Author Topic: Origin of photo? (Read 849 times)

Maverick · « **Reply #15 on:** May 30, 2005, 11:21:05 AM »

Straiga max's another pinpoint landing using his extensive P51 experiance to develop this technique.

Dago · « **Reply #16 on:** May 30, 2005, 11:34:38 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Rino
Well it's entirely possible that the pilot was shoved forward
by the impact, thus shoving the yoke forward. The aircraft is
obviously just hitting the truck as the other prop blade is still
straight. The latch holding the oil door is not exactly a bank
vault.

Points I was going to make.

I am sure this is a movie stunt picture, but other than that, I think it's real.

The aircraft has struck the truck with the nose gear, lower cowling and one blade of the prop.

Yes, the oil door would pop open very easy, and with any twisting of the cowl as in this case, it would open.

Size of aircraft versus truck, the truck is small, and the Cessnas in the 185 and up series are good size, certainly bigger than the 172 size many are used to. (have quite a few hours in C207 myself).

Thought the same thing on the elevator, pilot goes foward on sudden stop/yoke goes forward.

Now, can anyone tell why I believe this aircraft had a nose gear instead of being a tail dragger?

dago

Maverick · « **Reply #17 on:** May 30, 2005, 11:42:07 AM »

Dago,

First this is a Cessna and they dropped conventional gear fairly early. This is not an early Cessna as the tailfin is slanted to the rear. They started doing that about 63 or 67 I believe. Second the main gear is too far to the rea in the fuselage to be a tail gear bird.

eskimo2 · « **Reply #18 on:** May 30, 2005, 11:46:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dago
Points I was going to make.

I am sure this is a movie stunt picture, but other than that, I think it's real.

dago

Read my posts above; origin found.

eskimo

Eagler · « **Reply #19 on:** May 30, 2005, 12:15:50 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by eskimo2
Yup, I just dug though our old stash of National Geographics; it’s on pages 820 & 821 (June 1976 ).

eskimo

thank goodness the article wasn't next to the one about the topless tribes in Kenya - else them pages would be stuck together too

Dago · « **Reply #20 on:** May 30, 2005, 02:12:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Maverick

Dago,

First this is a Cessna

That is obvious

Quote

This is not an early Cessna as the tailfin is slanted to the rear

I guess you can see the tail in the picture, I can't, but I do see what looks like a two piece windshield which indicates an older aircraft.

Quote

the main gear is too far to the rea in the fuselage to be a tail gear bird.

Bingo. Main gear aft, nose wheel aircraft.

SFRT - Frenchy · « **Reply #21 on:** May 30, 2005, 02:29:57 PM »

Despite the National Geographic article, I still don't buy it.

The hood of the truck is deformed and flying like after a violent side impact, the front cowling is not deformed at all, not a wrinkle to be seen. The propeller is not bent, meaning it wasn't turning on impact. Even if you come at idle, let's say 1200 RPM, it's still a 20 rotation per seconds.

As far as the trap door, I flew with it unlatched on my 210, and it ALWAYS stayed up banging on the cowling in flight, it never went down.

For the elevator, maybe you are right, the pilot didn't have a shoulder harness.

The propeller is in the "typicall" attitude of a on the ground stopped engine. After a flight, when I shut off the engine, I have to rotate the blade 20-30 degres to put it horizontal. (company thing to indicate that the plane needs fuel)

I don't by it, sorry National Geographic, I just think that someone found a way to make money in the 80s.

Habu · « **Reply #22 on:** May 30, 2005, 03:07:01 PM »

If I could see the tail I could confirm it but it looks like a pre 62 Cessna 182.

Hard to be sure without seeing the following areas that would confirm it. The bottom of the cowl for lack cowl flaps, the back of the fuselage behind the wing (lack of window indicates pre 62) the wing tips (old aluminium one before the drooped plastic ones) and the tail (straight tail versus the slanted one).

However the engine oil door and split windshield are correct for that era. It might be a 172 as well but it looks like the 182 nose.

Dago · « **Reply #23 on:** May 30, 2005, 03:55:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SFRT - Frenchy
Despite the National Geographic article, I still don't buy it.

The hood of the truck is deformed and flying like after a violent side impact, the front cowling is not deformed at all, not a wrinkle to be seen. The propeller is not bent, meaning it wasn't turning on impact. Even if you come at idle, let's say 1200 RPM, it's still a 20 rotation per seconds.

As far as the trap door, I flew with it unlatched on my 210, and it ALWAYS stayed up banging on the cowling in flight, it never went down.

For the elevator, maybe you are right, the pilot didn't have a shoulder harness.

The propeller is in the "typicall" attitude of a on the ground stopped engine. After a flight, when I shut off the engine, I have to rotate the blade 20-30 degres to put it horizontal. (company thing to indicate that the plane needs fuel)

I don't by it, sorry National Geographic, I just think that someone found a way to make money in the 80s.

The oil door is not an "inflight door", it is a "during crash sequence" oil door.

dago

eskimo2 · « **Reply #24 on:** May 30, 2005, 04:32:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SFRT - Frenchy
Despite the National Geographic article, I still don't buy it.

The hood of the truck is deformed and flying like after a violent side impact, the front cowling is not deformed at all, not a wrinkle to be seen. The propeller is not bent, meaning it wasn't turning on impact. Even if you come at idle, let's say 1200 RPM, it's still a 20 rotation per seconds.

