Old photo with a plane crash

jrclark · Mar 31, 2016

Not sure I buy it either. Ejecting at that altitude is likely to be hazardous to your health.

dickfoster · Mar 31, 2016

jrclark said:
Not sure I buy it either. Ejecting at that altitude is likely to be hazardous to your health.

Given the choice, I'd chance it though.

dickfoster · Mar 31, 2016

bcp said:
Photoshopped in 1962?

I hate when people do that.

ovrszd · Mar 31, 2016

The pic is definitely fake.

The tractor on the other hand might be a Dextra? Not sure of the spelling. Saw a couple years ago. Unique grill design for that time period.

ray66v · Mar 31, 2016

The trees in the background are not in focus, but the plane is?

Sorry, it doesn't work like that.

As some keen observers have noted, its an obvious fake.

You have to be skeptical of everything now. It's just too easy to do this kind of thing today.

2LaneCruzer · Mar 31, 2016

Google the license plate. Lots of interesting stuff. Someone said the tractor was a Fordson Major. Here's some variations on the theme. I like the one with the pilot ejecting from the tractor.

XAR658 - Google Search

bcp · Mar 31, 2016

A 3 page discussion about the photo on the professional pilots forum:

Lightning Ejection. - PPRuNe Forums

More photos here.

The Funny Noise.

Bruce

ray66v · Mar 31, 2016

The event may have happened. That doesn't mean the photo is real.

The fact that the plane would not be in sharp focus, that distance from the tractor, if the trees are not in focus, is real.

The image of the aircraft seems to be of higher contrast, than the rest of the photo.

The ground scar in the aerial photo, also shows the crash was not straight into the ground.

k0ua · Mar 31, 2016

I would like to go on record that I think the event is real, and so is the photograph. I will accept any consequences if I am later proved beyond a doubt to be wrong. Again I vote, real, real.

smstonypoint · Mar 31, 2016

k0ua said:
I would like to go on record that I think the event is real, and so is the photograph. I will accept any consequences if I am later proved beyond a doubt to be wrong. Again I vote, real, real.

James,

Despite your track record of offering gratuitous endorsement of bogus theories, I believe you are correct in this case.

Regarding questions about "tampering, today I read that although the photo is real, the Daily Mail "enhanced" the image before publishing it in 1962. I don't know what technology was available for "enhancing" photographic images at that time, but that enhancement process may explain issues regarding differences in focus.

Steve