PDA

View Full Version : I hope this picture isnt a hoax?



stugumby
02-28-2008, 07:38 PM
was surfing google kamikaze and came across a zero hitting the uss missouri, other pic is supposedly the parts of the plane imbedded in the gun. What strikes me is the gun looks like a us 50cal but i read the japanese used a license built version. The gun mount dosnt look scorched etc either.

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a66/stugumby/impact.jpg

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a66/stugumby/KamikazeGunMissouri.jpg

Schwarz.13
02-28-2008, 07:46 PM
IMO unless that MG was flying on it's own then the rest of that gun emplacement would be a bit of a mess i.e. it would've been hit by the rest of the Zero too (at high speed) - looks like it's been Photoshopped to me, but what do i know http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

stugumby
02-28-2008, 07:51 PM
ahoy.tk-jk.net/Letters/Kamakazepilotwhocrashe...

AKA_TAGERT
02-28-2008, 10:33 PM
Originally posted by Schwarz.13:
IMO unless that MG was flying on it's own then the rest of that gun emplacement would be a bit of a mess i.e. it would've been hit by the rest of the Zero too (at high speed) - looks like it's been Photoshopped to me, but what do i know http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif IMHO flying on its own is not that hard to believe..

On it's own after the plane blew up into a 1000 other pieces..

In that flying up on ship like the big M your bound to be getting a face full of 40s. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Enforcer572005
02-28-2008, 11:29 PM
Those pix are not hoaxed or photoshopped. I had books back in the 60s with those shots in them. They are fairly famous and have been reproduced many times. The Zeke hit the armor belt just below the deck. Caused very little damage.

Ballistics are strange, and some very odd stuff happens with all that kinetic energy being released.

mortoma
02-29-2008, 07:06 PM
Photoshop.

leitmotiv
02-29-2008, 07:17 PM
The famous shot of the Zero just about to impact was doctored decades before there was ever Photoshop. Note the missing five-inch gun barrels on the turrets in the left bottom and center turrets. The barrels were long and there was no way they would not have been visible. Verrrrry interrrresting.

ImMoreBetter
02-29-2008, 08:57 PM
This warp in the hull was supposedly caused by said kamikaze attack.

http://ahoy.tk-jk.net/ImagesJan20_2007/DentUSSMissouri.jpg


An interesting bit here. (http://www.factplace.com/mightymo.htm)

I heard USS Missouri was hit by a kamikaze, true? True, true. She was hit twice. The first time was the more dramatic of the two hits and the dent from that attack remains to this day. The kamikaze struck the starboard side, just below the main deck near where turret 3 is. Some of the plane (and the pilot) ended up on the deck, the rest (including his unexploded bomb) fell harmlessly into the ocean. The hit looked bad, but the damage control crews had the fire out in about 3 minutes and when the smoke cleared the kamikaze pilot was the only fatality. Missouri suffered no significant damage from the attack.

The second strike was actually a bit more damaging. The pilot almost missed the ship but his wing clipped the stern crane on the Missouri before the plane went into the sea behind Missouri. The explosion sent debris up onto the deck causing a couple of injuries and tearing some holes in the gun bucklers ("Bloomers") of turret 3.

joeap
03-01-2008, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by mortoma:
Photoshop.

No, maybe doctored as Leitmotiv said, no photoshop in the 60s to print the books Enforcer read.

fordfan25
03-01-2008, 11:47 PM
looks fake to me. the zero just looks like it was added as does the gun in pic 2

RMcSlash
03-02-2008, 12:16 AM
I too have seen that top pic all my life, meaning I first saw it in the 1950's in one of the many WWII photobooks available at the time.

Patriot_Act
03-02-2008, 12:55 AM
That photo showed up in the final installment in the "Colliers" collection of WWII photos
in 1946. If it was altered it is an amazing job for 1945-1946.

Colliers had a set of WWII history in photo's
they put out during the war. It was very expensive and came out
in installments.
We, as a family, have a complete edition.
Nice to own, but you have all seen the pictures.

Note, that is a Japanese 7.7mm Browning machine gun manufactured under licence.

P.A.

xTHRUDx
03-02-2008, 02:29 AM
all the lighting seems correct in the pics. that's usualy the 1st clue. all the shadow angles seem correct.

BWaltteri
03-02-2008, 03:01 AM
The machine gun is probably from the ship's air defense and not from the plane.

Pirschjaeger
03-02-2008, 03:20 AM
Both pics are hoaxes.