As far as the trap door, I flew with it unlatched on my 210, and it ALWAYS stayed up banging on the cowling in flight, it never went down.

For the elevator, maybe you are right, the pilot didn't have a shoulder harness.

The propeller is in the "typicall" attitude of a on the ground stopped engine. After a flight, when I shut off the engine, I have to rotate the blade 20-30 degres to put it horizontal. (company thing to indicate that the plane needs fuel)

I don't by it, sorry National Geographic, I just think that someone found a way to make money in the 80s.

LOL Frenchy,

Now there’s a man who cannot admit when he is wrong. Your saying that a National Geographic photographer “photoshopped” this picture? National Geographic is probably the world’s most respected source of photographs and photographers. “Photoshopping” back then could not be done digitally. In the darkroom a photographer could merge parts of photos together by covering part of the photo paper so as not to expose it, then covering all areas that had been exposed and then moving the paper to a different enlarger with the second negative in place and focused, and then exposing the unexposed area to the desired negative. If the placement is off by a 32nd of an inch, it will show, glaringly. This would be very difficult in a picture with the sharp contrast and complex shape of the plane versus the background. Black and white, maybe, color makes everything much more difficult and complicated. It would be much easier just to stage the crash.

At 3:04 a.m. February 4, 1976 a 7.5 magnitude earthquake hit Guatemala. Naturally National Geographic sent reporters and photographers to cover the story. The article shows the devastation on 24 pages of the June issue (1976), but I suppose that the National Geographic photographers photoshoped those as well.

As stated above,
“(TRULY AN AMAZING "right place, right time" PICTURE - Story according to National Geographic - "Buffeted by crosswinds, a rescue plane crashes into a truck, while trying to land on a mountain highway near Sanarate, Guatemala. Miraculously no one suffered serious injury. The photograph was first published in the June 1976 NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC article on Guatemala. The photo was taken by staff photographer Robert Madden. Madden has landed on the same road only moments earlier, and took this photo through the window of his plane. The photo also appeared in our 1994 book National Geographic: The Photographs.")”

Go to the library and get a copy for yourself.
It happened.
Your wrong.
Get over it.

eskimo

midnight Target · « **Reply #25 on:** May 30, 2005, 05:04:47 PM »

Eskimo,

Stop trying to make up stories about "National Geographic" and "Earthquakes". Come on! We all know its fake!.

SFRT - Frenchy · « **Reply #26 on:** May 30, 2005, 06:45:19 PM »

Eskimo, go ahead, laught at me and protect yourself behind the N Geo issue like Salem's judges brandished the bible to stone witches. Even the composition looks fishy, the guys jumping away. Taken from the window of a plane that just landed. Probably an another Cessna ... u know how hard is it to take a picture out of a Cessna window? If you managed to do so, the strut sould appear.

How about the truck? A plane landed 5 min ago, and it's there next to the touch down zone?

As far as the oil door, the hinge is on the horizontal, right on impact, the horizontal abrupt deceleration would have to be vertical to force the door open.

I'm not going to waste my week end convincing you. You believe N Geo all you want, I have quite some experience with Cessnas, saw some of them crash live, I call for "Fishy".

it's my 2 cts.

I pointed the things that were bugging me on the picture, all u came up with is "It's true, it's from N Geo".

Dago · « **Reply #27 on:** May 30, 2005, 07:38:23 PM »

Frenchy, I am sure you have more experience with Cessnas, I have only been working full time in aviation my whole adult life (A&P for 27 + years), and flying Cessnas since 1980.

Still, I think it is really an airplane hitting a truck. I think the things you pointed out dont hold up at all.

But what would I know?

dago

Waffle · « **Reply #28 on:** May 30, 2005, 07:44:27 PM »

Did they Have Photoshop in '76?

eskimo2 · « **Reply #29 on:** May 30, 2005, 07:58:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SFRT - Frenchy
Eskimo, go ahead, laught at me and protect yourself behind the N Geo issue like Salem's judges brandished the bible to stone witches. Even the composition looks fishy, the guys jumping away. Taken from the window of a plane that just landed. Probably an another Cessna ... u know how hard is it to take a picture out of a Cessna window? If you managed to do so, the strut sould appear.

How about the truck? A plane landed 5 min ago, and it's there next to the touch down zone?

As far as the oil door, the hinge is on the horizontal, right on impact, the horizontal abrupt deceleration would have to be vertical to force the door open.

I'm not going to waste my week end convincing you. You believe N Geo all you want, I have quite some experience with Cessnas, saw some of them crash live, I call for "Fishy". it's my 2 cts.

I pointed the things that were bugging me on the picture, all u came up with is "It's true, it's from N Geo".

So you’re sticking to the idea that National Geographic photographer Robert Madden forged/photoshopped/dodged and burned this photo and then National Geographic magazine (one of the most respected magazines in the world, especially for photography), published it? They did this with out fearing that experts would notice errors? Its kind of a stupid subject to forge and then place in an article on an earthquake don’t you think? What other famous photos do you think National Geographic forged? Please enlighten us.

BWT, I have a degree in photography (pre digital).

You’re credibility in this matter only lies in yourself.

eskimo