Size does matter

"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.

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.

"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

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.

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 ;-)

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.

Yeah of course it is!

http://www.airliners.net/search/phot...nct_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 ;-)

"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

"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]

"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.

"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.