I suspect that there would be hundreds if not thousands of people reporting they thought they saw him or his aircraft. So it would be not surprising for there to be more than one report from a given area. Therefore there may be hundreds or thousands of so-called confirmed sightings.

I find the claims an article to be suspect. How did the alleged California Highway Patrol man identify the plane as Steve Fossett’s, or is the media embellishing the story? Did the highway patrolman get tail number of aircraft? Or like many did they just assume at a later date after hearing the story that it might have been Fossett’s airplane. I bet John Q. public couldn’t tell the difference between a piper cub and the decathlon without some education, and I don’t think the average person’s memory is that good. About the only way that I would believe the claim is if the officer took the tail number, or was such a fanatical aviation aficionado and fan of Fossett that he knew Fossett’s aircraft and tail number. I think an aviation aficionado might be able to recognize and distinguish a decathlon, however I am skeptical of the odds that the California Highway patrolman that allegedly saw this would by chance be able to recognize and remember the type of aircraft. I doubt a highway patrolman would remember the tail number of the aircraft unless it was doing something suspect and was able to see it well enough to take the tail number and log it.

It sounds very confabulated and suspicious.

Words of wisdom.

Even if i did post the original article link, your logic have made me reconsider.

Good points but censorship is a whole new can or worms. For instance, if I use the following words on this forum: ****, ****, ********, **** – there is a very good chance that they’ll be censored yet I can hear them on any football terrace, high street, or movie (I apologise if they’re not censored!). Would you consider this a correct use of censorship simply because this kind of language is likely to cause offence?

The subject of seeing fatal airshow crashes in the public domain for the purpose of entertainment is completely disrespectful to the pilot and my concern is that on a forum that is populated by many airshow ‘consumers’ we’re debating whether it’s right or wrong to see our friends killed over and over again in the name of entertainment.

This is very much a private forum and the users have agreed to the terms of use. Furthermore is this forum moderated. When this forum remove certain words, its actually not censorship, as the essence of the post is not changed or censored. Its simply an expression of the tone, that the forum owners have set for discussions here.

There are other terms for using Youtube.

I would assume that none of those clips are actually public domain. Although that has little to do with the issues we discuss here.

Debating if a moral questions is right or wrong is dangerous ground. Its not possible to judge morale against a fact-sheet. Morale deals with choices and when you choose not to watch such a video, it does not make it a defacto law. Others might choose differently for other reasons.

Nobody if being forced to watch anything. If the video contains a friend, or relative, it almost sure Youtube will remove it on the grounds you mention.

I see no difference between watching WWII gun camera film, or bombing raids, and watching a crash on Youtube. Although I can see the difference for people who recognise the aircraft and perhaps knew the pilot.

Again, I personally prefer to watch aircraft flying, even if I too have seen a few Youtube crash videos. I might find that people who revel in death and destruction are missing certain human emotions, but I can have absolutly no judgement if they are right or wrong, I can only express my own view.

Maybe we should have public executions live on TV, maybe set up webcams at road traffic accident blackspots and in intensive care units – it’s a free world afterall… who gives a monkey’s that these are real people? Years ago one particular video production company were offering two versions of the Woodford airshow at which the RR Spitfire crashed – one with and one without the crash – ‘Would Sir like his video with or without carnage’ was Paul Coggan’s vitriolic response and that summed up my own feelings perfectly.
To suggest that those too pussy to watch such material should avoid YouTube is ridiculous – there’s a hell of a lot of really good stuff on there – but what is wrong with YouTube exercising restraint on the grounds of good taste and out of respect for the victims? I don’t see that as an infringement of my own liberty.

Don’t use your own concept of liberty, as a template for others. An infringement that you don’t feel, might be felt by others, or might set a precedence for further infringements.

Im not an advocate for carnage videos, but Im an advocate of online freedom.

There is a chance, when watching something unspecified, that you will be shocked and appalled. If you are unable to accept that, you should not watch unspecified material.

We simply can’t label everything according to some percieved level of public offence.

Some online communities have used the tag NSFW (Not Safe For Work), when a post might contain something, that might get people into trouble at work. Maybe those with Youtube problems, should ask Youtube to include such a tag on the video clips. That means that you, the viewer, can label something “unsafe”, so that others like yourself can avoid the content.

However, thats a voluntary and no guarantee you will not be offended.

Peter.

May I ask what was the point of your bold intervention?

It strikes me that some of us posting on this thread are doing so to point out that very fact. That the friends and families of those lost in airshow accidents are seeing videos of their deaths shown on a publicly available site like you tube for nothing more than the purposes of entertainment. I accept the comments that those involved in the operation of such aircraft and accident investigators may well learn from such footage. The question here remains, is it right for such footage to be used for the purpose of entertainment? Furthermore, is it then right for you tube to allow comments to be posted on their site such as those that are there now? I think that’s the issue here.

Regards,

kev35

Youtube has no possible way of filtering the millions of comments made daily. However, every user on Youtube has the possibility of reporting comments made by other users.

There are also certain criteria for postings. While Youtube will accept a plane crash, they are bound by their own policy to delete “Shocking or disgusting content”, which would be detailed photage of human suffering.

If you are offended by content on Youtube, you are invited to report it. If Youtube deems the video, or comment, inappropriate, it will be deleted.

Be advised that your own personal definition of whats inappropriate, might not be shared by the Youtube moderators.

Youtube makes a business of hosting video clips online. They are not inclined to limit their business to a standard moral codex shared by all community users.

Youtube is also a proponent of “online freedom”, which means that the community can post anything thats not directly illegal. Notice that copyright issues are the responsibility of the individual poster, but Youtube will remove protected material, when presented with a take-down notice from the copyright holder.

We might all agree that some comments are rude, sick, or downright idiotic, but Youtube also appeal to the gore culture that respond in this way. Getting personally upset over this, might not be the optimal response.

One of the great things about the net, is the freedom of information that comes with it. Here people can get information, that might not otherwise be available to them locally. This has the ability to create a well informed global community somewhere down the line (we can hope at least).

Trying to limit this freedom, due to a personal perception of moral values, is also forcing these values upon others. You might say, that its not that part of online freedom that needs to be curtailed, but censorship is censorship and be sure that once its in place, this will be used to remove any material that goes against somebodys purpose.

Its akin to saying ” please take this freedom away from us, we are unable to fully understand it”.

I think we must accept a certain level of personal outrage, in order to protect something thats wholly beneficial to the world at large.

Oh I see…..

Too early in the morning to mess up other peoples posts….sorry.

Nice site.

Notice that he writes on the frontpage, that the URL has changed to:
http://www.collectair.com/

That might be a better page to save.

Seapak is a soundproofing material made from kapok.

Kapok is a fiber obtained from the seed pods of the Kapok three. Kind of like a cotton three.

Not sure what Woodall is, but I’ll look into it.