shadows line up correctly.
>
> What's not to believe? The aircraft is on short final at a major US
> airport. Instead some have to make yet another conspiracy out of nothing.
> Sheesh.

I don't believe anyone said anything about a conspiracy. None is
required. And, believe it or not, photoshop editing is a very popular
past time. For some, their hobby is editing photos where they then get
their kicks passing it off as legitimate.

While I'm sorry that my opinion is that it's a fake (for many
stated reasons) upsets you, I'm still entitled to it.

Shesh is right.

[Stefan]

Whimp! It's a high wing!

Stefan

[Peter Duniho]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
> > There is no shadow.
>
> Yes, there is. The fuselage shadow runs along the top of the crest of the
road.
> Shadows of the wings and tail extend into the green field behind the
plane. From the
> angle of the wing shadow on the side of the fuselage, the ground shadows
are where
> one would expect them to be.

I disgree. The sun appears to be high and slightly to the left, nearly
directly overhead. The dark areas at the crest of the road and in the field
are something other than the shadow of the airplane.

However, that said...there's nothing about the photo that suggests it's a
fake.

* the fence to the left is consistent with an airport boundary,
* it's not unusual to see landing aircraft at that altitude that close
to a runway,
* the shadow of the airplane would be out of the frame, beyond the
bottom edge,
* the so-called "motion blur" of the cars is actually apparent on all
objects in the frame except the aircraft which suggests that the camera was
being panned to follow the airplane (a very common photographic technique,
and given the bright scene would result in the very minimal blurring seen
for the non-subject elements of the frame), and
* the so-called aliasing around the airplane is simply a combination of
JPEG artifacts and the consequence of having shrunk the image (they are
practically nonexistent in the larger version of the image)

As far as the question of whether it IS a fake or not, who can tell? It's a
digital photo, and you never can really know for sure (absent authentication
techniques for creating certifiable photos, of course). Some fakes are very
good. If this is a fake, it's one of the very good ones. But one should
ask themselves, why would anyone bother faking a photograph like this? It
would be easy enough to get an actual photograph, and there's no profit in
faking one.

I do think that if someone wants to be a photo detective (as Peter R.
says...everyone wants to be one these days :) ), they ought to learn more
about photography and digital images. Playing Sherlock works a lot better
if the "clues" one discovers are actually valid clues.

Pete

[Dima Volodin]

"Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 11 May 2004 16:36:31 +0000, Al wrote:
>
> > There is no shadow.
> >
> >
> >> Why does it look like that plane was "photoshopped" in?
>
> Ya, it was a rhetorical question. Aside from the fact that there is no
> shadow, the other objects in the photo have fairly soft edges whereas the
> plane has a harsh anti-aliased outline. To me, it jumps out as being fake
> before you even notice the lack of shadow. In otherwords, the "crispness"
> of the phane does not match that of other objects at the same distance.
> There is also no motion blurr on the plane even though it obvious on the
> cars. ;)

The shadows are there, and you don't get a motion blur on a target if you follow
it with your camera. An-124s are known to fly into BWI, and the picture seems
pretty consistent with the information the author provided. From what I can tell
(of course, to err is human), the picture was taken at Dorsey Rd, Glen Burnie,
MD (McPherson, Friendship Park), the Ruslan is landing 33L in the afternoon. The
METAR data for that time fit what you see on the picture pretty good. And if the
picture looks suspicious to you, you can always ask the author, the contact link
is right there next to the picture.

> Cheers!

Dima

[Darkwing Duck \(The Duck, The Myth, The Legend\)]

"Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 11 May 2004 13:40:42 -0400, Peter R. wrote:
>
> > Greg Copeland ) wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 11 May 2004 13:29:24 -0400, Peter R. wrote:
> >>
> >> > Greg Copeland ) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Tue, 11 May 2004 12:57:13 -0400, Peter R. wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Greg Copeland ) wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Aside from the fact that there is no shadow,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Look again. There is a shadow, just at the crest of the road.
> >> >>
> >> >> If that's the shadow to the plane, the angle doesn't appear to match
any
> >> >> others. All the other shadows would appear to place the sun
directly
> >> >> overhead. Which means, if what you're calling a shadow is supposed
to be
> >> >> coming from the plane, it was put in badly. Otherwise, we'd have to
> >> >> simply call it an unidentified dark area in the picture.
Furthermore,
> >> >> look at where the shadow is cast under the wing.
> >> >
> >> > Whatever... Everyone is a photo detective these days.
> >>
> >> You might want to take a look at the other reasons I listed which make
it
> >> look like a fake too.
> >
> > I did and I do not agree with you. I believe the picture is authentic,
for
> > in my opinion the shadows line up correctly.
> >
> > What's not to believe? The aircraft is on short final at a major US
> > airport. Instead some have to make yet another conspiracy out of
nothing.
> > Sheesh.
>
> I don't believe anyone said anything about a conspiracy. None is
> required. And, believe it or not, photoshop editing is a very popular
> past time. For some, their hobby is editing photos where they then get
> their kicks passing it off as legitimate.
>
> While I'm sorry that my opinion is that it's a fake (for many
> stated reasons) upsets you, I'm still entitled to it.
>
> Shesh is right.
>

It's real, your blind. Do you ref for the NBA?

