Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Okay, my last hoorah; I do believe, with this research. This Google Earth mapping suggests a possible location for the photographer in this post (allow a bit of time for the image to load, dependent upon your equipment and download speed connection). Viewing from the runway area and towards the "University Endowment Land" near the bottom of this image appears to be the only nearby land mass with enough "trees" to be in the background of the photo. The distance from the runway end to this area is in the range of 3,300 - 4,900 feet. A telephoto camera shot compresses the depth of field of objects both in the foreground and to the horizon. If the airport is indeed Vancouver, where from and who was allowed in the runway area to take such a photo??? OTOH, I now know more about the Vancouver airport than I would have ever considered. 'Course, I many have full cranial/rectal inversion about this topic and my judgement of which airport is the scene of the photo.
@Derf Thought about that, too. Hope not. Some of the time, photo-shopping is either pure artist or altering a photo for monetary value. I don't know if there is monetary value from the photo; although WSJ likely had to pay someone to use the photo.
@hank- re 26R / 08L, yes I wondered about that also. The main problem that I have on the whole thing is trying to come up with a logical intersection where the Air Tahiti might be waiting- either after landing or before takeoff- while the United takes off right in front of it.
I suppose that it's also possible that the Air Tahiti was heading to some other destination on the airfield, perhaps for maintenance or some other reason, (neither landing nor taking off) and was just waiting to cross the active runway.
@Catch22 & @hank- Catch's mention of Google Maps inspired me to take a look at YVR using Google Earth. Now I'm wondering if the airport is in fact YVR- the photo shows a pretty decent tree line, probably fir trees- just behind a closer stand of other mixed tree types, and both tree lines pretty close to the airport, with the mountains in the distance. Considering that the main focus is on the two aircraft, the trees are also in pretty good focus, so they must be fairly close to the runway. Looking at Google Earth shows no such tree lines anywhere close to YVR.
Still using Google Earth, I looked at all of the major west coast airports from Anchorage to Portland, and didn't really see anything that jumps out to match those two treelines, with decent mountains in the distance.
Now I'm more confused than ever... or maybe I've just returned to my normal state of confusion.
Hi @Old_Joe Read my post again, just previous, starting with the word Okay. The next sentence contains my link to Google Earth and my thoughts about the "trees".
Catch- Yes, I did read your comments closely. But take a look at that photo again, especially the background. To the left, the partial view of the Quonset hut. Center-right, the red and white pole, with the smallish building to the right. Those sorts of buildings would be more expected at a small-to-medium sized airport than a major international field. The United 319 fits with that possibility, but the Air Tahiti 787?
Now, from Google: If the tree lines are in fact either the University Endowment Lands, or even Stanley Park further to the right, then we must eliminate the longer runway 26L / 08R, because in looking towards the background mountains we would also see all of the main airport buildings from that area.
So that leaves the possibility of runway 26R / 08L. OK, back to Google Earth- we get a very nice detailed view of 26R / 08L, and there is no Quonset, no red/white pole, and no building similar to the one in the photo.
The general feel of the photo certainly suggests Pacific Northwest, but now what?
Well, I've spent a fair amount of time looking at Google Earth closeups of just about every West Coast airfield that could reasonably be considered. Nothing near a large runway with those buildings present. Now I'm really wondering about a Photoshop job. Those small buildings just don't smell right for a major airport.
Went back to the original WSJ story and clipped the credit for the photo. May help in the investigative farts here.
PHOTO: BAYNE STANLEY/ZUMA PRESS
It may be photo shopped. But I’ve looked at a lot of airliner photos online over the years. Some pretty stunning images can be captured using telephoto lenses and (suspect) other tricks. There are those who live for those kinds of photo opportunities, traveling city to city to seek out different planes, configs, etc.
Hi hank and @Old_Joe The below link will provide 129 aircraft photos by Scott McGeachy at CYVR. A few photos contain the previously discussed runway numbers. Many of the pictures provide an excellent view of the surrounding forest/trees and mountains.
