Question about a 1908 photo that might be a fake

[limr]

Question about a 1908 photo that might be a fake


Can somebody, on this forum, bring solid evidence the picture is authentic and was not made using two different authentic photos, one containing only the November landscape, without the flying machine, and the other containing the plane but flying in a different landscape that could be just the sky?
Could this photo be in fact a combination of two different pictures or there is strong evidence on the image (detectable by an expert) that excludes this possibility?

So you think it might be a picture of the plane against the sky with the landscape superimposed? It is possible I guess. Do you have the original print to examine?

That link is to the plate negative. If it was faked, it was done on the negative, not the print.

 

[limr]

I still don't understand why the OP discounts the question "Why?"

Why is this photo in question but not others? There are apparently 57 dry plate negatives from the Wright Brothers cataloged at the Library of Congress. Many of them show an airplane in the air? Are all of them in question or just this one? And if so, I ask again, why this one?

Perhaps Designer's right - there might just be some beer and a couple of ill-advised bets behind this

 

[simplex]

The original negative exists and it is in the possession of the Library of Congress that scanned it and put it on the net. The image I posted is the certified digital copy of the negative. Any modification operated on this negative after Sep. 1908 is highly unlikely.

 

[astroNikon]

"certified"
is your answer then
it was certified by an expert(s) as a copy of the original.
But then you'll have to contact that expert(s) to determine if they questioned/ investigated the authenticity of the original.

 

[limr]

I think we are making this far too complicated.

Can somebody, on this forum, bring solid evidence the picture is authentic and was not made using two different authentic photos,...

No.

We all apparently can give logical reasons for why it was most likely NOT faked, but definitive? No. You need the plates and an expert.

 

[robbins.photo]

I still don't understand why the OP discounts the question "Why?"

Why is this photo in question but not others? There are apparently 57 dry plate negatives from the Wright Brothers cataloged at the Library of Congress. Many of them show an airplane in the air? Are all of them in question or just this one? And if so, I ask again, why this one?

Perhaps Designer's right - there might just be some beer and a couple of ill-advised bets behind this

Well there are a couple of different conspiracy theories floating around on that one I guess, first that the Wright brothers were not the first to acheive powered flight. Some folks want to believe that a guy named Gustav Whitehead was actually the first and that the Wright Brothers stole a lot of their design from him - I haven't found a ton of supporting evidence there, while I have little doubt that Whitehead probably was working on designs for powered flight there just isn't much historical evidence that he acheived it first or that he and the Wright brothers actually met at all.

The second one I've heard is that the Wright brothers supposedly faked everything prior to 1908, but that makes pretty much no sense to me whatsoever. They supposedly spent 4 years pretending to have a working flying machine and went to huge lengths to con people into believeing it worked, then in late 1907 early 1908 they submit a proposal to the government for a contract and they plunk down a $2500 deposit knowing full well that the government is going to demand that they prove this works or they lose the $2500 deposit. They do this supposedly knowing full well the machine doesn't work and that they've been conning people for the last 4 years.

Then suddently in 1908 they magically pull a working model out of their keesters that drastically exceeds all of the performance expectations at the time and they manage to prove to the government it does work with multiple public demonstrations in front of eye witnesses, many of which are caught on film proving the design works. Just makes pretty much zero sense.

 

[Braineack]

let's talk about how Edison wasn't really an inventor instead.

 

[limr]

I still don't understand why the OP discounts the question "Why?"

Why is this photo in question but not others? There are apparently 57 dry plate negatives from the Wright Brothers cataloged at the Library of Congress. Many of them show an airplane in the air? Are all of them in question or just this one? And if so, I ask again, why this one?

Perhaps Designer's right - there might just be some beer and a couple of ill-advised bets behind this

Well there are a couple of different conspiracy theories floating around on that one I guess, first that the Wright brothers were not the first to acheive powered flight. Some folks want to believe that a guy named Gustav Whitehead was actually the first and that the Wright Brothers stole a lot of their design from him - I haven't found a ton of supporting evidence there, while I have little doubt that Whitehead probably was working on designs for powered flight there just isn't much historical evidence that he acheived it first or that he and the Wright brothers actually met at all.

