|
|
Post by User Unavailable on Dec 19, 2013 23:13:50 GMT
If you want and outfit that gets you a clear space around you, if you want an outfit guaranteed to get you your own carriage on a train, I can get you one. It will be a set of overalls fresh from a good friend of mine who keeps Cows... He uses them to clear away the muck. Guaranteed to get him to the front of the que in the bank as well. We used to come in from field after a few weeks with no shower and head over to the chow hall at the New River Air Station, which adjoined Camp Geiger where I was stationed when stateside. The Wing Nuts (Air Wing types) ate better than us Grunts did in our chow hall, so we enjoyed eating in their chow hall. They however, didn't enjoy having us stinky Grunts in close proximity, so it was easy enough for us all to sit together, as we sent someone ahead to get through the line and find a vacant seat at a table big enough for all of us to sit, so by the time the rest of us got there, anyone who had been sitting at that table had hurriedly left and we could get through the line and all sit together.  Though after doing this several times, "the word" came down the pipeline that any Grunts eating in the Air Wing chow hall, had to shower first as our smell made the Wing Nuts not enjoy their meal, thus it affected their morale and their morale needed to remain as high as possible, as they were maintaining multi million dollar helps over there.  So, after that, we had to shower before eating at the Air Wing. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 22, 2013 9:23:03 GMT
Always been a competition...
I still recon' us RAF types had the best cooks and Chef's available.
...Better recruitment officers?... probably.
...Pilots whine worse than a dry axle on a Hercules if they dont get good grub....
I just had a memory....
The day I stood there in AWE as I saw a plane go backwards....
Ok, so, yes, you can "Push" a plane backwatds onto the stand with a tractor, but the Herky does it all on its own.
The blades on the prop can rotate to provide backwards thrust, and the pilot just threw it in reverse?...
On that day, WHO KNEW?...
I didnt, raw recruit to the thing, never seen a Hercules (C130 to the yanks) on the ground before..
Apologies for topic drift.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 23, 2013 1:22:05 GMT
Always been a competition... I still recon' us RAF types had the best cooks and Chef's available. ...Better recruitment officers?... probably. ...Pilots whine worse than a dry axle on a Hercules if they dont get good grub.... I just had a memory.... The day I stood there in AWE as I saw a plane go backwards.... Ok, so, yes, you can "Push" a plane backwatds onto the stand with a tractor, but the Herky does it all on its own. The blades on the prop can rotate to provide backwards thrust, and the pilot just threw it in reverse?... On that day, WHO KNEW?... I didnt, raw recruit to the thing, never seen a Hercules (C130 to the yanks) on the ground before.. Apologies for topic drift. while we were doing the blow your own sail discussion on the old board, I found a youtube of a cargo carrier showing off for an airshow. the guy came in, landed, hit the thrust reversers to come to a stop - then lit the throttles up and started backing up. here's a C-17 doing it. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 28, 2013 10:05:37 GMT
It STILL makes me stand and watch fascinated every time I see a plane go backwards on its own.
I just cant help it.
You would think I would be used to it by now...
No. Its like a kid watching a cartoon.....
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 28, 2013 14:22:48 GMT
It STILL makes me stand and watch fascinated every time I see a plane go backwards on its own. I just cant help it. You would think I would be used to it by now... No. Its like a kid watching a cartoon..... I often have to remind myself I have other things to do whenever I look at a plane going at all. one of my dreams was always to get a license, and circumstances always conspired against it. |
|
|
|
Post by User Unavailable on Dec 28, 2013 16:19:00 GMT
Always been a competition... I still recon' us RAF types had the best cooks and Chef's available. ...Better recruitment officers?... probably. ...Pilots whine worse than a dry axle on a Hercules if they dont get good grub.... I just had a memory.... The day I stood there in AWE as I saw a plane go backwards.... Ok, so, yes, you can "Push" a plane backwatds onto the stand with a tractor, but the Herky does it all on its own. The blades on the prop can rotate to provide backwards thrust, and the pilot just threw it in reverse?... On that day, WHO KNEW?... I didnt, raw recruit to the thing, never seen a Hercules (C130 to the yanks) on the ground before.. Apologies for topic drift. I've heard of the C-130 doing that, never have seen it, despite flying on them. I reckon they use the variable pitch to decelerate on short runways and then in Manuvering around on short runways or runways without equipment to move them around. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Dec 28, 2013 21:55:12 GMT
Back on topic.
