suspicious photo

I have presented the photo to a photographic forum to see what photographers think. The link should take you to the forum, but I will post their verdict here.

Please post here, if there is anything you would like to add regarding the picture. Not why you think it’s real (we will assume it’s real until proven otherwise), but why you think it’s fake – no AC technical details, we don’t want to frighten the photographers :p

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/beyond-basics/184981-picture-fake.html

Just pondering…

Regarding the “wonky” focus, me wonders if it’s a case of battle weary camera that’s been smacked a few to many times knocking the lens out of line or distorting the body creating an un-intentional tilt-shift effect. That would explain the very narrow field of focus.

just thought – must more viable explanation is a pin hole camera… no lens, just a hole in a box…. would give similar focus qualities.

No sign that the earth beneath or behind the aircraft has been disturbed.

I would suspect, if this is a real photo, that the aircraft has been craned to where it is.

My first impression is thats a model or something “constructed” :confused:

Just pondering…

Regarding the “wonky” focus, me wonders if it’s a case of battle weary camera that’s been smacked a few to many times knocking the lens out of line or distorting the body creating an un-intentional tilt-shift effect. That would explain the very narrow field of focus.

The picture could be from some test range of sorts. Maybe a year, or two, after the war. No big rush to snap your mates around the AC, just maybe a picture before its taken to the smelter.

I have spend a lot of the day (thanks boss), trawling through me109 pictures on the net, but i have not yet found another image of this White/Yellow 20. Nothing unusual i guess, but i had hoped to find a clue at least.

Gentleman,

Thank you all for your replies, I still not convinced that it is real so I go for the diorama. Last year there were a few photos for sale that had the same light/shadow effects . A discussion about that photo can be found at: http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=1947&page=11 for post no 104 they write about the photo, unfortunately I don’t have a copy of that photo.
Perhaps one day we might find the answer if it is fake or real.

Best regards,

Mathieu.

Just as an example of looting progression over time, notice the similarities between the photo and typical looting damage as shown in these photos from’ Bodenplatte’ by John Manrho and Ron Putz. It is a very well done photo but I’m still sceptical all those little things seem strange
Also notice that there is usually someones buddy in the photo too!

Bit of info about Jg53 unit basings

http://www.ww2.dk/air/jagd/jg53.htm

Here is a model photo to compare. I say the ebay image is real.

hmmmm i think its been upside down then craned over onto its belly hence the damage behind the cockpit.

The body looks real enough but i suspect its the Russian front so probably not the original pilot, looks more like a Russian uniform to me.

Plenty of original WW2 shots look similar to this, fake but real and vise versa

I don’t agree at all, nothing suggests its been on its back, there is no spinner damage, unless it flipped over tail first.

I think we can agree that this aircraft belly-landed (from the state of the propeller blades) and I think we can also agree that there are two areas that must have been damages after it belly-landed, the area to the rear of the cockpit and the fin. It also seems to have been around long enough for most of the cowlings and access panels to have been opened or removed for one reason or another.

I’m not so sure about the suggestion that it is a range target. If it didn’t happen to crash-land on the range it would have had to be dismantled transported and then carefully reassembled on the range, and the wings look correctly refitted to me.

What sort of weapon would it make a good target for? It wouldn’t make a good ant-aircraft target and wouldn’t any old truck make just as good a target for ground-to-ground weapons? It would serve best as a strafe target for fighter-bombers but wouldn’t there be airfields littered with abandoned Luftwaffe fighters available for this purpose, maybe that’s what it is?

Whatever damaged it doesn’t seem to have hit it too often; to me range targets always seem to fall into two categories, untouched or those that look like a colander!

The damage to the cockpit area looks like a small explosion has occurred inside but there doesn’t seem to be any evidence of fragments piercing the light-alloy fuselage. What sort of weapon could have caused that? I did think it could have been done by a grenade but maybe plastic explosive is more likely to cause that effect.

The booby-trap suggestion is interesting; the cockpit looks quite like it has suffered a ‘controlled explosion’ (apart from the occupant). I have heard of battlefield corpses being booby-trapped, who knows?

