I would not have thought this was possible

[Ron Garret]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZiP4NaeYrE&feature=related

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Ron Garret > wrote:

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZiP4NaeYrE&feature=related

And indeed, it's fake. Bummer.

http://www.snopes.com/photos/airplane/onewing.asp

rg

[Franklin[_8_]]

Ron Garret wrote:

> In article >,
> Ron Garret > wrote:
>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZiP4NaeYrE&feature=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..

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Franklin > wrote:

> Ron Garret wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Ron Garret > wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZiP4NaeYrE&feature=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.

Even the one-wing landing video requires fairly close inspection to show
that it's a fake. It's quite well done IMHO.

rg

[John E. Carty]

"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Franklin > wrote:
>
>> Ron Garret wrote:
>>
>> > In article >,
>> > Ron Garret > wrote:
>> >
>> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZiP4NaeYrE&feature=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.

That one actually happened :-)


>
> Even the one-wing landing video requires fairly close inspection to show
> that it's a fake. It's quite well done IMHO.
>
> rg

[Mike Ash]

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.

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

[Gary Mishler[_2_]]

"Franklin" > wrote in message
...
> Ron Garret wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> Ron Garret > wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZiP4NaeYrE&feature=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..

It's REAL.

[Morgans[_7_]]

"Ron Garret" > wrote

> Actually, I was under the impression that the sucked-into-jet-engine
> video was real. It's certainly plausible.

Real. The flash you see, as he goes in, is his helmet FOD'ing the engine.
His shoulders were wider than the intake duct, which stopped him from going
through the turbine.

Sore and bruised, but lucky.
--
Jim in NC

[Jim Logajan]

"Morgans" > wrote:
> "Ron Garret" > wrote
>> Actually, I was under the impression that the sucked-into-jet-engine
>> video was real. It's certainly plausible.
>
> Real. The flash you see, as he goes in, is his helmet FOD'ing the
> engine. His shoulders were wider than the intake duct, which stopped
> him from going through the turbine.
>
> Sore and bruised, but lucky.

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

3) I believe the velocity of the suctioned air should fall off roughly
with the inverse square of the distance from the intake - and so the
suction force for a fixed area should be roughly proportional with
inverse cube of the distance from the intake. Meaning you have to get
dang close to suck in something as dense and heavy as a person! (I know
I have problems vacuuming up heavy "grit"! Experiments with a vacuum
cleaner are easy and I'm sure everyone is aware how quickly the suction
force drops off.)

4) Although circumstances would make it rare, it appears it may have an
been issue as long as a few decades ago because there appears to be an
article titled "Survival after suction into jet engine intake" by Ayres,
ML in the May 1973 journal "Injury":
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4710924

This seems to indicate the article is case reports:
http://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/ebm/record/4710924/full_citation/Survival_after_suction_into_jet_engine_intake_

[Franklin[_7_]]

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=XZiP4NaeYrE&feature=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.

[Jeff Lin Ton]

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=XZiP4NaeYrE&feature=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.

[Ron Garret]

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=XZiP4NaeYrE&feature=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

[Morgans[_7_]]

"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

[Franklin[_8_]]

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=XZiP4NaeYrE&feature=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.

[Franklin[_8_]]

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>

[[email protected]]

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

[Ricky]

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

[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

[D Ramapriya]

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

[Mike Ash]

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

[Ron Garret]

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=XZiP4NaeYrE&feature=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

[Ron Garret]

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

[Franklin[_8_]]

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/photogallery/Videos/sucked%20in%
20engine.avi>

[Gary Mishler[_2_]]

"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/photogallery/Videos/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.

[Franklin[_7_]]

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!

[Ricky]

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

[Terry Aardema]

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=XZiP4NaeYrE&feature=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/

[shywon]

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=XZiP4NaeYrE&feature=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?

[Franklin[_8_]]

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=XZiP4NaeYrE&feature=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.

