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

[simonshack]

*

Nonhocapito - you are right on the money :

Here, at (1min50secs) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XO04-Id9qeE
Swedish woman reporter asks Swedish prime Minister Carl Bildt this question :

-" Do you know why SAS has painted over their logos?..."

And Carl Bildt replies:
-" Well I guess it's SAS who has done that - if I well understand - for reasons that ...uh... SAS will have to judge (assess)."(i.e., Carl Bildt is basically saying that it is for SAS to explain why they have painted over their logos ...in other words he's saying: "Ask SAS - I have not the faintest clue!" ).

I think I'll call SAS tomorrow and ask them why they painted over their logos in all haste. There were, after all, no casualties and the emergency-landing was considered a great performance by the SAS pilots. Next, I will call Dduck and ask him - since he was an eyewitness at the site - how he possibly missed seeing the painters at work. Oh - wait...I forgot :

Dduck wrote:

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.

The SAS airplane was NOT photoshopped, Dduck. Its logos were painted over with white paint.
See, there is a pretty fundamental difference here. A real-world paint job is not the same as a Photoshop paint job.

Now, seriously - was this point of yours some kind of joke? What was your point, anyway?... Were you saying that it is a widespread, common practice to photoshop and tamper with pictures of plane disasters? And that we are all wasting our time here analyzing such images? Well - if that was your point with this SAS crash, you couldn't have made more of a fool of yourself.

Here's my honest opinion (as a half-Swede/half Norwegian) about this particular case: Since SAS has always strived to highlight its image as a super-safe and reliable airline, some old SAS executive at that crash site just shouted: " Fy helvete! Throw some white paint over the SAS logos - we don't want THAT to be aired on TV !"

[D.Duck]

NoHo,

You are absolutely right, it looks as if they painted over the logo, good call.

The end result is the same, if you photo shop or paint over the result is the same and it has been done since day one.

AIRLINES DONT WANT THEIR LOGO IN A CRASH.

They will do anything in their power to make their logo not visible. They will try to buy you,police, government off and if that doesn't work they will make threats. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't but they will always try.

In the Gottröra thing Carl Bildt knew the Government owned most of the stocks in SAS so no wonder that one was sanctioned and got a paint over.


Most of, if not all of the big events in the last decade has altered and Fake pictures in them but that doesn't mean all events never happened so what pisses me off is that if you guys see an altered or Fake picture you scream Fake at the whole event, but that may not be true cos its a standard and normal process to alter and Fake pictures in media today.


ToDiLo
D.Duck

[simonshack]

NoHo,

You are absolutely right, it looks as if they painted over the logo, good call.

(...)

ToDiLo
D.Duck

So you are simply skipping my last post which confirms nonhocapito's observations "officially"(by Swedish TV) ? No comment on it? I asked you how come you didn't see the painters covering the SAS logo with white paint, since you were a realtime witness to the event. Could you kindly reply to that question? Thanks.

[Surcouf_Revival]

NoHo,

AIRLINES DONT WANT THEIR LOGO IN A CRASH.

They will do anything in their power to make their logo not visible. ...

ToDiLo
D.Duck

It seems that D.Duck provided the good answer to that one



This photo was retrieved by Simon from the following link :

http://www.wired.com/culture/art/news/2 ... rentPage=3

As mentioned by Simon, if we learn about crane barges ("Weeks 533" and "Weeks 566") a.k.a. "the Big Bitch" we also learn the following :

... Although Mallon had been shooting in full view of the investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board, when his photos hit the web, the agency became uncomfortable. They ordered him to remove the gallery he had posted on his personal site.
The bureaucrats relented after about two weeks, allowing Mallon to repost the pictures, minus any shots of the interior of the plane. Shortly after that, a lawyer for US Airways and its insurer A.I.G. told Mallon to remove the photos once again, arguing that the airline and insurer were Mallon's ultimate clients.
Mallon described the reasoning as "US Airways hired AIG who hired the lawyer who hired [lead contractor] J. Supor and Son who hired Weeks Marine who hired me."
However, the two sides ultimately compromised: Mallon agreed to erase any obvious US Airways logos from his photos, and AIG and US Airways permitted the photos back into the world — to Mallon's great relief.

