Typhoon....call sign Havoc.

simon ess said:
Rob. If I were you I'd forget about this thread now and move on.

It's not worth the hassle.
Click to expand...

(y) the only reason to keep this live would be for "Mr Dick can't be wrong" to apologise - but we all know that isn't going to happen,
 
For anyone with enough energy to still be following this thread, take a look at the following link to view Typhoons through the same valley as the OP's shots. Around 46 - 47 seconds you can see the same bends in the road and given the fact pilots fly varying lines and the hill the OP was shooting from is a continual gradient with MANY vantage points its not hard to understand how he managed the shots. It should also give RCJ the opportunity to understand how the jets travel through the valley entrance and why they do not fly on geometrically straight lines with precise angled turns ;-)

View: https://youtu.be/uEKkKj3bn8Y
 
I've got to say, full marks to Richard for his detailed analysis. That is not saying I agree with him, just full marks for trying!

BUT: Just to cover it I think he has a number of issues
1) The trajectory of the aircraft is not in line with its axis.
I would not expect this given it is in a highly banked turn.
You also appear to suggest that, even if it was a tight radius turn, the Z axis (relating to the aircraft) separation has changed. Trouble is, I very much doubt it will be a constant radius turn at that point so I would kind of expect that.....
So, sorry Richard, I think that is a red herring.
2) The height of the aircraft is not what has been estimated.
A non issue imho. It is just an estimate and notoriously hard to do. I think the min height allowed there is something like 250 feet but someone will probably correct me if I am wrong.
Also, I suspect perspective etc makes it very likely that Richard's height estimates are way off anyway.
3) The car position
This confuses me. Richard appears to be taking the car as seen in the 2nd frame and stating it should be in the same place in the 1st frame?
It looks to me like there is no car in the 1st frame (ie hidden by the aircraft) and it is present in the 2nd one. Hence, I would of thought that in the first frame somewhere earlier up the road, ie hidden by the left wing of the aircraft?
You might need to explain that one again to me Richard.
4) The anomalies in "editing".
Here I am also confused. Is this with the raw or the final image. If the raw (which I assume as the car appears cropped out in the edited versions!) then the only issues I can see are:
a) edge/sharpening halos.
Here you must consider that, while these are normally seen as editing artifacts, they are still visible when viewing a raw image. Not least because the raw image still needs to be manipulated for viewing - otherwise it will have a very odd bayer colour pattern ;)
b) the anomaly of the white line in the road.
This one is indeed odd. But if it is being shown from the raw file then it must be there surely?
Unless you think Rob has a way of editing and saving a file as a nef raw? Maybe that is possible? I don't know. But I still prefer to think it is an odd optical affect due to very dramatic changes in air pressure over the tab.

So, in summary, not quite there yet Richard.
Rob, out of curiosity I'd love to know if that white line anomaly is present in the raw or that is indeed just on the jpg version? Can you also confirm I am right that Richard must have used the raw files if he has pictures with a car in it?
 
Kelvin Sullivan said:
For anyone with enough energy to still be following this thread, take a look at the following link to view Typhoons through the same valley as the OP's shots.
Click to expand...

nice - also answers my question from earlier about whether they low level over the lake
 
robmac said:
They are two different images processed and cropped slightly different.there is no smoking gun to find because they are NOT COMPOSITE...Richard would see that if opened up the two RAW files and just looked at them as they came out of the camera!.
Click to expand...

Don't doubt you for a minute, the question I ask is Why would you even consider doing it, making a composite I mean............

But that slippage or what ever is interesting.

I put it down to you turning with the aircraft, thus a slightly different perspective.

Especially good shots after climbing Cader

Mj:):):olympus:
 
As you can see the line over the white lines is a normal thing.i don't know the reason for this...I'm just a togger
 
Last edited:
theres definitely not a car in the images on page 1 - so i guess Richard is indeed using the images that he said he couldn't open :thinking:
 
robmac said:
As you can see the line over the white lines is a normal thing.i don't the reason for this...I'm just a togger
Click to expand...

