Picture of the day. (5 Viewers)

[michaelmaltby]

Just finished "Dunkirk: Fight To The Last Man" (Hugh Sebag-Montifore) a detailed account of the BEF withdrawal to Dunkirk in May, 1940 and dogged delay and defense of the perimeter that permitted the removal of British and French troops. The counter-attack at Arras is especially revealing. The other side of the current Dunkirk film. Great story. Brave men.

 

[Wurger]

PZL P-7a ...

 

[Robert Porter]

Pic in 7866 is a well-known fake.

Do you have any information on what makes it a fake? For a "well known" fake I can't find anything on Google that indicates that. However I was able to find about 10 different captions for it which obviously all cannot be correct?

Not disputing you just curious where the information is?

This is the results for an image search: Google

 

[fubar57]

It has been post on the forum as well Robert with discussion though I can't remember where

 

[Robert Porter]

I can believe it, there are certainly enough fakes out there. I just like to know the evidence as it helps if I then encounter it again I can point to the citations etc. Frustrating when fakes get promulgated. However I have stumbled on the opposite a time or two where a "known" fake turned out to be correct. So I like to actually see definitive proof not just someones educated opinion although that is certainly compelling in most cases. Unfortunately there is a lot of cases of mistaken identity if you will on the web and about historical pictures in general so it helps to track it to it's source and expose it for what it is.

 

[michaelmaltby]

Canadians breaking through German defensive lines as they fight northwards in Italy

 

[michaelmaltby]

 

[tyrodtom]

I can believe it, there are certainly enough fakes out there. I just like to know the evidence as it helps if I then encounter it again I can point to the citations etc. Frustrating when fakes get promulgated. However I have stumbled on the opposite a time or two where a "known" fake turned out to be correct. So I like to actually see definitive proof not just someones educated opinion although that is certainly compelling in most cases. Unfortunately there is a lot of cases of mistaken identity if you will on the web and about historical pictures in general so it helps to track it to it's source and expose it for what it is.

I would question how such a picture could have got taken ?

A aircraft in distress that appears to be just a split second from impact with the ground. And the photo is taken from lower than the aircraft.

So very unlikely to have been taken from another aircraft.
Just a extremely lucky placement of someone with a camera on the ground ?
Or a doctored photo ?

 

[v2]

B-24 over Linz

 

[michaelmaltby]

....

 

[v2]

...

 

[michaelmaltby]

 

[v2]

Somewhere in England waiting for a mission...

 

[Wurger]

 

[Robert Porter]

I would question how such a picture could have got taken ?

A aircraft in distress that appears to be just a split second from impact with the ground. And the photo is taken from lower than the aircraft.

So very unlikely to have been taken from another aircraft.
Just a extremely lucky placement of someone with a camera on the ground ?
Or a doctored photo ?

Almost certainly a doctored photo. But as the saying goes truth is stranger than fiction. And there are actually quite a number of seconds from disaster photos from WW2 taken from the ground and ships. So we can't rule it out just because of that.

 

[Crimea_River]

Do you have any information on what makes it a fake? For a "well known" fake I can't find anything on Google that indicates that. However I was able to find about 10 different captions for it which obviously all cannot be correct?

Not disputing you just curious where the information is?

This is the results for an image search: Google

The photo has been debated on this and other forums. My choice of words should perhaps have been "much debated" as opposed to "well known". Going by memory only but the most obvious features to question are:

- the aircraft appears to be a Ju-88, except for the tail which is wrong for the type
- the smoke does not not form a realistic pattern for a rapidly falling aircraft.

 

[Crimea_River]

 

[fubar57]

Truly a bizarre aircraft

 

[Robert Porter]

The photo has been debated on this and other forums. My choice of words should perhaps have been "much debated" as opposed to "well known". Going by memory only but the most obvious features to question are:

- the aircraft appears to be a Ju-88, except for the tail which is wrong for the type
- the smoke does not not form a realistic pattern for a rapidly falling aircraft.

Good points, I have run across some of that debate over at FineScale and other places. The smoke pattern was explained, if real, as a result of an almost stall with the aircraft just pitching over for its final plunge. However no one seems to know the "provenance" of the picture which seems the most damning fact.

By the way the fellow that explained the smoke most convincingly was a former RAF flight officer, or claims to be. But these things annoy me when it is hard to determine their veracity or lack of such. I will keep digging. I have examined about 30 copies of the picture so far and am unable to find any of the normal telltales for a photoshopped picture but it has been sharpened digitally at some point. In general I have found if there is no clear source for a picture, it is likely a fake of some kind. So I tend to agree.

 

[fubar57]

I did a reverse image search and the majority of the pics are on Russian or other foreign languages sites. I went to one and Kaspersky put a grinding halt to that so I figured I'd try stay to the English language ones. Sadly they are mostly Pinterest sites which I find are almost as useless as Wiki at times, ie: the aircraft has been called an -88, a He 111 and a Hs 129. I tried to find it here in several sections and searches but as yet....nada