reply to post by decepticonLaura
That's simple, they simply decided to throw the laws of trigonometry and several thousand years of science out in favour of blind prejudice and the
desperation to want to be "right".
If we accept the photos were take on the date and at the time they claim they were taken, then we have a starting point for any attempt to explain
what the object might or might not be. The reason for that being a simple one, we then know within 1/2 a degree how far above the horizon the Sun
was and also how far from true North the Sun was.
As far as I can work out, from the maps the direction of the photo is looking somewhere between South East, East and North East Now that simple
means that, the Sun is therefore behind
the camera. This is further confirmed by the actual shadow of the road sign which is wholly
commensurate with that being so.
Now, those of us who actually do try to understand fakery using photos have a habit of picking up little things along the way. One of those is know
that, in that day at that time, the length of the shadow of a 10 foot pole at 90 degrees would be 11 feet within a few inches here or there and that
the shadows in any photo taken in the position claimed should be angled away
from the camera lens. If you check the shadow of the road sign,
this is indeed so. Ergo, so far the photos seem to be taken where and when the people concerned say they were.
Next we have to take into account that the Sun is some 41 degrees above the horizon. Thus any object more than just a few feet in the air will soon
have the sun reflected on it's underside not on it's top surface. Well bless my cotton socks, that seems to be add up as well. In two photos where
the object seems to have some height the sun does indeed seem to be reflecting off the underside and the final photo where it is much lower the Sun
seems to reflect off the top surface.
Now none of that, alone and let's be honest, none of those who claim to have solved this already had even thought of any of that, proves that the
object isn't merely a small object thrown in the air. However, what it does prove is that anyone who thinks that the shadow they are claiming is the
shadow of the object, is frankly, talking utter moonshine. Even in the world of the stupid, the sun cannot cast a shadow behind one object when all
the other shadows are in front. The reason you cannot see the guy holding the camera up's shadow is because of the foreshortening effect of the lens.
In the same way, the shadow of the road sign , which is by simple maths 1/10 longer than the actual pole, looks shorter than the pole .
Armed with those actual facts, go back to the photo people claim shows a shadow and you tell me when we garnered a second Sun that only casts shadows
on hubcaps. it's a bug as is the "shadow" just to the right of the standing guy.