real shot ??

On 10/2/2010 11:37 AM, Val Hallah wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worl...lies-Moon.html

I can't figure out how there is light on the bottom of the plane?

On 03.10.2010 04:49, BF wrote:
On 10/2/2010 11:37 AM, Val Hallah wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worl...lies-Moon.html


I can't figure out how there is light on the bottom of the plane?

There's light even on the bottom of the moon, since it's more than
half lit.
The lighting seems correct...

"BF" wrote in message
...
On 10/2/2010 11:37 AM, Val Hallah wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worl...lies-Moon.html

I can't figure out how there is light on the bottom of the plane?

If taken at 17:24, the sun wouldn't have set, so there would be light from
below. Note that the direction of illumination of the underside is broadly
consistent with a light source in the same direction as the sun (which is
the same direction as the light source for the moon, of course).

The blurring due to the motion of the aeroplane is also what should be
expected. Notice that the sides of the fuselage are sharp, whereas the
blurred edges are those perpendicular to the direction of motion.

On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 19:44:40 +0100, "OG" wrote:

Note that the direction of illumination of the underside is broadly
consistent with a light source in the same direction as the sun (which is
the same direction as the light source for the moon, of course).

Bull****. The lighting on the fuselage of the aircraft is nearly 90-degrees
to the sun. You people are ****ing blind.

On Sun, 03 Oct 2010 20:09:09 -0500, James Nagler
wrote:

Note that the direction of illumination of the underside is broadly
consistent with a light source in the same direction as the sun (which is
the same direction as the light source for the moon, of course).

Bull****. The lighting on the fuselage of the aircraft is nearly 90-degrees
to the sun. You people are ****ing blind.

Kill file time.

rwalker wrote:
On Sun, 03 Oct 2010 20:09:09 -0500, James Nagler
wrote:

Note that the direction of illumination of the underside is broadly
consistent with a light source in the same direction as the sun (which is
the same direction as the light source for the moon, of course).
Bull****. The lighting on the fuselage of the aircraft is nearly 90-degrees
to the sun. You people are ****ing blind.

Kill file time.
I think you're right. Good idea.
Allen

"James Nagler" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 19:44:40 +0100, "OG" wrote:

Note that the direction of illumination of the underside is broadly
consistent with a light source in the same direction as the sun (which is
the same direction as the light source for the moon, of course).

Bull****. The lighting on the fuselage of the aircraft is nearly
90-degrees
to the sun. You people are ****ing blind.

Still waiting to see your images...

OG wrote:
"BF" wrote in message

I can't figure out how there is light on the bottom of the plane?

If taken at 17:24, the sun wouldn't have set, so there would be light from
below.

That's not a daytime photo of the moon. In daytime shots the sky and
all dark parts of the moon are pale blue. But it's a pretty fast
exposure so maybe that could account for it.

But let's try some actual numbers.

The moon as seen from Earth covers just about a half degree of arc in
the sky. From the photo you can see that the length of the airplane is
a little more than half the width of the moon, say 0.3 degrees. We know
that a Bombadier Dash 8 is about 30 meters long. Now we plug in the
numbers to see how far the plane was from the observer.

tan (0.3 degrees) = 0.0052 = 30/distance
distance = 30 / 0.0052 = 5,770 meters

Since the moon had an altitude of 75 degrees on 9/16 at 5:30 inear
Brisbane we can calculate the plane's altitude.

sin (75 degrees) = 0.966 = altitude / 5770
altitude = 0.966 * 5770 = 5600 meters, or about 18,000 feet

Since Brisbane is about 80 miles to the East the plane could have
reached that altitude.

--
Ray Fischer

On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 08:20:54 +0100, "Richard"
wrote:


"James Nagler" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 19:44:40 +0100, "OG" wrote:

Note that the direction of illumination of the underside is broadly
consistent with a light source in the same direction as the sun (which is
the same direction as the light source for the moon, of course).

Bull****. The lighting on the fuselage of the aircraft is nearly
90-degrees
to the sun. You people are ****ing blind.

Still waiting to see your images...


Good.

No life, eh? No similar shots of your own to enjoy?

Figured as much.

I briefly waited for you to offer some money to see them. But since I knew
that wasn't going to happen while you were sitting in your mommy's basement
and hoping for a free glimpse of reality beyond your basement walls, I
didn't waste more than a second of waiting.

Are you still waiting?

"James Nagler" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 08:20:54 +0100, "Richard"
wrote:


"James Nagler" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 19:44:40 +0100, "OG"
wrote:

Note that the direction of illumination of the underside is broadly
consistent with a light source in the same direction as the sun (which
is
the same direction as the light source for the moon, of course).

Bull****. The lighting on the fuselage of the aircraft is nearly
90-degrees
to the sun. You people are ****ing blind.

Still waiting to see your images...


Good.

No life, eh? No similar shots of your own to enjoy?

You are the one casting doubt on other people's abilities.

Figured as much.

I briefly waited for you to offer some money to see them. But since I knew
that wasn't going to happen while you were sitting in your mommy's
basement
and hoping for a free glimpse of reality beyond your basement walls, I
didn't waste more than a second of waiting.

Are you still waiting?

Thanks. Proof that you are indeed an idiot.