@Lou

Quote:

Do you want to hear more details about that or do you want to be served the fast-food information that the controlled media gave you despite leaked photos of the jet being under water with the ####pit unopened/ejected...?

The first and most important point is that something really needs to be done about the swearie filter.

I followed your link to the source and noticed that one of the pictures and a video are now missing. Of course you will assert that this proves the existence of aliens, but it is more likely to be evidence that they got caught out "sexing up" the story, as several people commented that the aircraft with the closed canopy was a single seater aircraft. One person also commented that the picture captioned "Black Hawk Drown" was not of a helicopter, totally ignoring what passes for "humour" in journalism. But of course the British newspapers would never stoop so low as to misinform their readers, would they.

This quote from a television comedy a few years ago may help to explain something about the British press, and how it is generally perceived.

Hacker: Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers: the Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by people who actually do run the country; the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; the Financial Times is read by people who own the country; The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country; and The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.
Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?
Bernard: Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits.

In short this story boils down to a xenophobic scribbler, working for a xenophobic rag, trying to make "Johnny Foreigner" look silly, padding out a non-story with a few stock photos, making himself look a bit of a clown. Not quite as bad as the Sunday Sport used to be, but definitely heading in that direction.

Coming back to the story, what you may not be aware of is that an aircraft that is not being actively controlled, does not fly straight and level until crashing in flames, as per Hollywood, but instead defaults to a flat spin. An aircraft like the mirage would fall comparatively slowly in a flat spin, and after it "bellyflopped" onto water, any damage would be on the underside of the aircraft, which is not shown on the published pictures.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Lou

Quote:

This first photo was for the press but one leaked out with the canopy still intact. One leaked out with divers around the plane with the canopy still on. How did a place that was supposedly flying at flight speed crash into the ocean, suffer no damage and still have it's canopy on if the pilots ejected. The fact that it suffered NO DAMAGE is enough to raise more than an eyebrow... But if you enjoy being spoon-fed, you will take the article at face value.

Tried looking at the conspiracy websites and I didn't find a picture? I found claims by others that mached what you say. Unfortunately the same guy claimed wrongly the plane was a single seater. So do you happen to have images.

As for 'no damage' it's fairly amazing. Planes are meant to fly and pilots trained in emergency landings, such as on water. Assuming things were halfway working (eg the plane wasn't tumbling tail over tip) it makes sense there will be a lucky few.

Do you remember this from 2009? Plane crashes into Hudson River The result was 107 people lived with no major injuries and the plane suffered NO DAMAGE. ... So watery crashes with no damage can happen and aren't out of the realm of possibility.

Now if only the Greek Economy could fall so gracefully.

Either the plane fell into the water from a high enough altitude to allow the pilots to have safely ejected and a high enough altitude to have damaged it or the pilots never ejected and the plane was placed casually in the water after it had been disabled.

The Hudson River crash involves a plane that barely got to flight speed and is better designed to float at sea. A Mirage 2000, or any airforce fighter for that matter is not exactly known (nor designed) for such things.

Another tidbit is that this is a French-built plane not English one, so clearly the electrical systems shouldn't have been the issue, right Nimrod?

@Lou

Quote:

Either the plane fell into the water from a high enough altitude to allow the pilots to have safely ejected and a high enough altitude to have damaged it or the pilots never ejected and the plane was placed casually in the water after it had been disabled.

Seems you're artificially limiting the options. Pilots are trained to attempt to regain control of their craft, slow it as much as possible, and do everything they can to make a safe landing. Especially fighter pilots. Governments don't want them trashing millions of dollars of planes at the slightest problem.

One question I had was what would be the minimum height required for a safe ejection. Wikipedia gives some quick answers. 140ft for a ACES II and 660 ft if inverted for a Russian type. The other question would be rate of speed. It appears with the proper gear the maximum plane rate would be 870MPH. Wow! That's cool. Speed of sound is 770MPH so rates above Mach1 are survivable.

I know you want a plane ditched at sea to always be destroyed and pilots killed. We have an example of that not happening. We also have estimates that make the non-destruction unlikely but plausible.

I agree it's impressive the plane wasn't destroyed but it is clearly not impossible.

@Lou

Quote:

Either the plane fell into the water from a high enough altitude to allow the pilots to have safely ejected and a high enough altitude to have damaged it or the pilots never ejected and the plane was placed casually in the water after it had been disabled.

