Well I guess I'll keep posting what I find. Please if anyone know of more fakes that we can post please post them! I dont want this to be aone man show.

Anyways the next thing I've found it a series of 3 shots that depict Helios Flight 522. The following is a backgrounder on the flight.

The flight, which left Larnaca, Cyprus at 09:07 local time, was en route to Athens, and was scheduled to continue to Prague. After the flight failed to contact air traffic control upon entering Greek air space, two F-16 fighter aircraft from the Hellenic Air Force 111th Combat Wing were scrambled from Nea Anchialos Air Base to establish visual contact. They noted that the aircraft appeared to be on autopilot. In accord with the rules for handling "renegade" aircraft incidents (where the aircraft is not under pilot control), one fighter approached to within 300 feet (100 m) of the ill-fated aircraft. The fighter pilot saw that the first officer was slumped motionless on the controls, and that the captain was not in the cockpit. Oxygen masks were seen dangling in the cabin.

Somewhat later, the F-16 pilots saw someone enter the cockpit and sit at the controls, soon to be joined by another person where the first officer had been sitting, both seemingly trying to regain control of the aircraft. Within minutes, first one engine, then the other ran out of fuel and the aircraft crashed into a hill, scattering wreckage and bodies and bursting into flame

The crash wzs the worst for deaths until a couple weeks later when West Caribbean Airways Flight 708 crashed. The Helios flight took the lives of 121 people. With all of this inmind the fact that supposed images on the internet came to light seems a little twisted but sparked huge interest. After just a couple hours questions emerged about the photos.







The plane in the Hilos flight 522 that was operated was a Boeing 737-300 they (the picture) show a Helios 737-800, rather than the -300. Efforts to disguise this have been made by doctoring the registration to that of the crashed aircraft.

The other key giveaways that the aircraft is an -800 rather than a -300, are the twin overwing exits, its fuselage length and trailing edge configuration.

By popular demand I now bring your the Aurora!
In truth the issue behind the Aurora and if it ever was an operational plane or still is one today is something that the public is in the dark about, but through the years many people have claimed to have caught it on film. Now images of little specs aren't worth ones time but ones that you can distinguish shape size etc are a little better. I've already shown 2 other examples earlier in this thread but one that has been glossed over a bit is the cover of the 1986 issue of Discover magizine.

This is the issue in question. Its a good photoshop job but the shadows don't line up in comparison to that of the hanger and the plane and also the fact that 90% of the people are directly under the plane is odd and the equipment which is normally keep at a bit of a distance is directly under the plane. To prove this photo 100% wrong though I will still need to find the original which was probably taken at the Dryden test center of another plane. Or we can ask Discover mag if they faked it (even quicker)

What we can prove 100% that the 2nd photo has been manipulated and is a rip off of the 1st and miss represented. Its been put in a need backgroudn maybe even actually photographed to look more realistic after its been altered.

What gives it away is the fact that the people and the equipement have been stretched vertically and the horizontal size of the image has been shrunk.compressed inwards making everyone look humanoid as I've showen below. Also want to give a quick thanks to Bios for helping out with providing the images. But if anyone can track down the photo from the original that would be awesome. Till then I'll hunt for it.

A quicker one this time. Here is the culprit image. Its a photo of a B-52 doing a flyby of a aircraft carrier... inverted. Sorta grainy shot and so on. What is the real story here.



Well lets see here. Its a B-52 with full flaps inverted at 50 ft off the waters surface.... story closed it does work. The photos has been tampered with to change the B-52 to make it look like its inverted but its not really. You can even see the box where the person selected the B-52 and then inverted it if you look close.

The real photo is this next one and its much more believable.



Now there may still be some question of what is it doing there and why is its nose pointed so low etc so I'll go out a a limb here with some answers and a story.

The nose down attitude is normal for a B-52 when it comes in for landing approaches due to a number of factors. With full flap deployment, the new angle of attack relative to the angle of incidence (position of the wing relative to the aircraft) is roughly 20 degrees. With full flaps down and at near maximum flap ext. speed the aircraft would have a 5-10 degree nose down attitude. Retract the flaps and you would have a 5-10 degree nose up attitude.

Also I just stumbled on another photo of the same flyby. Here it is



Of note as well is the Helo that looks like a SeaKing in the background the the orginal photo may have been shot from. Just more then likely

As for the story here well this is how it supposedly goes as told by a poster some where else on the web who was there.

This picture was taken in the spring of 1990 as we started our deployment on the Ranger to the Persian Gulf.

I was up in the "tower" with the air boss as the Viking squadron rep for the launch/recovery and these Buff drivers (2 of them) called that they were at 8 miles for a flyby. They had been 'orange air' for a big war - at - sea exercise we were doing When they called at 5 miles the boss said "we don't see you" and we heard back "look low". Out on the water we saw this smoke trail first, (the planes merged with the color of the water) at about a 1-2 miles we could break them out and the two buffs came by at 20-30 feet off the water splitting the ship at about 350kts. Then they pulled up and did a big plan form 180 and said "do you want to see that again" - The air boss said "hell yea" so they went back out an did it again.