Agree with hank about "plane spotters". With todays electronic cameras they may "click" away and keep only the images they desire.
@hank- Not certain what's "settled" exactly. I've been exploring Bayne Stanley's photos also, and it's certainly true that he's taken many good shots at YVR.
BTW, I wasn't suggesting that the entire OP was photoshopped- just the background. The planes crossing was likely real.
I've spent most of the day going over YVR with Google Earth- foot by foot. It's going to take someone who can show me those buildings actually on that airport before I'll believe it.
As I was trying to get to sleep last night I found myself still wondering about the whole thing, especially why anyone might go to the trouble of changing the background of that picture.
Here is a scenario which could explain many facets of the whole situation. Lets assume that the following are actually facts-
• The photo of the United crossing in front of the Tahiti Air was real, taken at YVR, and shot with a telephoto lens.
• The Tahiti 787 was holding short of the runway while the United made it's takeoff run.
• The United had just rotated on takeoff, so was fairly well down the runway when the picture was taken.
Okay, so that leaves a number of questions:
• If Tahiti had just landed, why would he be facing the runway?
• If Tahiti was waiting to depart, why would he be positioned well down the runway, which he must have been, because of United's takeoff location?
• How to explain the photo background, with the Quonset and small building?
And here is a set of conditions which could explain all of that:
• The Tahiti had not just landed, and was not waiting for takeoff. He was holding short of runway 26L/08R until the crossing traffic was clear, and then he intended to cross that runway enroute to the aircraft maintenance facilities located to the left near the beginning of runway 26L.
• The Wall Street Journal liked the drama of the juxtaposition of the United and the Tahiti, but was concerned about possible misinterpretation of that picture. Due to the telephoto lens and the compression of apparent distance, some people could easily assume that a near miss had just occurred.
• The original photo showed the main terminal buildings in the background, and possibly the mountains in the far distance, as they would have if the photo was shot looking across 26L/08R. The location would have been identifiable as YVR, whose management would have been less than thrilled by the WSJ use of that photo, with the potential of the near-miss interpretation. In these days of Internet conspiracy theories who knows what might come of that.
So to be on the safe side, the Journal either modified the picture's background, or had the original photographer do that.
OK guys, that's my best shot. Other ideas welcome.
WOW - great stuff @Old_Joe. Thanks for all the research and your fluid response.
My “contrary streak” says it’s probably just one shot, but that some photo-shopping or camera trickery was involved for more spectacular effect. Some of that confidence stems from being a regular reader of the WSJ and having a certain degree of respect for their news division (but not the editorial crap).
Speaking of photo-shops … Just look at how the images of Biden, Trump, Pelosi or Giuliani are displayed on MSNBC vs Fox. You can hardly tell they’re the same individual. Both networks (and many others) seem to doctor those photos to present the best or worst possible impression.
Comments
This Google Earth mapping suggests a possible location for the photographer in this post (allow a bit of time for the image to load, dependent upon your equipment and download speed connection). Viewing from the runway area and towards the "University Endowment Land" near the bottom of this image appears to be the only nearby land mass with enough "trees" to be in the background of the photo. The distance from the runway end to this area is in the range of 3,300 - 4,900 feet. A telephoto camera shot compresses the depth of field of objects both in the foreground and to the horizon.
If the airport is indeed Vancouver, where from and who was allowed in the runway area to take such a photo???
OTOH, I now know more about the Vancouver airport than I would have ever considered.
'Course, I many have full cranial/rectal inversion about this topic and my judgement of which airport is the scene of the photo.
Stay Kool, Derf
I suppose that it's also possible that the Air Tahiti was heading to some other destination on the airfield, perhaps for maintenance or some other reason, (neither landing nor taking off) and was just waiting to cross the active runway.
Still using Google Earth, I looked at all of the major west coast airports from Anchorage to Portland, and didn't really see anything that jumps out to match those two treelines, with decent mountains in the distance.