It seems that the basic idea is that people will tend to react or view others based on their 'uniform' rather than their faces.
On one hand is the idea that this can allow you to divert attention from yourself, in essence blending into the background to become part of the furniture. This in itself would clearly not get you though a security checkpoint, or allow you to hide in places where you'd have to present ID and clearance to security patrols.
The second is that people will tend to jump to conclusions as to who you are and what you are likely to do based on what 'uniform' you happen to be wearing. So for example walking through a shopping centre dressed like a Hells Angel is likely to result in security keeping an eye on you, while walking through the same shopping centre in a suit and tie will not warrant a second glance.
I can attest to the second one, as I have vivid recollections of going onto a shop after having gone for a job interview and being mistaken for the manager.
So. How would Mythbusters go about testing this? Remember that they need footage, but having a camera crew following someone around the local shopping mall would in itself draw attention while getting permission to use the malls own security cameras might tip someone off as to what they were doing - and the cameras are probably not going to be producing footage to a quality suitable for TV.
We also need to remember legal aspects - they could not get away with dressing up as a police officer for example.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Dec 30, 2013 8:48:03 GMT
Sometimes it's not even the uniform. Two events come to mind:
1. I gambled at Lake Tahoe while a minor. I had a business suit, and simply looked like I had been doing it forever.
2. I was back in school making student films with some classmates. One of their projects was a short documentary on the two Giant Pandas that were at the SF Zoo.
As the pandas were new, there was a several hour wait just to get into their area.
We showed up with tripods, cameras, reflectors, and the most important component--a clipboard.
"Hi, we're the film crew. Is this the way to the pandas?"
We jumped the line. No credentials, just cheap home level equipment and a polite but confident attitude. People saw what they wanted to see. We got the footage and left quietly.
After that, I found that any camera could get me into just about anywhere.
Hidden camera footage could be used for the test.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lex Of Sydney Australia on Dec 31, 2013 8:50:54 GMT
It came to mind this past weekend after watching the WWII film "Saints and Soldiers". Two GIs caught behind enemy lines have rescued a crewman from an RAF recon plane; he has vital intelligence data, but because he wrote his notes in code he has to get back to Allied lines alive. The trio have located a Jeep that the Germans captured, and have stripped three dead Germans for their uniforms and gear. One of the two GIs is fluent in German, and so he serves as driver. The RAF crewman is wounded in the leg, and so he is wrapped in a blanket and told to pretend that he is seriously ill. The GI who isn't fluent remains silent. The plan is to bluff their way past a crude checkpoint set up at an outpost the Germans established near the front. The RAF pilot and the fluent GI succeed in convincing the outpost commander that they've been assigned to take a sick man to the nearest field hospital, which just so happens to be near the outpost. When the commander goes to question the non-fluent GI, the fluent GI guns the engine as if the Jeep is stuck in the mud, distracting the commander and causing a group of German soldiers to give them a push. It isn't until they turn the wrong way (the field hospital is to the left; they turned right) that anyone realizes something's wrong. We I'm not sure how relevant this is towards the discussion, but my Biological Grandfather (My Mum's Dad who died 9 years before I was born) was in the 'Gentleman's Club' aka: Department of Dirty Tricks (spy) during WWII. Much of what he did was classified but one story he did tell her was during the war he went undercover to get some info from the Germans. & he snuck into a German HQ in France dressed as an French peasant who worked on the boilers & radiators in the building. Apparently he got in without any problems, got the info & was out again in less than an hour. The Germans didn't know that he'd 'acquired' the info in question till the next day & by then he was half way across the English Channel. He said he got away with it partly on how he looked & his attitude & partly on luck. He did have papers & a cover story just in case, but he said that the Germans were SO arrogant that they took his being a French peasant at face value. They were totally taken in & thought he was just a lowly uneducated peasant & that he wouldn't be a problem so they left him to 'work' unsupervised in the building. (Silly Nazi's!  ) |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 31, 2013 14:57:59 GMT
other side of the coin: I found out during our S&R action yesterday that we have a Ford Focus as an unmarked police car. I thought it was just a tourist being ignorant until he blipped his lights to let me know who he was.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Dec 31, 2013 15:06:52 GMT
This might be a good perception test.
