Size does matter

"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?

"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

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?

"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news
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.

"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news
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.



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.

"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."

"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?

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.

"Newps" writes:

"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news
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/

"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.