---------------------------------------

[Greg Copeland]

On Tue, 11 May 2004 14:48:43 -0500, Darkwing Duck (The Duck, The Myth, The
Legend) wrote:

>
> "Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Tue, 11 May 2004 13:40:42 -0400, Peter R. wrote:
>>
>> > Greg Copeland ) wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 11 May 2004 13:29:24 -0400, Peter R. wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Greg Copeland ) wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Tue, 11 May 2004 12:57:13 -0400, Peter R. wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Greg Copeland ) wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Aside from the fact that there is no shadow,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Look again. There is a shadow, just at the crest of the road.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If that's the shadow to the plane, the angle doesn't appear to match
> any
>> >> >> others. All the other shadows would appear to place the sun
> directly
>> >> >> overhead. Which means, if what you're calling a shadow is supposed
> to be
>> >> >> coming from the plane, it was put in badly. Otherwise, we'd have to
>> >> >> simply call it an unidentified dark area in the picture.
> Furthermore,
>> >> >> look at where the shadow is cast under the wing.
>> >> >
>> >> > Whatever... Everyone is a photo detective these days.
>> >>
>> >> You might want to take a look at the other reasons I listed which make
> it
>> >> look like a fake too.
>> >
>> > I did and I do not agree with you. I believe the picture is authentic,
> for
>> > in my opinion the shadows line up correctly.
>> >
>> > What's not to believe? The aircraft is on short final at a major US
>> > airport. Instead some have to make yet another conspiracy out of
> nothing.
>> > Sheesh.
>>
>> I don't believe anyone said anything about a conspiracy. None is
>> required. And, believe it or not, photoshop editing is a very popular
>> past time. For some, their hobby is editing photos where they then get
>> their kicks passing it off as legitimate.
>>
>> While I'm sorry that my opinion is that it's a fake (for many
>> stated reasons) upsets you, I'm still entitled to it.
>>
>> Shesh is right.
>>
>
> It's real, your blind. Do you ref for the NBA?
>
> ---------------------------------------

And the trolls start to come out. Shesh.

[gatt]

"Greg Copeland" > wrote in message

> In otherwords, the "crispness"
> of the phane does not match that of other objects at the same distance.
> There is also no motion blurr on the plane even though it obvious on the
> cars. ;)

Could it be because the photographer was tracking the plane? I noticed
there's a guy looking at what appears to be the plane in the lower right
corner, meaning somebody is looking at -something-. There is a noticeable
lack of brakelights and skidmarks from the cars to suggest that the driver
was distracted (or a pilot, and geeking completely out) by the airplane.

An airplane like that used to land at Moffett (it's an AN-134, I believe).
Spent several hours watching semis drive in through the tail and exit
through the nose. The plane is that big.

[Dan Luke]

One of these big boys damaged a couple of tied-down Cessnas with its jet
wash at my airport just yesterday. Both Cessnas, a 152 and a 172RG, have
(at least) bent control surface crank arms and cable gear. The control
locks were in place. The 152's tail tiedown ring is bent over sideways
and the rear fuselage may be twisted. Internal inspections have not been
completed.

The event was witnessed by an aviation mechanic who said both Cessnas
were "flopping on their tiedown ropes like fish" when the Antonov
blasted them.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Darkwing Duck \(The Duck, The Myth, The Legend\)]

"Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 11 May 2004 14:48:43 -0500, Darkwing Duck (The Duck, The Myth, The
> Legend) wrote:
>
> >
> > "Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> On Tue, 11 May 2004 13:40:42 -0400, Peter R. wrote:
> >>
> >> > Greg Copeland ) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Tue, 11 May 2004 13:29:24 -0400, Peter R. wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Greg Copeland ) wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On Tue, 11 May 2004 12:57:13 -0400, Peter R. wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Greg Copeland ) wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> Aside from the fact that there is no shadow,
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Look again. There is a shadow, just at the crest of the road.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> If that's the shadow to the plane, the angle doesn't appear to
match
> > any
> >> >> >> others. All the other shadows would appear to place the sun
> > directly
> >> >> >> overhead. Which means, if what you're calling a shadow is
supposed
> > to be
> >> >> >> coming from the plane, it was put in badly. Otherwise, we'd have
to
> >> >> >> simply call it an unidentified dark area in the picture.
> > Furthermore,
> >> >> >> look at where the shadow is cast under the wing.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Whatever... Everyone is a photo detective these days.
> >> >>
> >> >> You might want to take a look at the other reasons I listed which
make
> > it
> >> >> look like a fake too.
> >> >
> >> > I did and I do not agree with you. I believe the picture is
authentic,
> > for
> >> > in my opinion the shadows line up correctly.
> >> >
> >> > What's not to believe? The aircraft is on short final at a major US
> >> > airport. Instead some have to make yet another conspiracy out of
> > nothing.
> >> > Sheesh.
> >>
> >> I don't believe anyone said anything about a conspiracy. None is
> >> required. And, believe it or not, photoshop editing is a very popular
> >> past time. For some, their hobby is editing photos where they then get
> >> their kicks passing it off as legitimate.
> >>
> >> While I'm sorry that my opinion is that it's a fake (for many
> >> stated reasons) upsets you, I'm still entitled to it.
> >>
> >> Shesh is right.
> >>
> >
> > It's real, your blind. Do you ref for the NBA?
> >
> > ---------------------------------------
>
> And the trolls start to come out. Shesh.
>
>

Troll with a private.