Dress up a several small groups (5-10) of volunteers in street dress, then in the same uniform, then in different uniforms.
Give the crew a short time to remember the members of the groups.
Mix the groups in with a much larger group (20-50), wearing a mix of uniforms and street dress.
See if the crew can pick the volunteers out of a larger group. Do they remember the uniform or the face?
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 1, 2014 14:35:05 GMT
Hercules have been around since ... well, before my time anyway.... **
To see something that is so old yet so up the front on technology, "They dont make them like they used to"... well, I sometimes wonder if they will EVER be able to replace the Hercules.... its unique?...
Its also one of my all time favourites, next to the Harrier.
I believe the reason it was that versatile and able to self-park, was by design, it MUST have the ability to land on "Uncertain" runways, and self-manoeuvre, just in case it needed to get the hell out back the way it came in quickly without any ground crew.
End of side.discussion.... back on topic....
UN-Marked police cars.
I have always been not-in-favour of them as pursuit vehicles unless that are accompanied by MARKED cars.
Observations, fine, go ahead with planned obseravtions.
But do not allow them to take the place of MARKED vehicles....
Now this goes back to a tale that was told by a friend of mine who was witness to an incident that was investigated... a white for escort van, as in use by the local police at the time, had been fitted with blue flashing lights, behind the radiator grill.
The reason was that the idiots driving it thought it was a great game to get behind some poor Un-suspecting innocent motorist and give them the flashing lights to see what happened.....
I know they were doing this, as at that time, I had a similar vehicle, and was pulled over numerous times for searching just to make sure it wasnt my van being used....
I have always pondered, if an un-marked vehicle gives the blues-and-twos, being that it IS un-marked, unless there is a marked vehicle with it, how "Legal" is their ability to stop other vehicles?...
In the UK, they do NOT have the ability to stop other vehicles, they may pursue at distance as observations, but the "Stop" MUST be made by a marked vehicle and uniformed police.
I have always been told, if you are unsure, PHONE the police... (Using a hands-free kit) ask them to verify that its a real cop.
Thankfully, being a law-abiding citizen... (stop that sniggering, I am, honestly...) I have never been in that situation?....
[** entered service 9 December 1957 in USA according to Wikapedia, which is "About right" from what I remember, late 50's to early 60's...
It was the first designed-as transport, from the ground up, it was built for purpose, rather than re-hash of commercial passenger planes .
That is actually before my time..... despite rumours I am older than the Wright brothers.....]
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 1, 2014 15:09:28 GMT
in Oregon, at least, if you do not exceed the speed limit or otherwise show an indication of wanting to escape, altogether, there is no additional violation in continuing until you are in an area where you feel comfortable pulling to the side and stopping. one issue is that one can also counterfeit the car and the uniform. (and I believe any officer who plans to make a traffic stop will wear the uniform,) and any policeman doing business with a civilian must produce badge and identification on introduction.
However, from the way this particular car is outfitted, I do not believe its primary purpose is sneaking up on unsuspecting motorists.
an interesting historical anecdote. in the past, every police car in the state was outfitted with "baby moon" hubcaps (as seen on TV)
so in the 1980s, the town got their first "stealth" cruiser: a dark blue Ford Mustang... with baby moon hubcaps.
part II: occasionally, a car would throw a hubcap - as seen on TV (or they would otherwise disappear) and as regulations required the wheels to have a finished look; they would have to be replaced. in the mid-80s, the local tire center made them an offer; and when the fleet lost 4 hubcaps, they would bring a car in, and the tire center would mount 4 finished alloy wheels for $35.00 above the cost of the hubcaps. some members of the public were rather outraged that the police would waste their money this way - until it was pointed out that they couldn't throw hubcaps off these wheels, and so it was a one time expense.
