Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX
Attached to this reply is an analysis using a better lighting calibrator than the police car, a sunlit and self-shaded piece of Flight 77. It provides a clear example of the relatively bright tone of shaded Flight 77 skin, especially relative to the dark trees. It still looks like a white (or maybe light blue or gray) object. Placing a reduced piece of the piece of Flight 77 up against the trees shows that it is far more like what the ASCE report (see page 13) identified as Flight 77 than the pointed-to dark tree-line protrusion, which if it were Flight 77 we should expect to look as bright as the self-shaded debris sample.
Ian, although I'm no photo-analysis expert, I know you can't directly compare the apparent brightness of the debris piece with that of the objects in the security video. The security camera is primarily focused on an area of directly sunlit concrete, which will cause the camera's aperture to be smaller, and thus shadowed objects in the video to appear darker. Conversely, the photographer of the debris piece undoubtedly set the camera's aperture and shutter speed to correctly expose the piece's shadowed side. Therefore, the photographed piece is likely to appear much brighter than the aircraft's fuselage and vertical stabilizer appear in the video.
|
That hypothesis is falsified by the lighting and shading on the police car
in the Pentagon video that I already pointed out. The brightness of lighting and shading on Flight 77 debris matches that on the police car, which has a similar tone. Both examples show that self-shading does
not make a light-toned object appear black in shading.
See:
Which is Flight 77?
Quote:
|
Also, you had earlier suggested that the object we take to be the tail fin might be a light pole that is in the process of being knocked down. Here is a measurement I made using Mike Wilson's SolidWorks model, and here is the view of the model from the security camera's point of view, along with the video frame for comparison. I measured from the tip of the vertical stabilizer to the last light pole that was knocked down. Note that the z-axis represents the aircraft's approximate ground track. The light pole is over 100 feet farther back along the ground track than the object in the video frame.
|
You're only proving what you assume: if the dark object is the vertical stabilizer, then it's not a lamp post. But that proves nothing. On the other hand, if the object identified by the
ASCE report (see page 13) as Flight 77 is F77 as I also contend, then it
is about 100 feet further back, closer to the last lamp.
However, a problem I see for the lamp theory I broached is that the dark spot is probably too high (unless the impacted lamp was thrown upwards). But this is even beside the point. The dark object not only has
no attributes of the target aircraft, but has
contrary attributes (ie, is black when the aircraft would be bright. Note too that if you attached a fuselage to the alleged and mysteriously dark vertical stabilizer, we should be seeing it slightly above the foreground box, but we do not). So it doesn't even matter what it is, since we know what it is
not. ~Ian
Pentagon and Flight 77: an animated size analysis