Typhoon....call sign Havoc.

I'm on the same hill today so I'll respond to your pm tonight.perhaps a admin would also like one just to be impartial?
 
*psssst* Pass the popcorn.....

Watching with interest, but would say I love the images regardless. Bring on the proof :)
 
Mr Jones, I have no idea where you have concocted this idea that it is the same jet on both images. As with any other fast moving object, it is taken with a burst and if you're lucky, you'll end up with a number of similar-looking images - sometimes in focus - while the object passes through. To make my point, please look at the external fuel tanks on the underside of both wings. You will see that the fins on the back are in different positions in both shots, as well as the front of the tanks appearing different thus proving that the images are not composite!

If you were to ever visit the loop and indeed view from Cad East, you would understand the direction of aircraft. This isn't a simple case of panning right to left. The aircraft approach from in front of you and then make a subtle turn to the right so any indication of motion blur is lost as you're not really panning that much at this stage. As the photo is taken at 1/1600th anyway, motion blur is going to be pretty minimal anyway.

I do wonder when you say you've been doing 'this kind of work' for 20 years but have difficulty in sending a PM. . . . .
 
Ian W said:
*psssst* Pass the popcorn.....

Watching with interest, but would say I love the images regardless. Bring on the proof :)
Click to expand...

I like your response, as I too like the images, has nothing to do with the IQ. Its all about calling it what it is. I did a geometric layout that poses the question, even though the OP states they are not composites, I can prove they are with simple lines drawn between fixed symmetrical points to create an x-y that will match both images. This indicates (plus what I said about the cockpit) That they are composite pictures. There is just to much evidence to support my claim.

I will be glad to bring it on, that said, I'm in the middle of two concurrent litigations and my computer is giving me attitude on the video side. My sound isn't working on the video capture. I may be able to find a workaround as I'm anxious to show my forensic work. :police:
 
Richard C. Jones said:
I have done my homework using lines of reference leaving only one possible conclusion, its the same jet image composed on different backgrounds. I make the claim based on irrefutable geometrical reference that puts both images of the jet at exactly the same rate of bank. While not impossible, it is a probability I would think would have odds of millions to one. There is no doubt in my mind that these are composites and the OP says they are not. I am so certain of this, and is why I have no reservations in making my claim. I also will have no reservations to promptly, with appropriate humility, apologise if proven wrong.:help:
Click to expand...

I suggest it's time to apologise.

Based on the fact the jet is travelling at a closing speed of approximately 843ft/sec and Rob is using a camera with a burst rate of 6fps, it is perfectly conceivable the jet had traveled 140.5 linear feet thus with the elevated position of Cad East at approx. 600ft distance camera to object, the background terrain would have altered by up to as much as 300ft hence before and after the same road.

Furthermore the Flickr data states a shutter speed of 1/1600sec which is more than adequate to freeze the image.

Considering also the aircraft is on a continual turn into the valley I wouldn't expect much variation in the aircrafts attitude in 0.16666 of a second.

You need to get out into the mountains to understand.

Composite my arse!!
 
LJMJ said:
Mr Jones, I have no idea where you have concocted this idea that it is the same jet on both images. As with any other fast moving object, it is taken with a burst and if you're lucky, you'll end up with a number of similar-looking images - sometimes in focus - while the object passes through. To make my point, please look at the external fuel tanks on the underside of both wings. You will see that the fins on the back are in different positions in both shots, as well as the front of the tanks appearing different thus proving that the images are not composite!

If you were to ever visit the loop and indeed view from Cad East, you would understand the direction of aircraft. This isn't a simple case of panning right to left. The aircraft approach from in front of you and then make a subtle turn to the right so any indication of motion blur is lost as you're not really panning that much at this stage. As the photo is taken at 1/1600th anyway, motion blur is going to be pretty minimal anyway.

I do wonder when you say you've been doing 'this kind of work' for 20 years but have difficulty in sending a PM. . . . .
Click to expand...

