Isn’t that a drawing?
kinda looks Photoshopped to me.
The post itself contends these are real photos.
Scot, if you look carefully at contrails of that distance from the ground, you’ll almost always see the rear of the jet, and the wings forming them. Here’s an example on this site: http://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/flight/modern/what-are-chemtrails.htm. There’s too much evidence of that picture being unreal: the timing, the fit between the contrails and the eagle’s claws, the lack of the plane – it should definitely be there – and the photoshopped removal of an object from one of the eagle’s talons, probably a fish. There’s room for faith, but imho, while the author may think it’s real, I can’t say it’s likely.
Nice! I’m skeptical of that one, but there are some great ones the linked to page.
I don’t know – but it has been around and made the Telegraph
and another interesting eagle by the same photographer: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/picturesoftheday/8365842/Pictures-of-the-day-7-March-2011.html
I don’t want to be that person who stays up all night because someone is wrong on the Internet. It’s something that I would overlook if it was on facebook or twenty-two words. But this isn’t FB. It’s a theological blog site. Things here should be true. That doesn’t mean you can’t have fun. This appears to be just that.
But you’re a reasonable person. Did you look at the site about contrails? Do the claws look shopped to you/are they oriented properly (anatomically, usually feet are everted – as in the second photo – not inverted; do they look proportional)? Does the head of the contrail look shopped (they should be closer to the same length if made by the same plane)? When the eagle (closeish) is in perfect focus, how is it that the contrail (far away) is in perfect focus as well?
The second eagle shot is stunning, beautiful, and the photographer is brilliant. But the first one, really? It was on the Telegraph. I know you are not saying now that everything on the Internet is true.
I may be 100% wrong. The dark stuff on the foot may just be a black talon. But I am willing to be wrong. You two have a blog here where you want people to respect your integrity in things theological/scientific and your ability to examine the issues. It comes down to opinion, but it could be reasoned opinion. The picture is either shopped (and the photographer is pulling a fast one) or not, we do not know for sure. But in such cases, you look at things, analyze aspects, make an educated guess – not suspend disbelief. I’ve seen some amazingly timed shots which are completely credible. This one simply isn’t one of them.
Edited to add, I guess I am that person. I googled the photo, and it’s been the topic of debate on photography (esp Photoshop) sites. People with more expertise than I have think it’s shopped. Interestingly, in some of the threads on this photo, religion gets thrown in. Amusing, the photo on a religious blog site, and on a photography site, religion.
I wasn’t commenting explicitly on the fact or fiction of the scene displayed. I was trying to find the source for the photo. Unlike the post Scot links, at the Telegraph it is attributed to a person, and to a person who does wild life and eagle photography.
Certainly it looks too good to be true, the natural reaction on the web and on this post.
We are wise to be skeptical, but I found no smoking gun, and that includes the discussion of contrails.