So we know here why this picture was photoshopped, don't we ?
No relation with 9/11 established here, nor a proof that the aircraft is a CGI

[nonhocapito]

Most of if not all of the big events in the last decade has altered and Fake pictures in them but that doesn't mean all events never happened so what pisses me off is that if you guys see an altered or Fake picture you scream Fake at the whole event, but that may not be true cos its a standard and normal process in media today.

Since what we do here is to "expose media fakery", the fact that fakery is "a standard and normal process" doesn't make our job here useless. Maybe we can all agree on the fact that it is all right to poke at a suspicious event from all sides, to go and see what in it withstands, and what gives.

But what's your idea?
If I understand correctly, you imagine a situation where --for example-- the damage was much more relevant, but it was corrected in pictures to give a less traumatic look to the event?
And people were missing from the shots because they were in fact hanging to the wings or floating in waters and were deleted to give the scene a less panicky look...?
or there were originally less people but the PR story said more because...?
And a mismatching logo was there because...?
And the early totally-fake picture of a plane in waters existed because...?
And real passengers would not protest the alterations in the story because...?
And a minor corporation counted to be in total control of imagery in the busy city of NY because ...?

It is not impossible nor forbidden to defend this scenario: but it seems to me it requires an equally thorough job of research, explanation, persuasion and insight as the one you demand from everyone. As with the rhetorical expedients you used to prove everyone is wrong and you were right, I believe you have a few questions from Simon to respond to so I'll skip on that

[nonhocapito]

So we know here why this picture was photoshopped, don't we ?
No relation with 9/11 established here, nor a proof that the aircraft is a CGI

There are many details that are strange here, not just a botched logo. And if you think this was a PR operation too, you have to explain how do you think they could be sure to have such a level of control over the images (in the city of NY!!) if the event was not completely fake.

No impertinent amateur photographers, no contradicting videos? In NYC? This is not the Gulf of Mexico. How a corporate PR office was supposed to be in control of all that?

[simonshack]

Mallon described the reasoning as "US Airways hired AIG who hired the lawyer who hired [lead contractor] J. Supor and Son who hired Weeks Marine who hired me."
However, the two sides ultimately compromised: Mallon agreed to erase any obvious US Airways logos from his photos, and AIG and US Airways permitted the photos back into the world — to Mallon's great relief.[/i]

So we know here why this picture was photoshopped, don't we ?
No relation with 9/11 established here, nor a proof that the aircraft is a CGI

You're such a clown, Surcouf - it's quite unbelievable! In fact - both you and Dduck are. I salute you both and thank you for your past (meager) contributions. Buona vita, guys. We really have no time here for the silly dramas and confusion-tactics you are regularly pushing in order to disrupt this forum. To any reader who might wonder, my current twin-banning of both Dduck and Surcouf is no fluke. It is part of a well-pondered process which encompasses inviting them both to my house in Italy to meet them in flesh-and-bone - and getting to know them face-to-face. I do not regret the experiment - but their own pernicious experiments appear to have failed. In fact, both have professional links and acquaintances in high military circles - French and Swedish. I'll say this much - and no more about their personal connections - withholding a natural tendency of expressing my repulsion of treacherous infiltrators.

Lots of my time has been invested in those two individuals - and I don't regret it, as I'm all the wiser for it. However and in the long run, I feel it is essential to keep this forum free from clowning - and there is no other word for the antics they both have displayed throughout the years. Not once have I seen them respond in a prompt/articulate/thoughtful way to any of the questions and/or facts submitted to them by other forum members or myself. Lest we forget, this thread was started by "Surcouf" after he registered again as "Surcouf Revival" - in spite of being banned for foolish/whimsical behavior in the past. The man has cultivated a bizarre obsession with this Flight 1549 news story ever since it took place two years ago. The odds of this Frenchman having a friend (one "Nicolas Mxx" - what reasons for the anonimity here??) snapping pictures of this unique event while visiting the Intrepid are of course astronomically thin. The same goes for Dduck witnessing (in person!) another of the few - and formidably rare - plane ditchings ever to occur in aviation history. Moreover, how this apparently alert and inquisitive Swede would ignore the official, media-reported controversy (plane logos being painted over by SAS) surrounding that specific event is quite beyond me. Lastly, and more importantly, his persistent dodging of my patiently submitted questions prompted a warning which he just chose to ignore - too bad: my patience has limits, after all - and I do wish this to be clear.