I knew the hate mail would start. How about helping this retard out and tell me how to send a PM, I have never had the need on this particular forum. BTW the OP states it's the same jet in an earlier post. It not hard to tell if you look close enough, but that's not the issue. The issue is that in two different places (camera point of view) the jets are in exactly the same attitude. Not likely unless the same image was applied to a different background. I hope this is not too difficult to understand. I know Rob does.
 
Last edited:
How about keeping your mouth shut and not upsetting talented photographers?

And you're surprised people are p***ed at you?

FFS
 
Click on my name and then start a conversation option.
Send me your email
 
Sent you a message,just respond with your email address
 
Kelvin Sullivan said:
I suggest it's time to apologise.

Based on the fact the jet is travelling at a closing speed of approximately 843ft/sec and Rob is using a camera with a burst rate of 6fps, it is perfectly conceivable the jet had traveled 140.5 linear feet thus with the elevated position of Cad East at approx. 600ft distance camera to object, the background terrain would have altered by up to as much as 300ft hence before and after the same road.

Furthermore the Flickr data states a shutter speed of 1/1600sec which is more than adequate to freeze the image.

Considering also the aircraft is on a continual turn into the valley I wouldn't expect much variation in the aircrafts attitude in 0.16666 of a second.

You need to get out into the mountains to understand.

Composite my arse!!
Click to expand...

Actually I do understand, as a retired commercial pilot (civil not military) I understand the principals of flight and advanced geometry, both of these disciplines I applied in order to come up with my opinion.
BTW I live in the prairies not the mountains, again you fail with your assumptions. Only Rob knows what he did to these pictures for sure, and he's not yet provided any evidence that my opinion is not valid. I am convinced by the math, not what I am told. :beer:
 
No need to get nasty or the mods to close it down fellas. Let's see this through to conclusion as I will lose sleep over this if I don't see proof one way or another [emoji1]
 
GreenNinja67 said:
How about keeping your mouth shut and not upsetting talented photographers?

And you're surprised people are p***ed at you?

FFS
Click to expand...

I have a low threshold for Bull. I do however admire his work as he does very well at this composite thing. So how do you know people are p***ed with me? I'm curious to know.
 
I'm on the phone to Hollywood. I think we can get a mini series out of the - ' A storm in a teacup named Havoc'
 
Totally wrong mr Jones ,if you look at the bottom fuel tank of the plane you will see that the fin in the bottom shot leaves the edge of the wing but is inside the periphery in the first photo ,ergo these are two separate shots from a burst ,I think the illusion you might be suffering from is that I believe the bottom shot was taken first and the top shot (nearer) taken after .this is based on years of experience shooting birds in flight using burst modes .

PS where do I send the crow :banana::banana::banana:
 
Richard C. Jones said:
It is good work, very skilled, the geometry though is a dead giveaway. I at no time called them crap images, I called them composites and will be glad to prove it with a video of the process. Logic alone cannot be denied the angles and geometry are exactly the same regardless of the change in scale. But the PP is very skilled although the OP was defeated by not knowing what he doesn't know. We are all in that same boat, but with different levels of knowledge.

If the OP can provide irrefutable graphic proof that I am wrong, then I will apologise, in fact I will do more than that. I went through a similar experience in this forum and was by insinuation accused of messing with a landscape, supposedly combining two images. I had the RAW files to prove that was not the case. I offered to provide them but changed my mind when I was not able to make a copy of the DNG file. If someone can tell me how that is done, I will be most grateful. I'm not on a witch hunt here, just like to deal with togs on a level of trust that I expect to receive with regard to my work. If I create a composite, that's what I call it.
Click to expand...
Can I have what you smoke ;-)
 
As I said I'm on the same hill now as I was when they were taken last Thursday...
I'd appreciate it if you would stop calling them composite.the RAW images will sent tonight when I'm home.
 
