# Is this picture fake?



## MONDARIZ (Nov 27, 2009)

Hi,

    Im a member of a Historic Aviation forum and the following aircraft image has recently been discussed there. It appears that a large number of forumites consider the image a modern fake.

    There is a general consensus, that the pilot in the aircraft is a dummy, as its impossible to position a limp body in that pose. The aircraft has furthermore been moved from its original location and has sustained damage not consistent with a belly landing.

    The picture is thus a fake crash. But is the picture a period (WWII) photograph, or is it a modern reconstruction based on a model aircraft (its quite possible to make such a detailed model  if you are a model geek!)?

    We all agree that the picture has some kind of a fake quality, but not about why it looks fake. It would be interesting to see, what a photographer thinks of the picture.


----------



## mJs (Nov 27, 2009)

I'm no expert, but he does look a little large for the cockpit... just the height of him compared to the windscreen...


----------



## Garbz (Nov 27, 2009)

It doesn't need to be a modern fake. Why couldn't they fake it back then? People could fake some magnificent images long before the advent of computers.

The only thing that looks fake is the pilot. But while your typical accident would likely see him slumped forward in the seat, I don't see why he could have slumped back too.


----------



## MONDARIZ (Nov 27, 2009)

Garbz said:


> It doesn't need to be a modern fake. Why couldn't they fake it back then? People could fake some magnificent images long before the advent of computers.
> 
> The only thing that looks fake is the pilot. But while your typical accident would likely see him slumped forward in the seat, I don't see why he could have slumped back too.



 True, but the idea is that they didn't need to. In the last months of WWII there were crashed aircraft everywhere in Europe. This picture is supposed to be from the private collection of an American GI.  Also, the aircraft is of a particular model, that it would make little sense of faking back then. Meaning that if its faked its faked by someone with a very good knowledge of historic aviation. These data was generally not available to the average GI back then  and neither were such detailed models. 

The seat is much lower. To pose like that in the cockpit, he would have needed to be propped up, or stiff as a board, or alive, or a dummy.


----------



## gsgary (Nov 27, 2009)

If you look the plane is on a mound so his seat could have been pushed up


----------



## MONDARIZ (Nov 27, 2009)

gsgary said:


> If you look the plane is on a mound so his seat could have been pushed up



 Its simply not possible, that the body in the cockpit is the pilot. Its not just the position of the body (the cockpit area is armored and would not be popped up, by a small mound of sand), he is not wearing flight gear either.  

The aircraft has also been on the ground for some time in this picture (and has probably been moved, as there is no landing marks behind it). There are a number of indications towards this, but primarily the machinegun breeches are open, which must be done from the cockpit  pretty hard with a body inside it. Furthermore has someone been around and pillaged souvenirs  access panels are open and most of the engine cowling is removed. The tail has been vandalized on the ground. It would not be possible to belly land an aircraft with the tail in this condition and it cant be impact damage  maybe it has been used for target practice by passing aircraft, or is might have been removed as a souvenir (a sought after item, as it bears German markings and possible aerial victory marks). 

The real pilot probably walked away after the landing, it looks very survivable unless he was injured before the plane hit the dirt.


----------



## PatrickHMS (Nov 27, 2009)

...and if a plane had been there long enough to be in such bad and weathered 
condition, a human body of the dead pilot would not be so intact...


----------



## MrRamonG (Nov 27, 2009)

mJs said:


> I'm no expert, but he does look a little large for the cockpit... just the height of him compared to the windscreen...


 
 If the body had been sitting there a while, wouldn't it bloat up, making it appear larger.


----------



## Gaerek (Nov 27, 2009)

I'm not expert for picking out fakes, but one question I always ask when someone says, "That's a fake!" is this. What would be the purpose to fake this shot? If you can think of an obvious motive to fake it, then it stands to reason that it's possible it is a fake. If you can't think of an obvious motive to fake it, then it's likely to be genuine. Obviously, this doesn't always work, but it makes for a good starting point. OP even said that it makes little sense to fake this.

