Question about a 1908 photo that might be a fake

[robbins.photo]

I didn't know man and Dinosaurs existed at the same time until TWrights photo

at least that is what I was taught in University

oh wait. I forgot on TV when I was young I used to watch that History Channel show.... what was it ... oh yeah, The Flintstones.

Hello.. the land, the land of the lost!

Geez.

 

[astroNikon]

I didn't know man and Dinosaurs existed at the same time until TWrights photo

at least that is what I was taught in University

oh wait. I forgot on TV when I was young I used to watch that History Channel show.... what was it ... oh yeah, The Flintstones.

Hello.. the land, the land of the lost!

Geez.

Oh yeah, how could I forget that reality show!

 

[tecboy]

What is the point of this discussion? There is no evidence on that photo is fake.

 

[robbins.photo]

What is the point of this discussion? There is no evidence on that photo is fake.

Well apparently those idiots over at the Smithsonian got bamboozled again. You think they would have learned after buying that Bridge in Brooklyn.. rotfl. But nope, they simply can't be trusted to do the most basic authentication imaginable, I mean not when you compare that to some guy on the internet who's never even seen the original plates. Obviously a far more trusted source than a fly by night outfit like the Smithsonian.

 

[vintagesnaps]

I don't think you can tell when that photo was taken other than when it was documented - a drab gray day in early spring around here seems about the same as a drab fall day. The trees seen in the glass plate image don't look all that different than in the photo linked below of the current day replica Wright B flyer - that photo shows dandelions in the foreground otherwise it wouldn't be obvious from the trees it was spring; in the photo from the glass plate you can't see the ground under the trees to see if there are leaves on the ground or anything blooming to indicate the season.
http://www.wright-b-flyer.org/wp-content/gallery/brown-bird-photos/070505-carbon-boom-test-2.jpg

If the photo was published some months/years after it was taken I don't think that would be considered to be 'faked', it would just mean it was published some time afterwards. It wasn't like people were taking photos with their cell phones and posting them immediately on the internet, it seems conceivable that a photographer might have carted a camera out to an airfield and taken pictures some months or even years before a photo was published.

It's possible to stack two negatives in an enlarger but I don't know how realistic a resulting print would look. There are photographers working in historic photographic processes today, it would be possible to do some research to find out if a photo on a glass plate could have been faked (which to me seems unlikely since the photo would have been exposed in camera directly onto the plate). You could try the George Eastman House in Rochester for info. or look at the Alternative Photography site.
http://www.alternativephotography.com/wp/processes/gelatin-silver/silver-gelatin-dry-plate-process

The reference in the article from the '50s was from someone remembering the event 40+ years later, maybe he remembered it somewhat differently than it happened or he reported what he thought had occurred (which may or may not have been accurate). There seems to be plenty to support that the Wright brothers made numerous test flights at Huffman Prairie (now on the Wright Patt base) in 1904-05. Maybe there could be differing opinions on what was considered to be an actual flight by an actual airplane but the consensus seems to be that the Wright brothers flew a plane in a circular path over a field for some minutes by 1904 and flew a sustained flight by 1905.

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/photos/mediagallery.asp?galleryID=2608&page=2 Hover over the photo titled "Wright Flyer to..." - it refers to a commemorative event for the 104th Anniversary of Practical Flight in 2009.
Here's a photo of the 1904 Wright Flyer ll that looks like the one linked.
The Wright Brothers | Huffman Prarie

Seems like there's a body of research to substantiate that a plane flew prior to 1908.

 

[astroNikon]

The OP confirmed himself that the photo was certified by experts
but then questions the authenticity

Much conflicting conspiracy theory ideology here and much more he posted on other sites ... Over and over again stating the same people he is asking for support are wrong when they dont agree.

Basically discount experts, discount eyewitness statements, discount relevant documentation ... Then his theory can hold some water as long as there is no dissenting comments.

 

[Braineack]

What is the point of this discussion? There is no evidence on that photo is fake.

he's trying to prove his crazy theory, and a few pointed him to some official docs/pics in the library on congress, so now he wants to see if he can prove the images are faked in order to fit his theory.

he believes that the wright brothers didn't actually have "flight" until 1908, when they suddenly after 10 years of toying around figured it out when they needed to prove it for a payment from the govt. so now he has to create evidence to support his theory.

