Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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?Pic in 7866 is a well-known fake.
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.
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.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 ?
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
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.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.