Meanwhile said:No. This thread is not about the two planes either,
I beg to differ, as it was my thread, until it got Hijacked! The thread was intended to get reasonable people to look at that photograph. I'm sure most people would look at it and also think there was a near miss. But that was not the case.
but an attempt to slander any viable or potential credibility for photographed anomaly.
Here you miss the point of the thread entirely. The only reason photographs show 'anomalies' is because of the way they are intepreted! Why is it we only see single blurry photos of supposed UFOs? Because a consistent flight pattern (and rememeber what the 'F' in U.F.O. stands for, please) is never observed, nor photographed (and is harder to hoax). Videos of such alleged phenomena are always sadly lacking any context. (evidence of actual motion, foreground objects for size comparison, etc)
The gist of the thread's intent is: See, UFO photographs are certainly optical illusions because you can't rely on photographs. Evidence? This article.
Not 'certainly' but you have to admit that if you look at that photo, you will draw a conclusion. A conclusion that happens to be false. So I have established that photographs alone, can lead reasonable people to false conclusions. It's not too much of a step to realise that reasonable people can also draw unreasonable conclusions from a photograph.
Key quote from the article: 'But a spokesman for DHL said photographs could be "incredibly deceptive".'
Do you have an issue with that statement? You don't think photos can be deceptive?
The article.
The photograph.
So Qorl's introductory of photographed crop circles lend an interesting contraposition: photographed crop circles that don't fly.
No, it was off topic bullshit. Tangential ravings from a deluded madman.