Plane crashes into tree

("Grumman-581" wrote)
Damn, I was hoping that yours was set correctly and I could ask you what
the lottery numbers were going to be... grin


The good news:
You'll have the lottery numbers a month early.

The bad news:
The day you go to buy your ticket, you'll be wearing a pair of ..."Slippery
Shoes".

evil grin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_You_Need


Montblack-Zone

On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 19:06:49 -0500, "FLAV8R"
wrote:

Ever wonder how the military trains their pilots?
Here is clear example of a military style short field takeoff with 50ft
obstacle.

Photoshopped as well, of course.

Rick

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:


To bad that one has been altered. It is really at a Florida bar.

Here's the unaltered photo.

http://www1.airliners.net/open.file/0480799/L/

There's a flying club that has a similar decoration in
Australia. I've got a picture of it somewhere I'll put up.

Ricky Robbins writes:

Photoshopped as well, of course.

How do you know?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Here is clear example of a military style short field takeoff with 50ft
obstacle.


Photoshopped as well, of course.

I wouldn't think so. Foreshortened by a long telephoto lens, yes.
That's all it would take.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Ricky Robbins" wrote in message ...
: On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 19:06:49 -0500, "FLAV8R"
: wrote:
:
: Ever wonder how the military trains their pilots?
: Here is clear example of a military style short field takeoff with 50ft
: obstacle.
:
: Photoshopped as well, of course.
:
: Rick

Nope, just a long telephoto shot...

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 15:53:30 GMT, Jose
wrote:

Photoshopped as well, of course.

I wouldn't think so.

That's my point. Once he's posted a photoshopped picture, it's easy
to assume everything he might post is.

I was just surprised someone would post a photoshopped picture without
attributing it as such; not sure why I was surprised, but I was. Then
again, I'm easily surprised.

Rick

"Ricky Robbins" wrote in message ...
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 15:53:30 GMT, Jose
wrote:

Photoshopped as well, of course.

I wouldn't think so.

That's my point. Once he's posted a photoshopped picture, it's easy
to assume everything he might post is.

Rick

The picture was meant as a joke and if you have to explain it
as such then it's not a joke anymore.
There are many clues to the fact that it is not a real picture and
if there is anyone the believes otherwise than you only need to
study the picture to realize that a real plane impacting a concrete
building with have crumpled up on impact and not smashed through
the bricks as the picture shows.
The only thing modified in the picture is that I quickly erased some
of the support wires that hold the plane up to the building.
The image of the C-17 is not altered at all.
For those that think that it was, it only goes to show you really
don't know do you?
If I really wanted to Photoshop an image I guarantee that most
would not be able to tell.

David

Photoshopped as well, of course.

I wouldn't think so.

I'm pretty sure it was not photoshopped. Here's why:

1. The anti-aliasing on diagonal edges, especially where part of the
aircraft and part of the building form an acute triangle, is consistent. The
pixel areas are the same, and the color blends are uniform.
2. I fiddled with the contrast to look deep into the shadows where the
aircraft and the roof merge and there is a strand of wire or rope that loops
around the left main gear, around the leading edge, back across the flap at
the wing root and crosses under the fuselage. Entirely too much detail for a
photoshopper to do, and the anti-aliasing is again, too consistent for the
aircraft to have been plugged in as an overlay.

I'll bet dinner for two in any restaurant of your choice within ten
miles of L72 that this photo is valid. [Transportation not included.]

CAVEAT!! This applies to the airplane on the roof, not in the tree.

"N2310D" wrote in message
news:bJJeh.1604$Ft4.496@trnddc02...
Photoshopped as well, of course.

I wouldn't think so.

I'm pretty sure it was not photoshopped. Here's why:

1. The anti-aliasing on diagonal edges, especially where part of the
aircraft and part of the building form an acute triangle, is consistent.
The pixel areas are the same, and the color blends are uniform.
2. I fiddled with the contrast to look deep into the shadows where
the aircraft and the roof merge and there is a strand of wire or rope that
loops around the left main gear, around the leading edge, back across the
flap at the wing root and crosses under the fuselage. Entirely too much
detail for a photoshopper to do, and the anti-aliasing is again, too
consistent for the aircraft to have been plugged in as an overlay.

I'll bet dinner for two in any restaurant of your choice within ten
miles of L72 that this photo is valid. [Transportation not included.]