Actual Photos?

[PFF]

On website "Great War Aviation Photos"

URL http://www.gwpda.org/photos/aviation.htm

Heading # 1"Central Powers Aviators"

Subject: "German Balloonist "Bailing out"

(One History with this photo cliamed it had been taken by an attacking aircraft)

Heading # 2 "Central Powers Aircraft and Equipment"

Subject: "Shot Down In flames"

Are these actual photographs?

[Adrian Roberts]

PFF

I would guess "no" to both.

In the case of the balloonist photo, I don't think they had telescopic lenses in those days and even if they did the photo is just too perfect for something taken in an emergency situation when the balloon must have been at least several hundred feet in the air and the photographer on the ground.

In the cast of the burning aeroplane: the smoke appears to be from behind the wreck (or more likely added subsequently) and it is not consuming the wreck. It is very difficult to see how a crash could result in that attitude; looks like a nose-over on landing but the plane has been pulled backward subsequently. Isn't the rear half of the aircraft be missing altogether?

Adrian

[Tom Morgan]

I'm sure I've seen the "bailing out" photo before and the caption said that they were testing a parachute. If it was a pre-planned event like this, it would explain why the photographer was ready in such a good position at just the right time.

Tom

[Bruce Dennis]

I'm sure I've seen the "bailing out" photo before and the caption said that they were testing a parachute.  If it was a pre-planned event like this, it would explain why the photographer was ready in such a good position at just the right time.

Tom

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am sure the photo has also been captioned "British observer practices balloon escape". A couple of the early histories included it, so at least the timeline is reliable.

It is a real photo, from the Great War period, but the caption is dodgy.

Bruce

[Malcolm]

They are both in

1. The Times History of the Great War.

2. The Great War. by Wilson and Hammerton published in 13 volumes.

Aye

Malcolm

[Guest Zapfenstreich]

PFF

In the cast of the burning aeroplane: the smoke appears to be from behind the wreck (or more likely added subsequently) and it is not consuming the wreck.  It is very difficult to see how a crash could result in that attitude; looks like a nose-over on landing but the plane has been pulled backward subsequently. Isn't the rear half of the aircraft be missing altogether?

Adrian

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This one is difficult to judge but if one looks closely it appears sections of the wing fabric have already been burned out. Further, again looking closely, the naked framework of the fuselage is just barely discernable.

I'd say there's at least a 50/50 chance it's a genuine photo.

Z