Or taken with a cheap camera/phone camera, you know, the kind you are most likely to find in a remote part of China.

LOL. You have not been around do you?

Guilin is not exactly a remote part of China. There is a major city around the area and it is one of the most popular TOURIST SPOTS in China. And where you have tourist spots, you have cameras.

The fact of the matter is, the picture has lower resolution than 640×480, which is baseline VGA camera for low end celphones. As a matter of fact, a cheap digital camera has several times more resolution than this.

Irrelevent. High probability does not equal certainty, and as such is not sufficient to rule this pictures as a fake just because the plane did not burn.

BULL.

This is VERY LOW PROBABILITY.

When you multiply a bunch of low probabilities together, the low probability increases by a magnitude.

Not only does the plane does not burn, what are the chances you have a crash of this magnitude without any fire control and police around it?

Again missing things that have already been pointed out. There are not sizeable rocks on farmland, hell, there shouldn’t be any rocks in farmland because the farmers would have sifted them out and got rid of them all generations ago.

Irrelevant. Take a look at the picture again, and it is NOT FARMLAND. You see crops eh?

[quote]
Where does all this certainty come from? Do you know the strength of the intake tunnel?[/quote[

The intake tunnel should have been carved out of a sectional billet. That would have been the standard procedure in building this.

The speed and angle of impact? The composition of the soil? Temperatures? The list goes on. Even with all those variables and a thousand more a supercomputer would be hardpressed to produce a model of how the wreckage would look like that is even modestly accurate. Hell, can you even be 100% sure from that picture that the intake tunnel did collapse?

Who cares? The guy who posted it originally claims it was a crash landing. That narrows it everything quite a bit.

Boy for someone who claims he had examined the picture thoroughly, you cannot even see that the intake tunnel is no longer there in the picture.

Oh and you cannot even see—despite your claim of having inspecting the picture so thoroughly—that the parachute brake is open. That means the plane is landing when the “incident” happened and after it deployed the parachute brake.

That’s clear evidence that an airbase be right nearby.

Yet what you are saying is that this piture is bogus because the wreck is not in the exact state you figure it should be even though you don’t know the most basic parametres of the crash or the plane itself?

And you claim its real because of what basis? You have no logical reason to claim its real except it looks “realistic” to you.

That’s not a logical basis.

Yes, that was the first thing I did. I went and looked for all the tell tale signs of manipulation and fakes and didn’t find any. While that is not 100% garentee that the picture is real, the fact remains that the picture is here in front of us, and as such the burden of proof is on those suggesting that it is a fake to prove it. So far nothing has even come close.

Tell tale signs of manipulation and you can’t see it?

The angle of the tail is not aligned with the rear fuselage among things.

Circumstantial and very thin. If this picture is a fake, then it would be one of the better ones out there, far beyound the vast majority of these ‘bored kids’.

Bull****. You really have no idea how good these ‘bored kids’ are do you?

Words are infinately easier to form and reform then a picture. Thats why I trust a picture over words. Have we forgotten all those uncountable cases where someone got a picture off the web and then reposted it with his own little caption that is completely wrong? Just as I try to check the authentiquity of pictures, I also try to check the validity of claims by others to see if it fits.

Hypocritical selective use of evidence. If you are going to accept the picture as it is, you need to accept the claim posted by the person who posted it.

You have no way of knowing if the person who posted the picture took it somewhere else.

But this isn’t Serbia, its China. If an F117 or B2 or F22 crashed or was shot down over China for whatever reason, do you think you would see Chinese farmers dancing over the remains unless CCTV wanted to set up such a shot?

You would certainly see a lot of farmers and onlookers over the spot, most certainly, though they won’t be dancing. But they would still be LOOKING.

Do you need a policeman standing over the shoulder of every citizen to make sure they do not break the law? Even poor farmers have brains and would have enough wit to realise that when the authorities do arrive, they are going to be asking questions, and could very likely take a dim view of anyone who saw fit to go and temper with one of their toys without permission.

False reasoning. You are inventing stories and scenarios in your head, inventing behavior.

