If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
I would not have thought this was possible
In article ,
Franklin wrote: Ron Garret wrote: In article , Franklin "Franklin wrote: On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 12:16:33 -0700, Ron Garret wrote: In article , Franklin wrote: Ron Garret wrote: In article , Ron Garret wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZiP4...eature=related And indeed, it's fake. Bummer. http://www.snopes.com/photos/airplane/onewing.asp rg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_gpPbpONK4 Some people WANT to believe this even though they need only look at a jet engine for 2 seconds to know it's fake.. Actually, I was under the impression that the sucked-into-jet-engine video was real. It's certainly plausible. Then you were a fool. Could be. But I'd be in good company. The consensus around the net seems to be that that clip is in fact real. Even the one-wing landing video requires fairly close inspection to show that it's a fake. It's quite well done IMHO. rg Amateur hour. You need to see my aerobatic films. That presents a logistical challenge since you posted semi-anonymously, and Jimmy Franklin is dead so you're probably not him. So who the **** are you, and where are we supposed to go to see your aerobatic films? rg He's a prolific sock who posts here and in various groups such as alt.comp.freeware where I usually hang out. Dud and I had to teach him a few real basics about flying and that really upset him. He's trying to sound like me, Franklin. He claim he used to be Navy Seal but the only special operation he goes on is when his Mom tells him his dinner is ready. Yes, I realized this after I posted my reply. Sorry for feeding the troll. rg |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
I would not have thought this was possible
In article ,
Franklin wrote: Mike Ash wrote: In article , Ron Garret wrote: Even the one-wing landing video requires fairly close inspection to show that it's a fake. It's quite well done IMHO. It's easy to be taken in by it, I agree, but I think that once you come to the proper realizations it's not too hard to see that it must be fake. To me, the most damning mistake in the video is the fact that the plane sits perfectly level after the landing. Wings are *heavy*. Having only one would make that plane tip right over onto its wingtip. Once I realized what I was looking at, this to me was ironclad proof that they were filming a plane with two intact wings, with the angle cleverly chosen to hide one, and the rest done by some special effects trickery. People believe almost anything once they suspend common sense. Just look at a jet intake for 2 seconds. No calculations necessary. Here's another http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTzSxxH2s3U And another cat fake: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dzi_8Rscfs What do you mean? Those videos are clearly real. rg |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
I would not have thought this was possible
Ricky wrote:
On Jul 11, 11:23*am, Franklin wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_gpPbpONK4 Some people WANT to believe this even though they need only look at a jet engine for 2 seconds to know it's fake. "Franklin," why don't explain and entertain us with your theory behind this being a fake. How does "looking at a jet engine for 2 seconds" convince one to believe this accident was a fake? Franklin, the serviceman being sucked into the jet on-deck was real, very, very real. Ricky Hello sock. Why doesn't your organ grinder ask the questions rather than use his monkey? For me, it's too amazing that a guy working next to an Intruder gets sucked into one of its intakes with such massive force that it dragged him off the ground but afterwards he doesn't have any crush damage from jamming between the bullet cone and cowling and doesn't look like he been squeezed hard up against the stator vanes. http://www.imageno.com/k3bfdhgc73i0pic.html http://images.marketworks.com/hi/72/72196/KL37C03.jpg Maybe he's supposed to have squeezed through the low bypass compressor bleed channel to come out unscathed. Heh heh! Let's have that 2 second look at what those J52s on an Intruder really looks like ... http://www.imageno.com/pyopisgsihhtpic.html OK, so what passed through the engine to cause the rear flash in the vid? If anything solid went through that turbofan there'd likely be a blade-out which looks very different to the brief flare out in the vid. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcALjMJbAvU The vid shows our hero posing for a photo only hours afterwards. No shock, no crushed shoulders, no broken ribs, no split skull, no broken nose. Seemed to me the vid showed the mannequin had a floppy thigh bone but the guy looks fine afterwards, no bloodied clothing, no major abrasions. ... Just an arm sling and a bandage for a head graze. Gimme a break. He would be undergoing tests in ICU for the rest of the day and may be the day after that as well. A few hours afterwards he wouldn't be posing with his pals but he'd be filling in incidence reports, the safety officer would be going berserk and the carrier's senior officers would be doing some interviewing. The vid's date is Feb 20 1991 but the quality looks like it's from the 1960s. Most vids from 1991 are in color. Try frame advancing the spoof using this AVI rather than an FLV: http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photoga...s/sucked%20in% 20engine.avi |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
I would not have thought this was possible
"Franklin" wrote in message ... Ricky wrote: On Jul 11, 11:23 am, Franklin wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_gpPbpONK4 Some people WANT to believe this even though they need only look at a jet engine for 2 seconds to know it's fake. "Franklin," why don't explain and entertain us with your theory behind this being a fake. How does "looking at a jet engine for 2 seconds" convince one to believe this accident was a fake? Franklin, the serviceman being sucked into the jet on-deck was real, very, very real. Ricky Hello sock. Why doesn't your organ grinder ask the questions rather than use his monkey? For me, it's too amazing that a guy working next to an Intruder gets sucked into one of its intakes with such massive force that it dragged him off the ground but afterwards he doesn't have any crush damage from jamming between the bullet cone and cowling and doesn't look like he been squeezed hard up against the stator vanes. http://www.imageno.com/k3bfdhgc73i0pic.html http://images.marketworks.com/hi/72/72196/KL37C03.jpg Maybe he's supposed to have squeezed through the low bypass compressor bleed channel to come out unscathed. Heh heh! Let's have that 2 second look at what those J52s on an Intruder really looks like ... http://www.imageno.com/pyopisgsihhtpic.html OK, so what passed through the engine to cause the rear flash in the vid? If anything solid went through that turbofan there'd likely be a blade-out which looks very different to the brief flare out in the vid. