Reply #98: Thanks--

[spooked911]

I see what you did there, and it is a pretty decent alignment, given what you have to work with. I'm sure it is good enough to convince the OCTists.

But it is still not quite right, for a number of reasons. I'm not sure if you just eyeballed the alignment of the lines and car or if you measured. I suspect you eyeballed.

I know, you are going to groan and complain how impossible and hopeless I am, etc, but nonetheless, I am not convinced.

The biggest problem here is that the foliage south of the bridge doesn't match in any of the photos. The overhead Google shot may be from a different year, so we can excuse some different foliage there, but the top two are supposed to be at the same time yet the foliage south of the bridge are strangely different.

Other problems:

1) the cab in the top shot is much more into the right-hand lane than you depict, and this throws a lot of your positioning off.
2) your angle of the stone bridge shot is not right-- and it looks like the shot was taken close to the cab, judging from the perspective sizing of the signs and the cab (the cab is much larger than the signs and this doesn't fit with your sight line).
3) if you look at the broken light pole top cover, it is laying very close to the stone wall in the top shot (we can place this piece with a high degree of certainty) and thus really shouldn't be visible in the second shot -- or at minimum, it should be much close to the trees.


I agree that it doesn't make sense that they would move the car and pole pieces over just a few feet, and that it makes more sense if the car and pieces are in the same position in both shots. But the pictures just don't show this.