• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

what a pilot!

Well, to me it's not a very good job as I knew it was fake the first time. :d
 
Tweek said:
Still, at least I'm safe in the knowledge that I'll be able to say "I told you so" when and if it's ever debunked.
Click to expand...

OOO, OOO, CAN I SAY IT? PLEASE? :d

And that is not a real aircraft on the ground. You only have to look at it to see that it's a CGI creation. However, if you want evidence, if the airborne aircraft was indeed a model, you only have to take the comparison of the shadow on the elevator to see that it's not a real aircraft. The real aircraft would have cast an identical shadow (bar shape, seeing as it's a different aircraft) to the model, seeing as the light conditions are identical to the first part of the clip. Plus, BananaBob makes some very good points about the lack of pilot reaction and grass movement.

But if the aircraft that's airborne was a model, then I still firmly believe that the smoke has been added afterwards. In no way, shape or form is the smoke convincing. Real smoke is a lot thicker and puffier, and tends to linger in the air for more than a couple of seconds, even on R/C aircraft. That could point towards the aircraft being a CGI in the air aswell, but I can't say that for certain.

Still, with all this new evidence, I hope this 'mystery' (if you can call it that) has been put to bed!
 
hmmm - I only referred to RedBull Challenge because I attended both the weekday trials and the Finals here in San Diego and saw this type of airplane in flight at full power and at very close range...at the number 6 gate - these planes were less than 150 feet from where I was standing on the ferry landing pier in Coronado - they entered the gate in knife edge after cuting across the width of the channel just north of the Coronado bridge - the pilots had to execute a perfect snappy half roll to the left and pull through the gate in about a 4 or 5 G turn - all in about a 10th of a second from straight level flight to the knife edge and pull....

these planes don't turn - they flick - from level flight to knife edge in either direction and have so much elevator and rudder authority its rediculous.

the video, if it were real, shows the only possible way a pilot could land what was left of that aircraft. and as for the wing snapping off - if this plane has a composite main spar as many of the racers do and it had been flown rigorously beyond spec in positive and negative G as many of these types are - the wing departure would be possible if not likely to happen just as it did in the vid - after it had been loaded up in the manoever...and then, just at the top of the pull, unloaded suddenly.

*schnap*

So it could happen -and if your life depended on getting that majority of an airplane down from there...and if you had the training and experience of a qualified Edge 540 or 300G type airplane pilot - then what you saw would be the only way to do it. ...hypothetically...

use whatever you had left - a powerful engine, alot of rudder and elevator... and couple of promises to god.

I love this discussion - its free and as I said earlier - buying it or not buying it isn't important - its a great vid and its been passed to me now by more than 8 different people I know "hey check this out!!! is it real?"

Who cares? .:ernae:
 
heywooood said:
I love this discussion - its free and as I said earlier - buying it or not buying it isn't important - its a great vid and its been passed to me now by more than 8 different people I know "hey check this out!!! is it real?"

Who cares? .:ernae:
Click to expand...
Theoretically, it is free... but being wrong, is not democratic, your either right... or wrong... (no calling anybody out here, I just wanted to state a point)

But more importantly, you are right... It is a good vid, and you know what... the important thing is the response it has evoked... not the outcome of this debate (though I would argue that it is actually an argument lol:icon_lol:.)

Heywood... :ernae:
 
If it was (Real) then every news network and show would have this in a 24 hour cycle..not happened..not going to:isadizzy:
 
yeah - I'm sure it has been vetted - I think everyone but gramma has seen it by now.

:173go1: aw - have a sandwich



just had a thought - wouldn't it be a good idea for another inane TV program to have a couple of jokers take stuff like this off the internet and go mythbusting or just going out and finding the buttheads from the most talked about/viewed ones and interrogating them - like a semi-ex police you're in a heap o trouble boy Ashton Kutcher kinda way....it might get a sponsor or two....Oscar Myer could plug their balogna and the dude from CHiPS could sell Arizona beachfront property etc...
 
