Crash of US 1549 flight in Hudson river - Fake or Real ?

[Surcouf_Revival]

*

FIND THE ERRORS

Can we see anything wrong in the photographic record of the Flight 1549 miraculous event as illustrated by the media and (alleged) amateurs?. My firm and final answer would now be: Yes. ... let's have a look at another comparison of high-quality photos of the Flight 1549 drama:

Source of the upper picture: http://www.airwaysmag.com/channels.html ... nnel_id=16
Source of the lower picture: http://www.wired.com/culture/art/news/2 ... rentPage=3



I hope everyone will reach the conclusion that something is very wrong with these pictures - which are supposed to depict very much the same objects and scenery. If not, let me list just three aberrations to help you along - but do not read any further until you have tried to detect them on your own:

1: The left rear ailerons in the two photos are completely different - they are not even closely related.
2: The stylized American flag (white-striped logo on the rear rudder) is inexplicably, partly missing in the lower picture.
3: In the upper picture, how can we NOT see the main left wing of the aircraft at all ?

Note: NOT ONE SOUL is to be seen in the lower picture. This, in spite of the full clout of the mainstream media publicizing the event. Would there not be at least ONE curious bystander on that dock? No rescue workers? Just the lone, early-bird photographer? ...

You make a good point here on 1 & 2 as both the left rear aileron and the vertical rudder are undoubtedly different. This will have to be clarified. Does it mean that the top picture is altered ? Not sure as the vertical rudder is as it should be and the left wing could very
well be hidden. Indeed, on the top picture, the angle of the vertical rudder shows clearly that the fuselage is looking downwards, that could explain that the left wing could only be partly emerged and then be hidden behind the rudder on the picture.
Regarding the absence of bystander, it can be very well explained as police forces, especially in the US, would ultimately secure such an area.

From those videos, we can see how the rudder looks like, just as the top picture
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik7vBTrz9LQ

and for the crowd, we can see it too ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Jt-LTaL7SQ&NR=1

Any visible of CGI in these videos ? Any sign of alteration ?

[nonhocapito]

The ASN (Aviation Safety Network) as a page on flight 1549. It comes with a few pictures (some of which we have already seen), among which another shot of the rudder:



Question, is it normal for the ice (was that ice?) to come and go like that? How long was the plane in the water? Rafts and contraptions are different in almost every shot so I'm guessing quite a long time?

[nonhocapito]

BTW, does anybody have considered yet the similarities with the only other aircraft water landing of contemporary history that ever had an almost positive outcome (98% survival rate) ?

It was the Garuda Indonesia Flight 421. Wicki:

On January 16, 2002, the Boeing 737-300 aircraft experienced a flameout in both of its CFM International CFM56 engines about 90 seconds after entering a thunderstorm... the pilots saw the Bengawan Solo River and decided to attempt a ditching with the flaps and gear retracted. The aircraft hit a rock, which sucked a flight attendant out of the aircraft, thus making her the only fatality of the accident

Yes it happened January 16th, almost on the same day, what are the odds? I believe 2 against 363...
Here it is documented by the ASN.
Google offers only two pictures, both looking quite familiar:




...uh, engines float?

[simonshack]

Any visible of CGI in these videos ? Any sign of alteration ?

Dear Surcouf,

Please provide an explanation for this :



Please make sure you do not miss ONE detail of the clear, conflicting aspects of these 3 photos. After which, we will talk about the videos. Ok?

Warning: if you once again attempt to skip/dodge/ignore/the evident problems (as seems to be your 'style') with the 3 pictures above, I will begin to think that you are just another clown. In your last post, you wrote: " You make a good point here on 1 & 2 as both the left rear aileron and the vertical rudder are undoubtedly different. This will have to be clarified." You can start by clarifying this - before submitting any further questions of your liking. If you cannot clarify it, please be a gentilhomme and just admit the fact. Thanks.

[fbenario]

I don't think ALL the images & videos are fake, & it does make some sort of difference if there was a plane in the river, because why go to all the trouble of putting a plane in the river, then faking all the photographs.

As I said, this thread is devoted to deciding whether the Sullenberger plane ditched in the Hudson. So far we have seen no trustworthy images showing that. Thus, at this point the story is a faked media creation, and your philosophical question asking why 'someone' might put a plane in the river and then fake photos of it (or take real photos of it) seems neither relevant, nor particularly interesting.

If you believe some of the images are not fake, the burden is on you to post such images and put them up for scrutiny. Absent that, your post is just word salad - and not particularly coherent or grammatically correct, either.