I notice that you discounted the possibility of alien abduction. Well done!
Since the Greeks routinely jail tourists for taking photos near airports, or at airshows, I am only surprised that the papers managed to get any pictures at all. I certainly would not be surprised if it turned out that the paper used pictures from other sources to illustrate the concept of an aircraft underwater.
There is no information about the original problem but the driver and passenger clearly got out and went for a walk. Once there was nobody at the controls, the aircraft flight pattern would default to a spin. I realise that the aircraft in this example is not a mirage, but it is very hard to find footage of warplanes crashing for no apparent reason. The spin characteristic of the mirage is much flatter than that of the F14 Tomcat, which means that it turns quicker but descends more slowly.

Quote:

The Hudson River crash involves a plane that barely got to flight speed and is better designed to float at sea. A Mirage 2000, or any airforce fighter for that matter is not exactly known (nor designed) for such things.

This is quite true. The main reason for this is that very few commercial airliners come fitted with a full complement of Martin-Baker ejection seats for all passengers. A pity really, it would be a great way of enforcing the "no mobile phones" rule

Quote:

Another tidbit is that this is a French-built plane not English one, so clearly the electrical systems shouldn't have been the issue, right Nimrod?

The reason XV230 blew up was age related incontinence. Any comment about electrical faults, static discharge, hot air etc. igniting the fuel are all pure speculation, the key fact being that fuel existed in the bomb bay, where no fuel belonged, and there was evidence of problems in the refuelling system.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Nimrod

Talking about spins makes me think of a easy example that most people can reference. Grab a rock and try to skip it. Grab a different rock and try to not skip it. Between these two you change the angle and force of your arm. Likewise is any crash. Not all crashes happen with the same item, same forces, or same angle of impact.

Thinking explosion of the Mirage is overy simplistic. I'd consider the person with this understanding takes their physics from Hollywood movies instead of the real world.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Either the plane fell into the water from a high enough altitude to allow the pilots to have safely ejected and a high enough altitude to have damaged it or the pilots never ejected and the plane was placed casually in the water after it had been disabled. Seems you're artificially limiting the options. Pilots are trained to attempt to regain control of their craft, slow it as much as possible, and do everything they can to make a safe landing. Especially fighter pilots. Governments don't want them trashing millions of dollars of planes at the slightest problem. One question I had was what would be the minimum height required for a safe ejection. Wikipedia gives some quick answers. 140ft for a ACES II and 660 ft if inverted for a Russian type. The other question would be rate of speed. It appears with the proper gear the maximum plane rate would be 870MPH. Wow! That's cool. Speed of sound is 770MPH so rates above Mach1 are survivable. I know you want a plane ditched at sea to always be destroyed and pilots killed. We have an example of that not happening. We also have estimates that make the non-destruction unlikely but plausible. I agree it's impressive the plane wasn't destroyed but it is clearly not impossible.

Once again things go over your head.
There is evidence that the pilots never ejected in the form of photos when the plane was still under the ocean. They were subsoquently pulled. Pilots are trained to eject and save their own lives, plane-be-damned. Show me the manual that says they are to try to save the plane at all costs.

Yep, you love spoon-feeding.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: Either the plane fell into the water from a high enough altitude to allow the pilots to have safely ejected and a high enough altitude to have damaged it or the pilots never ejected and the plane was placed casually in the water after it had been disabled. I notice that you discounted the possibility of alien abduction. Well done!

Actually, I heard the plane's systems where disabled by a ufo when it was in pursuit and it was gently placed on the ocean surface so that the pilots wouldn't be injured.

Quote:

Quote: Another tidbit is that this is a French-built plane not English one, so clearly the electrical systems shouldn't have been the issue, right Nimrod? The reason XV230 blew up was age related incontinence. Any comment about electrical faults, static discharge, hot air etc. igniting the fuel are all pure speculation, the key fact being that fuel existed in the bomb bay, where no fuel belonged, and there was evidence of problems in the refuelling system.

Actually, I was inferring to the history of British automobiles always having poor electrical wiring but now I see that is not limited to their auto industry.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Nimrod Talking about spins makes me think of a easy example that most people can reference. Grab a rock and try to skip it. Grab a different rock and try to not skip it. Between these two you change the angle and force of your arm. Likewise is any crash. Not all crashes happen with the same item, same forces, or same angle of impact. Thinking explosion of the Mirage is overy simplistic. I'd consider the person with this understanding takes their physics from Hollywood movies instead of the real world.

In this case, I take my physics from the physical picture of the submerged plane with canopy intact.

You take your physics from the hollywood reporting that a government does to cover things up.

@Lou

Quote:

There is evidence that the pilots never ejected in the form of photos when the plane was still under the ocean.

I indicated I did try some searching, especially in the conspiracy websites, I found claims but no image. So again I'll ask if you can you post your link to the source?

Quote:

Yep, you love spoon-feeding.