[warriorhun]

Dear D. Duck,

you say

Most of, if not all of the big events in the last decade has altered and Fake pictures in them but that doesn't mean all events never happened so what pisses me off is that if you guys see an altered or Fake picture you scream Fake at the whole event, but that may not be true cos its a standard and normal process to alter and Fake pictures in media today.

So because it is standard media practice to fake and alter reality and images, that means we are dead wrong assuming that reality is altered and images are faked by the media?
Read some classics, the ancient Greeks invented classical logic, it is a shame not to use it thousands of years later!

Let me tell you this: faked images and altered reality is two totally different things, walking usually hand in hand, if you follow my meaning.
But, seriously: how can you prove the real happening of an event if there exists even one single proven faked/altered image in a thousand? Guess what: one altered/faked image discredits all the other thousand, too. That may mean two things: one, what you see on all of the images is altered reality, possibly all fake, and two, whatever really happened you can not say from the images for sure.

The main point is, altered reality is not reality. Faked reality is not reality. Reality altered 1% is not reality. Reality faked 1% is not reality.

Reality is real, it is what really happened, 100% true. Images of reality are taken on-site, on-time, and are un-altered. Rarely seen on media nowadays, I do not remember the last time I saw any.

[MartinL]

Came across this video. I don't think it has been posted before but it might be worth having a look at.

Same guy who is credited with the pictures used in the Wired.com story.

An "Up to the Minute" Exclusive: Stephen Mallon was the only photographer with access to the massive US Airways Flight 1549 salvage effort. Here, he discusses some of his photos and describes what it was like to document the aftermath.

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id= ... z1DPVP0IJ3

Where is this thread going? What's the score? Who is arguing, and why? What is the best arguments put forward in favor of each view on the case?

SurCouf/D.duck: What is the reason they are sticking to their conclusions?
Simon/Nonhocapito etc what proves that this event didnt happen?

Who got the best available proof to back up their assertions?

I'm asking these questions for 2 reasons,

1. I havent bothered to read through the entire thread completely, because this case simply do not interest me.
2. It's always good to summarize and look at the strongest evidence presented from each point of view.

Why are we spending so much time here on an event that really do not matter, maybe most have even forgotten the entire thing..

Have we actually uncovered who is behind all of it and why? What is the agenda? Qui Bono? Who benefits?

Do we seek partial truth, or complete truth? Fakery or non-Fake(ry) - that is the question.

[nonhocapito]

Came across this video. I don't think it has been posted before but it might be worth having a look at.

Same guy who is credited with the pictures used in the Wired.com story.

An "Up to the Minute" Exclusive: Stephen Mallon was the only photographer with access to the massive US Airways Flight 1549 salvage effort. Here, he discusses some of his photos and describes what it was like to document the aftermath.

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id= ... z1DPVP0IJ3

Where is this thread going? What's the score? Who is arguing, and why? What is the best arguments put forward in favor of each view on the case?

SurCouf/D.duck: What is the reason they are sticking to their conclusions?
Simon/Nonhocapito etc what proves that this event didnt happen?

Who got the best available proof to back up their assertions?

I'm asking these questions for 2 reasons,

1. I havent bothered to read through the entire thread completely, because this case simply do not interest me.
2. It's always good to summarize and look at the strongest evidence presented from each point of view.

Why are we spending so much time here on an event that really do not matter, maybe most have even forgotten the entire thing..

Have we actually uncovered who is behind all of it and why? What is the agenda? Qui Bono? Who benefits?

Do we seek partial truth, or complete truth? Fakery or non-Fake(ry) - that is the question.

Nice try. But see how a forum works, you really have to read a thread to be a part of it. (which is not recommended if the case "does not interest" you)
Thanks for the video though, a very not convincing TV appearance, the guy went through the same script laid on his website, same exact photos, and he was the "only authorized photographer" etc etc, where I heard that before?