[Darkwing Duck \(The Duck, The Myth, The Legend\)]

"Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 11 May 2004 14:48:43 -0500, Darkwing Duck (The Duck, The Myth, The
> Legend) wrote:
>
> >
> > "Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> On Tue, 11 May 2004 13:40:42 -0400, Peter R. wrote:
> >>
> >> > Greg Copeland ) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Tue, 11 May 2004 13:29:24 -0400, Peter R. wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Greg Copeland ) wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On Tue, 11 May 2004 12:57:13 -0400, Peter R. wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Greg Copeland ) wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> Aside from the fact that there is no shadow,
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Look again. There is a shadow, just at the crest of the road.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> If that's the shadow to the plane, the angle doesn't appear to
match
> > any
> >> >> >> others. All the other shadows would appear to place the sun
> > directly
> >> >> >> overhead. Which means, if what you're calling a shadow is
supposed
> > to be
> >> >> >> coming from the plane, it was put in badly. Otherwise, we'd have
to
> >> >> >> simply call it an unidentified dark area in the picture.
> > Furthermore,
> >> >> >> look at where the shadow is cast under the wing.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Whatever... Everyone is a photo detective these days.
> >> >>
> >> >> You might want to take a look at the other reasons I listed which
make
> > it
> >> >> look like a fake too.
> >> >
> >> > I did and I do not agree with you. I believe the picture is
authentic,
> > for
> >> > in my opinion the shadows line up correctly.
> >> >
> >> > What's not to believe? The aircraft is on short final at a major US
> >> > airport. Instead some have to make yet another conspiracy out of
> > nothing.
> >> > Sheesh.
> >>
> >> I don't believe anyone said anything about a conspiracy. None is
> >> required. And, believe it or not, photoshop editing is a very popular
> >> past time. For some, their hobby is editing photos where they then get
> >> their kicks passing it off as legitimate.
> >>
> >> While I'm sorry that my opinion is that it's a fake (for many
> >> stated reasons) upsets you, I'm still entitled to it.
> >>
> >> Shesh is right.
> >>
> >
> > It's real, your blind. Do you ref for the NBA?
> >
> > ---------------------------------------
>
> And the trolls start to come out. Shesh.

A troll comment from someone who can't tell that the photo is REAL. Shesh
indeed. Eat crow, admit your original instinct about the photo was wrong.

[HECTOP]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> The event was witnessed by an aviation mechanic who said both Cessnas
> were "flopping on their tiedown ropes like fish" when the Antonov

they must'be lucky it was only the second largest Antonov, and not the
first. Now this baby would blow away
a tied down 737: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/568023/M/ at 600
metric tons MTOW ;-)


HECTOP
PP-ASEL-IA
http://www.maxho.com
maxho_at_maxho.com

[G.R. Patterson III]

Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> I disgree. The sun appears to be high and slightly to the left, nearly
> directly overhead. The dark areas at the crest of the road and in the field
> are something other than the shadow of the airplane.

Take another look. Follow the shadow on the road with your eyes to the left. There's
a drak section of the fence where it intersects the fence. That's the shadow of the
plane on the fence. It's damn near on top of the REIL lighting standard, which is
where it should be if the plane is tracking the glide slope.

George Patterson
I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.

[Al]

It's a fake!

"HECTOP" > wrote in message news:cddoc.922
> they must'be lucky it was only the second largest Antonov, and not the
> first. Now this baby would blow away
> a tied down 737: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/568023/M/ at 600
> metric tons MTOW ;-)

[Greg Copeland]

On Tue, 11 May 2004 17:15:19 -0500, Darkwing Duck (The Duck, The Myth, The
Legend) wrote:

>
> "Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Tue, 11 May 2004 14:48:43 -0500, Darkwing Duck (The Duck, The Myth, The
>> Legend) wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > "Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> On Tue, 11 May 2004 13:40:42 -0400, Peter R. wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Greg Copeland ) wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Tue, 11 May 2004 13:29:24 -0400, Peter R. wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Greg Copeland ) wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> On Tue, 11 May 2004 12:57:13 -0400, Peter R. wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > Greg Copeland ) wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> Aside from the fact that there is no shadow,
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Look again. There is a shadow, just at the crest of the road.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> If that's the shadow to the plane, the angle doesn't appear to
> match
>> > any
>> >> >> >> others. All the other shadows would appear to place the sun
>> > directly
>> >> >> >> overhead. Which means, if what you're calling a shadow is
> supposed
>> > to be
>> >> >> >> coming from the plane, it was put in badly. Otherwise, we'd have
> to
>> >> >> >> simply call it an unidentified dark area in the picture.
>> > Furthermore,
>> >> >> >> look at where the shadow is cast under the wing.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Whatever... Everyone is a photo detective these days.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You might want to take a look at the other reasons I listed which
> make
>> > it
>> >> >> look like a fake too.
>> >> >
>> >> > I did and I do not agree with you. I believe the picture is
> authentic,
>> > for
>> >> > in my opinion the shadows line up correctly.
>> >> >
>> >> > What's not to believe? The aircraft is on short final at a major US
>> >> > airport. Instead some have to make yet another conspiracy out of
>> > nothing.
>> >> > Sheesh.
>> >>
>> >> I don't believe anyone said anything about a conspiracy. None is
>> >> required. And, believe it or not, photoshop editing is a very popular
>> >> past time. For some, their hobby is editing photos where they then get
>> >> their kicks passing it off as legitimate.
>> >>
>> >> While I'm sorry that my opinion is that it's a fake (for many
>> >> stated reasons) upsets you, I'm still entitled to it.
>> >>
>> >> Shesh is right.
>> >>
>> >
>> > It's real, your blind. Do you ref for the NBA?
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------
>>
>> And the trolls start to come out. Shesh.
>>
>>
>
> Troll with a private.

You really have nothing better to do than to troll?

Shesh. That's sad.

[HECTOP]

Yeah of course it is!

http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?aircraft_genericsearch=Antonov%20An-225%20Mriya&distinct_entry=true

http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=389

HECTOP
PP-ASEL-IA
http://www.maxho.com
maxho_at_maxho.com


"Al" > wrote in message
news:f_doc.75065$kh4.4252186@attbi_s52...
> It's a fake!
>
> "HECTOP" > wrote in message news:cddoc.922
>> they must'be lucky it was only the second largest Antonov, and not the
>> first. Now this baby would blow away
>> a tied down 737: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/568023/M/ at 600
>> metric tons MTOW ;-)
>
>

[Peter Duniho]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
> Take another look.

