Cadet57 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 9081 posts, RR: 34 Reply 1, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 11218 times:
first one idk but it is a a.net photo, second is fake see www.snopes.com and also an a.net photo. and third idk either.
Doors open, right hand side, next stop is Springfield.
OPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 11197 times:
1/ The fact that the photographer's name has partially been erased flags this one as a fake, not to mention we'd have read about it the incident.
2/ Widely discussed here on a.net as a hoax, and identifiable as such due to the "fire" not showing up in the reflection of the same engine on the fuselage.
3/ I thought that one was real, based upon what I recall was the photo's listing here on A.net, but after looking at this one, it almost looks like the one in the original post could have been taken a second or two after this one....
Jasond From Australia, joined Jul 2009, 23 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 11163 times:
I am unsure about the third one. The second seems to be 'confirmed' as a fake. The only things that lead me to believe the first is a fake is that there appears to be no evidence of gear compression on the starboard side and the fact that the 'smoke' etc looks to layered over the top.
Flypdx From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 636 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 11162 times:
EMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9292 posts, RR: 12 Reply 6, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 11151 times:
Fake, Fake, Fake.....
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
JrMafia90 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 216 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 11054 times:
Jasond From Australia, joined Jul 2009, 23 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 10982 times:
Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 3): 3/ I thought that one was real, based upon what I recall was the photo's listing here on A.net, but after looking at this one, it almost looks like the one in the original post could have been taken a second or two after this one....
I reckon the image you posted was what this 'fake' was based on. The position of the vertical tail is in the same position in relation to the buildings in the background. Given the speed of the aircraft at the time if it were two different pictures you would see some distance between the two I would have thought. Looks like a simple rotation done in Photpshop to me. For what it is worth I think all of these are fakes and as 'interesting' as they are, is there a place for them on ANet? I'm not sure. Incidently they were sent to me by a colleague who is a non aviation enthusiast. He thought they were real. Thankyou all for your comments.
Quoting JrMafia90 (Reply 7): Pretty bad editing. You can tell they are fake.
My sister uses Photoshop professionally and although she has no background in aviation at all she thought the work was very poor.
Trolley Dolley From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 10901 times:
All faked poorly.
1) If you look at the far right hand tire of the right and main body gear, you can see the very bad cutting job they've done. It's not circular.
2) Apart from the afore mentioned lack of fire reflection in the fuselage, there is absolutely no black smoke from the burning petrol. Just think of the awful pictures of Concorde or the 9/11 impacts.
3) You can clearly see the egding around the tail where it has been cut out.
MarshalN From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2005, 1521 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 10810 times:
The third one is a fake because the aircraft was already in the air. The "runway" in that one is clearly a taxiway/runway in the back. The aircraft just happens to be riding over it -- the actual runway is the thing you see in the bottom.
N766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 8008 posts, RR: 27 Reply 15, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 10611 times:
Yeah all 3 are fake. You don't even need proof just take a close look and it's obvious. Gotta love how the one is an airliners.net photo too. If I were the photographer I'd be royally pissed.
QantasHeavy From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 379 posts, RR: 1 Reply 16, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 10340 times:
3rd one is an optical illusion... it is not landing on the "top" runway... it is a few feet above the bottom one. FAKE taikl strike skid added to top runway which is actually in the background... just that wheels are in just the right spot.
I actually saw the same picture of the fake 747 blowing up with AC livery.
If I'm not mistaken, the rear fuselage of the aircraft is taken from a video/picture of a test done on a 747 (at RAF Bruntingthorpe?) to see what happens when a bomb explodes in the rear cargo bay of an aircraft (post Lockerbie).
ANITIX87 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 3240 posts, RR: 14 Reply 18, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 8537 times:
Quoting QantasHeavy (Reply 16): it is not landing on the "top" runway... it is a few feet above the bottom one.
I don't think this one (the REAL one) actually is an optical illusion. It seems to me that you can see the jet-blast coming out of the engine and then being deflected parallel to the ground on which the aircraft appears to be. This tells me it is actually in contact. Plus, the near runway is a LOT closer then the far one, and I think if it were actually above the closer one the plane would appear much larger relative to the buildings.
Just my two cents, I could be wrong.
TIS
www.stellaryear.com: Canon EOS 50D, Canon EOS 5DMkII, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 24-70 2.8L II, Canon 100mm 2.8L, Canon 100-4
Newark777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 9348 posts, RR: 33 Reply 19, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 8400 times:
Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 18):
I don't think this one (the REAL one) actually is an optical illusion. It seems to me that you can see the jet-blast coming out of the engine and then being deflected parallel to the ground on which the aircraft appears to be. This tells me it is actually in contact. Plus, the near runway is a LOT closer then the far one, and I think if it were actually above the closer one the plane would appear much larger relative to the buildings.
You can also tell that it's still on the ground because of the angle of the main gear. If they had left the ground, they would be angled like this:
Jmc757 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2000, 1296 posts, RR: 8 Reply 21, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5693 times:
Ok they're all fakes, but they're not too bad and look fairly impressive (in a strange kind of way!).
Quoting GEEZ (Reply 9): What kind of sad, lonely, pathetic, morbid, juvenile kind of twat would sit there and take time to edit a picture to create that effect anyway???
If the idiots responsible for those pics are viewing this...
Its not these people you have to worry about. Ok, its may be a little strange, but the people who made these are just having a little fun playing around in photoshop. They're not hurting anyone, and I for one think the results are fairly impressive (again in a strange kind of way!)
On the other hand, there are some very strange morbid, even twisted people that do something rather different - faking ACTUAL accident photos. Helios 737 photos come to mind as well as a number of 9/11 "photos". That another level all together.
TheCheese From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 172 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5608 times:
In the third one, you can see that the 'shopper duped the windows on the building on the left to cover where the plane had been: the four rows of windows at the top of the building are identical with the four rows below that.
Also, if you look at the nose gear, you can see that they didn't bother trimming the eave line of the building behind the gear out, and they left the shadow of the nosewheel on the hangar door.
Plus, that picture has the look of someone using Unsharp Mask to hide the artifactation left behind from the photomanipulation. That's the fuzziness; the real picture is in focus.
MissedApproach From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 713 posts, RR: 2 Reply 23, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4239 times:
Quoting N766UA (Reply 15): Gotta love how the one is an airliners.net photo too. If I were the photographer I'd be royally pissed.
I often see A.net photos floating around in emails & powerpoints, usually with the copyright cut off the bottom. Very irritating. What are they trying to hide?
Oh, & I think all the photos at the top are pretty blatantly altered.
Sponsor Message: 
From Australia, joined Jul 2009, 23 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 9081 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7767 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From UK - England, joined Feb 2004, 8810 posts, 
From Argentina, joined Feb 2005, 1740 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Spain, joined Dec 2003, 4068 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
){kind=link}