[nonhocapito]

Another remarkable article on the matter: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... t=0&page=1
by no less than William Langewiesche, also known as the author of "American Ground: Unbuilding the World Trade Center", about you-know-what.

A nice article, totally not stereotyped.

Some people panicked and did foolish things, and one man is reported to have shoved a woman down in the aisle in order to pass by. Nonetheless, it is a testament to that average crowd that another man helped her up, and that reason generally prevailed.

And yes, it gives an explanation for the incredible feat of the captain: The plane basically flew itself thanks to the sophisticated special computers it happened to have on board, also known as the Airbus "fly-by-wire" system by Bernard Ziegler.

Ziegler’s failsafe design may have been unnecessary, given the special qualities of these pilots, but there is no question that the system had a profound effect on Flight 1549. The plane’s flight-control computers performed remarkably well, seamlessly integrating themselves into Sullenberger’s solutions and intervening at the very end to guarantee a survivable touchdown.

And the reason why Sullenberger doesn't want to talk about it, is that he is a "union man" who doesn't want to give credit to the idea that airplanes can at this point basically fly themselves, even during an emergency. What a perfect story. Boy these corporations really employ the better people there is.

p.s.



to take one pebble off your shoe, D.Duck, if you ever will bother to go by the questions posed to you by Simon: I figured out the source of the blatantly fake image posted earlier in this thread. It turns out it was a still from this video, which was just a, er, parody, posted on metacafe on january 16th 2009.

[simonshack]

Why are we spending so much time here on an event that really do not matter, maybe most have even forgotten the entire thing..

Have we actually uncovered who is behind all of it and why? What is the agenda? Qui Bono? Who benefits?

Do we seek partial truth, or complete truth? Fakery or non-Fake(ry) - that is the question.

I see your point, Martin...But please try to see my point too:

This may all appear as a big waste of time - and one that stirs controversy among us people looking into the 9/11 image-fakery. How convenient is that? And for the benefit of whom? That is indeed a good question...

Just to round off the issue, let me post these last two comparisons:


How can so much of the wing (in the big picture) still protrude from the water surface if the fuselage is now completely submerged?

Now, compare the cockpit doors: Unless the door hinges are made of chewing gum, you may agree that we certainly should see a piece of the door in the bottom picture of this photo trio. But do we? :


Our new member Warriorhun mentioned a rather acute and plausible motive for staging this puzzling hoax which, quite honestly, was the very first feeling I had as it happened two years ago (I discussed it in 2009 on the phone with Surcouf who, at the time, was much more receptive to this thought): It could well have been just an exercise aimed at testing and honing the efficiency of the infrastructure to pull off such media stunts (what with the Katie Courics and the various media/aviation circles/New York institutions involved). Seen through this perspective, it all makes good sense and, as I see it, raises the worth and value of the time we have all spent on this. Also, Terence.drew shrewdly pointed out the fact that this miraculous and 'uplifting' event took place only 5 days before Obama's triumphant inauguration - which needed the highest level of popular optimism and faith in ...miracles!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inaugurati ... rack_Obama

[fbenario]

Let me tell you this: faked images and altered reality is two totally different things, walking usually hand in hand, if you follow my meaning.

But, seriously: how can you prove the real happening of an event if there exists even one single proven faked/altered image in a thousand?

The main point is, altered reality is not reality. Faked reality is not reality. Reality altered 1% is not reality. Reality faked 1% is not reality.

Reality is real, it is what really happened, 100% true. Images of reality are taken on-site, on-time, and are un-altered.

TOTALLY AGREE, on all points.

Now seems to be a good time to review the rules of the forum for everyone. We are apparently the only forum devoted to analyzing media fakery. Consequently, we welcome all good-faith research/analyses/theories/ideas/suggestions that furthers the identification of media fakery generally, and of specific faked events. We believe the world benefits from learning how to identify when the media and government lies to us.

Since most people will swear that an event happened 'since I saw it with my own eyes' (even when they only saw it on TV, as with 9/11), it is especially important to show the world when the images/videos of an event are faked and untrustworthy; otherwise, there is simply no way to convince the average person that the event did not happen. And they go on their merry way continuing to believe their media gives them a 'true picture' of what happens in the world.