The second one I've heard is that the Wright brothers supposedly faked everything prior to 1908, but that makes pretty much no sense to me whatsoever. They supposedly spent 4 years pretending to have a working flying machine and went to huge lengths to con people into believeing it worked, then in late 1907 early 1908 they submit a proposal to the government for a contract and they plunk down a $2500 deposit knowing full well that the government is going to demand that they prove this works or they lose the $2500 deposit. They do this supposedly knowing full well the machine doesn't work and that they've been conning people for the last 4 years.

Then suddently in 1908 they magically pull a working model out of their keesters that drastically exceeds all of the performance expectations at the time and they manage to prove to the government it does work with multiple public demonstrations in front of eye witnesses, many of which are caught on film proving the design works. Just makes pretty much zero sense.

This again brings up the question of why only this particular photo is in question. If they faked this and they faked all the experiments prior to 1908, then they must have faked all those other pre-1908 photos, right?

Was it only because this was the photo was 1904 but not published until 1908? So they question the validity based on a 4-year delay in publishing? There are SOOOOO many other more plausible reasons for this than "they faked it." Do people know how difficult it would have been to fake a photo like that in the 19-aughts?

 

[robbins.photo]

This again brings up the question of why only this particular photo is in question. If they faked this and they faked all the experiments prior to 1908, then they must have faked all those other pre-1908 photos, right?

That's the conspiracy theory at any rate. Doesn't really hold water too well I'm afraid.

Was it only because this was the photo was 1904 but not published until 1908? So they question the validity based on a 4-year delay in publishing? There are SOOOOO many other more plausible reasons for this than "they faked it." Do people know how difficult it would have been to fake a photo like that in the 19-aughts?

I don't think most people have a clue as to how difficult faking a photo would have been back then. I had a friend who for a while swore up and down that the footage of the Hindeburg disaster was faked. He'd bring it up all the time, he had some sort of whacky conspiracy theory involved with the whole thing as to why they would fake the film, etc, etc.

So one night I finally got fed up, I sat him down and had him watch the original 1933 version of King Kong. I told him, look - this was pretty much state of the art special effects at the time. So tell me again how they faked the footage of the Hindenburg?

Man, did that room ever get quiet.. lol.

 

[simplex]

Why is this photo in question but not others? There are apparently 57 dry plate negatives from the Wright Brothers cataloged at the Library of Congress. Many of them show an airplane in the air? Are all of them in question or just this one?

I would also be interested to know if other pictures in the collection are genuine or not. However, I suspect most of them are genuine excepting maybe the dates. If somebody took a picture in Aug. 1908 and pretended it was taken in Aug. 1904 or 1905 it would be nearly impossible to prove when exactly the photo was made.
The Wright brothers have been seen flying starting with May 6, 1908. The picture I mentioned in my first post shows a late autumn landscape (the trees do not have leafs) and could not have been made between May and September 1908 (the month it was published). If genuine this photo will prove the Wright brothers had been flying since at least late autumn 1907.

 

[limr]

Why is this photo in question but not others? There are apparently 57 dry plate negatives from the Wright Brothers cataloged at the Library of Congress. Many of them show an airplane in the air? Are all of them in question or just this one?

I would also be interested to know if other pictures in the collection are genuine or not. However, I suspect most of them are genuine excepting maybe the dates. If somebody took a picture in Aug. 1908 and pretended it was taken in Aug. 1904 or 1905 it would be nearly impossible to prove when exactly the photo was made.
The Wright brothers have been seen flying starting with May 6, 1908. The picture I mentioned in my first post shows a late autumn landscape (the trees do not have leafs) and could not have been made between May and September 1908 (the month it was published). If genuine this photo will prove the Wright brothers had been flying since at least late autumn 1907.

Well, no the photo wouldn't prove they were flying. Many of their efforts technically involved gliding, not flying, In this shot, the nose is up, so it's probably just been launched and it might not even be clear yet if they were "flying" or "gliding."