Really now? How mischaracterizing you can be. Seriously! Instead of trying argue that I should eat your spoon-feeding show us the evidence.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: There is evidence that the pilots never ejected in the form of photos when the plane was still under the ocean. I indicated I did try some searching, especially in the conspiracy websites, I found claims but no image. So again I'll ask if you can you post your link to the source?

I clearly stated the images were leaked then pulled.

Quote:

Quote: Yep, you love spoon-feeding. Really now? How mischaracterizing you can be. Seriously! Instead of trying argue that I should eat your spoon-feeding show us the evidence.

It really doesn't matter. You'll come up with some contrived possibility that will meet *most* of the plausibility criteria, though never quite all of it and deem yourself satisfied that it's "a", and inferring "the", logical answer because things like extra-terrestrial intelligence and government black projects don't exist in your realm of reality.

It's actually rather telling that you will accept this as fact because in many cases hoaxers can be prosecuted. So who would willingly come forward other than a patsy of the government? This is obvious disinformation. The crop circle hoaxsters are obvious disinformation as they can't reproduce a true crop circle, but one that looks *good enough* from the air only.

If you actually investigated the crop circle *phenomenon* you'd see they are still happening and in even more complicated designs...to the point of even answering the message we sent into space.

It's far easier to believe disinformation than accept reality. After all, questioning the powers that be is not allowed and taxes need to be paid and control maintained...

@Lou

Quote:

I clearly stated the images were leaked then pulled.

Did you try way back machine or perhaps even reviewing your browser cache? Just because 1 source pulled them is definitely not a guarantee they don't exist elsewhere.

Wouldn't accepting your word that this unrevealable evidence exists without the evidence itself be 'spoon-fed'? Of course it would.


Quote:

extra-terrestrial intelligence and government black projects don't exist in your realm of reality

Now you're being silly again. I accept both can exist. I simply require preponderance of evidence to give better indication of what happened.

Sorry but when a hoax can be reproduced and crop circles can be reproduced it's clear evidence that ET on a bike isn't needed. It always could be an infinitisimal possibility that ET did it. You never know. ET's are often bored driving around back waters of the universe dressing in tin foil and scaring farmers. Crop circles are probably just another ET stopping by for a college prank.

Taxes, gov mindwashing, babble babble -- guess what Nibiru didn't end the world. -- Unevidenced items are beliefs nothing more. They might happen to be correct but if they are it's through dumb luck.

@Lou

Quote:

You'll come up with some contrived possibility that will meet *most* of the plausibility criteria,

Unlike your own "logic" that will come up with some contrived possibility that will meet none of the plausibility criteria

Quote:

things like extra-terrestrial intelligence and government black projects don't exist in your realm of reality.

Strangely enough, no matter how carefully governments conceal "black" operations, they eventually have to reveal the truth. Eventually things like Plan Red, and Ultra move from top secret to common knowledge. Strangely enough though, an administration that cannot even successfully bug a hotel room, seem able to keep the constant traffic flow of E.T's coming to "probe a redneck" concealed from millions of amateur and professional astronomers worldwide.

Quote:

It's far easier to believe disinformation than accept reality.

How very true.
Just out of curiosity, do you know which is which?

Quote:

After all, questioning the powers that be is not allowed and taxes need to be paid and control maintained...

Well I'm not too sure about that. I know that I do not owe a brass farthing in taxes to Washington, and as far as I am aware, you colonials stopped taking orders from George III a few years ago.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Nimrod

One important start for computing was cryptoanalysis. It's continuing to this day as a 250 year old secret code was recently cracked.

I'd like to see this sort of approach taken with ancient writings to see if the computers can validate, or not, the translations by the professors. For example, Stichin's translations are not backed by the preponderance of evidence and are unable to provide a statisfactory answer for the newer writings that Stichin didn't have available. Seemingly he's wrong. It'd be an interesting addition to see what the computers can say about those writings.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Nimrod One important start for computing was cryptoanalysis. It's continuing to this day as a 250 year old secret code was recently cracked. I'd like to see this sort of approach taken with ancient writings to see if the computers can validate, or not, the translations by the professors. For example, Stichin's translations are not backed by the preponderance of evidence and are unable to provide a statisfactory answer for the newer writings that Stichin didn't have available. Seemingly he's wrong. It'd be an interesting addition to see what the computers can say about those writings.

I read that this morning.
More fuel to the secret society fire that the same conspiracy theorists have been chiming about...

@Lou

Quote:

I read that this morning. More fuel to the secret society fire that the same conspiracy theorists have been chiming about

There is little doubt that people use encryption and try to do things in secret. Some is because they are just paranoid. Some is because they have a reason to be afraid, eg oppressive society. Just because someone believes something exists doesn't mean it does. Nor does belief demonstrate that the group has any real power.