It was the only time in my 20 year career that I have seen any services jets purposely flying below flight deck level.

[edit on 22/08/06 by Canada_EH]

OK, OK, I felt it was time to give a mate some support. I have nothing to offer the thread Canada, (other than making it no longer exclusively Canadian that is! ) other than my appreciation and support. YES at least one person is taking notice of what you are doing, keep up the good work.

LEE.

How about another?
In the past couple days I've just been finding alot of these "images" and so on. Usally on websites that offer some of the explination and I just take it apon myself to and a bit more of a aviation focus on some of the subjects.

The Next images is that of what was paraded around emails after the Columbia re-entry breakup as in orbit shots of the shuttle break up which looks like more of explosion of sorta while in orbit. Here is the back story

A friend of a friend forwarded the following:

"Got these from a friend of mine who is a retired NASA space engineer. Haven't seen anything like this on the news yet. "

These photos of the shuttle explosion are very graphic but are outstanding in their clarity and detail. They were taken (I was told) by an Israeli satellite and have not yet been released by the U.S. Government. I thought you might want to see them if they haven't been sent to you already.

The following is 3 of the 8-9 images that was attached to the email.







Well I guess its about time to give the simple answer to this poorly presented and created fake story and images. Have your ever watched Armageddon? Those images have been taken from the movie as still frame captures during the first * min of the movie. A shuttle is hit in orbit by meteor fragments and the above images are the result.

Even if we hadn't been able to establish their fictitious origin, argues Rob Rosenberger of Vmyths.com, the "photos" themselves are inherently unbelievable.

First, they suggest we (or the Israelis) keep a satellite in extraordinarily low orbit, close enough to the shuttle to take high-res pictures of its reentry. We know this because the pictures show the shuttle in a head-on view, slightly from below, rather than from above.
"Second, it suggests the NRO (National Reconnaisance Office) released photos in extraordinary wide-angle, 'movie-quality' detail, thereby giving our enemies a clue as to our best resolution.
"Third, the configuration of the blast in later pictures suggests the shuttle carries fuel in areas not previously known to carry fuel. A typical Hollywood cliché — when a fuel tank blows up, the entire vehicle blows up in unison, in place."

And another one bites the dust. This series of images and the WTC images really show the interest that morbid images can create from normal people. And like usual we can only guess what the creator of these images was trying to do when he created the story and took the images and sent them on their merry way.

This is a photo of a DC-9 taking off from St Maartens in the Netherlands Antilles. The photo has created a stir like a number of St Maarten photos do of being a fake. The runway at the airport is reknowned for its threshhold being very close to the beach and is only seperated by a road and a small fence.



The runway is less then 7200ft at St Maarten and as shuch when aircraft are able to they like to take off on runway 27 which is towards the ocean instead of runway 9 which is towards the terrain which has a steeper climb out. It seems this DC-9 from Aserca Airlines was shot taking off from runway 27 from a small boat near the beach. And to put neah sayers to rest here is the take off sequence that was shot by Robert Cijntje on Jan 7 2008.



And just to put the DC-9 photo into context on size of people etc at the angle here is another shot of 757 from US Airways landing on runway 9 at St Maarten.

FA my personal feeling is that the photo you posted has been manipulated in some way to put the AA plane lower then it actually was. It wouldn't take much to make it seem really low on a approach that is already known for its low approach.

Can you provide a link where you found the image?

If you look at reflections on the polished underside and the shadow on the engine nacelles and the thresh hold it seems to match still. The height is just ridiculous and some one moving it in PS seems likely. I some how doubt that women would be so calm.

Again all of these are just thoughts on a photo that is very interesting and doesn't have or seem to have any blatant flaws.

Well its time for another post to the thread and this one I need people to help out on a bit.

The image that needs debunking this time is one that I know for 100% is a fake but I can't find the original image. I've seen the original and I'm sure it is from Dryden Nasa testing ground. Anyways here is the image which I'm sure some of you have seen before.


Also another image that I'm sure is faked but wondering about if anyone knows or has the original.


Now to try and get some back for my claims or to at least help anyone in the hunt here is what I have found. The image below is much the same minus the hanger that was shot in a around the same time frame as the fake. It shows the crew and support crew for the X-2 missions that were done. These style of image are very popular for the crews and development teams so they seem to have been done a number of the projects.


Also a image of the Hangar from the background as well which confirms it as from the Dryden hay day of testing.


So the challenge is on! Lets nail this one down and get another fake off the net and these forums EH!
p.s. don't forget to flag the thread if you like it! We don't want this thread disappearing into the abyss.

[edit on 23-9-2008 by Canada_EH]