But now the argument is switching to a real photo but fake dates?

Y'know what? I'm going to take a pass on the rabbit hole.

 

[robbins.photo]

Why is this photo in question but not others? There are apparently 57 dry plate negatives from the Wright Brothers cataloged at the Library of Congress. Many of them show an airplane in the air? Are all of them in question or just this one?

I would also be interested to know if other pictures in the collection are genuine or not. However, I suspect most of them are genuine excepting maybe the dates. If somebody took a picture in Aug. 1908 and pretended it was taken in Aug. 1904 or 1905 it would be nearly impossible to prove when exactly the photo was made.
The Wright brothers have been seen flying starting with May 6, 1908. The picture I mentioned in my first post shows a late autumn landscape (the trees do not have leafs) and could not have been made between May and September 1908 (the month it was published). If genuine this photo will prove the Wright brothers had been flying since at least late autumn 1907.

Ok, well correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the first photographic evidence of the Wright brothers acheiving powered flight was a photograph taken in December of 1903, a full 4 years before the photograph you wish to examine.

So I guess I'm still not sure really how proving beyond any shadow of a doubt that the photograph your looking at is "real" would really prove much of anything. But I will say that the odds that this photograph are fake are so incredibly unlikely that it strains credulity.

 

[robbins.photo]

Why is this photo in question but not others? There are apparently 57 dry plate negatives from the Wright Brothers cataloged at the Library of Congress. Many of them show an airplane in the air? Are all of them in question or just this one?

I would also be interested to know if other pictures in the collection are genuine or not. However, I suspect most of them are genuine excepting maybe the dates. If somebody took a picture in Aug. 1908 and pretended it was taken in Aug. 1904 or 1905 it would be nearly impossible to prove when exactly the photo was made.
The Wright brothers have been seen flying starting with May 6, 1908. The picture I mentioned in my first post shows a late autumn landscape (the trees do not have leafs) and could not have been made between May and September 1908 (the month it was published). If genuine this photo will prove the Wright brothers had been flying since at least late autumn 1907.

Well, no the photo wouldn't prove they were flying. Many of their efforts technically involved gliding, not flying, In this shot, the nose is up, so it's probably just been launched and it might not even be clear yet if they were "flying" or "gliding."

But now the argument is switching to a real photo but fake dates?

Y'know what? I'm going to take a pass on the rabbit hole.

Lol.. ok, well real photo but fake dates notion really doesn't wash either - it would make zero sense for the Wright brothers to risk $2500 of their own money in January of 1908 when submiting their design to the Government if they new it didn't work and all the evidence of them acheiving powered flight prior to 1908 was supposedly faked.

 

[simplex]

"So I guess I'm still not sure really how proving beyond any shadow of a doubt that the photograph your looking at is "real" would really prove much of anything."

I have already explained in my previous post that, if the picture is real, it will prove the Wright brothers flew at least starting with the end of autumn 1907 which would explain why the two inventors paid $2500 in January 1908 to be accepted in a competition for building a plane for the US government.

As a note: It has to be mentioned that, in January 1908, Augustus Herring, a rival of the Wright brothers, also paid a large sum of money, $2000, to be accepted as a competitor despite the fact it had no working flying machine. So just because the Wright brothers made a large deposit ($2500, the money earned by a worker in about 10 years) this does not mean they really had a working plane.

 

[astroNikon]

Contact the Library of Congress and bring your issues up with them.
photo or dates .... I'm sure what they know in summary is available publicly.

You seem to support that their "experts" already "certify" the information.
So start with their public information as a "fact" as best known information per their experts. The "experts" that have access to everything.


If you question their experts then that is different.
once again ... eliminate conjecture and hearsay
Go back to the original locations, reenact everything from those dates going forward and build up your case against any expert information.


Hindenburg not only had film footage, but radio recordings, witnesses watching and survivors, left over materials from the fire, flight plans, construction materials/ hydrogen, emergency crews etc, visible from all around. One would have to disprove all of that.

King Kong wasn't real ?