GAWZU From United Kingdom, joined May 2002, 235 posts, RR: 1 Reply 1, posted (10 years 4 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2637 times:
Andy, I was just about to post exactly the same topic! G-AWIW is a 1947 STAMPE SV4B (whatever that is!) according to the CAA G-INFO website, and it's easy to see that the copyright credit on the photo, Bob Cross, doesnt match up with the apparent submitant, David McGuire.
Sunilgupta From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 770 posts, RR: 15 Reply 2, posted (10 years 4 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2606 times:
it's easy to see that the copyright credit on the photo, Bob Cross, doesnt match up with the apparent submitant, David McGuire
But wait... the submitting photographer has no control over the tag line on the photo independent of the name they submit the photo under ... is this a screw up in the database?
With regard to the photo… it could be real. Just because the registration was previously used on some old bird does not mean it could not have been reassigned. Or it could be a temp registration.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 530 posts, RR: 18 Reply 3, posted (10 years 4 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2600 times:
Sunil - we've looked into this one.
a) UK reg's in the standard sequence aren't reassigned
b) examined closely in a graphics package you can see
- letter of the reg aren't aligned
- underwing reg just visible contains a Y
- edges of tail fin are not quite right
- shadow effect around tail engine is not right
- variations in noise/grain patterns
etc. etc.
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (10 years 4 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2568 times:
Sunil said: Just because the registration was previously used on some old bird does not mean it could not have been reassigned.
Used registration numbers in the UK are never reassigned... Well, actually, there is one instance of this happening - G-BJCB was allocated to two different HS.125s. Since then, the UK CAA has not allowed re-use of registrations in the UK.
----
Johan (Ljungdahl) said: I mailed about this one to the admin a few hours ago (I usually do that, instead of starting threads about it...)
Johan (the boss) has said that threads about fakes are OK, as long as they are contructive! So please, raise a topic next time if you wish!!!!!
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (10 years 4 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2529 times:
Frederic, the large picture has already been removed from the database - seems like those on high agree its a fake.
I suspect we screeners will soon get bombarded with an e-mail from an irate photographer (or more accurately photoshopper) indignantly asking why his picture has been removed from the database. Believe me, when this happens, most "fakers" are too stupid to accept they've been found out and actually argue back - arguing back in such cases just moves them more quickly towards the likelihood of a total ban!
Apuneger From Belgium, joined Sep 2000, 3026 posts, RR: 13 Reply 10, posted (10 years 4 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2523 times:
G-AWIW is a 1947 STAMPE SV4B (whatever that is!)
That should be a Stampe & Vertongen SV4B. Stampe & Vertongen was one of the very few Belgian aircraft manufacturers. Unless I'm wrong, one of their aircraft types (the SV4 I think) was even used in the Belgian air force for pilot training and stuff like that. I also think the SV4 was even used for commercial pilot training, loooooong ago...Not quite a modern widebody airliner, huh? Anyway, nice to see people are still scanning this database for fake pictures. Great job, guys!!
Sunilgupta From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 770 posts, RR: 15 Reply 11, posted (10 years 4 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2506 times:
I was just trying to give the guy the benefit of doubt, but looking at it a bit closer now I agree … fake… you can see individual pixel elements that don’t belong around the engine pylons, and perhaps the biggest giveaway – the faker forgot the lower part of the door outline on the rear pax door!
UK reg's in the standard sequence aren't reassigned
Hmm, didn’t realize that. You learn something new every day! Here in the US, the FAA routinely does reassign registrations as you know. It has confused us a number of times, especially with GA aircraft as the databases don’t get updated in real-time.
asking why his picture has been removed from the database
or maybe we are facing a new age of database terrorism… they try and sneak them in any way they can!
I found the large version cached on my PC… email if you want it.
I still don’t understand how the name on the photo did not match the name on the screen… can anyone explain?
Clickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9444 posts, RR: 72 Reply 12, posted (10 years 4 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2459 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
I thought this was a thread on more of Craig Murray's shots. Muwahahahahahahah
Ljungdahl From Sweden, joined Apr 2002, 900 posts, RR: 40 Reply 13, posted (10 years 4 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2451 times:
Andy (Skymonster),
I have mailed the admin in the past, about both photos that I've assumed to be fake (that one was voted down by the a.net crew...) and also about photos where I assumed that the submitter could impossible be the actual photographer (which was correct in a few cases, and voted down in a few other...)
Therefore I'm careful to start threads that could easily start that ol' "flaming" again...
...I have a rather good eye to spot errors, and combined with a "few" years experience of this hobby, I also submit a number of corrections...
(...it's quite unbelievable how hard it is to know what type of aircraft belonging to which airline wearing whatever registration you've just submitted a photo of...)
PH-OTO From Netherlands, joined Mar 2002, 434 posts, RR: 34 Reply 16, posted (10 years 4 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2375 times:
Andy, you wrote: "arguing back in such cases just moves them more quickly towards the likelihood of a total ban!"
Isn't a single fake picture of this magnitude enough for a total ban? You can hardly give this guy the benefit of the doubt, can you?
Do you have guidelines for banning people?
Martin Boschhuizen
Look very closely between the lines of this message, and you will see the captain beating up the jumpseater
EGBB From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (10 years 4 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2196 times:
May I ask if this was the screeners view or Johans as this in my opinion will only encourage rather than discourage people in the future from doing this.
This could in my opinion be the start of a much larger problem in the very near future and needs to be tackled now so everyone uploading knows what will (what should) happen if they upload such pictures not only if they get passed the screeners btw.
PH-OTO From Netherlands, joined Mar 2002, 434 posts, RR: 34 Reply 23, posted (10 years 4 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2178 times:
I second that, Derek.
Picture this, though: someone has all of his pictures removed and it turns out that the alleged fake isn't fake after all. I mean, you have to be 100% sure that it really is fake. It is not that difficult with the Mytravel DC-10, but it is possible.
And what about the "vanishing lamppost"? Enough for a ban?
Oh , man. I shouldn't think so much so early in the morning
Martin
Look very closely between the lines of this message, and you will see the captain beating up the jumpseater
EGBB From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (10 years 4 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2152 times:
Martin,
The removing of an object like the lamp post will always be border case and will have to be left to the discretion of the screeners if this deters from the photo or not.
My main point is the adding of an object like an aircraft or livery like in the two recent examples we have seen. This is the area which concerns me and is an area that should be and could be dealt with.
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 770 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 530 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Sweden, joined Apr 2002, 900 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Mar 2002, 434 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
