Size does matter

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

"Al" writes:

It's a fake!

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

Sheesh....

"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

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.

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


"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 11 May 2004 17:15:19 -0500, Darkwing Duck (The Duck, The Myth, The
Legend) wrote:


"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news On Tue, 11 May 2004 14:48:43 -0500, Darkwing Duck (The Duck, The Myth,
The
Legend) wrote:


"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news 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.

"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_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news
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

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.

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

"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news
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.

"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