Upon second look, I believe you're right. The sun is where I said it is,
but the airplane is farther in the frame than I had first assumed.

In any case, I still see no evidence that the photo is fake. :)

Pete

[Casey Wilson]

"Al" > wrote in message
news:f_doc.75065$kh4.4252186@attbi_s52...
> It's a fake!
>
Hey Al, wake up....
You deduce the photo as a fake from what?
The pixelation adjacent to the upper surface of the fuselage and
vertical stabilizer? Better take a good look at the area above the tree
lines -- with your grand analysis, the lower part of the picture has been
'photoshopped' as well -- and the cars on the highway, and the signs.
What sort of photometric instruments did you use to determine the
shadow angles are wrong? What is the geometry of the scene? What is the
slant range to the aircraft and the shadows? What is the ephemeric time of
day? What is the precise heading angle of the aircraft? The precise
pointing angle of the camera? What is the focal length of the lens used?
What is the original image size?
Those are most of the questions I need answered before I could do any
analysis.
Back to the artifacts that you so uneducatedly rely on. Did you notice
the resolution of the image on the website? Did you see 79Kb? I have no
doubt you did your research using one of the many fine photo manipulator
that can be purchased of under $39. Then magnified the already poor
resolution until it looked like crap.
Use one of the super photos you have in your stock, of any subject.
Then change the pixel image size to 640 horizontal pixels at 79KB
resolution.ow do the same thing you did to the photo from the website. Then
go kick you dog for 'photoshopping' your picture.

Warmest regards,

Casey Wilson
Professional Photographer
[former image analyst for DoD]

[Darkwing Duck \(The Duck, The Myth, The Legend\)]

"Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 11 May 2004 17:15:19 -0500, Darkwing Duck (The Duck, The Myth, The
> Legend) wrote:
>
> >
> > "Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> On Tue, 11 May 2004 14:48:43 -0500, Darkwing Duck (The Duck, The Myth,
The
> >> Legend) wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > "Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> >> On Tue, 11 May 2004 13:40:42 -0400, Peter R. wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Greg Copeland ) wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On Tue, 11 May 2004 13:29:24 -0400, Peter R. wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Greg Copeland ) wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 11 May 2004 12:57:13 -0400, Peter R. wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > Greg Copeland ) wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> Aside from the fact that there is no shadow,
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Look again. There is a shadow, just at the crest of the
road.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> If that's the shadow to the plane, the angle doesn't appear to
> > match
> >> > any
> >> >> >> >> others. All the other shadows would appear to place the sun
> >> > directly
> >> >> >> >> overhead. Which means, if what you're calling a shadow is
> > supposed
> >> > to be
> >> >> >> >> coming from the plane, it was put in badly. Otherwise, we'd
have
> > to
> >> >> >> >> simply call it an unidentified dark area in the picture.
> >> > Furthermore,
> >> >> >> >> look at where the shadow is cast under the wing.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Whatever... Everyone is a photo detective these days.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You might want to take a look at the other reasons I listed which
> > make
> >> > it
> >> >> >> look like a fake too.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I did and I do not agree with you. I believe the picture is
> > authentic,
> >> > for
> >> >> > in my opinion the shadows line up correctly.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > What's not to believe? The aircraft is on short final at a major
US
> >> >> > airport. Instead some have to make yet another conspiracy out of
> >> > nothing.
> >> >> > Sheesh.
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't believe anyone said anything about a conspiracy. None is
> >> >> required. And, believe it or not, photoshop editing is a very
popular
> >> >> past time. For some, their hobby is editing photos where they then
get
> >> >> their kicks passing it off as legitimate.
> >> >>
> >> >> While I'm sorry that my opinion is that it's a fake (for many
> >> >> stated reasons) upsets you, I'm still entitled to it.
> >> >>
> >> >> Shesh is right.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > It's real, your blind. Do you ref for the NBA?
> >> >
> >> > ---------------------------------------
> >>
> >> And the trolls start to come out. Shesh.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Troll with a private.
>
> You really have nothing better to do than to troll?
>
> Shesh. That's sad.

Seeing a conspriracy theory in every photo is sad, almost k00k like me
thinks.

[Bob Fry]

"Peter Duniho" > writes:

> The sun appears to be high and slightly to the left, nearly
> directly overhead.

The sun cannot be directly overhead, nor "nearly" so, at longitude
39d.

[HECTOP]

you could probably fit a pool table in that cockpit if you move the chairs
;-)

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/419103/L/

HECTOP
PP-ASEL-IA
http://www.maxho.com
maxho_at_maxho.com


"HECTOP" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.airliners.net/open.file/573107/M/
>
> HECTOP
> PP-ASEL-IA
> http://www.maxho.com
> maxho_at_maxho.com
>

[Bob Fry]

"Al" > writes:

> It's a fake!

They're all fakes, how can something that heavy be suspended in the
air?

Sheesh....

[HECTOP]

"Bob Fry" > wrote in message
> They're all fakes, how can something that heavy be suspended in the
> air? Sheesh....

