The Robert Clark Photo: Not Too Small a Plane
The top image (below) is clipped from the Robert Clark photo of "UA175". Interestingly, a few months back, he had the picture on his website, but seems to have pulled it. About eight months ago I contacted him for purchasing a copy of the highest-resolution image he had (81 MB)-- but he never responded! Curious.
I actually found the hi-res version of the Clark photo for free on the Hybrideb site. Hybrideb is a major "plane-hugger" and had the photo on his site as proof of the 2nd plane.
Note, I will say, if we assume this image is a forgery, that it is first-rate! The blending of the plane into the sky is flawless. And this is easily the highest res image I have seen of the 2nd plane, and there is no blur or anything. But nonetheless, the image is not without problems. You can see how dark it is-- a curiously dark exposure, and there is an odd grainy-ness to the image. In terms of the plane, the starboard wing and starboard tail fin are somewhat distorted. The biggest problem, though, is that the plane is significantly too small for a 767-200!
(click to enlarge)
UPDATE: There is some worry that the measurements are off because I didn't measure at the proper angle-- the same angle as the camera "sees". Thus, I did some tests with real-life objects and a camera, and the angle of the shot does throw the size of the plane off, if we assumed the plane was not headed perfectly straight to the tower but came in at a 10 degree angle or so.
However, my tests show that this error from the shot angle can't account for the large difference in plane size. I get about a 3% too small of a plane because of the angle. But the 68% versus 75% ratio I found initially is a 9% difference in plane size. Thus, I do not think the smaller plane size here is completely due to the angle of the camera. To be more accurate, we can make the change in size less than 14 feet-- it's more like 9 feet smaller, if we go with a 6% decrease in size. But remember, this is a very high resolution photo and the size can be measured very accurately.
UPDATE 2: This modified diagram from William Seger at DU shows I was wrong about the plane size. The plane is actually the perfect size for a 767-200. The alignment of the photo with the NIST diagram is very accurate.
Clearly, the angle here throws the size off even more than I thought. I'm not sure why my test with real objects didn't show this though. It's possible there is some additional layer of optical trickery here that is not obvious. But clearly, on paper, the Clark plane is perfectly the right size when the angle is taken into account.
So-- if this is a forgery, it is even more first-rate than I thought!
I STILL have a hard time believing this is a completely real, legitimate picture. But I have to admit the plane image is very accurate-- eerily accurate!
I actually found the hi-res version of the Clark photo for free on the Hybrideb site. Hybrideb is a major "plane-hugger" and had the photo on his site as proof of the 2nd plane.
Note, I will say, if we assume this image is a forgery, that it is first-rate! The blending of the plane into the sky is flawless. And this is easily the highest res image I have seen of the 2nd plane, and there is no blur or anything. But nonetheless, the image is not without problems. You can see how dark it is-- a curiously dark exposure, and there is an odd grainy-ness to the image. In terms of the plane, the starboard wing and starboard tail fin are somewhat distorted. The biggest problem, though, is that the plane is significantly too small for a 767-200!
(click to enlarge)
UPDATE: There is some worry that the measurements are off because I didn't measure at the proper angle-- the same angle as the camera "sees". Thus, I did some tests with real-life objects and a camera, and the angle of the shot does throw the size of the plane off, if we assumed the plane was not headed perfectly straight to the tower but came in at a 10 degree angle or so.
However, my tests show that this error from the shot angle can't account for the large difference in plane size. I get about a 3% too small of a plane because of the angle. But the 68% versus 75% ratio I found initially is a 9% difference in plane size. Thus, I do not think the smaller plane size here is completely due to the angle of the camera. To be more accurate, we can make the change in size less than 14 feet-- it's more like 9 feet smaller, if we go with a 6% decrease in size. But remember, this is a very high resolution photo and the size can be measured very accurately.
UPDATE 2: This modified diagram from William Seger at DU shows I was wrong about the plane size. The plane is actually the perfect size for a 767-200. The alignment of the photo with the NIST diagram is very accurate.
Clearly, the angle here throws the size off even more than I thought. I'm not sure why my test with real objects didn't show this though. It's possible there is some additional layer of optical trickery here that is not obvious. But clearly, on paper, the Clark plane is perfectly the right size when the angle is taken into account.
So-- if this is a forgery, it is even more first-rate than I thought!
I STILL have a hard time believing this is a completely real, legitimate picture. But I have to admit the plane image is very accurate-- eerily accurate!
posted by spooked at 9:31 AM
5 Comments:
ua planes are white and blue, especially the underside of the wings are white - at least they were in '01.
at that time of day the white of the plane should have been just gleaming in the sun like a beacon.
this robert clark photo must be a forgery, especially as it contradicts other images, which are also forgeries.
Funny reasoning there in the last sentence, anon. But yes, a forgery it surely is.
other images of so-called ua175 portray it in different angles of bank and one is even coming in on a totally different fligh path entirely.
and one has a weird pod on the bottom and one has a stub for a right wing and one is missing the left wing.
all are phony.
Yes, they are so bad forgeries that one is led to think that it is on purpose. But why?
I wouldn't sell a bag of my shit to you, dork brain. Good for him.
Post a Comment
<< Home