If it is a body in the cockpit it will have had to be propped-up against or attached to something and I don’t know what that could be but whatever it is it would have to have been done quite deliberately.

I think the ‘body’, if that is what it is, holds the key to this; everything else can be reasonably explained one way or another but that is the one thing that seems out of place.

hmmmm i think its been upside down then craned over onto its belly hence the damage behind the cockpit.

The body looks real enough but i suspect its the Russian front so probably not the original pilot, looks more like a Russian uniform to me.

Plenty of original WW2 shots look similar to this, fake but real and vise versa

Could someone please direct me to stories about the large amount picture faking, that is said to go on in the WWII photo collection community?

I’m aware that bogus historic AC parts are sometime on sale, but anyone can make up a bit of AC skin with a swastika in 5 minutes and the marked if far bigger. Creating a model so perfect, that a whole historic aviation forum are discussing its authenticity, would take a huge amount of time and it would pay better, if you just sold the model.

I think the aircraft is real, however im doubting thats where it actually landed.
Someone said it could be a firing range? The large hits on the airframe would suggest this.

The “pilot” figure is definately a dummy and perhaps was put there simply to add “points” to anyone who is able to hit him while firing at the aircraft.

I am beginning to think that this is the best explanation so far……….

Someone went to a lot of trouble to cook this one up. I’d say it’s a model, judging by the depth of field: on a bright day you wouldn’t see a difference in focus like that – unless you were using a macro lens at small scale.

Don’t forget, though, that you are probably talking a medium format, rather than 35mm, camera, with something like a 75mm or 105mm lens so the depth of field would be much less, especially if the aperture is wide open. It looks a bright day, but if the film was slow… I just can’t see someone faking something so well, but making a total pig’s ear of whatever is in the cockpit.

Frankly, to settle this, we need someone to buy the damn thing, scan at vast resolution, and see what we can make of it! It won’t be me…

Adrian

I think the aircraft is real, however im doubting thats where it actually landed.
Someone said it could be a firing range? The large hits on the airframe would suggest this.

The “pilot” figure is definately a dummy and perhaps was put there simply to add “points” to anyone who is able to hit him while firing at the aircraft.

it’s supposed to be the oil tank cowling, notice the lack of the rest of the cowlings though, they weigh alot and often lie near the aircraft but they are absent here

For the interested visit this site:

http://www.bf-109.de/

click on any version 109 you want to see at the side and then select a further version from the pull down menu that appears, then click S/w fotos.
Compare the belly landed 109’s with this photo

It looks genuine to me. An aircraft that had belly landed then further damaged. I understand that sometimes interesting battle items were left with hidden explosive charges to catch the inquisative. Could this be the result of that happening .
Also what is wrapped around the nearest propeller blade, is it a car tyre or part of the top engine cowling.

Richard

Someone went to a lot of trouble to cook this one up. I’d say it’s a model, judging by the depth of field: on a bright day you wouldn’t see a difference in focus like that – unless you were using a macro lens at small scale.

Also, the “sunlight” is casting a very distinct shadow, more like what you’d get with a single bright light at close range. Real sunlight wouldn’t throw such a distinct shadow.

And I agree that the body looks like a model – and all the other comments about the logic of a body still being in a plane that obviously couldn’t have flown to this position. And where are the marks on the ground of a crash landing? The props look like they are plastic and bent with a candle or some other heat source.

Finally, the trees are quite uniformly spaced but too far apart to be any kind of landscaping or orchard.

All in all, I vote not real.

Photos of K-4’s and late war aircraft are rare, it’s not like allied stuff, the number of photos is low but there are alot of people interested in late war german aircraft and some have deep pockets, as I noted before an undiscovered oirignal good photo of a k-4 could fetch around the 1000 euro mark I have personally watched this happen on other german fighter photos and what may seem like a nice photo to alot is really a goldmine for some collectors and they are willing to pay, so faking is worth it, even the most basic of german stuff is faked today, stuff you couldn’t imagine why people would but they do!

Not surprised really, but quite a lot of money for a picture, which is now available online. Print and age = everyone got an “authentic” picture.

Im pretty sure its a period image of a K-4, and I’ll be following the auction, just to see where it ends. I’m not bidding.