More like a badly tossed - and inedible - salad.

[antipodean]

I don't think ALL the images & videos are fake, & it does make some sort of difference if there was a plane in the river, because why go to all the trouble of putting a plane in the river, then faking all the photographs.

As I said, this thread is devoted to deciding whether the Sullenberger plane ditched in the Hudson. So far we have seen no trustworthy images showing that. Thus, at this point the story is a faked media creation, and your philosophical question asking why 'someone' might put a plane in the river and then fake photos of it (or take real photos of it) seems neither relevant, nor particularly interesting.

If you believe some of the images are not fake, the burden is on you to post such images and put them up for scrutiny. Absent that, your post is just word salad - and not particularly coherent or grammatically correct, either.

More like a badly tossed - and inedible - salad.

"Word salad", a couple of short paragraphs. so what does that make your posts ?
Is this the part you had trouble trying to understand.

If you believe that there was a plane in the river, then you are saying that you believe SOME of the photos are legit in showing this.

[SmokingGunII]

Any visible of CGI in these videos ? Any sign of alteration ?



Well, the logo has disappeared completely from the aileron!

BTW - is it standard procedure for everyone to walk off site during this type of salvage operation?


Simon - I have to say, I had little interest in this story, not being a New Yorker or even a US citizen, but you've proved once again that something is amiss. I'm struggling to find a reason for this event apart from the usual financial gain and to reiterate to a depressed city that there are happy endings and heroes. A bit like a schmaltzy Hollywood movie.

[Terence.drew]

BTW, does anybody have considered yet the similarities with the only other aircraft water landing of contemporary history that ever had an almost positive outcome (98% survival rate) ?

It was the Garuda Indonesia Flight 421. Wicki:

On January 16, 2002, the Boeing 737-300 aircraft experienced a flameout in both of its CFM International CFM56 engines about 90 seconds after entering a thunderstorm... the pilots saw the Bengawan Solo River and decided to attempt a ditching with the flaps and gear retracted. The aircraft hit a rock, which sucked a flight attendant out of the aircraft, thus making her the only fatality of the accident

Yes it happened January 16th, almost on the same day, what are the odds? I believe 2 against 363...
Here it is documented by the ASN.
Google offers only two pictures, both looking quite familiar:


...uh, engines float?

Engines and planes seem to float fine in the Hudson Nonho) The engine in this Flight 421 photo is lying in 2-3 foot of water (according to the report) and so is resting on the bed of the river. You can see people standing knee to waist high also.
This is not a 'ditching' incident into an ocean/deep water river like 1549.
1549 still retains it's place in aviation history.
The big dint in the skin of the aircraft makes this depiction of a crash somewhat more believable. The external skin is stressed as you would expect, but with only 2 photos to go on it is hard to say much more about it.

I don't want to labour the point about '11' and multiples of '11' lurking about in the vicinity of provable hoaxes, but if it is there why not point it out..We have here '33' and '66'. The only other numbers on display are '5' and '5'.


Consider then that we are in the year 2011, and that this may be a very significant year for those poor unfortunates whose role it is to dream up new deceptions.
Why '11' as a root? New thread?

[fbenario]

I don't think ALL the images & videos are fake,

If you believe some of the images are not fake, the burden is on you to post such images and put them up for scrutiny.

We're still waiting.

[nonhocapito]

Engines and planes seem to float fine in the Hudson Nonho) The engine in this Flight 421 photo is lying in 2-3 foot of water (according to the report) and so is resting on the bed of the river. You can see people standing knee to waist high also.
This is not a 'ditching' incident into an ocean/deep water river like 1549.
1549 still retains it's place in aviation history.

Yeah, right about the engines, sorry for the futile observation.
Anyway, I mentioned the case not because I have any reason to think it is fake, rather because, as I looked at the two pictures and read the story, it clearly felt as if the Garuda Flight episode was the inspiration for the 1549 fantasy: an adaption "inspired by real events", where the setting is relocated and everything is more dramatic and exaggerated and ultimately impossible, for the Hollywoodian effect.

About the number 11, I think 2011 will be significant more because it will be the tenth anniversary of 9/11. To normal people (we that apparently have to be duped) 10, magic number of our fingers, is still more significant than 11.

[antipodean]

I don't think ALL the images & videos are fake,

If you believe some of the images are not fake, the burden is on you to post such images and put them up for scrutiny.

We're still waiting.

And I'm still wating for you to explain your ambiguous statement.

Since we've shown that all the images and videos of the Sullenberger plane floating in the river are fake, it makes no difference at all whether any other plane has ever been in the river.

