.:.:.:.:
RTTP
.
Mobile
:.:.:.:.
[
<--back
] [
Home
][
Pics
][
News
][
Ads
][
Events
][
Forum
][
Band
][
Search
]
full forum
|
bottom
Reply
[
login
]
SPAM Filter:
re-type this
(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)
you are quoting a heck of a lot there.
[QUOTE]blah blah blah[/QUOTE] to reply to PatMeebles.
Please remove excess text as not to re-post tons
message
[QUOTE="PatMeebles:432333"]The first argument about the pod makes no sense. If you look at the picture that serendipity says PM uses (just to use serendipity's own argument against them), you can clearly see the anomoly that PM was discussing. PM also said that the expert they consulted concluded that the anomoly was a shadow. PM DID NOT, as serendipity claims, say that the expert neglected to see any anomoly at all. http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=2&c=y [QUOTE]After studying the high-resolution image and comparing it to photos of a Boeing 767-200ER's undercarriage, Greeley dismissed the notion that the Howard photo reveals a "pod." In fact, the photo reveals only the Boeing's right fairing, a pronounced bulge that contains the landing gear. He concludes that sunlight glinting off the fairing gave it an exaggerated look. "Such a glint causes a blossoming (enlargement) on film," he writes in an e-mail to PM, "which tends to be amplified in digital versions of images--the pixels are saturated and tend to 'spill over' to adjacent pixels." When asked about pods attached to civilian aircraft, Fred E. Culick, professor of aeronautics at the California Institute of Technology, gave a blunter response: "That's bull. They're really stretching."[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
top
[
Vers. 0.12
][ 0.009 secs/8 queries][
refresh
][