Where is the proof that the sign is double-sided? I see nothing in any photos here that leads me to believe this is the case.
I disagree, and I’ll tell you why later.
The assumption is perfectly reasonable that the photos were taken by the same photographer at approximately the same time. You can’t dismiss it just because it weakens your case, as you admit in your side note.
In snopes photo 2 you can clearly see that the white sign is entirely in deep shadow. This can be seen in both photographs and is especially evident in snopes photo 1. We can agree on this.
This is where we disagree. That the sign is in deep shadow does not tell us if the sign has two sides. All it tells us is that the mottled shading on the sign cannot be caused by the sun cannot be hitting the sign in such a way as to create the mottling.
There are three ways in which the mottled shading can be made on the sign:
[ul][li]The sun is shining through the tree branches and the light is falling on the sign. As we both agree, the sign is in deep shadow; thus, this cannot be the case. In addition, in such a lighting situation the shadowing would be more pronounced. In the image it is subtle.[/li][li]The sign, which gives every appearance of being made of white plastic, is backlit. I do not believe that the lighting behind the sign in SP1 is consistent with the shadowing on the sign. I don’t happen to have any sign material here, and in any case I don’t really feel like pulling out a C-stand and setting up an experiment and waiting for the sun to be in the right position. But in order to possibly get that kind of backlighting from a bright background (as in SP1) there cannot be a second sign behind it. And I’m not convinced that you’d get it in any case. There’s not that much light. The shadowing can be caused by the conditions in SP2 if it is a single sign – but I doubt so in SP2.[/li][li]The shading might be produced by sunlight reflecting off of the bright white surfaces of the airframe. But that would require the sign to be facing the aircraft.[/ul][/li]
There is no reason whatsoever to believe that someone wouldn’t take ‘extreme care’ to get the details right. I’ve worked with people who have done exactly that (in video) to make ‘perfect images’ when it made absolutely no commercial sense to do so. Look at the energy you’re putting into this debate. Surely you can see where someone might put extra effort into a gag.
People do that.
Don’t think I haven’t thought of that. If the sign were ten feet closer to the road I’d agree with you. It would make it more easily read by people coming toward the viewer in SP2. If you’re going to pay someone to dig a hole, insert a post, and put up a smallish advertising sign, why not place the sign in a more visible location?
There’s a reason why the sign may only be on the side facing the crash sight. Look at this aerial view. There is nothing to the east of the sign. Nothing for miles, and miles, and miles. However to the west, the direction which the sign faces, there is a large population center.
Why not spend an extra thirty bucks for the two green signs and an extra unknown amount for the custom white sign? (I don’t know how much a custom sign costs, but let’s say $50 just to have a number.) It’s less than $100 all together. Because many, if not most, FBOs are run on a shoestring. Where I learned to fly helicopters they rented a hangar and had a US surplus metal desk. I almost bought a helicopter about seven years ago. Just the insurance so that I could use it as a rental was $13,000/year. To overhaul a Robinson R22 costs over $100,000. Granted, those are helicopter costs; airplanes are cheaper. But I remember my dad paying $8,000/year to insure his leased-back airplanes in the '80s. An established FBO likely has several aircraft, all of which must be insured, and all of which require periodic overhauls. In addition there are the 100-hour inspections, annual inspections, instrument certification, fuel, oil, unscheduled maintenance, hangar/tie-down/office rental, employee expenditures… If I were running such a business I wouldn’t spend $80 to put up a sign facing where the people aren’t.
The top of the arrow sign overlaps the bottom of the learn-to-fly sign. That’s two thicknesses of aluminum. If there are two sides, then that’s four thicknesses of aluminum.
Airport management are also ‘regulars’. They have posted on their own website that the photo was manipulated, no doubt after hundreds of queries. As shown in the aerial photo, the pilot almost certainly comes to the airport from the west. He would have no reason to look at the other side of the sign no matter how often he goes there. I’ll have to defer to the management’s published statements over what a pilot who probably only peripherally noticed the sign might remember. Also: the pilot was flying a Piper. American Aviation operates Cessnas. So the pilot likely wouldn’t have any reason to pay much attention to the sign other than ‘Oh, there’s my turn.’