Now, if there is no possible way that the 'person' in the cockpit is a dead person, and if it's obviously moved, I'm confused as to why you are asking if this is faked. If both of those conditions are as you say they are (and not being an aircraft expert, I need to take your word on it), then it is obviously a fake. I don't think the photo has been manipulated, but obviously, the aircraft subject of the shot has been physically manipulated.

Why would they fake this? Who knows. There could be any number of reasons why.


----------



## MONDARIZ (Nov 27, 2009)

Gaerek said:


> I'm not expert for picking out fakes, but one question I always ask when someone says, &quot;That's a fake!&quot; is this. What would be the purpose to fake this shot? If you can think of an obvious motive to fake it, then it stands to reason that it's possible it is a fake. If you can't think of an obvious motive to fake it, then it's likely to be genuine. Obviously, this doesn't always work, but it makes for a good starting point. OP even said that it makes little sense to fake this.
> 
> Now, if there is no possible way that the 'person' in the cockpit is a dead person, and if it's obviously moved, I'm confused as to why you are asking if this is faked. If both of those conditions are as you say they are (and not being an aircraft expert, I need to take your word on it), then it is obviously a fake. I don't think the photo has been manipulated, but obviously, the aircraft subject of the shot has been physically manipulated.
> 
> Why would they fake this? Who knows. There could be any number of reasons why.



 Good question. The image depicts a Messerschmitt Bf 109K-4 Kurfürst, the last version of the famous German fighter aircraft. They were only produced in relatively small numbers and collectors are ready to pay top price for original images (according to rumours up to 1000 euro).Personally I think producing a quality fake image would be too much work for 1000 euro (unless it&#8217;s CGI and even I can see it&#8217;s not), but who knows. 

By fake I mean, is it a period photo (1944-1945) of a real aircraft and not a small model made to look real (much later). I was purely wondering if there are any tell tale photographic clues that a skilled photographer with a keen eye could pick out. 

If real, then, as you write, who knows why the set the scene like that &#8211; possibly they were just messing about and took some pictures.


----------



## Josh66 (Nov 27, 2009)

I doubt that the plane is fake, or even that it's been moved.  But I guess it's possible that the pilot is either fake or a live person posing...

The additional damage to the plane is probably what made it crash - not the result of it being moved later on.

Some of the most famous pictures from WWII were staged.  It's called propaganda.


----------



## Tiberius47 (Nov 27, 2009)

It looks like a model...


----------



## DennyCrane (Nov 27, 2009)

Psychic Celebrity Friends and Spidey Senses are telling me it's a diorama.


----------



## poof (Nov 27, 2009)

The pilot could have been put in that position by a scavenger looking for a wallet or pistol...


----------



## DennyCrane (Nov 27, 2009)

The shoulder looks like a tiny action figure.

Edit: And never rule out a clever photoshop...
http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r59/sRdennyCrane/NewNew/ATAT.jpg


----------



## PatrickHMS (Nov 27, 2009)

Any real human body that had been there for any length of time would have been disposed of by wild things.  There would be buzzards flying overhead.

And it would stink to high heaven.


----------



## Josh66 (Nov 27, 2009)

PatrickHMS said:


> And it would stink to high heaven.





You can tell it's fake by the smell?


----------



## grafxman (Nov 28, 2009)

I'm not an expert in fake photography but I believe the picture to be genuine and here's why. Someone mentioned the ground is undisturbed behind the plane. I believe it spun 180 degrees before it stopped sliding. The ground in front of the plane looks somewhat smooth to me as if that's what happened. That would also explain why the pilot is upright in the cockpit. Since the rudder has been shot away that would also explain the lack of directional control.

The prop is bent backwards. When I was working on my masters degree in aeronautical science at Embry Riddle Aeronautical University we studied aircraft mishaps. Every picture I ever saw of a prop plane crash, other than a smoking hole in the ground, had a similar looking prop. As a point of interest, the aircraft speed can even be determined from prop marks in the ground. If the engine isn't running at all, then that will  also be evident.