[[email protected]]

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

[vic20owner]

On Jul 13, 9:30*am, "Gary Mishler" > wrote:
> "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/photogallery/Videos/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.

I am almost positive that is was all done on a sound stage just look
at the shadows!

Kidding yes that is a very real incident.

[Franklin[_7_]]

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 12:52:38 -0700 (PDT), Ricky wrote:

> 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.

Monkey, if you think they are real, then you have confirmed that you are
an idiot.

> 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.

Idiot.

> The aerobatic plane landing after a wing departure is fake.

That was real.

> You may call me any name you wish...it will only reinforce
> the fact that you need to grow up.
>
> Ricky

Thanks, Idiot.

[Franklin[_7_]]

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:50:44 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

> 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

Dan, Mike's not a *real* pilot like you and I.

[Franklin[_7_]]

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:30:47 GMT, Gary Mishler wrote:

> "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/photogallery/Videos/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.

You're full of it. I explained once and once was enough.

[Jim Logajan]

Franklin <"Franklin >> wrote:
> I explained once and once was enough.

Thank goodness for small favors.

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
Franklin <"Franklin >> wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:50:44 -0700 (PDT),
> wrote:
>
> > 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, Mike's not a *real* pilot like you and I.

It's true! Unlike real pilots, I perform every takeoff and initial
climbout in close formation with another plane. I use wits and weather
to stay aloft rather than fuel. And I never, ever go around. :)

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

[Ricky]

On Jul 14, 9:45*pm, Franklin <"Franklin >>
wrote:

>I don't have the time to explain the obvious, Monkey Heh!

> Monkey, if you think they are real, then you have confirmed that you are
> an idiot.

> Idiot.

> Thanks, Idiot.

I rest my case.

BTW does your mommy & daddy know you are using the computer?

Ricky

[Steve Hix]

In article
>,
Ricky > wrote:

> On Jul 14, 9:45*pm, Franklin <"Franklin >>
> wrote:
>
> >I don't have the time to explain the obvious, Monkey Heh!
>
> > Monkey, if you think they are real, then you have confirmed that you are
> > an idiot.
>
> > Idiot.
>
> > Thanks, Idiot.
>
> I rest my case.
>
> BTW does your mommy & daddy know you are using the computer?
>
> Ricky

No, but when they find out, they're going to be *****ed*.

It'll be grounded for a month, and no ice cream for dinner.

[Franklin[_7_]]

On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 11:00:34 -0700, Steve Hix wrote:

> In article
> >,
> Ricky > wrote:
>
>> On Jul 14, 9:45*pm, Franklin <"Franklin >>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I don't have the time to explain the obvious, Monkey Heh!
>>
>>> Monkey, if you think they are real, then you have confirmed that you are
>>> an idiot.
>>
>>> Idiot.
>>
>>> Thanks, Idiot.
>>
>> I rest my case.
>>
>> BTW does your mommy & daddy know you are using the computer?
>>
>> Ricky
>
> No, but when they find out, they're going to be *****ed*.
>
> It'll be grounded for a month, and no ice cream for dinner.

For your sad info, my mother and father bothpassed dies before I was
born. I was raised as an Army intelligence brat, *FYI* if you get my
strong drift, Monkies.

[Franklin[_7_]]

On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 01:13:12 -0400, Mike Ash wrote:

> In article >,
> Franklin <"Franklin >> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:50:44 -0700 (PDT),
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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, Mike's not a *real* pilot like you and I.
>
> It's true! Unlike real pilots, I perform every takeoff and initial
> climbout in close formation with another plane. I use wits and weather
> to stay aloft rather than fuel. And I never, ever go around. :)

Too bad no one trusts you with powered flight.

[Franklin[_7_]]

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 22:08:38 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:

> Franklin <"Franklin >> wrote:
>> I explained once and once was enough.
>
> Thank goodness for small favors.

Which is what your wife said on your honeymoon.