I am amazed people can be so convinced this video is authentic. I'll admit I thought it was real until until the plane came down low, then I started laughing, and I really laughed at the "landing". I think Cody pegged all the obvious signs at the top of thread. This was actually posted today at a PC hardware forum I visit, and the poster thought it was real, though he soon was laughed at for being so gullible. Among experienced graphics enthusiasts, there is no doubt what so ever this is CG, as well as an effective marketing tactic. Some have said its the worst CG they've ever seen, though that might be a bit dramatic. It reminds me of the way you can show a CG UFO video to the UFO buffs, and they will be convinced it's real, and when the creator of the video comes out, he then becomes to them part of the cover up conspiracy.
 
BananaBob said:
Another thing, the grass does not move or show any type of depression as it exits onto the tarmac, plus when the plane touches down, there is forward momentum that would take the plane onto it's nose but magically the back end sticks to the ground like a super magnet drew it there, the CGI head doesn't even so much as bob or sway during this violent landing, the gear legs don't depress or bend and watch the right front wheel skirt when it gets near the tarmac and when it goes onto the tarmac, really fake and again, the grass is way off scale. That's my proof if you can explain all this, I'm all ears.
Click to expand...

To add to this, a violent landing with only one wing would have more downward momentum on one side due to the weight, causing the plane to tip to that side. What a gripping thread :costumes:
 
Now I'm going to buy one of their shirts, see what this has done, LOL, healthy debate without resorting to foul language is a good thing. :ernae:
 
Ever see how tall the grass grows in a climate like GB, Oregon, or Washington? It can get a heck of a lot taller than that. Maybe it just hasn't been mowed for a while. Or do faked videos always feature perfectly manicured runways?
Click to expand...

Yes, I live in GB, but all the grass strips I've been to have the strips mown in to the grass and keep the rest shorter than in the video to dissuade birds from grazing/nesting there.
From a CGI point of view the landing is disappointing as it looks cartoonish, the carrier landing analogy is good, the problem being carrier landings involve catching a steel cable to slow the plane down.
 
Bjoern said:
Just out of curiosity: Luftwaffe or LSK der NVA?






The F-15 has the benefit of a lifting body (fuselage), which generates quite some lift by itself.
Click to expand...

Yep, the right intake acted like the wing, without that right intake being intact, I think it would have been a bad ending.
 
BananaBob said:
Yep, the right intake acted like the wing, without that right intake being intact, I think it would have been a bad ending.
Click to expand...


Also, the Israeli pilot had to maintain a relatively high speed in order to achieve control of the aircraft....afaik he landed at twice the normal touchdown speed. :)
 
maguireted said:
To Herr Big Stick ;

My Husband has never lost a wing .... I do not know if he survived it. I was wrong to write in this topic. I am a widow now. he is always a great pilot !​
Click to expand...

That's very sad to hear about. You are not wrong to write on this topic; in fact you were right on the one thing, the video does appear to be a hoax. It can be a tough room sometimes, though.
 
Tweek said:
OOO, OOO, CAN I SAY IT? PLEASE? :d

And that is not a real aircraft on the ground. You only have to look at it to see that it's a CGI creation. However, if you want evidence, if the airborne aircraft was indeed a model, you only have to take the comparison of the shadow on the elevator to see that it's not a real aircraft. The real aircraft would have cast an identical shadow (bar shape, seeing as it's a different aircraft) to the model, seeing as the light conditions are identical to the first part of the clip. Plus, BananaBob makes some very good points about the lack of pilot reaction and grass movement.

But if the aircraft that's airborne was a model, then I still firmly believe that the smoke has been added afterwards. In no way, shape or form is the smoke convincing. Real smoke is a lot thicker and puffier, and tends to linger in the air for more than a couple of seconds, even on R/C aircraft. That could point towards the aircraft being a CGI in the air aswell, but I can't say that for certain.

