The Best Air Race Pilot Ever!!! DEBUNKED!! Redux.

[LLostSoul1976]

Nothing to DEBUNKE was already on tv. Youtube

Making-Of the Killa Thrill 'One Wing Landing' Viral Video

[conversely123]

@LLostSoul1976 You should really look at the dates videos are posted, before you make comments like that.

I made that video THREE YEARS ago, just after the original video was released, and loads of people, including TV stations, believed it to be real.

Also, the YouTube 'Making-Of ..' video you mention, was MADE BY ME, after I tracked down a hidden video, on the website of the company who made the advert. That footage was NEVER shown on TV, unless it was shown AFTER I'd found it online.

[Regalseven]

Its a very gay hoax and prime example of very gay viral marketing!

[RobertWGreaves]

naSZBdJoEbM

add this after the equal sign above for a youtube video

[TheSmiths12345]

@RobertWGreaves You just linked me to another one of my own videos!!! lol

[rockerojuan]

Nice research, but it's more than obvious that the landing of the plane does not follow PHYSICS at all, the plane would have burst into pieces with that sort of violent landing. Someone just wanted to put a video to get views on youtube.

[conversely123]

@rockerojuan Yes, this is well known now, but at the TIME the video was released, opinion was split wether it was real or not. I could see it wasn't, but others wee convinced it was. Even MSN claimed it to be real. This is why I made the video, almost TWO YEARS ago.

Making of video here: /watch?v=naSZBdJoEbM

[rockerojuan]

@conversely123 Ahhh, LOL I just saw it for the first time about a month ago.

[wollmamaguckn]

Hmm. You can simply see that it's fake, by watching the movement of the plane right after touch down: it's mass is obviously little. A real plane's mass would move different, because of its inertia.

[Heathensword65]

its fake. on top of the video stuff. the simple fact is, what kind of retard would even try to fly and land with one wing. with people below. you try to point it away from people and get the hell out.

[shockflyyer3d]

who gives a fuck?

[conversely123]

@shockflyyer3d YOU, obviously, otherwise you'd not have watched the video, or left a comment!

What a dipshit!

ps. I wrote that comment before I knew what you looked like! Now that I know, my comment seems amazingly accurate. My 4 year old daughter can beatbox better than you, loser.

[AFTERSHOCKCEX]

@shockflyyer3d: Why?  Anybody want one?

[killa1172009]

ya this is true, and I'm sure that this plane is a fake because there are no registration numbers on it, but if you'll notice that these pics are taken at diffrent angles, which WILL affect the way the plane is veiwed, but like I said I still think it's a hoax becuase there are no registration numbers on the plane, and this pilot would have been disqualified, and probably have his plane confiscated.

[conversely123]

@killa1172009 I've uploaded the 'making of' video.

Stop 'thinking' that it's fake, and 'know' that it's fake!

watch it here

/watch?v=naSZBdJoEbM

[conversely123]

MAKING OF VIDEO:

/watch?v=naSZBdJoEbM

[mikespulligan]

The 2 aircraft in the pictures are not at the same roll angle. The upper plane is left wing down, the bottom plane is almost level. (Notice the wheel fairings.) This would tend to make the fuselage in the upper photo appear narrower, since it is leaning over a bit. However, now that I look at the wing's leading edge at the root in the lower photo, it does seem closer to the nose than in the upper picture. hmmm...

[conversely123]

@mikespulligan; The roll angle has no effect on the comparisons I've made.

It wouldn't even matter it one plane was at 90 degrees to the other. All of the comparisons are 'vertical' ones, not 'horizontal'.

I made NO referrence to the 'narowness of the fuselage', so I don't know why you're commenting about that.

Go to 'jotzfilm (dot) com' and select the 'making of' tab, then click on the icon showing the plane. You'll see how it was made.

End of the argument, I think? :)

[mikespulligan]

Actually I was just commenting on the photographs, not your opinion and all my comments were valid. But, it's really not important to me one way or the other, I do not care if the video is fake or not. If you want it to be the end of the argument, it's fine with me. Just remember, I was not arguing any of your points, just adding observation to the comments. Have a nice day.

[ge0ffsimm0ns]

Yes the planes in yoru pic look different, tho it could be due to the distortion of a moving object by the low quality video equipment. Your analysis is convincing. . However, I looked at the video again and the plane just before landing looks just like the plane after landing. That's more relevant - it's the moment of landing that looks unbelievable, whether or not the plane at the start of the clip is the same or not.

[conversely123]

@ge0ffsimm0ns Yeah, ok, if you want to believe that it's genuine, then it's genuine.

I'm sick of idiots posting that 'this is wrong, that is wrong, with your analysis' .

The MAKERS of the film have ADMITTED that it's fake. They've released footage of it being faked, it's a FAKE!!!!!

To be honest, I don't really give a shit about this anymore.

[ge0ffsimm0ns]

Sorry to be called an idiot. It's an interesting subject to discuss. I tinnk my post was very polite but you are obviously a stupid character. Go and stick yor head in a bucket of cold sick.