The fact remains you cannot explain correctly the reason for the behavior of the people, or simply the lack of interaction. Take a good look at the picture and you will even see a number of people even have their backs turned away at the wreckage.

There might not be policemen at the scene, but there are lots of people, lots of witnesses who will probably tell the police everything they saw when asked, so its probably not a good idea to be seen messing around with a crashed military plane.

LOL. I already told you why its not probable.

It is a crash landing.

The crash landing takes place near a base.

The base would be close to the crash site.

There won’t be time for the farmers to be standing there idly casually conversing before the authorities would be on site, and quickly.

So wait, its a hoax because the ‘crashed bus’ scenario you suggested doesn’t make any sense? :confused:

Picture is quite familiar and is similar to an accident picture.

So prove it to be a fake as was done with the J8 pic then. Find the evidence.

A lot of people are already calling it a FAKE. You need to prove its real and not because you think it looks “realistic”.

It does not look realistic to begin with. I am wondering for example, how everything that is all wrecked up has all the same white color. In a real wreckage, the plane’s interior would be metallic or primer in color, and various components would have different colors. Gad, not only did the plane did not burn from a wreckage like that, but even the wreck inside remains all lily-white!

None of your claims stick with even the mildest critical examination. And since when has not taking anything at face value become a charater flaw? :rolleyes:

I am having a laugh at this. You are somehow claiming to be logical, and yet you choose to believe the picture but not the caption that goes along with it?

You know how stupid it sounds?

The foundermental flaw of your entire case stems from the simple fact that you assumed that either the picture AND the caption posted with it had to be real, or they BOTH had to be fake. It seems it never even occured to you that one might be real while the other might be complete BS.

LOL. This is being selective with evidence. In any court of inquiry, this kind of method you are proposing would have thrown you out of court or debar you from law practice.

You claiming the picture is real because…

The person who posted the picture and described the event is lying.

It is possible that a plane with severed sections would not start a fire.

It is possible that a plane that has severed its wings and fuel bladders would not start a fire.

It is possible that a plane on a severe skid that would have compacted the underside and intake of the plane would not start a fire, despite all the sparks.

It is possible that a severe crash like that would have left very little debris.

It is possible that a top military fighter jet would have crash landed and the military police and fire control units would have deemed it too insignificant that they would take their time coming to the site, or maybe forget while that the whole thing occurred.

It is possible that you have people casually standing around conversing around the site of a military jet crash for quite a while, and acting as if well, its not very important or special. Without any police or yellow barriers.

And so on and on.

Do you know that each and every act is an exception rather than the norm? You can get a way with one but you cannot get away with all. Multiplying low probabilities makes an even lower probability by magnitudes.

Which don’t automatically spray all over the plane every time.

And what are the chances it would, and should? Actually most of the pictures I have seen when the plane is not sprayed with flammable liquid and such are those that were never severed in the first place. If lines are cut, there should be pressure inside those lines that will spray the fluid.

No necessarily. Think about it, what you are suggesting is that every plane that ever crashed and broke in two must have also caught fire. Thats a very unreasonable position to take.

No its not. I would say not every time, but it has a high probability of doing so. Even more, the probability goes up if the plane happens to be severed, not just in having its fuselage broken up, but losing its wings where the main fuel tanks are in the wing roots. Ejecting fuel removes much of the explosive fire hazard but it does not make the plane bone dry to prevent a fire. And even if there is an engine flame out, the engine would not be suddenly cool to room temperature. It would be be extremely hot. Plus in all addition to these, if plane skidded at high speed, which would remove the wings, crumple the engine intake tunnel, break up the nose and section, the friction against the ground would have caused sparks.

Did you miss the post where I changed my evaluation? In fact it was I who first noted the small detail about the milling farmers and stated the implications. Thats what reasonable people should do – adjust their views to best reflect reality as new information becomes available instead of stubbonly defending past statements that are blantently untenanable.

In my view, having farmers around a crash site casually conversing is something I never see in any crash picture. This is so out of this world. You would expect that the site would be filled with inspectors taking out fragments and evidences of the aircraft. You need to seal off the area to determine the proper causes of the crash. If there are any mechanical and equipment failure, you need to get and preserve these in order to claim to the manufacturer.

There is nothing “reasonable” about this picture especially when compared to other crash situations. I also find odd that the direction where the plane should have been coming from had tall hills behind. I find it odd that the wreckage of top military plane is not under armed guard. Not a single guy that looks like he’s from the PLA. I find it odd that the people in the picture actually don’t have any interaction at all with the wreckage. You would think that some of them would even try to look at it.

Another red flag in the picture is the deliberate blot out in the foreground. I suspect these are bodies of people that may have been killed and gathered. Given multiple casualties, I suspect the original picture is that of a bus or truck accident.

The F-5 series would have required GCI anyway, given the lack of longer ranged radar.

Still it’s probably better for third world forces because it was simpler to fly, operate and maintain than a MiG-23.

I don’t think the F-5E can stop MiG-27s or MiG-23BNs in a low altitude attack mode.

Viggent has a lot more in common with late sixties to seventies type of fighter (gen 3.5) like in the use of turbofans. Using a civil engine with high bypass ratio means the engine is economical, however, it is not efficient at high speed, and therefore the plane suffers at higher speed. Because of the engine’s wide diameter, the plane also suffers from a bulky and thick airframe cross section. That means drag and less speed compounded with being a high bypass turbofan. That airframe also meant a high empty weight—as much as an F-15 which has TWO engines.

and hou u know the mission requirements for Air intercept role in fight between equal adversaries.(no airsuperiority). I am not talking about one sided war. u maximize the potential of ur air assets in such case with maximu fuel and maximum BVR missiles. thats why Su-35 is designed for 12 Active BVR missiles. and giving it even more fuel. the sam logic applies behind Su-34(4500KM range)

You can already gauge what your mission requirements are based on the previous experience and scope of that mission. A short range point defence intercept for example do not need full fuel tanks on the Flanker.

Only an idiot like you would suppose that every Flanker is forced to fly with full internal fuel tanks.

And who actually goes into combat with 12 BVR missiles and a full internal fuel tank. You’re going to be pretty slow and draggy. Carrying lots of BVR missiles on the wing are for photo ops purposes only.

Taiwanese thought? AIM-120C5 is decade old technology and for export it is even more downgraded. they better ask for later missiles.

Read the full fight global article.

What do you know? Embarrass yourself. AIM-120C itself was introduced a decade ago, but it has undergone phase variations. Taiwan was actually the first to receive C5 that was within this decade.

Are they talking about it in derogatory terms or in technical terms? Seems to me you can’t tell the difference.

Wow you really try to put so much effort displaying a bigoted agenda.

In exercises any thing can be setup. But in real war it is different matter.

Even in real war it does matter. Using your afterburners will zoom you out of the combat zone instead. Have you ever thought of that? The purpose of the engagement is to fight, not to run.

I called you an idiot because for days now you cannot figure out the proper solution to this problem,when it is that freaking obvious. Instead you go off clearly making up things and fantasies as you go on, which clearly means you know crap.

You simply don’t take off with a full internal load. that’s all. You simply only put in the fuel you need, by calculating carefully the requirements for the mission.

Ground radar can be jammed and destroyed? Ground radar is bigger and more powerful and is more capable if they are of same generation. just because US has been successful in jamming some third world countries radar it does not mean two equal adversaries will face the same situation.

More unrealistic bull from you. This is so stupid it does not deserve a proper response.

ur just assuming stuff without knowledge to back it up. Taiwan knew even in 1997 that J-10 is Lavi when there is no reported flight. and they were asking form AIM-120 to counter R-27. they knew MICA does not have the range.

Taiwan never knew anything. By the same token the IDF is a miniturized F-16.

And who ever told you they were asking AIM-120 to counter R-27, huh? More idiocy from you. The Taiwanese thought they were fully able to counter the R-27 and even the R-77 with the AMRAAM AIM-120C5, MICA and TK-2 missiles. It was only in the advent of the PL-12 missile that they are forced to actively sought for AIM-120C7, when their own simulations were showing that they are facing a negative balance in terms of casualty kill ratio against aircraft equipped with the PL-12.