If you haven't played it Illuminati is lots of fun. I still have the original from the 80s and the new version. It let's one play with the ideas on how secret societies must fight against each other to control the world.

Have you seen this yet? Analysis of the Elite The group computer modeled the wealth and companies held around the world. Turns out 1% of the world owns 40%. ... Instead of charging the Rosicrucians as the Elite pulling all the puppet strings. With the advent of powerful computing we can now demonstrate who these people really are. However you better watch out as this work came out of Zurich. You never can be too sure what those Gnomes of Zurich are trying to convince you of.

Last edited by BrianK on 26-Oct-2011 at 04:24 PM.

@BrianK

http://www.defence-point.gr/news/?p=12362

looks on to me...

@Lou

Quote:

http://www.defence-point.gr/news/?p=12362 looks on to me...

Thank you! At least a start of some evidence for review.

I wish the image was as good as the first link you posted. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2007611/Now-thats-I-dive-bomber-Greek-fighter-jet-salvaged-Aegean-sea.html?ITO=1490

There are comparisons to do such as the #s on the plane. In the better shots it's 204. In the newer blurry one it's hard to make out the numbers.

As I try to identify the closed 'canopy' claim I'm comparing the 2nd and 4th images from the link. You'll see there's a hatch behind the seat that's partially opened. If I go to the bad link the wing front hooks in just before the 'canopy' that seems to be closed. If I go back to the good links I can see the wing hooks in just after the open hatch. Unfortunately the bad link is not only blurry but obscures the intake and tip of the plane so it's hard to do a good comparison on the web.

Is it a canopy or a hatch? I checked out other Mirage pictures to see how the canopy pivots. It appears to open backwards with the hinge in the top, middle, back of the canopy. In the blurry pick it looks to me that the 'canopy' is opening at an angle, more like the hatch.

I'm open to others (Nimrod?) and if you have more pictures.

If you find better or other images I'd love to see those too.

@BrianK

Being extremely short sighted, I am used to seeing the world as a blurred image. A careful examination of the image posted by Lou showed the tail number to be 210, the tail to lack the prominent "mini cooper checkerboard" tape near the top, and the aircraft to be a single seater. Knowing that the Greek airforce spends quite a bit of time patrolling over the Mediterranean sea I googled the terms "greek mirage underwater" and got a few hits for a mirage that ditched in 2000. Here's some video from that incident. Recognise anything?

Like I said before, a lazy journalist, using stock images and footage to pad out a non-story got itself inflated by people who see little green men or "them" behind every rock and tree.

Edit:
I just read the article that has the picture that Lou posted. The last paragraph stated
Quote:

Η φωτογραφία που δημοσιεύουμε είναι από την διαδικτυακή σελίδα της Πολεμικής Αεροπορίας και αφορά στην προηγούμενη ανέλκυση από το ΚΟΣΥΘΕ μαχητικού αεροσκάφους Mirage 2000, το οποίο όπως φαίνεται είναι εν πολλοίς άθικτο.

or to put it another way
"The photos published are from the web page of the Air Force and for the previous lifting of the KOSYTHE fighter Mirage 2000, which apparently is largely intact." At least there are some honest journalists who acknowledge using stock images.

Last edited by Nimrod on 27-Oct-2011 at 10:55 AM.
Last edited by Nimrod on 27-Oct-2011 at 09:16 AM.
Last edited by Nimrod on 27-Oct-2011 at 09:14 AM.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Nimrod

Thanks for that information. I threw the Greek into Babelfish and it ended up fairly butchered. Also that video was good to review. It gives us indication that more than 1 Mirage was ditched at sea and more than 1 Mirage had pratically no damage.

One thing I noticed is the lower left side of the rear exhaust is damaged. The good quality pictures on the Daily Mail show no damage to the exhaust. The bad quality pictures in the greek link indeed show the damage in the same spot.

210 for the # may make sense. Last night I had my wife put it in photoshop and play with the contrast. She got 20 made out of it. While it was still a blurry mess it clearly was 0 as the last number.

Someone that knows more than me can probably tell us if the tape should be on both sides? And yes I agree now that you say 1 seater when I look at the blur the ####pit doesn't appear to be large enough to accomodate 2 people. The DailyMirror clearly had two seats.

@Lou
It appears to me there are two planes here. Likely the article came out using some stock footage and then changed to the real plane. Like science we make our best assumption using the data (3 sites) and tools (photoshop, browser) we have at hand. And like science I'm open to more evidence. But hey you know that I've been requesting that for 3 threads.

Now, there's no way to completely eliminate the plane wasn't acted on by some imaginary force which is a property of an imaginary object. We'd need to better evidence to pursue that guess.