I think its to do with the jet heating the air as it cuts through it - something moving that fast will create heat from friction in the surrounding air (you see it on high speed photographs of bullets etc as well)

ETA - no ignore me Hugh has the right of it with it being vortexes - which is why they are most pronounced at the wing tips

that is a stonking picture btw (the new one i mean)
 
Last edited:
robmac said:
As you can see the line over the white lines is a normal thing.i don't the reason for this...I'm just a togger
Click to expand...

Is this the 'artefact' referred to at about 12:50 in the video? I think its an effect caused by the vortexes generated from the trim tabs on the plane. If you look closely its visible on your other photo too, only not nearly so apparent on account of it not dissecting a white line below. Seems perfectly natural to me
 
Norkie said:
Wish I was a fighter jet pilot :)
Click to expand...

ditto - though with my crappy sight and reactions i'd probably fly straight into cad east ;)
 
Vortex distortion without hot air....... In both directions too....... Would you Adam and Eve it.....
 

Attachments

  • 26596012625_6a39a81d8e_o.jpg
    26596012625_6a39a81d8e_o.jpg
    111.7 KB · Views: 51
robmac said:
As you can see the line over the white lines is a normal thing.i don't know the reason for this...I'm just a togger
Click to expand...

I am used to seen vortices on wingtips and tabs, I was just surprised how much effect it has on that white line. So I was wondering if it had been enhanced by editing (much in the way exhaust jelly is often enhanced). That said, looking at it again, it is clearly looks like refraction caused by the very different air pressures round that tab, I can see it in both images, I guess it is just the high contrast background that is exaggerating it.

EDIT: Thanks to Kelvin for his image also showing it. So is that all of Richards theories clearly disproved?
 
Last edited:
there was some b*****ks about the sheep - but it didnt make a lot of sense
 
brman said:
I think the sheep were just being used as a reference for where the car was. But given the car bit didn't make sense in general..........
Click to expand...

ahh yes the car that's only visible in the raw files ... the same raw files that Mr Jones claims not to be able to open..

(after this tour de farce I will have difficulty believing anything he says)
 
Great shots Rob. Some real tripe has muddied this thread - I got bored at page 2 and skipped here to page 11 to comment. I find it interesting that your original detractor was using his (civilian) pilot credentials to discuss a photography technique. Surely the two are mutually exclusive (although I've blurred the line in the past).

For me, there are three things to come from this thread:

1. Great photography as always mate.

2. A troll, regardless of how polite he is, is still a troll. Probably best not to engage in future. You're way above that and your outstanding photos speak volumes.

3. I'm surprised by how quickly things turned personal, risking to derail Robs great thread, risking having the thread pulled and that would have denied people the opportunity to enjoy these awesome photographs.
 
robmac said:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzu7bU8uFTPrS0hDYnNJSWN0N1E/view?usp=drive_web
Click to expand...

OK, I've only watched 8.29 minutes of the video because I'm losing the will to live already but here are my observations. The accuser first said he was a retired commercial pilot and then changed it to "retired from civil aviation", so I've no idea whether he's flown planes or not but I have: microlights, ultra-lights, fixed wing single engine, aerobatic, sea planes and I have CPL theory, too. Planes fly within air masses which themselves are moving. When a plane. particularly a high speed jet banks like that it's trajectory and movement in flight is not limited to one axis. So as the plane in the image banked to the right it would still have some movement toward the camera, meaning I see nothing that would suggest that the nose is in the wrong place. Likewise with the car, no assumptions can be made on where that car should or should not be since we have no idea what it's speed was. It could well have braked upon seeing the jets or it could be simply that it's speed caused it to be positioned so.

Sometimes when people have a given agenda and simply work to disprove, rather than look at the facts with an open mind, they begin to imagine things that simply aren't there, calculate things which don't make sense and utterly disregard the simple truths that are right there in front of them.
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
That is certainly the charitable interpretation - however on another thread he claimed to have Capture one version 9 which definitely ought to be able to open NEFs from a 7200

being less of a nice bloke than you I suspect the reason he can't open your NEFs is the same reason he mysteriously couldn't find the DNG he was asked for on the Haida Gwai thread...ie that he doesnt want to, and bulls***ting about it is easier on his ego than just admitting and apologising
Click to expand...