The horizontal stabilizer's control surface is hard up. This indicates the stick was full back in an effort to pull up. Due to extensive aircraft damage it was likely locked in that position. 

Panels are frequently lost if the airstream gets beneath them. The plane looks to me like it has been shot to hell. I would be amazed if any removable panel remained. 

The pilot likely lived long enough to try to land the plane. It landed upright and level. It didn't tumble and roll itself up into a ball of aluminum. 

I'm not familiar with German military flying apparel however the slight pleat at the shoulder suggests to me a leather flight jacket. That was common in Allied forces since the aircraft had no heaters. I suspect the white area on the chest is a scarf. I don't believe there has been any vandalism since it appears to my old eyes that the pilot still has a ring on, possibly a wedding band. 

Of course I could be wrong but that's my opinion.


----------



## Ryan Hall (Nov 28, 2009)

I used to be into modeling like that and have seen many images like that. It's a black and white photograph of a model airplane diorama.


----------



## DennyCrane (Nov 28, 2009)

That wheel wouldn't be that close to the plane after the crash, either.


----------



## grafxman (Nov 28, 2009)

Ryan Hall said:


> I used to be into modeling like that and have seen many images like that. It's a black and white photograph of a model airplane diorama.



Are there any online?


----------



## Hocus Focus (Nov 28, 2009)

above dio at http://gallery.kitmaker.net/data/23090/00500.jpg

http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingp...els/phobbins/Dragon_P-38M_kitbash-diorama.jpg

For more Google: diorama wwii


----------



## grafxman (Nov 28, 2009)

Hocus Focus said:


> above dio at http://gallery.kitmaker.net/data/23090/00500.jpg
> 
> http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingp...els/phobbins/Dragon_P-38M_kitbash-diorama.jpg
> 
> For more Google: diorama wwii



The link you provided is obviously a model and could not be mistaken for anything but a model. I googled diorama wwii as you suggested and looked at several hundred dioramas. About 99% or more are of tanks, NOT aircraft. They are all obvious models. The few aircraft that are there are also obvious models. 

Furthermore show me just one model soldier/aviator with a ring on a finger of his left hand. If the second image is copied and pasted into a photo editing application and is enhanced, the ring is clearly visible. 

It would be nice to know exactly where the picture was taken. Perhaps the terrain from other photos of the area could provide some help. It should be possible to authenticate the photo itself at someplace like the Smithsonian or Kodak labs. I still believe the photo to be original and I have neither seen nor heard anything that indicates otherwise.


----------



## DennyCrane (Nov 28, 2009)

A ring is not out of the range of possibility for a diorama. These guys take it seriously.

Flightpath 1/48th Scale Dartmoor Military Models  WWII Aviation


----------



## Tiberius47 (Nov 29, 2009)

I've seen some of the dioramas people make, and there is nothing in the OP's image that could not be added to a diorama.

The DoF seems to hint to me that it was a photo taken at a close range or something rather small rather than a landscape of something more then ten meters away from the camera.


----------



## DennyCrane (Nov 29, 2009)

I agree 100%.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 29, 2009)

I think it's a real aircraft,shot down and photographed where it came to rest. What I see is a lens that's got bad corners, which would be very common on a camera from that era. The "pilot" and his body position looks a bit odd. The one detail that makes me think it is real is the airplane wing on the right hand side of the photo: there's a small bit of grass growing there that appears partly in the sunlight,and partly in the shade under the wing. The airplane's damage looks "real" to me. The grasses growing from the ground look real to me.

It's difficult to see much of the finer details of the scene with the quality of the digital picture taken of this print. The idea that the pilot's body might have been moved by a salvager looking for a wallet, or a nice Walther or Luger pistol, is a pretty realistic possibility.


----------



## Tiberius47 (Nov 30, 2009)

The photo is real, but it is of a diarama.  It's not a life size plane.


----------