[ge0ffsimm0ns]

Anyway - converesely - do you have a link to the site you mention where they describe how it was done? I'm sure it's a fake but a really good one. Still interested in the way the plane at the start is different but the plane just before landing is the same.

[conversely123]

Go to 'jotzfilm (dot) com' and select the 'making of' tab, then click on the icon showing the plane. You'll see how it was made.

I'll pass on the 'head in a bucket of cold sick', if you don't mind? If it was 'warm' sick, I might have considered it.

[conversely123]

@ge0ffsimm0ns: I've uploaded the 'making of' video.

watch it here

/watch?v=naSZBdJoEbM

[Natalie5316]

conversely123 you should look up a thing called motion blur. Thats what caused the graphic placement shifting in the top photo. You forgot to account for the fact that the plane was moving much faster in the top photo then the bottom.

[conversely123]

Natalie5316: Oh, PLEASE try not to make yourself look stupid!

This has ALREADY been *admitted* as hoax by the makers!

How can 'motion blur' possibly keep the plane the EXACT same length, whilst elongating the nose, altering the position of the graphics, and altering the shape of the plane?

[fatelvis85]

just look it up on Snopes, they tell who the ad was made for.the first time I saw it I could tell it was fake by the cheesy animated landing gear! and the engine sounds go from real to remote controlled

[conversely123]

@Natalie5316 ; Go to 'jotzfilm (dot) com' and select the 'making of' tab, then click on the icon showing the plane. You'll see how it was made.

[cornelSanders]

its under urs

[conversely123]

cornelSanders:

Dude, It's my video, there are LOADS of comments from me.

Be more specific.

I've looked, but I can't see it.

[cornelSanders]

i know it it was computer digital video thats what i commeted

[conversely123]

cornelSanders :

You commented??

Where? I can't see a comment from you.

[crisbianfloyde]

Everyone is so desperate for a conspiracy! Has anyone actually thought of finding the company that is advertised on the plane and contacting them? Or tracking the crafts registration with the relevant authorities? No? why not?

[conversely123]

crisbianfloyde: Lol!

1)No need to 'find' the company. They're not hiding! The more discussion over the video = more interest in their company. They're certainly not going to deny or confirm, are they?

2) Yeah! Your 'registration' idea is brilliant! Let me know the registration of the plane, will you? Because I certainly can't see it anywhere!

Watch the video before commenting, please! You'll see that I already mentioned that there was NO registration on the plane!

It's a FAKE!

[SigChi725]

Why would you even bother making this. Everyone knows its a fake.

[conversely123]

SigChi725: Check the date it was uploaded, dope!

When I made it, there were HUGE arguments between the real/fake camps. It had been shown on tv as a 'real landing', and featured on MSN as real.

Maybe you should read some of the threads from November, to see my point.

Now that everyone knows that it's fake, it's so easy to come on here and make the comment you made.

Why would you even bother wasting your time making such a redundant comment, unless you're simply flaming, of course?

[SigChi725]

Let me rephrase, anyone who can see the computer screen or watch the actual video can tell its fake. If you know anything about aviation you can easily tell the video is a fraud.

oh and the side view shots which you compare 'both' airplanes are not from the same angle, therefore where the canopy appears to begin and end will be different and the apparent distance will be letters and the canopy will appear different.

You should probably fix that

[conversely123]

Well if you searched Google for the general concensus of opinion at the time, you'd see that it was pretty much split 50/50. I could see that it was a fake, but others, including PILOTS, swore that it was genuine.

Understand this before you come back at me

The planes are PERFECTLY side on to the camera, with one being rolled slightly with the left wing down by a few degrees. This would NOT affect the position of the plane graphics, the length of the nose, or the placement of the canopy.

[Pwnzistor]

I think that your follow the lines explanation is a bit off, but I agree that it is CGI, very good CGI work at that, I can tell that it is fake due to the flight dynamics, hard to explain but a real airplane would not act as this one did.

[conversely123]

Pwnzistor; my explanation is 'off' in what respect??

It's easy enough to follow the lines from two identically sized plane profiles.

What about it is wrong?

[Pwnzistor]

You would see different things from different angles, just because one thing is visible while the airframe is pointing one way, a slight variation would show a significant difference especially at the virtual camera's distance. As this is CGI, the same model would be used the entire clip.

[conversely123]

Look at the lettering on the side. Look where the word 'thrill' ends in relation to the canopy above.

One 'thrill' ends before the canopy starts, and the other 'thrill' almost touches the canopy.

Both planes are 100% side-on to the camera, with the top plane being rolled left by a few degrees. This doesn't alter the dimensions of the side of the plane. There are 2 planes used in the clip.

Btw, the only use of cgi is the landing sequence. The rest of the video is a real and model plane.

[artdever]

At the end the pilot opens the cockpit canopy and steps out of the plane labeled as a "model". it 1) has no white striping, 2) does not have a raised instrument panel, 3) has the same wheel nacelles that are on the wingless plane and 4)has the same short wing to propeller distance proportions. I still think its a fake but a lot of the ideas used as evidence just aren't so. In other words, somehow he climbs out of the model plane.