[Franklin[_8_]]

<"Franklin >> wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 22:08:38 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:
>
>> Franklin <"Franklin >> wrote:
>>> I explained once and once was enough.
>>
>> Thank goodness for small favors.
>
> Which is what your wife said on your honeymoon.
>

Doesn't your organ grinder want to talk direct?
Why does he need to use a sock?

[Franklin[_8_]]

<"Franklin >> wrote:

> On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 11:00:34 -0700, Steve Hix wrote:
>
>> In article
>> >,
>> Ricky > wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 14, 9:45*pm, Franklin <"Franklin >>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I don't have the time to explain the obvious, Monkey Heh!
>>>
>>>> Monkey, if you think they are real, then you have confirmed that
>>>> you are an idiot.
>>>
>>>> Idiot.
>>>
>>>> Thanks, Idiot.
>>>
>>> I rest my case.
>>>
>>> BTW does your mommy & daddy know you are using the computer?
>>>
>>> Ricky
>>
>> No, but when they find out, they're going to be *****ed*.
>>
>> It'll be grounded for a month, and no ice cream for dinner.
>
> For your sad info, my mother and father bothpassed dies before I was
> born. I was raised as an Army intelligence brat, *FYI* if you get my
> strong drift, Monkies.
>

That's not what you've said in the past. I suppose socks invent stuff
as they go along. Just like your flying ability.

[Terry Aardema]

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:08:40 -0600, Franklin > wrote:
> 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.

A jet connected to an aircraft carriers catapult is at full power; that is
a LOT of air being moved. Anyone that moves into that airflow within a
foot or less of the lip of the intake is going into that intake.

And if you've ever seen a military jet that's ingested a bird on take-off
you'll know that the "stage illusion" is nothing of the sort; that flash
and cloud of smoke is *exactly* what happens, along with emergency vehicle
sirens, a hefty price tag, and a bunch of guys in uniform performing a FOD
walk down the runway once the sirens wind down. What makes you think that
a helmet and set of ear-defenders would cause less damage?

Terry

--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

[Gary Mishler[_2_]]

"Franklin >" <"Franklin > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:30:47 GMT, Gary Mishler wrote:
>
>> "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/photogallery/Videos/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.
>
> You're full of it. I explained once and once was enough.

Ok folks I get it now. We are dealing with a Troll. I will stop feeding
the Troll now.

[Gary Mishler[_2_]]

"shywon" > wrote in message
...
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=XZiP4NaeYrE&feature=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?

Exactly. It's a Troll or a moron, or a moron Troll. Let it die

[D Ramapriya]

Looks like the miasma's hiatus hence was rather short-lived... sigh.

On Jul 15, 11:06*pm, Franklin <"Franklin >>
wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 11:00:34 -0700, Steve Hix wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> > *Ricky > wrote:
>
> >> On Jul 14, 9:45*pm, Franklin <"Franklin >>
> >> wrote:

[George]

On Jul 15, 2:06*pm, Franklin <"Franklin >>
wrote:

> For your sad info, my mother and father bothpassed dies before I was
> born. I was raised as an Army intelligence brat, *FYI* if you get my
> strong drift, Monkies.

"dies" before you were born? Learn some english, little boy.

I assume you're saying your mommy & daddy died "days" (?) before you
were born?
Which means you were pulled from your dead mommy via C-section?
Which means you lived through it?
Damn! Wish you would've suffered the same fate.
It's no wonder...it's obvious you were raised with no effective
parenting.

George

[Franklin[_7_]]

On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 08:07:59 -0700 (PDT), George wrote:

> On Jul 15, 2:06*pm, Franklin <"Franklin >>
> wrote:
>
>> For your sad info, my mother and father bothpassed dies before I was
>> born. I was raised as an Army intelligence brat, *FYI* if you get my
>> strong drift, Monkies.
>
> "dies" before you were born? Learn some english, little boy.
>
> I assume you're saying your mommy & daddy died "days" (?) before you
> were born?
> Which means you were pulled from your dead mommy via C-section?
> Which means you lived through it?
> Damn! Wish you would've suffered the same fate.