Still, with all this new evidence, I hope this 'mystery' (if you can call it that) has been put to bed!
Click to expand...

That's a good post. You gave some details to examine that might suggest a hoax.

Someone mentioned "Mythbusters" and that's what I've been pushing for here. Those guys do a pretty scientific, forensic analysis of possible myths and hoaxes and take their time doing it and explaining it. That's what I've been asking for here and finally at long last, some solid forensics have been revealed.

Working with statements like "It's obviously fake" or "you only have to look at it to see it's a fake" aren't going to convince anyone.

I agree about the smoke, although when I compared the smoke to real videos, it's not enough of a difference to be conclusive. Now that we have established that the plane on the ground is a different and probably CGI aircraft, and the plane in the air is most likely an RC plane, the point about the smoke -- revisited -- makes sense.

It's unlikely the entire thing is CGI because there would have been no discrepancy between the models as the same model would have been used throughout. That is one heck of a piece of RC flying. I'd like to know more about how the ground sequence was created.
 
kilo delta said:
Also, the Israeli pilot had to maintain a relatively high speed in order to achieve control of the aircraft....afaik he landed at twice the normal touchdown speed. :)
Click to expand...

Yes, I think a knife-edge would have been out of the question.
 
SkippyBing said:
Yes, I live in GB, but all the grass strips I've been to have the strips mown in to the grass and keep the rest shorter than in the video to dissuade birds from grazing/nesting there.
From a CGI point of view the landing is disappointing as it looks cartoonish, the carrier landing analogy is good, the problem being carrier landings involve catching a steel cable to slow the plane down.
Click to expand...

Right, but the height of the grass in and of itself is not enough to prove fakery. Right also about the arresting cable, but without the arresting cable, carrier aircraft would bounce severely. If you can find any movies of WWII field carrier practice landings you will likely find some pretty good bounces. There are also a good number of movies of bad carrier landings with some awful bouncing.

Looks like the CGI plane, on the ground was edited in at mid-bounce and I would guess the RC plane actually crashed after the first bounce, just like the actual RC one-wing landing in the movie Cody posted.
 
SolarEagle said:
I am amazed people can be so convinced this video is authentic. I'll admit I thought it was real until until the plane came down low, then I started laughing, and I really laughed at the "landing". I think Cody pegged all the obvious signs at the top of thread. This was actually posted today at a PC hardware forum I visit, and the poster thought it was real, though he soon was laughed at for being so gullible. Among experienced graphics enthusiasts, there is no doubt what so ever this is CG, as well as an effective marketing tactic. Some have said its the worst CG they've ever seen, though that might be a bit dramatic. It reminds me of the way you can show a CG UFO video to the UFO buffs, and they will be convinced it's real, and when the creator of the video comes out, he then becomes to them part of the cover up conspiracy.
Click to expand...

That certainly happens, but not in my case.

What I've done is to take the position of devil's advocate. I've not made the flat statement that the clip is unquestionably real, what I've done is to present a case for it's possible authenticity. Many here have categorically stated that it's "an obvious fake" and "all you have to do is watch it" to know with completely certainty that it's a hoax.

In the end, isn't that relying on the eyes for truth? "Don't believe everything you see" is a good maxim. Some see an obvious hoax, where others see what seem to be a real events. A third possibility is that someone could be just too clever by half, and create a movie of an actual event, doctored with just enough CGI to make it appear to be a very good fake!

The analysis we seem to be reaching here is that the movie is a very good amalgam of real events (an RC aircraft being masterfully flown) and CGI (the plane that is seen to land after the bounce).

It all depends on what you are looking for. CGI aficionados will be looking for the telltale signs of editing, where others will be looking for things like believable flight dynamics and control surface movements. Both signs are there and would lead to differing initial impressions and in the end, a blend of reality and CGI is what we seem to have here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top