[D.Duck]

antipodean,

Can someone do a Gerard Holmgren & see if flight 1549 actually took off that day.

Well Dean, I will never be a " Gerard " but I think I know what you mean when you say "took off that day" so here is some of the the NTSB reports:

http://www.ntsb.gov/pressrel/2010/100504.html

http://www.ntsb.gov/search/search.asp?T ... rch_ch.htm

I have said from the beginning, "Some pictures are photo shopped" and they are shopped for a reason as the pictures are from the " Gottröra" event 27 December 1991.





Now, if look closely at the tail, it is supposed to have the letters "SAS" and on the body it should be
" SCADINAVIAN AIRLINES " but it is photo shopped out and you guys dont have a clue why that is done, you just scream " FAKE, FAKE, FAKE" cos that's easier then to find out why its photo shopped.


This is how the plane looked like.



Now, go ahead and scream "Fake" at the Gottröra event and I will have my biggest laugh of the day cos I was there and I saw the plane.

The event was 1991 and today its 2011, 20 years have past and you guys still dont have a clue why they photo shop events like this.

Is there anyone of you boys who want to give Stephen Mallon a call and find out? any News Organization will be fine too.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Some of you are into the number thing and I just want to contribute my take on the number thing.

There were 20 geese, 9 hit the left engine and 11 hit the right engine, BINGO 9/11 and it was all coordinated by this guy.



That said: numbers are used but mostly to make things more simple and easy to understand in the synopsis stage. That's why 11,12,13 and 14 make sense if we talk 9/11.


Best
D.Duck

[nonhocapito]

and you guys dont have a clue why that is done, you just scream " FAKE, FAKE, FAKE" cos that's easier then to find out why its photo shopped.

Lonely at the top much?

Firstly I don't really see a big difference between "photo shopped" and "fake", in the sense that "photo shopped" is just a degree of fakery. A photo shop implies fakery, doesn't it. For example, guys in a spacesuit posing in a dome pretending to be on the moon are REAL, but because of the photo shopping and the storytelling around it, the whole thing is FAKE. See how that worked out?

But more importantly: every other post you say we are all wrong, we have been wrong for twenty years (lol), we don't have a clue etc etc. I see how this makes *you* feel better. But how is this helping? Why we have to sit through your posts hinting over and over to bigger, finer, more accurate truths, and it never comes the moment when you share these supposed truths with us?

What happened to dear old simple explanations? There are enough allusions flying around as it is, and I honestly don't see a good damn reason for any single one of them. Except maybe this one: to keep newbies away from the research, because the research requires too much "insider knowledge" to be handled - which is total BS.

So 1549 was photo-shopped and was not entirely fake. Fine. Spell it out, man. Stop jerking around and tell us why and how you think so. Otherwise I don't see how these posts of yours are "contributing" to anything, except, again, to make you feel better for knowing all these incredible things nobody else can understand, and that we are all unworthy to learn.

p.s. about the SAS pictures, for the little I can decipher, the writings on the plane do not seem to be photo shopped out: it seems to me they were actually painted over.



You can even see the guy painting over them in the third picture. Maybe they did so to avoid bad publicity for the airline company involved in the crash? I doubt this would be the case with flight 1549 though.

[simonshack]

p.s. about the SAS pictures, for the little I can make out, the writings on the plane do not seem to be "photo shopped" out: it seems to me they were actually painted over.



You can even see the guy painting over them in the third picture. It is hard to understand why, maybe they did so to avoid bad publicity for the airline company involved in the crash? I doubt this would be the case with flight 1549 though.

Sublime catch, nonhocapito!

Dduck, is this some kind of joke?
And since you were there, are you the one seen painting over the big "D"?


Then you ask us, in a pretty cocky way (hey - what's going on with you, Ddude?):
"!s there anyone of you boys who want to give Stephen Mallon a call and find out? any News Organization will be fine too."
Well, Dduck - I hope you will kindly oblige and illuminate us all. Calling the US is expensive - and considering I've never charged you for sharing my findings with you over the years, please be so kind to share your own - cost free. Thanks.

[regex]

p.s. about the SAS pictures, for the little I can make out, the writings on the plane do not seem to be "photo shopped" out: it seems to me they were actually painted over.



You can even see the guy painting over them in the third picture. It is hard to understand why, maybe they did so to avoid bad publicity for the airline company involved in the crash? I doubt this would be the case with flight 1549 though.

Ha!

Thank you nonhocapito, I just had "my biggest laugh of the day" indeed.