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcALjMJbAvU The vid shows our hero posing for a photo only hours afterwards. No shock, no crushed shoulders, no broken ribs, no split skull, no broken nose. Seemed to me the vid showed the mannequin had a floppy thigh bone but the guy looks fine afterwards, no bloodied clothing, no major abrasions. ... Just an arm sling and a bandage for a head graze. Gimme a break. He would be undergoing tests in ICU for the rest of the day and may be the day after that as well. A few hours afterwards he wouldn't be posing with his pals but he'd be filling in incidence reports, the safety officer would be going berserk and the carrier's senior officers would be doing some interviewing. The vid's date is Feb 20 1991 but the quality looks like it's from the 1960s. Most vids from 1991 are in color. Try frame advancing the spoof using this AVI rather than an FLV: http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photoga...s/sucked%20in% 20engine.avi Certainly there are fake videos in the world. This one however is real. It has been featured on network news magazines (Don't know if it was 60 Minuites, Nightline, or what). It also is used as a training film in the military and most major airlines. This one is real. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
I would not have thought this was possible
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 18:47:13 -0700 (PDT), Ricky wrote:
On Jul 12, 11:26*am, Franklin wrote: People believe almost anything once they suspend common sense. *Just look at a jet intake for 2 seconds. *No calculations necessary. * Please explain. Here's another http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTzSxxH2s3U * Again, explain how this is fake, too. Ricky I don't have the time to explain the obvious, Monkey Heh! |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
I would not have thought this was possible
On Jul 13, 9:56*am, Franklin "Franklin
wrote: Again, explain how this is fake, too. Ricky I don't have the time to explain the obvious, Monkey Heh! I knew you couldn't...or wouldn't, because they are real. The guy getting lifted into the A-6 engine is authentic, it did happen and you are mistaken if you believe otherwise. As a mechanic I have heard extensive coverage of this story; it is widely used in training applications both civilian & military. The aerobatic plane landing after a wing departure is fake. You may call me any name you wish...it will only reinforce the fact that you need to grow up. Ricky |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
I would not have thought this was possible
On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 12:23:05 -0600, Franklin wrote:
Ron Garret wrote: In article , Ron Garret wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZiP4...eature=related And indeed, it's fake. Bummer. http://www.snopes.com/photos/airplane/onewing.asp rg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_gpPbpONK4 Some people WANT to believe this even though they need only look at a jet engine for 2 seconds to know it's fake.. According to the Flight Safety Briefing I attended when I was still working for the Canadian Armed Forces, this is indeed real; military jets are not like civilian jets... Terry -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
I would not have thought this was possible
On Jul 13, 4:58*pm, "Terry Aardema" wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 12:23:05 -0600, Franklin wrote: Ron Garret wrote: In article , *Ron Garret wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZiP4...eature=related And indeed, it's fake. *Bummer. http://www.snopes.com/photos/airplane/onewing.asp rg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_gpPbpONK4 Some people WANT to believe this even though they need only look at a jet engine for 2 seconds to know it's fake.. According to the Flight Safety Briefing I attended when I was still * working for the Canadian Armed Forces, this is indeed real; military jets * are not like civilian jets... Terry -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client:http://www.opera.com/mail/ why are all you people arguing with this moron? |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
I would not have thought this was possible
Terry Aardema wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 12:23:05 -0600, Franklin wrote: Ron Garret wrote: In article , Ron Garret wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZiP4...eature=related And indeed, it's fake. Bummer. http://www.snopes.com/photos/airplane/onewing.asp rg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_gpPbpONK4 Some people WANT to believe this even though they need only look at a jet engine for 2 seconds to know it's fake.. According to the Flight Safety Briefing I attended when I was still working for the Canadian Armed Forces, this is indeed real; military jets are not like civilian jets... Terry Are you mixing up two vids? One shows a tech's cranial being sucked off his head into the intake. The other (far more improbable one) shows a man being sucked of the ground into the intake accompanied followed by a large flash and cloud of smoke. Like some sort of stage illusion. A few hours later he's shown posing for the camera with his arm in a sling and a simple bandage around his head. Perhaps the Flight Safety people were just trying to make you sit up and take notice of safety. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
I would not have thought this was possible
On Jul 12, 10:19 pm, Mike Ash wrote:
Huh, I never would have guessed. Even a relatively (compared to a 172) light single-place glider has wings much heavier than that. Maybe that'll teach me to generalize where it's not appropriate. However, doesn't that assume that it's empty of fuel? I assume having fuel in the tanks would change the picture substantially. Even full fuel wouldn't change it much. 25 gallons of fuel weighs 150 lbs, right over the mainwheel. The 300-lb engine is well inside that wheel, as well as the rest of the fuselage. You'd have to hang yourself off the wingtip to get any tip. Dan |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A thought about handicapping....... | XYZ | Soaring | 22 | October 2nd 08 07:24 AM |
T-18 more roomy than I had thought it would be | Sliker[_3_] | Home Built | 11 | April 17th 08 04:04 PM |
Just when I thought I'd heard it all:-) | Dudley Henriques | Piloting | 14 | November 23rd 05 08:18 PM |
A thought on BRS | Martin Gregorie | Soaring | 47 | April 29th 04 06:34 AM |
I thought some of these are classics | goneill | Soaring | 0 | April 8th 04 10:51 AM |