It’s not research at all. It’s just something I know from being around airports my entire life. [Capt. Jack Sparrow]Pilot![/CJS]
Nonsense. Anyone altering the direction of an arrow is going to make it a ‘separate sign’ whether it actually is a separate sign (which it is) or if it’s painted on the same piece of metal. Given that the arrow is attached to the sign, it is in effect not two separate signs.
I think ambush’s assertion is that there are two signs that are attached at the corners by screws that he sees. Personally, I see no screws. I see what appear to be grommets in the white sign. I do not see (on my laptop, as I’ve mentioned) any sign of screws, rivets, or grommeted holes in the green signs. Also, I see no evidence of curvature, which would be necessary if the signs were joined. Nor do I see any necessary gaps between the alleged two signs, which would exist if they were only attached at the corners.
I completely agree. This hijack became burdensome a couple of pages ago.
I’m going to have to dispute [b[Racer**'s assertion that the photos were taken at ‘the exact same place’ of the crash. Here’s why:
Here is Racer’s photo showing the yellow tape.
Here is Racer’s photo taken from a position more to the west.
Here is an aerial image from MLA’s site.
Racer’s photos linked above were taken from Judge Orr Rd. The photos are of the west end of the open hangar. MLA’s photo shows markers at the east end of the hangar. The access road cannot be seen in Racer’s photos The access road can be seen in MLA’s photos and the snopes photo. The west end of the hangar and the wingless airplane can be seen in the snopes photo. (The northwest corner of the hangar roof extends to the right of the sign.)
Here is another of Racer’s photos taken from an angle approaching that of the snopes photo. Again we see that there is no access road and no sign. In the snopes photo we see a fence post. Airports have perimeter fences. This one extends along Judge Orr Rd, and is open at the access road. The fence continues west past the hangar.
So Racer’s photos are not of the crash site. What about the yellow tape in his photo? That doesn’t necessarily indicate the crash site. There can be any number of reasons there’s yellow tape there. Heck, I have yellow tape in my filmmaking gear. It’s easy to get. Perhaps he saw the tape and assumed that was the spot. But the crash took place at the east end of the hangar and not the west.
I really hate to continue this silliness, and I’m not interested in rebutting ambushed’s multi-page posts, but I was discussing this w Johnny LA off-thread and he asked if I thought the image looked faked on a pixel level. I took a look, and feel pretty strongly that it does indeed look faked.
See this blow up of the signage here. I see the following problems:
-
The top-left edge of the sign does not line up with the corner; the white area that follows the red vertical line sticks out toward the left by one pixel compared to the corner.
-
The area just below where the red line ends at bottom-left has a semi-transparent area where tree-bits show through.
-
There is a half ‘grommet’ hole in the bottom-left corner.
-
There is a dark edge that begins at bottom left, and continues to the bottom-center of the sign; this line ends abruptly at bottom left, aligning with where that half-hole is. It also ends abruptly at center-bottom, where the sign-post would probably be.
-
The bottom-right of the image, from where that black line ends to the bottom-right corner is just a mess – bits of the tree trunk can be seen through the sign.
Anyway, this isn’t conclusive proof, but it is highly suspicious.
That’s not even close to true. David Mikkelson is registered as a Republican. That doesn’t mean he actually is one, and his wife isn’t registered at all.
No worries, Johnny- you know I love ya! 
So what about copying from snopes? How do you do it?
Right click -> View Source then scroll down to (or ctrl+f) what you want to copy. You have to remove and <br> tags or <i></i> tags etc, but you work with what you get.
I CONCEDE!
I haven’t read what’s new on this thread yet, but I wanted to start with my concession. Life circumstances kept me from posting this till now…
I’ve received an email reply from Mark Shook, who sits on the board of the Meadow Lake Airport and is the webmaster of their web site. The relevant portion of his email reads as follows:
That settles that!
Props to all who tried in vain to change my mind, and thanks in particular to Johhny L.A. for not losing his patience with me!
It was a helluva fight! Now I am bushed!
That’s not even close to true. David Mikkelson is registered as a Republican. That doesn’t mean he actually is one
Right, Im sure its all an elaborate prank, setup nine years ago to prank us today! Bravo sir Mikkelson, you have bested us with your pranksmanship!