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/459573/L/

and big enough to drive a truck into ;-)

HECTOP
PP-ASEL-IA
http://www.maxho.com
maxho_at_maxho.com

[Greg Copeland]

On Wed, 12 May 2004 01:00:43 +0000, Casey Wilson wrote:

>
> "Al" > wrote in message
> news:f_doc.75065$kh4.4252186@attbi_s52...
>> It's a fake!
>>
> Hey Al, wake up....
> You deduce the photo as a fake from what?
> The pixelation adjacent to the upper surface of the fuselage and
> vertical stabilizer? Better take a good look at the area above the tree
> lines -- with your grand analysis, the lower part of the picture has been
> 'photoshopped' as well -- and the cars on the highway, and the signs.
> What sort of photometric instruments did you use to determine the
> shadow angles are wrong? What is the geometry of the scene? What is the
> slant range to the aircraft and the shadows? What is the ephemeric time of
> day? What is the precise heading angle of the aircraft? The precise
> pointing angle of the camera? What is the focal length of the lens used?
> What is the original image size?
> Those are most of the questions I need answered before I could do any
> analysis.
> Back to the artifacts that you so uneducatedly rely on. Did you notice
> the resolution of the image on the website? Did you see 79Kb? I have no
> doubt you did your research using one of the many fine photo manipulator
> that can be purchased of under $39. Then magnified the already poor
> resolution until it looked like crap.
> Use one of the super photos you have in your stock, of any subject.
> Then change the pixel image size to 640 horizontal pixels at 79KB
> resolution.ow do the same thing you did to the photo from the website. Then
> go kick you dog for 'photoshopping' your picture.
>
> Warmest regards,
>
> Casey Wilson
> Professional Photographer
> [former image analyst for DoD]

BTW, there is a 250k version freely available, which is what I was looking
at. If you're a member, it seems an even larger version is available.

[Greg Copeland]

On Tue, 11 May 2004 20:18:45 -0500, Darkwing Duck (The Duck, The Myth, The
Legend) wrote:

>
> "Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Tue, 11 May 2004 17:15:19 -0500, Darkwing Duck (The Duck, The Myth, The
>> Legend) wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > "Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> On Tue, 11 May 2004 14:48:43 -0500, Darkwing Duck (The Duck, The Myth,
> The
>> >> Legend) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > "Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
>> >> > ...
>> >> >> On Tue, 11 May 2004 13:40:42 -0400, Peter R. wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Greg Copeland ) wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> On Tue, 11 May 2004 13:29:24 -0400, Peter R. wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > Greg Copeland ) wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 11 May 2004 12:57:13 -0400, Peter R. wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> > Greg Copeland ) wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> Aside from the fact that there is no shadow,
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > Look again. There is a shadow, just at the crest of the
> road.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> If that's the shadow to the plane, the angle doesn't appear to
>> > match
>> >> > any
>> >> >> >> >> others. All the other shadows would appear to place the sun
>> >> > directly
>> >> >> >> >> overhead. Which means, if what you're calling a shadow is
>> > supposed
>> >> > to be
>> >> >> >> >> coming from the plane, it was put in badly. Otherwise, we'd
> have
>> > to
>> >> >> >> >> simply call it an unidentified dark area in the picture.
>> >> > Furthermore,
>> >> >> >> >> look at where the shadow is cast under the wing.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Whatever... Everyone is a photo detective these days.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> You might want to take a look at the other reasons I listed which
>> > make
>> >> > it
>> >> >> >> look like a fake too.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I did and I do not agree with you. I believe the picture is
>> > authentic,
>> >> > for
>> >> >> > in my opinion the shadows line up correctly.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > What's not to believe? The aircraft is on short final at a major
> US
>> >> >> > airport. Instead some have to make yet another conspiracy out of
>> >> > nothing.
>> >> >> > Sheesh.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I don't believe anyone said anything about a conspiracy. None is
>> >> >> required. And, believe it or not, photoshop editing is a very
> popular
>> >> >> past time. For some, their hobby is editing photos where they then
> get
>> >> >> their kicks passing it off as legitimate.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> While I'm sorry that my opinion is that it's a fake (for many
>> >> >> stated reasons) upsets you, I'm still entitled to it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Shesh is right.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > It's real, your blind. Do you ref for the NBA?
>> >> >
>> >> > ---------------------------------------
>> >>
>> >> And the trolls start to come out. Shesh.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > Troll with a private.
>>
>> You really have nothing better to do than to troll?
>>
>> Shesh. That's sad.
>
> Seeing a conspriracy theory in every photo is sad, almost k00k like me
> thinks.

It's so funny when the trolls come out from under their bridges. Worse,
is when they see a "conspiracy theory" and think others see it too. So
far, you're on the only one seeing a conspiracy here. LOL. Too sad.

I'm not sure if I should laugh and point at you or simply send flowers to
your parents. Either way, you're funny.

[John T]

"Casey Wilson" > wrote in message

>
> Hey Al, wake up....
> You deduce the photo as a fake from what?

Casey, calm down. Al's on your side here. From what I can tell, his tongue
was so firmly planted in his cheek he nearly bit it in half. :)

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[HECTOP]

"Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
...
> BTW, there is a 250k version freely available, which is what I was looking
> at. If you're a member, it seems an even larger version is available.

I know the Technical Director of this cargo carrier (Volga-Dnepr) and he
confirms that the flight was made and the approach was a bit low on that
day.

If you're so inclined, go ahead and e-mail their PR department:
http://www.vda.com.ru/eng/comp/contacts/

HECTOP
PP-ASEL-IA
http://www.maxho.com
maxho_at_maxho.com

[Greg Copeland]

On Wed, 12 May 2004 02:01:34 +0000, John T wrote:

> "Casey Wilson" > wrote in message
>
>>
>> Hey Al, wake up....
>> You deduce the photo as a fake from what?
>
> Casey, calm down. Al's on your side here. From what I can tell, his tongue
> was so firmly planted in his cheek he nearly bit it in half. :)

I think he got confused. I think he was looking at my post and simply
attributed it to the wrong person. I was confused by Casey's post at
first.

