Spend more time looking at telephoto video. Why should you think that building is behind the airplane, and not in front of it? With telephoto shots (anything imaged at a long distance from the viewer) the visual perspective is foreshortened. All the images look like they are at the same distance. The football audience members look as big as the football players. The perspective foreshortening that you observe when you are close to things no longer obtains.
And besides, the guy had the gumption to identify the buildings and find out where they were located. It is unmistakable that the path of the airplane was behind that building.
And if there was some funny business with an image insert, it would have had to have been the insertion of the building, since it is very tricky to matte in a moving image so closely to a pre-existing static image. But why insert the building, since it was already there? This idea doesn't at all establish that the airplane part of the image was fake.
You have to sort out what convinces you. Facts or feelings? The big lesson from this is that when it comes to the realities of nature, "common sense" is often misinformed.
Yeah, I'm still not convinced by this video...
Thanks for linking it.
Spend more time looking at telephoto video. Why should you think that building is behind the airplane, and not in front of it? With telephoto shots (anything imaged at a long distance from the viewer) the visual perspective is foreshortened. All the images look like they are at the same distance. The football audience members look as big as the football players. The perspective foreshortening that you observe when you are close to things no longer obtains.
And besides, the guy had the gumption to identify the buildings and find out where they were located. It is unmistakable that the path of the airplane was behind that building.
And if there was some funny business with an image insert, it would have had to have been the insertion of the building, since it is very tricky to matte in a moving image so closely to a pre-existing static image. But why insert the building, since it was already there? This idea doesn't at all establish that the airplane part of the image was fake.
You have to sort out what convinces you. Facts or feelings? The big lesson from this is that when it comes to the realities of nature, "common sense" is often misinformed.