The Pod |
||||||
The pod appears to be a large, rounded, cylindrical object on the starboard belly of the fuselage. (See the images below.) There's no doubt about it, it looks very strange, but there are things that look strange all the time in our lives. There are optical illusions. There are instances where perception and context can and do mislead people. There are many illusions that we have all become accustomed to, so much so that we ignore them, even if we don't completely understand them. Here is an example of how perception, experience and preconceived beliefs can alter one's conclusions. Take a look at this picture and tell me what you see. Now, go back and look again, and tell me what else you see.... How long did it take you? Have you given up, or are you still hunting? Sometimes it takes a new approach and an open mind to find all of the puzzle pieces. The pod would not be nearly as interesting if the believers genuinely addressed the points that I have made in the past, but my points don't fit the preconceived beliefs and circular logic that fuels a lot of angles on the various conspiracy theories. This makes me sound like a diehard debunker, when in fact I am not! I have been accused by many over the years of falling into the same trap, and I'm sure I have many times. The job of the "conspiracy nut" is not an easy one! ;) The bottom line is, no one has done a point by point skeptical analysis that I'm aware of, and mine was never addressed, so I've got the job, and at this point, I have convinced myself that most of what we see in these pics are just illusions born of an ignorance of light and shadow. Now, let's get another fact straight here: No one on the pod theory crew has yet to provide any hard data on the exact angle of the sun in relation to the south tower and also to UA175 as it nears the building. This is 101 stuff for anyone promoting the pod theory, but it hasn't been done. I guess I'm the only one from those forums who understands the importance of angles when we are trying to determine what kind of reflections we should be seeing when looking at these pics! So, why haven't I dug up this info yet? Well, first off, I shouldn't have to! The leaders of this theory should have done that before they started promoting it! But secondly, I have other things to attend to in my life besides 'conspiracy busting', and this hasn't been top priority. However, I did fully understand the importance of such basic facts from the very beginning, as well as the importance of finding a qualified computer modeler to recreate the south tower crash and either prove or disprove the existance of the pod, once and for all. I have stressed these two items from day one, but I have pretty much been the lone voice on this. I initially bought into the pod idea. I never really quite bought the pipe bit. It was just getting to be too much, at that point. But the pod is pretty clear, and demands an answer. Unfortunately, as I have stated many times, only an expert could truly give us this answer. I'll quote myself, now: "No serious investigation would move forward without computer modeling, and no attorney worth his salt would set foot in a court room without computer modeling. Period." I am of course, speaking of the need for modeling to prove the pod/pipe case, not the rest of the conspiracy. So, what do I think we are actually seeing in these pics? What I see, now, is so much simpler and more believable, that it practically washes away the entire pod theory. We are seeing mere shadows, and are misinterpreting them. A combination of assumptions regarding the sun's angle as well a simple optical illusion have created the pod, in my opinion. Let's start with the following video still, which is one of the most popular ones used to support the pod/pipe theory. You see below, UA175 as it nears the south tower. This is a zoom shot, by the way, from the original footage, hence the heavy distortion. I have used Paintbrush to draw lines to the pertinent elements. The picture is fairly self explanitory with the lines pointing everything out. If you haven't seen it yet, then take some time to stare at it and see it the way the theorists see it.
Now, load the following aircraft photos from airliners.net. They will load in another window of your browser so that you can flip back and forth: UA-One and UA-Two Take note of the unpainted "white" line on the bottom of the a.net jet. The line is seperated into two parts, divided by a blue painted section in the middle. This is an important element. It is also important to note that the unpainted strip is in the center of the bottom of the fuselage. Now, back to the pod pic above... Assumption: Looking at many photos found on a.net, it looks as if the underside of the UA wings are the same color as the center stripe on the bottom of the fuselage. I am told that what we are looking at is simply unpainted aluminum, rather than a grey or silver paint. Based on comparisons of the pod picture and various a.net photos of the same type of jet, it is apparent that the sun is directly reflecting off of the underside of the starboard wing and the top-starboard side of the fuselage, while we can deduce that the center stripe on the bottom of the fuselage is not illuminated directly by the sun. To summarize, two like colored surfaces should reflect roughly the same in direct sunlight if they face the sun at the same angle. Since the reflections are significantly different, the angles must be significantly different as well. Simples enough, right? Let's continue. What would the bottom side of a normal UA 767 look like? It seems everyone has overlooked this very simple and obvious question. When it is pointed out to them, it is simply brushed off: "No, that can't be it". Well, why? Let's see some tecnical analysis. Let's see some real comparisons made. I have yet to see any over at LetsRoll but you'll see it here. In addition to the UA-One photo that you loaded earlier, load these two as well: UA-Three and Q-One. Now, look at all four of the a.net photos and familiarize yourself with the cylindrical, oval shaped wing fairings. The wing fairings are the "joints" that connect the wing to the fuselage and they have a distinctive shape. The exact shape and size can vary depending on the model of plane, but these four jets are all 767-200's and 300's. In order to know what shouldn't be on the plane you must first know what is supposed to be there! You must be familiar with the basic structure of the plane. Now, we have determined that the sun is not directly illuminating the bottom of the fuselage, so, where does the main shadow line begin? To me, it seems obvious that that the dark strip to the right of the unpainted center line is the beginning of the main shadow line. It's really plain as day; A hundred times more plain that when I thought I was seeing a 'pod'. The theorists believe that this dark strip is the pipe shadow. But just take a look at all of the photos and ask yourself what is plainly obvious and what is not. It is my contention that the entire bottom side of the fuselage is in shadow. I believe I have proven this by noting the differences in the reflections earlier. There is no sunlight directly illuminating the fuselage beyond this dark strip so it becomes a very simple matter to conclude that we are just looking at a regular shadow. What else is noteworthy when looking at the bottom of a 767? The wing fairings! You looked at them earlier. They are tubular in nature and when viewed from the bottom they appear to protrude latterally from the fuselage, almost as if the plane was trying to sprout miniature wings. Take note of the "pod" (wing fairing) on the port (left) side of UA-175 in my labeled pic above. See how it sticks out from the fuselage? There are two "pods" because there are two wing fairings! Summary Question: What would the bottom of a normal UA 767 look like if it was completely in shadow? Would you see two dark shadow strips on either side of the unpainted center line, along with two bulging wing-fairings in the center, or would you see a pod and a pipe, running the length of the fuselage? Pod Theory Status: Debunked |
||||||