Quite why anyone would go to so much effort to try and discredit these pictures is beyond me and on the face of it, seem quite sad.
What does Rob stand to gain from it.
I'm very suspicious that you can do all that math in order to discredit a photograph but you cant figure out basic internet forum tasks and have lots of excuses for not posting your so called 'evidence'
 
the black fox said:
Totally wrong mr Jones ,if you look at the bottom fuel tank of the plane you will see that the fin in the bottom shot leaves the edge of the wing but is inside the periphery in the first photo ,ergo these are two separate shots from a burst ,I think the illusion you might be suffering from is that I believe the bottom shot was taken first and the top shot (nearer) taken after .this is based on years of experience shooting birds in flight using burst modes .

PS where do I send the crow :banana::banana::banana:
Click to expand...

"shooting birds in flight using burst modes" BIF hardly matches JIF. "PS where do I send the crow" I'll send it to your house!:coat:

"I think the illusion you might be suffering from" What, me suffer, wait 'till I get my dog and pony show together. BTW your burst theory doesn't hold up as the background would be close to the same to have both images in the exact same point of view. Take both images and stack them at the same scale, then drop the opacity on the top one and see how they match. Also study the backgrounds. the shape and attitude match too closely to be reality. I'm starting to think from all the poison pen letters that this all may be above the pay grade of too many. :runaway:
 
Last edited:
J40ADF said:
Quite why anyone would go to so much effort to try and discredit these pictures is beyond me and on the face of it, seem quite sad.
What does Rob stand to gain from it.
I'm very suspicious that you can do all that math in order to discredit a photograph but you cant figure out basic internet forum tasks and have lots of excuses for not posting your so called 'evidence'
Click to expand...

I just took care of that, but that's the first time I responded to a PM, so I'm not familiar with the task protocol.
"why anyone would go to so much effort to try and discredit these pictures is beyond me" When I ask a simple question, I get a little rattled when I already know the answer but hear something that doesn't square. We need to be concerned with our art form from the perspective that we can believe an artists work is genuine. There's a big fad now with painters and particularly in landscape, who run prints from photos on canvas (Giclees) then paint over them in oils or acrylics and pass them of as original paintings and not disclosing how they are produced which is fraud in anyone's language. "and have lots of excuses for not posting your so called 'evidence' Read my post I explained why I cant post my evidence because I cant include any audio in the video, I have to fix that as I already explained in detail. I already made the video and was doing the commentary but it did not record. Besides, the longer I take, the more people will get gob smacked. Just keep those cards and letters coming. :LOL:
 
Last edited:
Richard C. Jones said:
Actually I do understand, as a retired commercial pilot (civil not military) I understand the principals of flight and advanced geometry, both of these disciplines I applied in order to come up with my opinion.
BTW I live in the prairies not the mountains, again you fail with your assumptions. Only Rob knows what he did to these pictures for sure, and he's not yet provided any evidence that my opinion is not valid. I am convinced by the math, not what I am told. :beer:
Click to expand...

In respect I didn't make any reference or assumption as to where you lived nor in any specific kind of environment, I merely stated you need to get up into the mountains where Rob took the photos to appreciate how the natural terrain, lines and geometry work and why therefore the shots are not composite!
 
Fantastic images.

Could everyone remain civil though please, I'm sure I'm not alone in wanting to see this through to its conclusion. Bookmarked this thread, destined to be a classic!
 
Richard C. Jones said:
I have done my homework using lines of reference leaving only one possible conclusion, its the same jet image composed on different backgrounds. I make the claim based on irrefutable geometrical reference that puts both images of the jet at exactly the same rate of bank. While not impossible, it is a probability I would think would have odds of millions to one. There is no doubt in my mind that these are composites and the OP says they are not. I am so certain of this, and is why I have no reservations in making my claim. I also will have no reservations to promptly, with appropriate humility, apologise if proven wrong.:help:
Click to expand...