Hey, the guy can't even work out how to message someone... What hope of opening a raw file or knowing what one is?
 
cambsno said:
Hey, the guy can't even work out how to message someone... What hope of opening a raw file or knowing what one is?
Click to expand...

he definitely knows what one is - he had a whole big shouty fit about sending one out when someone accused him of image manipulation (Haida Gwai #2) .. admittedly when his bluff was called he then "couldn't find it" ( :LOL: )
 
I watched the ridiculous video as far as the bit when he waffled on about altitude, so the height set alarm bells ringing, as the planes should be at a minimum of 500ft, but they look like they're at 250ft?

Jeez, could the draw of the Mach Loop be that it's a low level training path and they fly at 250ft?
 
KitsuneAndy said:
I watched the ridiculous video as far as the bit when he waffled on about altitude, so the height set alarm bells ringing, as the planes should be at a minimum of 500ft, but they look like they're at 250ft?

Jeez, could the draw of the Mach Loop be that it's a low level training path and they fly at 250ft?
Click to expand...

500ft is the minimum for civil aviation, not military.
 
WingTsun said:
500ft is the minimum for civil aviation, not military.
Click to expand...

indeed - isn't there somewhere south of Mach where RAF are sometimes cleared down to 100ft ?

also the way in which he calculates the altitude is deeply dubious... in his early post before all the b*****ks kicked off Rob estimated that these were at about 600ft over the road
 
Wow and I thought wedding threads bought out the biggest clowns but this is on another level!

Cracking pics though, love jets and I'm quite jealous of your fake photos :LOL:
 
big soft moose said:
indeed - isn't there somewhere south of Mach where RAF are sometimes cleared down to 100ft ?

also the way in which he calculates the altitude is deeply dubious... in his early post before all the b*****ks kicked off Rob estimated that these were at about 600ft over the road
Click to expand...

Yep. These boys need to fly low. They get clearance for it. It's normally 250ft across the UK but mid-Wales has lower limits.
 
yeah we get them through here (blackdown hills on the devon/somerset border) mostly Hercs but some fast jets too - I'd have said the sometimes the hercs are a lot lower than 250 (not that i mind - these boys need to train after all)
 
Last edited:
Richard thanks for preparing the video. Unsurprisingly, I don't agree with most of your findings.

In the first image (Frame 814), the wing mirror of the car can be seen sticking out of the leading edge of the wing between the drop tank and the fuselage. By the time the next frame is taken (Frame 815), the aircraft has moved forwards and has slipped longitudinally as one would expect when banking to right at 5 to 6G. Meanwhile the car has moved to where the nose of the aircraft was in 814.

In your video, you make no mention of the inevitable changes in perspective that will have occurred as Rob panned the camera. Simply drawing a straight 2D line through what is a 3D space, doesn't get you the correct fligh path for the aircraft. And in any case, as mentioned above the aircraft will slip away to some extent.

The distortion of the double line markings on the road are in my view an optical effect caused by a vortex produced by the fin behind the main canard.

Your assessment of the altitude at 250ft though is about right in my opinion, with Rob standing on top of a hill that is about 400ft above the road.

Composites? I don't buy that at all. There is no need to do that when you can shoot images like it all day long if you're there, have the skill and the planes turn up. No motive to do it.

You really should apologise to Rob. Your accusations are unworthy of this forum.
 
Last edited:
Richard, your theory is akin to trying to force a square peg in a round hole. It doesn't fit. The real evidence has been staring at you in the face all along. The two separate images with differing embedded metadata. There was never a composite image and you have changed your theories as new information has become available. You did state that you were going to apologise, it's probably time to put your hands up and submit a humble apology.
 
Unfortunately he is not going to apologise so on his behalf I will.

Sorry @robmac Richard was very wrong. Now can we put this to bed and Rob please start to post his latest shots. :)

No point in constantly asking for an apology from the troll because it won't be forthcoming nor worth getting upset by him as he clearly has no understanding of physics or flying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top