Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicolas
Fezzic, just to be clear, I am not attacking your claim. I am just asking questions to get your reasoning very clear in front of me, and to see if it holds water. I have no problems with different claims (as for example the white thing is the plane/is the smoke). Discussing different claims is good science as said. I will give you all chances in explaining your claim and will revise my opinion when convinced, just like I did for the recently released video from the hotel (I first thought it was the tail, but a car's windshield reflection is far more likely IMO) I found out after hearing the arguments for that and giving it some more inspection).
|
No problem.
I was very troubled by the fisheye effect at the edges of the camera. I would venture to say that the camera (call it #1) showing the traffic gates is oriented slightly differently that the other camera. In effect, I think that the seemingly bent tree (or maybe an artifact of the sun shining on the lens) at or near the edge of the field of vision is not the same tree as shown in the camera (call it #2) that does not show the traffic gates (being located some feet before the traffic gates) though I admit they do look similar.
I originally presumed that #2 was looking at pretty much the same scene as #1. That those roadside trees were not in the field of vision. If so, then the "smoke cloud" was proving to be inexplicable. I couldn't find any substantial sign of the expected AA77 fuselage that should have been visible even faintly. The best I could get was to invert the image (MS Paint) and see what looked like a faint horizontal greenish color (which might be a sun-related artifact). I even toyed with the idea that the left wing was reflecting the sun, etc. It was all very insubstantial. I was concerned that I might be seeing what I wanted to see based on very insubstantial indications.
One reason I was stuck, I think, is that there are trees way off by the interchange in the background. One is located near the cloverleaf and I assumed that that was what I was seeing in the two cameras images. After all, they both seemed to have the same bent over part. The distortion at the edge is pretty bad. Without an undistorted panoramic pictue taken from the camera's location to show what is there, it is hard to be sure of anything.
So the best I can say, at this point, is that my hypothesis that the seeming "white smoke" captured in camera #2 at the tree is actually the glare off a windshield or similar, that the tree is not the one seen on the right in camera #1, and that the lack of smoke in front of the tree after the impact, seems to deal with all the apparent facts without obvious contradiction. Should it be shown that the same tree is visible in both cameras, then my hypothesis is blown.