[conversely123]

artdever: The pilot never steps out of the plane. He leans an arm out, but that's it. You can't measure the wing to prop distance at that angle. I never raise the white stripe, as it could be a reflective detail. I never raise the instrument panel question either. Maybe the cockpit area is matted on in the last shot? I don't know HOW it was done, just that there are definately 2 planes, and it's definately a fake.

[artdever]

Conversely123. Your'e right. the white stripe, wheel nacell and raised cockpit are issues brought up by other debunkers. This would have been a better fake had they not shown a real GilesG-300 at all. The best part though is the final few frames where the pilot opens the canopy of the model, "starts" to get out and a man runs toward the plane.

[conversely123]

artdever: I' glad that you brought up the Giles G-300 issue! There is no G-300 in this video at all. The one & only 'real' Giles G-300 crashed & was destroyed in 2005, killing the pilot, so, given that the video is purported to have been recorded this year (2008), is yet another nail in the coffin of this fake. The one 'real' G-300 never ever had 'KillaThrill' advertising.

It's amazing what CG effects you can acheive on a low budget. Nothing surprises me these days!

[captsaja]

YES IT is fake, watch closely the last moments of landing especially the tail bit, the video has been doctored no doubt, I am a pilot and i can tell you the only plane ever that managed to land with part of the wing sheared off was an F15 which belonged to the Israeli Air force, a tech team was dispatched from the US to report on the incident and found that the sheer engine power of the F15 enabled the pilot to fly just like a rocket thus was able to land.

[planeboy737]

Totally Fake but ppl think its real! Numptys

[glpxt]

The funny part is that all those imperfections were included by purpose to heat the discussion and make the rumor spread even more rapidly! Well done, guys!

[conversely123]

It's the trolling idiots who claimed that they 'were there', of their 'dad's friend was the pilot', and the real life pilots who guaranteed that it was 'genuine' footage, who now look like idiots, and rightly so!

[wadefan1508]

Yes it is a fake. I have seen it on the german show Galileo

[Burak8521]

lol warum macht ihr den fake kaputt ey

[nomis220]

its a fake from the stupid garman tv shoe galileo.

[xischt]

es kommt gerade im fernsehen :)

[blokq]

yep it's a fake from galileo a german tv show.

[FaNaTiC91344]

yeap i seen it to xD rly cool....so guys THIS IS FAKE!!! a rumor rom a german tv show!

[theDaftman]

see this

watch?v=SsNIhBlyepc&feature=re­lated

[theDaftman]

Well the strangest thing to me is this plane was attending an air show but only one camera got it on film. To me that in its self makes it a fake.

[conversely123]

theDaftman: That's another one of the fake rumours about this film. The pilots official site' claims that it was at an 'air race practice session'. That statement of theirs gets around the argument you mention. Convenient, eh? ;)

[nerdlnose]

The pilot interview went bad...that dude could never pull such a stunt off in reality. Probably has never flown an airplane of any kind. Good try....and good observations by the viewers..

[Dimpyz]

This took me in! But what's compelling is the emotion and not the facts. It looks like the real plane is a GILES G-202 but they used a G-300 R/C model. There's loads of these around, but why not use a GILES G-202 model? I think they had both for advertising and it just occured to them that a stunt could be pulled.

[osty123]

I cant believe anyone could have even slightly been sucked in by this! Truely stupid! Cool vid though, good for a laugh:-)

[conversely123]

Something else I've just found out.

Apparently when the video was first posted on YouTube, James Anderssons website actually used the Red Bull logo, stated that he WAS a Red Bull pilot, and gave his riduculous placings of 14th, 15th & 24th, when there are only ever 12 pilots in the race series.

This info has since been removed from his site, probably because of a complaint from Red Bull Air Race themselves.

Another nail in the coffin of this fake.

[hurklinz]

yes it's a fake and the jerks that did this should die.

[Hiawatha999]

At 0:08 in the original video, there appears to be a black object where the dashboard is located.

At 1:01 in the original video, it appears the dashboard inside the cockpit is completely empty. Is this possible?

[conversely123]

Hiawatha999: Correct!

Watch Kauzmic's video, & he mentions that.

/watch?v=J72y_qFV2oc

[1morphohelena1]

One more proof: The half roll before landing is MISSING!!

[krazykipa]

Shall I say again:

Bottom picture is taken from closer, hence the plane is bigger and does not fit the top picture BECAUSE THE PICTURE IS BIGGER

[conversely123]

krazykipa: IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE!!

The measurements from nose to wing are different. The distance has no bearing. The ratio of nose to wing would remain the same.

Look at the difference of the cockpits! One is BEHIND the wing, one is OVER it.

Look at the KillaThrill logo on the side of the planes in relation to the cockpit. One ends FAR closer to the cockpit than the other.

The argument has NOTHING to do with the SIZE of the planes, but with the DIFFERENCES between them.

[anooseholay]

Do you really even need to make these arguments? Any moron can tell from the 1980's graphics used at the end of the video that it is fake. God, how cheesy!

[conversely123]

krazykipa: Did you WATCH my video?

BOTH planes are RESIZED to EXACTLY the SAME size.

No plane is BIGGER.