See how I control you, Monkey?

It's embarrassing, isn't it?

> It's no wonder...it's obvious you were raised with no effective
> parenting.
>
> George The Monkey

Get back to me when you want to discuss aviation.

Monkey.

[Franklin[_7_]]

On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:28:27 -0600, Terry Aardema wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:08:40 -0600, Franklin > wrote:
>> 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.
>
> A jet connected to an aircraft carriers catapult is at full power; that is
> a LOT of air being moved. Anyone that moves into that airflow within a
> foot or less of the lip of the intake is going into that intake.
>
> And if you've ever seen a military jet that's ingested a bird on take-off
> you'll know that the "stage illusion" is nothing of the sort; that flash
> and cloud of smoke is *exactly* what happens, along with emergency vehicle
> sirens, a hefty price tag, and a bunch of guys in uniform performing a FOD
> walk down the runway once the sirens wind down. What makes you think that
> a helmet and set of ear-defenders would cause less damage?
>
> Terry

And the bird comes back out the rear with only a bandage on.

Uh-huh. Sure,

[Franklin[_7_]]

On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 22:18:58 GMT, Gary Mishler wrote:

> "Franklin >" <"Franklin > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:30:47 GMT, Gary Mishler wrote:
>>
>>> "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/photogallery/Videos/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.
>>
>> You're full of it. I explained once and once was enough.
>
> Ok folks I get it now. We are dealing with a Troll. I will stop feeding
> the Troll now.

Typical, yell "troll" because you have been shown up as an aviation
novice.

[George]

On Jul 16, 2:42*pm, Franklin <"Franklin >>
wrote:

> See how I control you, Monkey?

> It's embarrassing, isn't it?

The fact that you exist & are on rap is what's embarrassing.

Ricky

[Franklin[_7_]]

On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 08:11:29 -0700 (PDT), George wrote:

> On Jul 16, 2:42*pm, Franklin <"Franklin >>
> wrote:
>
>> See how I control you, Monkey?
>
>> It's embarrassing, isn't it?
>
> The fact that you exist & are on rap is what's embarrassing.
>
> Ricky

Dear George or Ricky or Dudley Henriques or Whoever Sock Puppet you are
this minute

I'm sure you say you've never posted as anyone but yourself.
However that denial doesn't prove anything.

(1) If you were a sock then you can't actually able post because that's
something your sockmaster would have to do.

(2) If you were a liar, your claim to tell the truth could be a lie.

---

Are you able to comment how you were posting for a period of 7 hours.
Then only a few minutes after you stopped, the self-acknowledged sock
"Dudley Henriques" posts suddenly started to post.

He hadn't made a single post at any time in the previous 9 hours. And as
he started to post, you completely stopped posting.

That's a remarkable co-incidence. In fact, it's too remarkable. It's
impossible. Such a pattern repeats itself over and over again.

If two people were posting randomly, that pattern wouldn't occur.

Is there anything else you want to say about this?

[Richard[_11_]]

On Jul 17, 11:45*am, Franklin <"Franklin >>
wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 08:11:29 -0700 (PDT), George wrote:
> > On Jul 16, 2:42*pm, Franklin <"Franklin >>
> > wrote:
>
> >> See how I control you, Monkey?
>
> >> It's embarrassing, isn't it?
>
> > The fact that you exist & are on rap is what's embarrassing.
>
> > Ricky
>
> Dear George or Ricky or Dudley Henriques or Whoever Sock Puppet you are
> this minute
>
> I'm sure you say you've never posted as anyone but yourself. *
> However that denial doesn't prove anything.
>
> (1) If you were a sock then you can't actually able post because that's
> something your sockmaster would have to do.
>
> (2) If you were a liar, your claim to tell the truth could be a lie.
>
> ---
>
> Are you able to comment how you were posting for a period of 7 hours. *
> Then only a few minutes after you stopped, the self-acknowledged sock
> "Dudley Henriques" posts suddenly started to post.
>
> He hadn't made a single post at any time in the previous 9 hours. And as
> he started to post, you completely stopped posting.
>
> That's a remarkable co-incidence. In fact, it's too remarkable. *It's
> impossible. *Such a pattern repeats itself over and over again.
>
> If two people were posting randomly, that pattern wouldn't occur.
>
> Is there anything else you want to say about this?

