I would not have thought this was possible

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.

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.


Hello I'm Jeff. My cousin has let me use his PC.

The best fakes I've seen are your posts.

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

"Jim Logajan" wrote in

Wow - the whole issue is a mess of fact and fiction. Consider:

1) There appear to a bunch of obviously faked videos on Youtube of
people getting "sucked" into jet engines. This makes it tedious to sort
out the legit from the bogus.

2) Some videos, like this one showing a helmet (cranial) getting sucked
off a guys head, seem perfectly legit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OswpNAH9nrk

The case I saw might have been the Ayres incident you cited It has been a
while since I saw it, but it was well documented.

The person that was "sucked" was training a person, and stepped in to check
the work, and was out of position. It seems the A-6's intake is in a
position and has high velocity that makes a habit of sucking things into it.

I first saw the incident on TV and did not see the part about him surviving,
and had more than one nightmare about it. I was glad to later see that he
did not get chopped up.

I just remembered something else; he said his cranial came off and FODed the
engine, the engine was shut down quickly. If it had not, it might have
pulled him in the rest of the way.
--
Jim in NC

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.

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

On Jul 11, 4:01 pm, Mike Ash wrote:
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.

We regularly take wings off airplanes for repairs of one sort or
another. The airplane does NOT tip onto its other wingtip. The density
of wing structures is very light; like most of the rest of the
airframe, it's nearly all airspace. A 172's wing weighs maybe 70 or 80
pounds, max.

See this video about the wing-losing video, which was clearly faked.
See especially the last few seconds:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I89EMDZ0dsc

Dan

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

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

On Jul 11, 10:23*pm, 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..


Are you suggesting that the referred video was a fake - I think it
isn't - or that one can't at all be sucked into a jet engine? If the
latter, you might be wrong. I seem to remember a Continental mechanic
ending up inside one of their 737 turbines a few years ago (in
Texas?). And didn't a sucked luggage container at LAX delay a JAL 747
the other day? That container didn't go through the blades of course
but the human skeleton is less resistant to whirring fan blades.

No I think you can maim yourself if you're in the intake draft cone of
a turbine.

Ramapriya

In article
,
wrote:

On Jul 11, 4:01 pm, Mike Ash wrote:
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.

We regularly take wings off airplanes for repairs of one sort or
another. The airplane does NOT tip onto its other wingtip. The density
of wing structures is very light; like most of the rest of the
airframe, it's nearly all airspace. A 172's wing weighs maybe 70 or 80
pounds, max.

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.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon