[Jetliner]

PHX - the geography is correct in this one going from PIT to Tampa. This would have been taken over Kentucky or Tennessee area or even possibly the Carolinas, it just depends on the routing of the aircraft, but that part would be right.

However, Whopper, I do not believe these two pictures were taken one right after the other. Look at the clouds. In one, you have a complete cloud coverage to where you cannot see the ground. In the other, it's much more clear. I understand that other picture was on a much more downward angle, however you can still see at least part of all three canoes sticking out from the back of the wing. Even if there were a clear spot there, you would have seen some of the clouds you saw in the other picture. In fact, this is especially clear when you look at the part under the wing. These pictures had to have been taken at least 10 to 15 minutes apart or more.

I'm going to leave this one now, as I've pointed out every obvious clue that this is no object from the aircraft.

[jimworcs]

I kept an open mind on this whopper, but I am afraid it is game, set and match to Jetliner... it is definitely something on your lens. There can be no other explanation for the position being identical in both pictures. The cloud explanation is a diversion, the aircraft is moving quickly, there is no possible way to tell if it was 10 to 15 minutes apart or 2 minutes apart, but the photo evidence is compelling.

Time to sheepishly apologise whopper!

[Jetliner]

Jim - the cloud thing is not a diversion. I was estimating, however after doing the math, I did find that while I was off, it still would not be one picture right after the other. When you are at altitude and you look out the window (in other words, the one picture that is straight out, you can see 10 miles out before the curve of the Earth. At cruising sped to go from where the aircraft was in the picture to the farthest place you can see in the picture would take about 2 1/2 minutes.

What I was going by in my head was the fact that in the first picture, it's completely cloudy, and in the second it's rather clear. So on top of the 2 minute or so travel time to pass all the clouds you can see, you also have to get to an area that has no clouds. Such an area is not visible in the picture, and when you look under the wings you are seeing the area a few miles ahead of the aircraft (remember you are looking at an angle.) So if you account for having to get to a clear area first, and about 2 minutes to get past where you can see now, it's had to be at least 3-5 minutes between shots.

[whopper1410]

The shots were taken back to back

[whopper1410]

you can see in the first picture that it was the edge of the clouds

[whopper1410]

I have been looking at parts of the wing online and I was wondering if it could have been a Aileron - flap hinge. Or maybe some sort of compression strut in the wing...If you look at what I believe to be the Aileron - flap....It looks like it might be missing a piece ....I don't know I am still looking at parts of the plane....Its not in the same place on both pictures

[Jetliner]

Whopper - the aileron is that flap looking thing out toward the end of the wing on the back. In the picture that shows the wingtip, it's that farthest out flap that looks lighter gray.

The flap hinges are the canoes that you see pointing out from the back of the wing.

I am going ask straight out why do you insist so much that this just has to be something falling from the aircraft? At this point it's obvious that you just have some beef with Southwest and you just want them to look bad. I don't believe this was a photoshop job. It has to be something that was on your lens. At this point, still insisting that it's a plane part is the same as trying to say the sky is purple and the sun shines at night.

[whopper1410]

I have no problem with southwest apparently I flew back didn't I ....Do you work for them?....I would fly again with them...I point is it fell off ....Like I said "I made it there and back"....Once again you seem to think that nothing ever falls off a plane...or off of a southwest plane I bet it happens way more then everyone thinks it does...Nothing happened we didn't crash it wasnt a bumpy ride....It is just probably one of the few times that it was actually caught by a camera that is what I am trying to say ..debunk all you want....Two pictures out of 168 pictures had this and it just so happened to be while I was in flight..How often does that happen ... hardly ever...It is what it is...So what...The thing is you truely seem to think it could never happen...some say......More people die from falling airplane parts each year than from shark attacks....but yet some say just the opposite...The thing is it happens to them all I am sure screws even rattle loose....My point is I actually caught it in a picture without even trying...Not bad if you ask me

[Jetliner]

I do not work for them nor did I ever. My point is that you are still arguing the blatantly obvious. You are arguing the laws of physics to still insist that you caught something falling off of the plane.

[jimworcs]

Whopper: You are losing credibility. The superimposed pictures demonstrate that it is something on your lens. In the face of the evidence, the sensible thing is acknowledge that whilst you were sure something "fell off" the plane on reflection you realise it could have been a hair or something on the lens. Your inability to do that is a bit embarrassing.

[The_Judge]

I sent both of these pictures to a United Airline mechanic buddy of mine and he says they're faked.

Whopper, look at the pictures on your cell phone and look at the time stamp of when they were taken. Please furnish us with those times. Let's just for arguments sake say you just happened to snap a photo and catch something falling off the plane. In a matter of a millisecond, that item would have been gone from view. How in the world did you snap a photo, save it and then have time to snap another one? Again, please look at the times of when the photos were taken and give us those times please.

[whopper1410]

You can actually take more then one photo at a time back to back that is technology....they instantly save....duh..I didn't know that your buddy who is a mechanic is also a photo expert...you are "the judge" former airline employee whom thinks they are a judge so I guess you would believe your mechanic/photo expert too....LOL

[whopper1410]

It could have been a hair .....are you stupid...that must have been embarrasing to come up with...."superimposed" pretty big word for someone who thinks its a hair....LOL...you guys are unbelieveable get over it its a real picture. And not a hair...LMAO...u guys are funny....who will be the next comment from...The flight attendant also an expert....That is great...

[Jetliner]

Originally Posted by whopper1410

You can actually take more then one photo at a time back to back that is technology....they instantly save

On what model of phone? I've yet to see one that doesn't first ask if you want to save the picture.

[whopper1410]

The phone is a Kyocera...and it even has a multishot.....but I just took them back to back

[Jetliner]

[pattis]

Originally Posted by whopper1410

More people die from falling airplane parts each year than from shark attacks

OKAY.....now I really want to hear more about this. hahahahahahah...OMG...way too funny.
Please show me where this is documented. Thank you, i really needed a laugh

[Jetliner]

Well, in all of 2007 there was exactly 1 (one) shark attack death worldwide. I'd still like to know where you got you info from.

http://www.biologynews.net/archives/...last_year.html

[The_Judge]

I'm still waiting for the times that the pictures were snapped. Actually, this has to be a troll which has hooked all of us. This is simply a fake no matter what "whopper" says. In fact it is a whopper of a story. Good one. I'm done with this thread.

[Jetliner]

I think you are right. There can't possibly be anyone that stupid to look at what all was shown and still think it's real. It's just popcorn for me at this point.

[Jetliner]

[i450009]

When it comes right down to it, a key peice of "evidence" is missing: nothing in either photo establishes that this was, in fact, a Southwest aircraft. If there were a winglet in the shot (had one been installed on this particular airframe) or if the flap track fairings were painted characteristically red (as on the -700 series) or, in another shot, had you even held up a safety card or something on which "Southwest Airlines" was printed and captured that in your frame, it would establish more credibly than you have that this was a flight onboard a Southwest aircraft. Really, the best supposition anyone can make is that you thought you saw something falling off of an aircraft (which, I think has been proven to be some optical phenomena/photoshop trickery) and that the aircraft in the photos may or may not have been a Southwest plane.

i450009

[PHXFlyer]

Originally Posted by i450009

When it comes right down to it, a key peice of "evidence" is missing: nothing in either photo establishes that this was, in fact, a Southwest aircraft. If there were a winglet in the shot (had one been installed on this particular airframe) or if the flap track fairings were painted characteristically red (as on the -700 series) or, in another shot, had you even held up a safety card or something on which "Southwest Airlines" was printed and captured that in your frame, it would establish more credibly than you have that this was a flight onboard a Southwest aircraft. Really, the best supposition anyone can make is that you thought you saw something falling off of an aircraft (which, I think has been proven to be some optical phenomena/photoshop trickery) and that the aircraft in the photos may or may not have been a Southwest plane.

i450009

The OP PM'd me with the date and flight info. I looked up the aircraft and the one that the OP was on wasn't retro-fitted with winglets yet. (It is actually having winglets installed now) I did find out that the after the OP's flight the aircraft continued on without delay or incident. Had something "fallen off the wing" it would undoubdetly have been held on the ground for maintenance. It was a routine turn. This claim has been de-bunked six ways 'rill Sunday. I think this thread should be allowed to die.

[Gromit801]

It's a camera fault, or a photochop job.

I'm a professional graphic artist, and it looked unnatural right from the start. Exact same location in both frame relative to the photo edges. Easy to do in photoshop.

Also, it would have been twirling and spinning if it came off the AC. My eight years as a USAF F-111 crew chief (once upon a time) tells me that much. It would also be very blurred. No camera phone on the market has a shutter speed that high, to freeze the motion so perfectly.

[exexpat]

Being an ex A+P mechanic I am often shocked at the material condition of some of the airplanes I've boarded. Rivets missing, cables exposed, things bent that should not be bent, etc.

If your airplane had been traveling at even 200mph you would not have gotten 2 pics from a regular camera let alone a camera on your phone. The shape of the object in each pic would be much different as a different aspect would have been shown.

This is either something on your lens or an Art Bell UFO.