https://i.stack.imgur.com/QTrv2.jpg
It's a fun mental exercise to know that the final answer is landing while reading the answers that forcefully argue that the plane is taking off. Some of the "evidence" to support that the plane is taking off is very persuasive.
[1] https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/34586/is-this-p...
EDIT: From a different comment, it's clear that the photographer later found the whole series of pictures AFTER asking the question, and posted them online. So the photographer was confused, but later found the rest of his photos, which definitively show the plane LANDING. Case closed.
For example, the people arguing that the wheels have already touched down. It seems abundantly obvious to me that the wheels have NOT touched down, and that the small strip of black asphalt running parallel to the wheels is a taxi-way in the background which has lots of small aircraft sitting on it. I get the uneasy feeling that anybody that sees it any differently is just trying to gaslight me. But, then, that was also the feeling I got about the blue dress, and that turned out to be all too genuine... People genuinely saw it differently, they weren't trolling.
To me, the lack of heat blur behind the engines seems to be reasonably conclusive evidence that it's landing... But who knows.
The quirky features of OP photo are such a nerd snipe, and the later finding the complete photo series is just so convenient, that I'm tempted to think the whole Stack Exchange post was planned.
https://i.stack.imgur.com/QTrv2.jpg
The taxi-way is the foreground - the wheels do indeed seem like they have touched down or are millimetres away
The wheels are, in fact, off the ground, but only just, as revealed by the smoke in the next image of the sequence.
I, too, was convinced by the absense of heat blur.
I ended up installing this Chrome extension to block the "Hot Network Questions" parts of Stack Exchange because I found that I was getting distracted by them too often.
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/stack-block/oaimjd...
Had to do this as well because they were just too distracting.
I know it sounds far-fetched, but my mom who was the "Cultural Affairs Officer" at the US Embassy in San Jose Costa Rica was instructed to take a different route from home to the embassy and back every day, and to try to depart at slightly different times each trip. This was in the late 80s when Costa Rica was a relatively safe place (it's even safer today).
I've always wondered if I was imagining that or if they really did act more aggressively to gain altitude quickly.
on 9/11 it would have made sense to tell everyone to strap TF in we're going out hot!
No. It's hard enough to nail a landing to pick the "right spot" especially when you don't need it
If there's a threat on ground the best thing you can do is stay on air, not try to land on a different spot of the same runway (but yes, given some types of obstructions you can try to use only part of the runway, I'm not sure if they prefer you landing after it or in front of it, but I think the latter makes more sense - depending on the type and position of obstruction of course)
I would imagine there is a bit of risk mitigation with AF1 as it relates to taxiing on the ground. As you state (correctly I surmise) the best place for AF1 to be is in the air. The worst, is unprotected on the ground. The secret service is great, but I don't see them clearing a mile of taxiway in multiple directions for the safety of the aircraft.
Best to land long, turn off at taxiway and be at your destination with proper equipment nearby as soon as possible.
> "There is motion blur on the traffic cone suggesting that camera was moving right and slightly down. There is no blur on the plane itself since the camera was locked to the plane's motion. So I deduce a landing photo."
(The same holds for cars).
Chances are most of your hobbies are as ridiculous as that for most people out of the hobby
It used to be done simply because there weren't as many forms of superior entertainment as there are now.
Looking at the moon, that's one thing. But taking a picture of the moon? Go to NASA or Wikipedia for a great high-res picture.
Why play piano? There are plenty of recordings of people who play better than I ever will.
Why play chess? I will never be able to beat my computer anyway.
Why paint portraits? I will never be as good as Rembrandt, and my camera is infinitely better anyway.
I think the point of the activity is not "I will take the best picture of this plane/the moon that anyone has ever taken". Rather, it's "I will take the best picture that I ever took".
Setting up a camera capable of taking quality pics of celestial bodies sounds like a fun hobby, see: https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/166334-debayering-a-dslrs...
[0] https://twitter.com/mxeon1001/status/1108738701956472833
[image] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D2MH4hwWwAEjhsv?format=jpg&name=...
With a date and time you can easily cross reference press schedules (released by the White House) or flight plan data (archived by FlightRadar24 among others) or Twitter posts or other published photographs or....etc. AF1 isn't exactly a stealth fighter; its location at least domestically is rather well tracked.
Landing: https://thenounproject.com/search/?q=Landing&i=2912396
Taking off. QED.
Would that ever happen so soon after take off? I would think these stayed fairly horizontal until it’s known the plane won’t abort take off.
But without that.. I would have thought (as a layman) - is the plane doing anything to add vs cut drag? That could be a clue...
(from a toy perspective of how planes work in movies ofc).