Why are you talking to UUnet? Go outside, play, run & jump.

And it's random.

And don't skip your meds again.

[Franklin[_8_]]

Terry Aardema wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:08:40 -0600, Franklin >
> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> A jet connected to an aircraft carriers catapult is at full power;
> that is a LOT of air being moved. Anyone that moves into that airflow
> within a foot or less of the lip of the intake is going into that
> intake.
>
> And if you've ever seen a military jet that's ingested a bird on
> take-off you'll know that the "stage illusion" is nothing of the
> sort; that flash and cloud of smoke is *exactly* what happens, along
> with emergency vehicle sirens, a hefty price tag, and a bunch of guys
> in uniform performing a FOD walk down the runway once the sirens wind
> down. What makes you think that a helmet and set of ear-defenders
> would cause less damage?
>
> Terry


Hiya Terry. Sorry if I wasn't being clear. I was saying that the smoke
and flash were just showy.

I agree his helmet would probably cause as much damage as a birdstrike
and even cause a bladeout.

[george]

On Jul 18, 10:09*am, Franklin > wrote:

> I agree his helmet would probably cause as much damage as a birdstrike
> and even cause a bladeout.

Bladeout ????????????????

[Dave Doe]

In article <c53edcec-7d83-4dc4-a003-c0ce51eae638
@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, says...
> On Jul 18, 10:09*am, Franklin > wrote:
>
> > I agree his helmet would probably cause as much damage as a birdstrike
> > and even cause a bladeout.
>
> Bladeout ????????????????

What the pilot does when a PAX does something really stupid - get the
blade out.

--
Duncan

[Franklin[_7_]]

On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 11:45:44 -0700 (PDT), Richard wrote:

> On Jul 17, 11:45*am, Franklin <"Franklin >>
> wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 08:11:29 -0700 (PDT), George wrote:
>>> On Jul 16, 2:42*pm, Franklin <"Franklin >>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> See how I control you, Monkey?
>>
>>>> It's embarrassing, isn't it?
>>
>>> The fact that you exist & are on rap is what's embarrassing.
>>
>>> Ricky
>>
>> Dear George or Ricky or Dudley Henriques or Whoever Sock Puppet you are
>> this minute
>>
>> I'm sure you say you've never posted as anyone but yourself. *
>> However that denial doesn't prove anything.
>>
>> (1) If you were a sock then you can't actually able post because that's
>> something your sockmaster would have to do.
>>
>> (2) If you were a liar, your claim to tell the truth could be a lie.
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Are you able to comment how you were posting for a period of 7 hours. *
>> Then only a few minutes after you stopped, the self-acknowledged sock
>> "Dudley Henriques" posts suddenly started to post.
>>
>> He hadn't made a single post at any time in the previous 9 hours. And as
>> he started to post, you completely stopped posting.
>>
>> That's a remarkable co-incidence. In fact, it's too remarkable. *It's
>> impossible. *Such a pattern repeats itself over and over again.
>>
>> If two people were posting randomly, that pattern wouldn't occur.
>>
>> Is there anything else you want to say about this?
>
> Why are you talking to UUnet? Go outside, play, run & jump.
>
> And it's random.
>
> And don't skip your meds again.

Our companion Ricky/George/Richard may be a seemingly personable soul
but we must take care not to let this obscure the fact that he is far
too dense to realize he has long ago been out of his depth in this
exchange.

