Size does matter

"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.

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

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/

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

"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

"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.

"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

"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

"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

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.