Get real. People dont usually register for parties they are not members of.
I didn’t want to spoil the purity of my complete, 100% concession post by bringing in extraneous matters, but someone might be interested…
The email I sent to whomever was at the other end of the airport’s general-purpose email address (who turned out to be Mark Shook) was minimal and straightforward. In other words, I didn’t explain why I wanted to know and I didn’t reveal a preference one way or the other to avoid a possibly biased response.
After Mark Shook emailed his reply that I quoted most of in my concession, I replied with an enthusiastic thank you, a vote of confidence, and some friendly remarks. I still had never discussed my own point of view. In particular, I never even hinted at my advertising argument; i.e., that it would be false economy to have only a single-sided sign.
Thus, I find it interesting that Mr. Shook brought the issue up entirely on his own in the following portion of his reply to my thank-you note:
Hmmm… I can only think of just a few billion things that would fit that last description…
Finally, I want to note that I also heard from the pilot of the crashed plane. Since the reply was via email, I still don’t know Terry’s gender! Anyway, here’s a part of the pilot’s reply:
Why uh, uh Harvey… Terry’s talkin’ to me now…
Hold the phone… you believed some guy on the internet ?!? Um… isn’t this pretty much what you accused me of, and scoffed at my gullibility? I wasn’t a “true skeptic” since I believed the same guy’s web site, right?
Now, in fairness, this is untrue. You got a relatively anonymous email from someone who didn’t provide any support for their assertion. You had to assume their assertion was true solely from the basis of their relationship to the airport. For many, that’s enough; for some, that’s exactly the sort of gullibility that leads to erroneous “facts” being established as true.
In contrast, note that the email he received is detailed as to how the writer knows the situation. The person was at the location at the time of the accident. The person describes the basis of his knowledge, including his proximity to the location, his knowledge of the location, etc. In short, the email he received gives the details that back up the somewhat more scanty email you received. Under the circumstances, only a conspiracy theorist would now cling to the notion that the photo wasn’t altered.
Alas, I no longer have the emails from the Democratic party back when Dubya was running for president, but I got one either from them or an Asian interest/lobbying group that claimed Dubya was a racist hayseed who wanted to carpet bomb Vietnam and put all squinty-eyed yellows in internment camps as soon as he got into office. (And that Kerry was Very Good Friends with Prominent Asians and would nominate them into Important Cabinet Positions.)
Is there a difference between registering for a party and becoming a member of it?
I do not consider myself to be a member of any particular party. I consider myself to be an independent, although I do admit that in the great majority of cases, I find myself to agree more with party X than party Z. In my state, you cannot vote in the primaries unless you register with that party, so about 15 years ago, I registered with party Z because I really really liked their candidate very much, and I wanted to vote for him in the primaries. For the next ten years, my votes in the primaries were pretty wasted, because I didn’t like either of Z’s guys, and I kept forgetting to tell the Board Of Elections that I wanted to switch to party X. I finally did that a few years ago.
So you tell me: For those ten years, was I a member of X or of Z? What about now? (Personally, I don’t know and don’t care.)
Now can we talk about Pat Boone’s dick in a box?
In fairness, what squeegee said is completely true, and you’re adding, well, erroneous facts. Note that squeegee was convinced by this link: http://www.meadowlakeairport.com/INDEX2.html#anchor_1094 posted earlier in the thread, from Meadow Lake Airport’s website.
He pointed out, in post 107, that the airport’s own website (well, again to be fair, a garbled version of the airport’s name) claims the photo is faked.
To which ambushed replied:
So, right. Anonymous person’s bald assertion = bad, even when anonymous person runs the airport’s website.
But apparently attaching a name to the anonymous person who runs the airport’s website makes all the difference in the world:
In any case, squeegee “believed the same guy’s web site,” which is what he said. That would be, in fairness, true.
If you hum it, I’ll join in the chorus.
Well, Hispanics have the Department of Transport, and South Asians now have the Surgeon General’s office. You ought to have something.
Yes. Registering simply means you can vote in their (closed) primaries, as you alluded to. To do that, you file a form with your state election commission (and/or county election supervisor, or some other people).
Membership means you file a form with the party itself.