I think you could be wasting your time because Ricky/George/Richard
lacks the basic personal equipment needed to comprehend these concepts.

In other words, he has no brains.

[Gezellig]

On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 13:48:12 +1200, Dave Doe wrote:

> In article <c53edcec-7d83-4dc4-a003-c0ce51eae638
> @j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, says...
>> On Jul 18, 10:09*am, Franklin > wrote:
>>
>>> I agree his helmet would probably cause as much damage as a birdstrike
>>> and even cause a bladeout.
>>
>> Bladeout ????????????????
>
> What the pilot does when a PAX does something really stupid - get the
> blade out.

No, no, that's what a Flight Sim X player does when he gets bored.
Franklin pulls his "blade out".

[George]

On Jul 18, 7:34*am, Franklin <"Franklin >>
wrote:

> In other words, he has no brains.

Exactly.

I lost most of my brains after completing my CFII, A&P, and a Master's
in mechanical engineering.

Actually, I am going to nix "George" on here since there seems to be
another.
I George is reading this, my apologies for using George as my moniker
and
I am going to use a different Usenet I.D. here from now on...maybe
Franklin!

George (last post here as George)

[Franklin[_7_]]

On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 08:11:29 -0700 (PDT), George wrote:

> On Jul 16, 2:42*pm, Franklin <"Franklin >>
> wrote:
>
>> See how I control you, Monkey?
>
>> It's embarrassing, isn't it?
>
> The fact that you exist & are on rap is what's embarrassing.
>
> Ricky

Monkey, so defeated and deflated you can't find anything
of substance to argue about, yet you're still unable to refrain
from slobbering all over my dick.

Here's a couple free clues for you pet: naw, hey you're a pathetic
little bitch. **** off.

[Franklin[_7_]]

On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 07:47:33 -0700 (PDT), George wrote:

> On Jul 18, 7:34*am, Franklin <"Franklin >>
> wrote:
>
>> In other words, he has no brains.
>
> Exactly.
>
> I lost most of my brains after completing my CFII, A&P, and a Master's
> in mechanical engineering.

Sorry to hear that, At least you had them for a little while, Monkey.

> George (last post here as George)

No worries, mate, Hey! You ID yourself with your ****4brains posting
style.

You're like the fat ugly chick in HS wasting her life constantly
bitching about how snobby the cheerleaders are because she was too much
of a butterball to fit in the uniform on tryout day.

Too pathetic for words, to st00pid to stop obsessing.

[George]

On Jul 18, 9:03*am, Franklin <"Franklin >>
blabbed:

> You're like the fat ugly chick........(rest of teenage childish
insults snipped)

Awww, did I finally push your button?

I now realize the best way to respond to Frankie is......not to.

Please, let's allow this troll no more attention from anyone
here. I should have realized many keystrokes ago that
RAP is not the place for attention-starved kids like Frankie.
The more the baby is ignored, the less he'll cry.

Forgive me for ever responding to him.

Bye kid! It's been...uhh...kinda fun, actually.

G

[Franklin[_8_]]

Bear Bottoms > wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 08:11:29 -0700 (PDT), George wrote:
>
>> On Jul 16, 2:42*pm, Franklin <"Franklin >>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> See how I control you, Monkey?
>>
>>> It's embarrassing, isn't it?
>>
>> The fact that you exist & are on rap is what's embarrassing.
>>
>> Ricky
>
> Monkey, so defeated and deflated you can't find anything
> of substance to argue about, yet you're still unable to refrain
> from slobbering all over my dick.
>
> Here's a couple free clues for you pet: naw, hey you're a pathetic
> little bitch. **** off.
>

You're so ****ed at my new name for you (Organ Grinder's Monkey) that
you want to get rid of it and pass it on to someone else. Too bad.

No matter what tantrums you throw, Monkey remains your nickname.

Would you prefer it if you were called by the sock master's name, "Bear
Bottoms"?

