35

This image has been making the rounds of Twitter, which shows a Jet Blue as airplane completely snowed in, with just its tail sticking out. The image is said to have been taken at New York's JFK airport during the January 2016 snow storm.

'jetBlue' airplane seems to be covered in snow

This picture just feels off to me. How can two feet of snow completely cover an aircraft?

unor
  • 1,143
  • 9
  • 23
Devdatta Tengshe
  • 459
  • 4
  • 6
  • 2
    `How can two feet of snow completely cover an aircraft?` 2 feet of snow+strong winds=snow drifts much higher than 2 feet. – Compro01 Jan 24 '16 at 16:04
  • 34
    The picture is 'off' in a particular way: the snow pile has a lumpy, dirty-looking top, which suggests it's been moved and dumped in a pile. If it had fallen directly on the airplane, wind action would have resulted in smooth curved surfaces (snowdrifts) and the snow would be evenly white. – Kevin Reid Jan 24 '16 at 17:25
  • 6
    If you notice, the winglet is also "sticking out". – SMS von der Tann Jan 24 '16 at 19:48
  • 33
    This looks like a fun low-angle photo. – WBT Jan 25 '16 at 02:51
  • I'd wonder why the crew hadn't do anything to prevent this in the first place. Also, if it's 2-feet, then [it would have only covered the lower part of small plane](http://blog.flyingdiary.com/). And if it **did** really happen, then I believe it would make news somewhere other than Twitter. – Andrew T. Jan 25 '16 at 08:28
  • 11
    I have spend **one second** looking at this picture, at I was more than sure, that it is a complete fake, in terms, as @SMSvonderTann says: that this is a pile of old snow left _next_ to the plane. It is so obvious (to me), that it can't be more obvious, that plane if fact is at certain distance from the pile of snow. What am I missing? How can one argue, if this picture is real? Is this really possible, that some many people believe, that this picture actually shows a totally covered airplane? – trejder Jan 25 '16 at 09:16
  • 1
    You can clearly see the gate 25 connection with the fuselage... I suppose if you're fixated on the tail it looks plausible, but it's simply ridiculous if you look to the left. – Dave Jan 25 '16 at 16:34
  • 2
    "Was this tourist really taller than the Eiffel Tower?" – Kip Jan 28 '16 at 16:21
  • 1
    @trejder, I spent three seconds looking at the picture, and if it's what we both think it is, then I would not call it _fake_. It's a real picture, that somebody snapped with a camera, and posted without alteration. You've heard of politicians "framing" a debate? Well this picture is a perfect example of where that phrase comes from. The photographer decided what to include in the frame and what to _exclude_ by choosing where to stand, which way to point the lens, and how much zoom. I took a class once from a photography teacher who insisted, "_Every_ photo tells a lie." – Solomon Slow Feb 02 '16 at 22:47

1 Answers1

61

It didn't. You are looking at a pile of snow with an airplane some distance behind it.

Source: Try Modern magazine

In the first photo, the photographer simply took a pic of a snow pile at an angle that made it look like it was covering the aircraft, which in fact was actually behind the pile of snow (and a good way off as well).

Oddthinking
  • 140,378
  • 46
  • 548
  • 638
Paul Johnson
  • 15,814
  • 7
  • 66
  • 81
  • 6
    While this is pretty obviously what happened, that site doesn't offer any actual *evidence*. It's just some person describing what they see. – Chris Hayes Jan 24 '16 at 22:14
  • @ChrisHayes The second image shows an example of what the true situation probably looks like, with the pile of manually stacked snow in front of the aircraft. – March Ho Jan 25 '16 at 02:20
  • 5
    @MarchHo Yes, but "here's how someone *could* fake this photo" is not evidence of "this photo was faked". (Conversely, "no one could actually take this photo" is.) – Chris Hayes Jan 25 '16 at 02:22
  • 9
    @ChrisHayes the lumps of snow that we see on the top of the pile are typically 1 cm in size. And this is really as much proof as you can get, since the image is not doctored, just a trick of perspective, there will be no evidence of "foul play". – Davidmh Jan 25 '16 at 08:38
  • 1
    You've got two objects (the snow pile and the plane) in the photo, with a large depth of field, and lacking any other hints about distance of the objects (background, people, things of a known scale). –  Jan 25 '16 at 16:52
  • @Chris Hayes: burden of proof lies on one who makes sensational claims. Making a picture of a snowpile in front of a plane is trivial, and I would expect it to look exactly like this photo. Having the snowpile cover the whole plane would be surprising. Another photo from a different angle could prove that the plane was covered in snow, if this were the case. But I am sure that the simplest explanation is the correct one. – IMil Feb 01 '16 at 09:05
  • @IMil Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately), that's not what Skeptics is about. Like I said, that's obviously what happened here, but Skeptics requires a higher level of evidence than that. – Chris Hayes Feb 01 '16 at 18:04