[Greg Copeland]

On Tue, 11 May 2004 22:01:46 -0400, HECTOP wrote:

> "Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
> ...
>> BTW, there is a 250k version freely available, which is what I was looking
>> at. If you're a member, it seems an even larger version is available.
>
> I know the Technical Director of this cargo carrier (Volga-Dnepr) and he
> confirms that the flight was made and the approach was a bit low on that
> day.
>
> If you're so inclined, go ahead and e-mail their PR department:
> http://www.vda.com.ru/eng/comp/contacts/
>
> HECTOP
> PP-ASEL-IA
> http://www.maxho.com
> maxho_at_maxho.com

Fair enough. I'm actually not inclined as it was a passing remark on an
image which "looks" photoshopped. In otherwords, some visual queues
appear to be out of whack to me. I think my language was very clear in
that my statements reflected my impression of the image. Real or not, it
doesn't look right...to me.

The fact that so many people are getting upset at the simple fact that the
image doesn't look right, to me, is what I find infinitely more
disturbing. Worse, there are those that are claiming, "conspiracy".
That's down right scarey. Then, there are those that took a mature
approach to rebuff my remarks. Thanks in kind.

[Peter Duniho]

"Bob Fry" > wrote in message
...
> The sun cannot be directly overhead, nor "nearly" so, at longitude
> 39d.

Of course it can be "nearly so" (and of course I never did say it was
"directly overhead"). Even up here at latitude 48, the summer sun looks
pretty darn close to overhead.

I suppose it's dependent on your definition of "nearly", and this being
Usenet, I'm sure you'll define "nearly" to suit your purposes, not mine.
Suffice to say, I find your comment dumb and pointless. I expect pretty
much everyone else knew what I was talking about.

Pete

[Casey Wilson]

"John T" > wrote in message
ws.com...
> "Casey Wilson" > wrote in message
>
> >
> > Hey Al, wake up....
> > You deduce the photo as a fake from what?
>
> Casey, calm down. Al's on your side here. From what I can tell, his
tongue
> was so firmly planted in his cheek he nearly bit it in half. :)
>
....7, 8, 9, 10. Deep breath in.... Relax... Think of my happy
place....

Well, he did make a flat statement about it being a fake. Al, please
toss my commentary at Greg -- he started this mess. Dang digital technology
anyway.
Anybody except me remember the picture [on that same site] of the 747
coming in over the beach?

[HECTOP]

"Casey Wilson" > wrote in message
.. .
> Anybody except me remember the picture [on that same site] of the 747
> coming in over the beach?

Yeah, those are all fakes too!

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/166027/M/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/027599/M/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/211543/M/


HECTOP
PP-ASEL-IA
http://www.maxho.com
maxho_at_maxho.com

[Mateo]

The photog is a reputable guy, shooting, indeed at the Dorsey Road
observation area. It landed 33L around 515p. There's nothing fake at
all about it.

Greg Copeland wrote:

> On Tue, 11 May 2004 10:27:36 -0400, HECTOP wrote:
>
>
>>http://www.airliners.net/open.file/573107/M/
>>
>>HECTOP
>>PP-ASEL-IA
>>http://www.maxho.com
>>maxho_at_maxho.com
>>
>
> Why does it look like that plane was "photoshopped" in?
>
>
>
>

[Newps]

"Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 11 May 2004 12:57:13 -0400, Peter R. wrote:
>
> > Greg Copeland ) wrote:
> >
> >> Aside from the fact that there is no shadow,
> >
> > Look again. There is a shadow, just at the crest of the road.
>
> If that's the shadow to the plane, the angle doesn't appear to match any
> others. All the other shadows would appear to place the sun directly
> overhead. Which means, if what you're calling a shadow is supposed to be
> coming from the plane, it was put in badly. Otherwise, we'd have to
> simply call it an unidentified dark area in the picture. Furthermore,
> look at where the shadow is cast under the wing.

The shadow is directly underneath the plane, as you would expect. The
shadow is clearly shown on the chain link fence, just to the right of the
light pole, crosses the road and is just in front of the trees.

[Darkwing Duck \(The Duck, The Myth, The Legend\)]

"Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 11 May 2004 20:18:45 -0500, Darkwing Duck (The Duck, The Myth, The
> Legend) wrote:
>
> >
> > "Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> On Tue, 11 May 2004 17:15:19 -0500, Darkwing Duck (The Duck, The Myth,
The
> >> Legend) wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > "Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> >> On Tue, 11 May 2004 14:48:43 -0500, Darkwing Duck (The Duck, The
Myth,
> > The
> >> >> Legend) wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
> >> >> > ...
> >> >> >> On Tue, 11 May 2004 13:40:42 -0400, Peter R. wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Greg Copeland ) wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 11 May 2004 13:29:24 -0400, Peter R. wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > Greg Copeland ) wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 11 May 2004 12:57:13 -0400, Peter R. wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> > Greg Copeland ) wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> Aside from the fact that there is no shadow,
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> > Look again. There is a shadow, just at the crest of the
> > road.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> If that's the shadow to the plane, the angle doesn't appear
to
> >> > match
> >> >> > any
> >> >> >> >> >> others. All the other shadows would appear to place the
sun
> >> >> > directly
> >> >> >> >> >> overhead. Which means, if what you're calling a shadow is
> >> > supposed
> >> >> > to be
> >> >> >> >> >> coming from the plane, it was put in badly. Otherwise,
we'd
> > have
> >> > to
> >> >> >> >> >> simply call it an unidentified dark area in the picture.
> >> >> > Furthermore,
> >> >> >> >> >> look at where the shadow is cast under the wing.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Whatever... Everyone is a photo detective these days.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> You might want to take a look at the other reasons I listed
which
> >> > make
> >> >> > it
> >> >> >> >> look like a fake too.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I did and I do not agree with you. I believe the picture is
> >> > authentic,
> >> >> > for
> >> >> >> > in my opinion the shadows line up correctly.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > What's not to believe? The aircraft is on short final at a
major
> > US
> >> >> >> > airport. Instead some have to make yet another conspiracy out
of
> >> >> > nothing.
> >> >> >> > Sheesh.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I don't believe anyone said anything about a conspiracy. None is
> >> >> >> required. And, believe it or not, photoshop editing is a very
> > popular
> >> >> >> past time. For some, their hobby is editing photos where they
then
> > get
> >> >> >> their kicks passing it off as legitimate.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> While I'm sorry that my opinion is that it's a fake (for many
> >> >> >> stated reasons) upsets you, I'm still entitled to it.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Shesh is right.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > It's real, your blind. Do you ref for the NBA?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ---------------------------------------
> >> >>
> >> >> And the trolls start to come out. Shesh.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Troll with a private.
> >>
> >> You really have nothing better to do than to troll?
> >>
> >> Shesh. That's sad.
> >
> > Seeing a conspriracy theory in every photo is sad, almost k00k like me
> > thinks.
>
> It's so funny when the trolls come out from under their bridges. Worse,
> is when they see a "conspiracy theory" and think others see it too. So
> far, you're on the only one seeing a conspiracy here. LOL. Too sad.
>
> I'm not sure if I should laugh and point at you or simply send flowers to
> your parents. Either way, you're funny.
>
>

Your short term memory is bad, hope you use checklists. Your the one who
said the photo was fake not me, I said it was real. Instead of staying on
topic you say I'm trolling when all I did was state an opinion just like
everyone else on RAP.

[Bob Fry]

"Peter Duniho" > writes:

> Of course it can be "nearly so" (and of course I never did say it was
> "directly overhead"). Even up here at latitude 48, the summer sun looks
> pretty darn close to overhead.

At latitude 48d north, the closest to overhead is 90-(48-23)=65d;
probably not "pretty darn close."

[Peter Duniho]

"Bob Fry" > wrote in message
...
> At latitude 48d north, the closest to overhead is 90-(48-23)=65d;
> probably not "pretty darn close."

Again, "dumb and pointless" are coming to mind here. Do you seriously think
you are adding anything whatsoever to this thread?

[Greg Copeland]

On Tue, 11 May 2004 23:00:14 -0400, HECTOP wrote:

> "Casey Wilson" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Anybody except me remember the picture [on that same site] of the 747
>> coming in over the beach?
>
> Yeah, those are all fakes too!
>
> http://www.airliners.net/open.file/166027/M/
> http://www.airliners.net/open.file/027599/M/
> http://www.airliners.net/open.file/211543/M/
>
>
> HECTOP
> PP-ASEL-IA
> http://www.maxho.com
> maxho_at_maxho.com


I understand you're being sarcastic, but I'm honestly amazed at the number
of people that feel like they have to justify their opinion. Worse, some
seem to foam at the mouth just because someone may have a differing
opinion. Still worse again, they go out of their way to be real arseholes
about it. Heck, someone offered a simple scientific fact about the sun's
possible orientation and even he gets attacked. Talk about low-brow,
disrepectful people. But then again, the person in question is already
scored very low in my news reader, and rightfully so.

And, as far as the above pictures are concerned, nothing looks out of
place. There are no random, harsh lines (common when using
canned "photoshopping" features) and the shadows all fall where one would
expect; on the plane and the ground. Even focus and blurr look right. In
otherwords, all of the visual cues appear to be in place. Of course, that
hardly validates that they are real or fake, but the point is, it doesn't
jump out at your because of missing or bad visual cues.

I think what bothers me the most of some that commented here is that
people seem to have the opinion that unrelated photos of the same topic
somehow validate each other. Worse, they then take their own fears of
conspiracies and project them on to me. How sad. The lack of mental
capacity of some that posted here, is staggering.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Newps" > writes:

> "Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Tue, 11 May 2004 12:57:13 -0400, Peter R. wrote:
>>
>> > Greg Copeland ) wrote:
>> >
>> >> Aside from the fact that there is no shadow,
>> >
>> > Look again. There is a shadow, just at the crest of the road.
>>
>> If that's the shadow to the plane, the angle doesn't appear to match any
>> others. All the other shadows would appear to place the sun directly
>> overhead. Which means, if what you're calling a shadow is supposed to be
>> coming from the plane, it was put in badly. Otherwise, we'd have to
>> simply call it an unidentified dark area in the picture. Furthermore,
>> look at where the shadow is cast under the wing.
>
> The shadow is directly underneath the plane, as you would expect. The
> shadow is clearly shown on the chain link fence, just to the right of the
> light pole, crosses the road and is just in front of the trees.

I think you're probably right; but the plane *looks* as if it's much
closer to the camera than that shows it is, and than it probably
really is. I don't know that plane from first-hand sightings; but
it's a *big* one, right? So it's a lot further away than it looks.

I'm used to a *small* 4-engine high-wing passenger plane (I think the
BAE; something the Northwest feeder operation flies a fair number of,
anyway), so it's even eaiser for me to misinterpret the size in that
photo, maybe.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

[Ron Natalie]

"Peter R." > wrote in message ...
]> What's not to believe? The aircraft is on short final at a major US
> airport. Instead some have to make yet another conspiracy out of nothing.