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.comp.freeware/msg/3d5703183eab2b11

Tell me if there's anything you don't understand in that link.

[Franklin[_8_]]

George wrote:

> On Jul 18, 9:03*am, Franklin <"Franklin >>
> blabbed:
>
> > You're like the fat ugly chick........(rest of teenage childish
> insults snipped)
>
> Awww, did I finally push your button?
>
> I now realize the best way to respond to Frankie is......not to.
>
> Please, let's allow this troll no more attention from anyone
> here. I should have realized many keystrokes ago that
> RAP is not the place for attention-starved kids like Frankie.
> The more the baby is ignored, the less he'll cry.
>
> Forgive me for ever responding to him.
>
> Bye kid! It's been...uhh...kinda fun, actually.
>
> G

Hi George, well done. You bested that troll. He must be feeling sore
because I also gave him another spanking recently.

That troll has posted in the aviation groups as Maxwell, Payton Bird,
Ari and a long list of names.

Now he's trying to sound like me but he's doing a crap job of it.

[george]

On Jul 19, 2:47*am, George > wrote:

> Exactly.
>
> I lost most of my brains after completing my CFII, A&P, and a Master's
> in mechanical engineering.
>
> Actually, I am going to nix "George" on here since there seems to be
> another.
> I George is reading this, my apologies for using George as my moniker
> and
> I am going to use a different Usenet I.D. here from now on...maybe
> Franklin!
>
> George (last post here as George)

Don't worry about it.
There are (for example) six King Georges and a whole bunch of others
who share the erstwhile name.
Its like the Monty Python Australian sketch where the entire family,
their guests and neighbours are all Trevs (Trevors)

[Franklin[_7_]]

On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 13:41:17 -0700 (PDT), George wrote:

> On Jul 19, 2:47*am, George > wrote:
>
>> Exactly.
>>
>> I lost most of my brains after completing my CFII, A&P, and a Master's
>> in mechanical engineering.
>>
>> Actually, I am going to nix "George" on here since there seems to be
>> another.
>> I George is reading this, my apologies for using George as my moniker
>> and
>> I am going to use a different Usenet I.D. here from now on...maybe
>> Franklin!
>>
>> George (last post here as George)
>
> Don't worry about it.
> There are (for example) six King Georges and a whole bunch of others
> who share the erstwhile name.
> Its like the Monty Python Australian sketch where the entire family,
> their guests and neighbours are all Trevs (Trevors)

Hi George, well done. You bested that troll. He must be feeling sore
because I also gave him another spanking recently.

That troll has posted in the aviation groups as Maxwell, Payton Bird,
Ari and a long list of names.

Now he's trying to sound like me but he's doing a crap job of it.

[Franklin[_8_]]

Franklin <"Franklin wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 13:41:17 -0700 (PDT), George wrote:
>
>> On Jul 19, 2:47*am, George > wrote:
>>
>>> Exactly.
>>>
>>> I lost most of my brains after completing my CFII, A&P, and a
>>> Master's in mechanical engineering.
>>>
>>> Actually, I am going to nix "George" on here since there seems to be
>>> another. I George is reading this, my apologies for using George as
>>> my moniker and I am going to use a different Usenet I.D. here from
>>> now on...maybe Franklin!
>>>
>>> George (last post here as George)
>>
>> Don't worry about it. There are (for example) six King Georges and a
>> whole bunch of others who share the erstwhile name. Its like the
>> Monty Python Australian sketch where the entire family, their guests
>> and neighbours are all Trevs (Trevors)
>
> Hi George, well done. You bested that troll. He must be feeling sore
> because I also gave him another spanking recently.
>
> That troll has posted in the aviation groups as Maxwell, Payton Bird,
> Ari and a long list of names.
>
> Now he's trying to sound like me but he's doing a crap job of it.
>

Well said. Heh!
You took the words out of my mouth.
I bet you wish you thought them up.
Unfortunately I wrote them and you didn't.