Now I'm more confused than ever... or maybe I've just returned to my normal state of confusion.
Read my post again, just previous, starting with the word Okay. The next sentence contains my link to Google Earth and my thoughts about the "trees".
Now, from Google: If the tree lines are in fact either the University Endowment Lands, or even Stanley Park further to the right, then we must eliminate the longer runway 26L / 08R, because in looking towards the background mountains we would also see all of the main airport buildings from that area.
So that leaves the possibility of runway 26R / 08L. OK, back to Google Earth- we get a very nice detailed view of 26R / 08L, and there is no Quonset, no red/white pole, and no building similar to the one in the photo.
The general feel of the photo certainly suggests Pacific Northwest, but now what?
PHOTO: BAYNE STANLEY/ZUMA PRESS
It may be photo shopped. But I’ve looked at a lot of airliner photos online over the years. Some pretty stunning images can be captured using telephoto lenses and (suspect) other tricks. There are those who live for those kinds of photo opportunities, traveling city to city to seek out different planes, configs, etc.
The below link will provide 129 aircraft photos by Scott McGeachy at CYVR. A few photos contain the previously discussed runway numbers. Many of the pictures provide an excellent view of the surrounding forest/trees and mountains.
Agree with hank about "plane spotters". With todays electronic cameras they may "click" away and keep only the images they desire.
LINK
Fella seems to hang out at that airport.
BTW, I wasn't suggesting that the entire OP was photoshopped- just the background. The planes crossing was likely real.
I've spent most of the day going over YVR with Google Earth- foot by foot. It's going to take someone who can show me those buildings actually on that airport before I'll believe it.
As I was trying to get to sleep last night I found myself still wondering about the whole thing, especially why anyone might go to the trouble of changing the background of that picture.
Here is a scenario which could explain many facets of the whole situation. Lets assume that the following are actually facts-
• The photo of the United crossing in front of the Tahiti Air was real, taken at YVR, and shot with a telephoto lens.
• The Tahiti 787 was holding short of the runway while the United made it's takeoff run.
• The United had just rotated on takeoff, so was fairly well down the runway when the picture was taken.
Okay, so that leaves a number of questions:
• If Tahiti had just landed, why would he be facing the runway?
• If Tahiti was waiting to depart, why would he be positioned well down the runway, which he must have been, because of United's takeoff location?
• How to explain the photo background, with the Quonset and small building?
And here is a set of conditions which could explain all of that:
• The Tahiti had not just landed, and was not waiting for takeoff. He was holding short of runway 26L/08R until the crossing traffic was clear, and then he intended to cross that runway enroute to the aircraft maintenance facilities located to the left near the beginning of runway 26L.
• The Wall Street Journal liked the drama of the juxtaposition of the United and the Tahiti, but was concerned about possible misinterpretation of that picture. Due to the telephoto lens and the compression of apparent distance, some people could easily assume that a near miss had just occurred.
• The original photo showed the main terminal buildings in the background, and possibly the mountains in the far distance, as they would have if the photo was shot looking across 26L/08R. The location would have been identifiable as YVR, whose management would have been less than thrilled by the WSJ use of that photo, with the potential of the near-miss interpretation. In these days of Internet conspiracy theories who knows what might come of that.
So to be on the safe side, the Journal either modified the picture's background, or had the original photographer do that.
OK guys, that's my best shot. Other ideas welcome.
OJ
My “contrary streak” says it’s probably just one shot, but that some photo-shopping or camera trickery was involved for more spectacular effect. Some of that confidence stems from being a regular reader of the WSJ and having a certain degree of respect for their news division (but not the editorial crap).
Speaking of photo-shops … Just look at how the images of Biden, Trump, Pelosi or Giuliani are displayed on MSNBC vs Fox. You can hardly tell they’re the same individual. Both networks (and many others) seem to doctor those photos to present the best or worst possible impression.
Yes - “settled” was the wrong word. My bad.