 

[tecboy]

This is the most bizarre thread I have ever read. The photograph is easy to fake it, but impossible to make it real in 1900 by using two negatives. You need a 1/10th scale of a wooden airplane. You need to have a correct angle of the airplane to shoot at as Leonore said. Correct perspective and vantage point, and correct directional of lighting and shadows. Not only that, are the lighting and shadows hard or soft? The airplane must matches with the landscape to combine two negative and print on one paper. You got to be a talented Hollywood special effect artist to do that. Not even the government can do. The government had other things to do beside faking the photograph. Today, anyone can makes this photograph fake and makes it real as possible by using Gimp and cheap computer. Putting a lot of afford and spend ten hours, you get the image that majority of the people can't tell that is faked.

Just because the op disagrees the historical facts, the physic of the flight procedure, the design of the airplane, and today reenactment, doesn't mean the photograph is faked. The op needs to live with that and find another topic he likes and do researches instead of having grudge on the Wright brothers.

 

[limr]

This is the most bizarre thread I have ever read.

And that's saying something around here! :lmao:

The photograph is easy to fake it, but impossible to make it real in 1900 by using two negative. You need a 1/10th scale of a wooden airplane. You need to have a correct angle of the airplane to shoot at as Leonore said. Correct perspective and vantage point, and correct directional of lighting and shadows. Not only that, are the lighting and shadows hard or soft? The airplane must matches with the landscape to combine two negative and print on one paper.

Actually, you had to get that all on one glass negative using a view camera. (The Library of Congress has the glass plate negatives, not the prints.) It's even MORE difficult to fake a negative than to fake a print.

Just because the op disagrees the historical facts, the physic of the flight procedure, the design of the airplane, and today reenactment, doesn't mean the photograph is faked. The op need to live with that and find another subject he likes and do researches instead of having grudge on the Wright brother.

And when does the voice of reason ever convince someone to drop their conspiracy theories?

 

[tecboy]

The photograph is easy to fake it, but impossible to make it real in 1900 by using two negative. You need a 1/10th scale of a wooden airplane. You need to have a correct angle of the airplane to shoot at as Leonore said. Correct perspective and vantage point, and correct directional of lighting and shadows. Not only that, are the lighting and shadows hard or soft? The airplane must matches with the landscape to combine two negative and print on one paper.

Actually, you had to get that all on one glass negative using a view camera. (The Library of Congress has the glass plate negatives, not the prints.) It's even MORE difficult to fake a negative than to fake a print.

It is good to know. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[astroNikon]

You guys should have perused one of those Flight/Pilot forums he mentioned was proof .. they laughed him off of that after providing the information that he said didn't exist to disprove his theory. Then he dismissed that evidence and statements from witnesses as hearsay even though he used a statement 40 yrs later as "solid proof" from some other guy. Of course the pilots ... and glider pilots at that .. would discuss what actual "flight" means.

An interesting albeit crazy read.

I truthfully think the Martians dragged his plane around by a martian string to give it flight. The string was invisible, so was their aircraft. Thus the technology of the day could not see it. But I have my proof because some guy 170 years from now will say so. About inline with the Hindenburg conspiracy.

 

[photoguy99]

Faking this in 1908 would not even have been hard. So-called 'combination printing' had been standard technique for 50 years. Getting it on paper would have been considered simple. Transferring to any sort of negative would then have been one more easy step.

 

[robbins.photo]

Faking this in 1908 would not even have been hard. So-called 'combination printing' had been standard technique for 50 years. Getting it on paper would have been considered simple. Transferring to any sort of negative would then have been one more easy step.

Umm.. the Smithsonian has the original plate, not just a print. Also this whole thing falls flat from the get go - the thought that they faked all of those flights and tests for 4 years in front of all of the eyewitnesses and then had all of the photographic evidence faked as well, frankly it's laughable. The number of people involved who would have had to be "in on" the scam would be immense, and yet for some reason no one ever came forward although none of the people involved, including the Wright brothers themselves, had a thing to gain from supposedly doing this in the first place.

Nope, sorry, that dog just won't hunt. Oh, and just for reference, this was pretty much state of the art photo-fakery at the time:

http://www.thehistoryblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Roosevelt-Riding-a-Bull-Moose.jpg

 

[Designer]

Faking this in 1908 would not even have been hard. So-called 'combination printing' had been standard technique for 50 years. Getting it on paper would have been considered simple. Transferring to any sort of negative would then have been one more easy step.

Well, there you go! I'd call that proof.

 

[480sparky]

All this dribble, and no one has figured out that Orville & Wilber never existed.