I am missing something here? It's the same background! The drain at the side of the road in the first image is just off the tip of the nose cone of the jet and in the second image is clearly visible behind the jet therefore the second image is the preceding image of the sequence! The bend in the road can also be seen beginning at the bottom of the first image and clearly prominent in the second image.

Also the in camera numbering system has the top image as DSC_0815 and the bottom image as DSC_0814 also correct when predicting the flight path and linear change of circa 141ft at approx 500 knots!
 
And not to mention the glaringly obvious point that the Typhoon is in no way identical in both shots. In the bottom photo 3 of the 4 rear 'winglets' (not sure what they're called) of both the bottom and top external fuel tanks appear to overlap the rear edge of the wing. In the top shot...none of them do.
 
Last edited:
Richard C. Jones said:
leaving only one possible conclusion, its the same jet image composed on different backgrounds. I make the claim based on irrefutable geometrical reference that puts both images of the jet at exactly the same rate of bank.
Click to expand...

Can you explain this, then? Compositing the images, even distorting them to change the perspective, would not change the overlap on the rear fuel tank fins from photo to photo...

dbtf9i.jpg
243osgi.jpg
 
Last edited:
Richard C. Jones said:
When I ask a simple question, I get a little rattled when I already know the answer but hear something that doesn't square.
Click to expand...

But you obviously DON'T already know the answer or are not prepared to accept that your theories are wrong.
As others have pointed out there are clear differences in both pictures and the raw data from the camera cannot lie and even if they could I don't see why anyone would want to go to so much trouble to try and cover their tracks by editing frame numbers?
I await the outcome of this.
 
It's genuinely painful watching Richard continue to dig himself into an even deeper hole.

It's the same plane, two consecutive shots (unless rename as they are DSC_0814 / 815) and very well caught. Thumbs up to Rob for the captures and omg Richard i've subbed just to see your grovelling apology that should be coming later after you have the RAW files.
 
Can somebody please mail a step ladder to Richard? Make it a tall one.
 
Richard,

The reason I asked rob his location was due to the fact I recognised that view.. It could only be from cad east...
You can search for images taken from that location. The jets are banked away from you for a while as they traverse along a narrow section between the mountains.

It's not my favourite location unless you can park at the top - rarely......

But it does provide an interesting view...
 
I suggest Richard needs to do his homework before opening his mouth.. Search, Mach Loop = low level aircraft... Then search Mach loop popular locations,=
Cad West = left to right topside. Cad east.. Right to left bottomside, Then when you've eaten enough humble pie, I really suggest making a public apology to Rob..!
 
I immediately thought the location was Cad East. Part of the potential confusion might be because the two images are posted here in reverse order chronologically (and frame number confirms this). There are a number of clear differences between the two shots, certainly enough to totally rule out Richard's theory that it's the same shot of the aircraft composited onto different backgrounds.
 
Kelvin Sullivan said:
I am missing something here? It's the same background! The drain at the side of the road in the first image is just off the tip of the nose cone of the jet and in the second image is clearly visible behind the jet therefore the second image is the preceding image of the sequence! The bend in the road can also be seen beginning at the bottom of the first image and clearly prominent in the second image.

Also the in camera numbering system has the top image as DSC_0815 and the bottom image as DSC_0814 also correct when predicting the flight path and linear change of circa 141ft at approx 500 knots!
Click to expand...

I am missing something here? YES! This is the same jet as stated by Rob. How did he manage to get from the opposite side of the road to his last sequence when the jet is doing somewhere around 400 knots. He was according to the background on one side of the road, then in the next frame is on the opposite side. Its all in the angles folks! If these images (and I have no reason to doubt you Kelvin) are only one frome apart, then how is it possible to get two frames in sequence with a camera position that is plainly some yards apart. Its just not possible. Thanks Kelvin for the frame sequence info, that was very helpful.:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top