(so the clothes make the man tie-in is: in Oregon in the 80s, if you saw a car with baby moon hubcaps, it was considered to be a police car.)
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jan 2, 2014 7:45:54 GMT
This might be a good perception test. Dress up a several small groups (5-10) of volunteers in street dress, then in the same uniform, then in different uniforms. Give the crew a short time to remember the members of the groups. Mix the groups in with a much larger group (20-50), wearing a mix of uniforms and street dress. See if the crew can pick the volunteers out of a larger group. Do they remember the uniform or the face? I like that basic idea, but I can't help but feel it needs just a little bit of work. Can't quite put my finger on it though... |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Jan 2, 2014 16:37:38 GMT
Me too. I hope someone can make it more...whatever it needs.
As I wrote it, I think it's too jumbled.
You'd have to carefully pick the volunteers to be sure there are at least a few who look similar. For example, major indicators like hair color or gender would have to be compensated for.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jan 2, 2014 18:02:31 GMT
The test as written becomes one of memory rather than observation.
A better variation would be to get a couple of people the cast have a passing acquaintance with, say a delivery driver or someone who works in a local shop they frequent. Then you dress them up differently and see if the cast recognise them when they are in a different 'uniform'. They could also replace that individual with someone who has a passing resemblance to them but who is going the same job in the same uniform and see if they notice the switch.
They could repeat the tests using people they know much better - say JD - to see how well you'd have to know someone before you stop noticing the clothing.
This would seem to be more in keeping with the 'Hollywood' version of the myth, where most of the time people either know the person they are looking for, have a picture/description or have at least seen them. Yet the hero still manages to slip past them.
Come to think on it this set up might also work to test if a picture (well, mugshot) is really helpful in trying to find someone in a crowd.
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jan 2, 2014 19:56:59 GMT
The test as written becomes one of memory rather than observation. A better variation would be to get a couple of people the cast have a passing acquaintance with, say a delivery driver or someone who works in a local shop they frequent. Then you dress them up differently and see if the cast recognise them when they are in a different 'uniform'. They could also replace that individual with someone who has a passing resemblance to them but who is going the same job in the same uniform and see if they notice the switch. They could repeat the tests using people they know much better - say JD - to see how well you'd have to know someone before you stop noticing the clothing. This would seem to be more in keeping with the 'Hollywood' version of the myth, where most of the time people either know the person they are looking for, have a picture/description or have at least seen them. Yet the hero still manages to slip past them. Come to think on it this set up might also work to test if a picture (well, mugshot) is really helpful in trying to find someone in a crowd. I like that! You could send the guys on an errand run to different stores and places they've been to plenty of times, have some of the personnel from each store switch places and "uniforms" with each other and see if the guys notice. I don't think it should be someone too obvious though. If you take JD for instance, he shouldn't replace someone they know really well, like the guy from the slaughter house. But he could be at the slaughter house, wearing their uniform and passing by as someone from the cast was talking to their regular meat guy and see if they notice. For the mugshot test you could do a control with someone who looks exactly like they do in their mugshot (kind of like a life-size Find Waldo game  ). Once you've established a baseline, take a mugshot of a new volounteer and then have them put on/take off glasses, color/cut their hair and wear different clothes and see how much of a difference that makes. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jan 2, 2014 21:07:12 GMT
I think colouring or cutting hair is taking things a little too far. The usual Hollywood version involves little more than a change of clothing, and maybe combing or fixing their hair into a different style as it is a improvised solution. More extreme versions with wigs, fake beards or noses tend to be much more planned, and would be similar to the mission impossible face masks they have already tested. Although that would be a logical extension to that myth should they decide to revisit it.
A good shop-test for that sort of extreme makeover would be to make up someone they know fairly well and put their picture with a lot of similar looking individuals to see if they could pick that person out of the mix. They would not be told who they were looking for, just asked if they can spot anyone familiar.
*Brainwave*
Or...