I don't believe it. It's in way too flat of an attitude to be landing.
>

[Ron Natalie]

"Dima Volodin" > wrote in message news:M39oc.30039$iy5.19659@okepread05...
>>
> The shadows are there, and you don't get a motion blur on a target if you follow
> it with your camera.

If you pan the camera to eliminate blur for a moving object, then you expect to see blur
on stationary objects.

[Dima Volodin]

Ron Natalie wrote:
>
> "Dima Volodin" > wrote in message news:M39oc.30039$iy5.19659@okepread05...
> >>
> > The shadows are there, and you don't get a motion blur on a target if you follow
> > it with your camera.
>
> If you pan the camera to eliminate blur for a moving object, then you expect to see blur
> on stationary objects.

And on this particular photo you cannot really tell whether it's a blur
or the object is simply out of focus, can you?


Dima

[Al]

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/027599/M/

This one sort of blows the whole 'Pushing Tin man getting blown around when
a 747 lands' theory to hell.

"HECTOP" > wrote in message news:Zggoc.1309> Yeah,
those are all fakes too!
>
> http://www.airliners.net/open.file/166027/M/
> http://www.airliners.net/open.file/027599/M/
> http://www.airliners.net/open.file/211543/M/

[Mike Weller]

On Tue, 11 May 2004 23:41:37 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>"Bob Fry" > wrote in message
...
>> At latitude 48d north, the closest to overhead is 90-(48-23)=65d;
>> probably not "pretty darn close."
>
>Again, "dumb and pointless" are coming to mind here. Do you seriously think
>you are adding anything whatsoever to this thread?
>

I think he is being relevant. However, to be fair. the minimum angle
from 48N would be 25 degrees. Not exactly straight up and down!

Mike Weller

[Peter Duniho]

"Mike Weller" > wrote in message
s.com...
> I think he is being relevant.

He is not being relevant. My comment was simply relative to the potential
position of the sun, regarding the consistency with other objects in the
image, and regarding where the shadow of the airplane would wind up.
Whether the sun is 90 degrees above, 80 degrees above, or 70 degrees above
is irrelevant, and it has nothing to do with this particular thread.

His comment was that of an idiotic pedant who has nothing real to
contribute, so instead chooses to try to pick apart casual comments that he
sees lying around.

> However, to be fair. the minimum angle
> from 48N would be 25 degrees. Not exactly straight up and down!

I don't know what you mean. His math regarding the precise angle of
elevation of the sun was basically correct. In the winter at the 48th
parallel, the angle of elevation is in the neighborhood of 20 degrees, while
in the summer it's in the neighborhood of 60 degrees.

20 degrees isn't very close to directly overhead at all, but you try to walk
around with your eyes pointing up 60 degrees and tell me it doesn't feel
like "darn close to overhead", even if it's not literally directly overhead.

If Mr. Fry had his way, I guess only someone in the tropics would be allowed
to use the term "high noon", or talk about when the sun is "overhead".

What is particularly idiotic is that anyone would think it makes any sense
whatsoever to act like there's some sort of official definition of phrases
like "nearly so" and "darn close".

Pete

[Bob Fry]

"Peter Duniho" > writes:

> He is not being relevant. My comment was simply relative to the potential
> position of the sun,

<yelps deleted>

The relevance of the sun's angle is the angle of the shadows in the
picture. Perhaps you missed all that discussion?

Always amusing how greatly offended some people get when their
exaggerations and misinformation are pointed out.

[Peter Duniho]

"Bob Fry" > wrote in message
...
> The relevance of the sun's angle is the angle of the shadows in the
> picture. Perhaps you missed all that discussion?

That discussion does not change depending on whether the sun is 90 degrees
above or 70 degrees above or 60 degrees above or whatever. Your comments
are completely irrelevant to that discussion.

> Always amusing how greatly offended some people get when their
> exaggerations and misinformation are pointed out.

I'm still waiting for you to point out an exaggeration or misinformation.
You obviously think you did, but nowhere in your posts have you done so.
What offends me is people like you who have nothing better to do than to
make up your own interpretations of perfectly reasonable statements, and
then engage in a lame effort to tear them apart.

Pete

[HECTOP]

"Al" > wrote in message
news:ARwoc.79015$kh4.4599104@attbi_s52...
> This one sort of blows the whole 'Pushing Tin man getting blown around
> when
> a 747 lands' theory to hell.

I just saw that movie a few days ago for the first time. Unbelievable
garbage! Looks like someone dropped a script about crackhead Wall St.
wannabe's and these morons picked it up and made it into an "air disaster
movie". Damn, if controllers were like that for real, I wouldn't even wanna
walk under that sky, bar flyin' in it.

HECTOP
PP-ASEL-IA
http://www.maxho.com
maxho_at_maxho.com

[Dima Volodin]

"HECTOP" > wrote in message
...
> "Bob Fry" > wrote in message
> > They're all fakes, how can something that heavy be suspended in the
> > air? Sheesh....
>
> http://www.airliners.net/open.file/459573/L/
>
> and big enough to drive a truck into ;-)

Seriously - there was an (aerial?) photo of an Antonov-124 at Oshkosh on the
wall of my flight school. Has anybody seen a photo like that on the 'Net? I'd
really like to have it in my virtual collection.

Cheers!

> HECTOP

Dima

[G.R. Patterson III]

Dima Volodin wrote:
>
> Seriously - there was an (aerial?) photo of an Antonov-124 at Oshkosh on the
> wall of my flight school. Has anybody seen a photo like that on the 'Net? I'd
> really like to have it in my virtual collection.

Try contacting EAA.

George Patterson
I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.