As a general matter, once we show that even just a single image of an 'event' is faked/altered/photoshopped/untrustworthy, we will likely conclude the event DID NOT HAPPEN, as originally reported in the controlled, paid, mainstream media that is so loved and trusted by the sheeple of the world.

Let me repeat: A single faked image means the event did not happen.

You are welcome to disagree with this forum's conclusion on any topic, and we look forward to seeing your contributions/analysis. However, you are not permitted to post vague skepticism, such as "I don't believe all the images are faked", since that just wastes everyone's time. If you decide to burden us with your skepticism, you are required to post objective evidence likely to convince the neutral reader.

If any of your posts gets critiqued/disbelieved/questioned/laughed at:

1. Do not respond defensively or emotionally, or insult another member of the forum (especially not the person questioning your work).

2. Do not merely repeat yourself, without providing further support for your position.

3. Do not say that we are just missing the point, without providing further support for your position.

This is a research forum, and we expect members to contribute to the research. Please do not burden us with your disbelief/disrespect/distrust unless you can show us where we are wrong.

[MartinL]

The 9/11 imagery is all fake and phoney and we got tons of hard evidence to back up this assessment. Yet, somehow I feel as if we as a forum have gotten too involved with TV-fakery research as the purpose itself, instead of using TV-fakery research and accumulated evidence as a means of nailing the psychopathic criminals who stand behind the curtain pulling off these tricks.

We already got the proof, now, QUI BONO?

Too much focus on detail and we loose focus on the big picture (which should be the first priority for all of us honest seekers of truth)

Stating that "Let me repeat: A single faked image means the event did not happen." is unwise in my eyes, because I know how the people we are out to reach will react to such a bold statement. If we were not comfortable with concluding "the event did not happen" based on ONE fake video/audio with regards to 9/11, why should we be more comfortable doing it with anything else? (no particular reference to this or any other research-thread)

There will always be a new half faked/fully faked news event, but if a person understands ONE fake event (9/11) their fakery immune system will be able to fend off coming TV-fakery on the news.

Bottom line is that we are straying away from the original purpose of this research which was 9/11 and it's not helping anyone.

I will read through the posts in this thread with great attention when I get the time, but the above is my statement on the state-of-affairs at the Reality Shack forum. We wanna stick to reality - then lets focus on the real reality of the people behind the curtains.

There is an elephant in the room, and us TV-fakery researchers should be able to spot it, in the same way we were able to spot the 9/11 bullshit.

[regex]

Stating that "Let me repeat: A single faked image means the event did not happen." is unwise in my eyes, because I know how the people we are out to reach will react to such a bold statement. If we were not comfortable with concluding "the event did not happen" based on ONE fake video/audio with regards to 9/11, why should we be more comfortable doing it with anything else? (no particular reference to this or any other research-thread)

I find it unwise too.

The reason why I think so is following:
If there is one faked photograph of an event, you can't say that all other footage has to be faked too.
Compare it with the following thought: Just because our planet earth has life on it, it doesn't mean that all other planets in the universe have life too.

You can't make conclusions just because of one evidence, no scientific research would ever do that.
It just tells us, that if we go deeper into the evidence, we maybe find more.

And as MartinL stated, people that come across these forums and see such a statement, will think that we are spreading pieces of information that are half true.

I have to agree a little bit with Dduck because manipulation of images in the media is pretty common nowadays: This doesn't mean that the event is staged anyhow, I think it's just for the media to have a better story. They make an elephant out of a fly. And still, this is no evidence that the particular event did not happen.

An example would be the cases of swine (or bird) flu. This might not have anything to do with image fakery, but the media wants to have a big story about it and so they spread lies. But still, the swine (or bird) flu might exist, it's just not as dangerous as media sold us.

During the few weeks of my activity here at the cluesforum I really started to like the community, but I'm worried that too many people don't like the conclusion that are made here and therefor don't want to be a part of the community.

I can't go along with your conclusions sometimes either, but I don't leave since you all point out good facts that I would have never been able to find and I'm still free to make my own conclusions.