One of the things that would be needed to be done here would be to keep the team that is testing this in the dark as much as is possible. In turn this means that the lookalikes would have to be picked by the other team - there is always a chance that the cast might accidentally see some of the pictures and realise what is really being tested. So the best way to avoid this, no matter how unlikely it might be, would be to have this information in the other building.
So why not take advantage of this? They could be given a stack of photographs and asked to sort though them to find those people who look most like person X. The catch is that one or two of the pictures are in fact OF that person, but disguised. It would therefore be interesting to see if they A; realise they are looking at the same person or B; Include them in the lookalikes without realising it is the same person. This would work to show how effective mugshots are as well as what types of changes are most likely to hide someone's identity - in other words what kinds of markers people tend to look at. That in turn would help later testing by allowing them to pick the best ways to hide someone - rather than having to make educated guesses as to what is likely to work.
This would also allow them to have both teams working together, which is rarely done on the show, without having to clear their schedules too much. The main reason they don't work together is because they have different work schedules, so making sure both teams is available at the same time is problematical. Here the picture tests would be carried out earlier, and not take that much time, allowing the 'main' test to be carried out later on with or without the other team being directly involved. This would probably make this a build team myth, since they could make one of the three aware of what is going on and have them act as the judge should Adam and Jamie not be available for filming. It would be more difficult the other way around, as A&J have a heavier workload as producers (which also makes it harder to hide what is going on from them, at least as far as the primary tests go) so they'd have to be able to bring in at least one member of the build team to act as the 'judge'.
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jan 2, 2014 21:39:17 GMT
I think colouring or cutting hair is taking things a little too far. The usual Hollywood version involves little more than a change of clothing, and maybe combing or fixing their hair into a different style as it is a improvised solution. More extreme versions with wigs, fake beards or noses tend to be much more planned, and would be similar to the mission impossible face masks they have already tested. Although that would be a logical extension to that myth should they decide to revisit it. What's the typical description you get of a bank robber on the news? Sex, race, height, clothing, hair color, length and style, eye color (if someone got a good enough look), accent (if he/she said anything and had one) and distinguishing features (scars, tattoos and such). Hiding your sex, race and height, while entirely possible (makeup and shoes can do a lot), is something that would require some knowledge and pre-planning, but changing your clothing, adopting a different accent and possibly hiding some distinguishing features can be improvised within minutes. Within an hour you could quickly change your hair length and style (shave off your beard if you've got one). Within another hour you could change your hair color and within a day you might also be able to get some contacts with a different color. All improvised. All perfectly within the reach of any John or Jane Doe without spending a lot of money. Besides the contacts all of this could probably be accomplished for well under $50. One of Adams favorite movies is The Bourne Identity. As you'll probably remember if you saw that particular film, dying and cutting the hair of his female co-star was one of the first things Bourne did when he realized authorities were looking for her. And it didn't take long either. 5 minutes in a grocery store to buy the dye and about an hour of work. I wouldn't consider that "taking things a little too far". I'd call that perfectly rational, as hair color and length is one of the features you can see instantly, whether the person is facing you or not. You can even see it from above. |
|
|
|
Post by Lex Of Sydney Australia on Jan 3, 2014 6:42:40 GMT
Hiding your sex, race and height, while entirely possible (makeup and shoes can do a lot), is something that would require some knowledge and pre-planning, but changing your clothing, adopting a different accent and possibly hiding some distinguishing features can be improvised within minutes. Within an hour you could quickly change your hair length and style (shave off your beard if you've got one). Within another hour you could change your hair color and within a day you might also be able to get some contacts with a different color. All improvised. All perfectly within the reach of any John or Jane Doe without spending a lot of money. Besides the contacts all of this could probably be accomplished for well under $50. If you have a makeup then you can go one better. A tube of mascara can give you some rather convincing moles in less than 10 seconds. If you use surgical tape to tape a few hairs from your head to your face & then use the mascara to cover the tape you can make realistic 'hairy moles'. (You have to trim the hair sticking out from the mascara of course, but it works. (Oh the weird stuff you learn when you take drama as an elective in high school!) |
|
)
). Once you've established a baseline, take a mugshot of a new volounteer and then have them put on/take off glasses, color/cut their hair and wear different clothes and see how much of a difference that makes.