In the first, look at the angle of the plane. Were zeros submersible? At that angle he would have had to come out of the water. The plane also looks a tad small. As Leit said, the gun barrels are missing.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the machine guns of the zero black? The lighting just doesn't match.

Poor propaganda by today's standards. Excellent for back then.

Friendly_flyer
03-02-2008, 03:36 AM
I don't think they're hoaxes, I too have seen them in pre-Photoshop books. I think the first one is a shot from a film. The MG in the second picture is rather clearly a Browning M2, it's probably from the ships own AA defensive armament, not from a Japanese plane.

Patriot_Act
03-02-2008, 03:53 AM
There are no 5" guns in the photo, they are all 40mm Bofors mounts.

I just checked a few battleship websites.
There should be no 5" mounts visable in that photo.

The photo is genuine.

As to the gun.
It's a Browning.
Japs made Brownings also.
Same exact gun except for caliber.
And is it a .50 or .30 (7.7 jap)?
You would have a hard time telling unless you were reading the markings.
The aircraft Brownings look the same except for a scale/size difference.

P.A.

JG53Frankyboy
03-02-2008, 04:55 AM
Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
I don't think they're hoaxes, I too have seen them in pre-Photoshop books. I think the first one is a shot from a film. The MG in the second picture is rather clearly a Browning M2, it's probably from the ships own AA defensive armament, not from a Japanese plane.

"The Japanese Army Ho-103 was a copy of the Browning .50. The copy was lighter and had a higher rate of fire, but it also fired a smaller round, with a cartridge case 81 mm long instead of the 99 mm of the Browning. The Japanese Navy also copied the Browning, to create the Type 3, ......................."

from the Zero 52b on, there was at least one Type 3 gun on bord , Zeros 52c had 3 og them.
the Ho-103 you can find in the most japanese Armyplanes - from Ki-43, Ki-61 to Ki-84.

SeaFireLIV
03-02-2008, 05:41 AM
That one of the zero in the first photo I am almost convinced is genuine. I have a book where it shots 3 or 4 shots of the zero (starting with that shot) getting close and closer, shot by shot. To me, it doesn`t look like it`s coming out of the water, but just very low and as the shots I saw it`s rapidly zooming higher and closer.

Neither do i find the mg shot so amazing as explosions could send parts flying everywhere from an explosion. What is funny about the second MG pic is how the personel appear to be completely disinterested in its presence.

JadehawkII
03-02-2008, 07:30 AM
I suppose you guys dont know anything about researching do you? The pic showing the Zero just about to hit the ship IS NOT A HOAX! That's the genuine article there fellas.

Google is your best friend...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kamikaze_zero.jpg

I have seen this same image at the US Navy Photo archives before and yes it's one famous photo. The link to the source is also listed there to as it's a Official US Navy photograph!

SO before you arm chair photo experts claim something, check it out first and please do not give an opinion unless you really can back up your claims.

Plunkertx
03-02-2008, 08:09 AM
Yea, the first photo is genuine. However, the SECOND photo is unknown...I don't know. That's the real question.

Snodrvr
03-02-2008, 09:23 AM
I don't know, something about the first picture looks wrong, but not wrong enough for me to shout fake.

The second one however, has been edited. I'm not saying the picture itself is fake, it's very possible that someone just used a computer to clean up the image or merged other pictures from similar angles to make it more clear but there is NO way that the Japanese Machine gun in that picture hasn't been retouched in some way.

Tater-SW-
03-02-2008, 09:26 AM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Both pics are hoaxes.

In the first, look at the angle of the plane. Were zeros submersible? At that angle he would have had to come out of the water. The plane also looks a tad small. As Leit said, the gun barrels are missing.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the machine guns of the zero black? The lighting just doesn't match.

Poor propaganda by today's standards. Excellent for back then.

The first image is absolutely, certainly not a hoax. Haven't seen the 2d one before.

From the USN's website:
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h62000/h62696.jpg


About to be hit by a Japanese A6M "Zero" Kamikaze, while operating off Okinawa on 11 April 1945. The plane hit the ship's side below the main deck, causing minor damage and no casualties on board the battleship.
A 40mm quad gun mount's crew is in action in the lower foreground.
The photographer has been identified as Seaman Len Schmidt.

Collection of Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz.

U.S. Naval Historical Center Photograph.

Tater-SW-
03-02-2008, 09:41 AM
Navsource has the 2d image, though the quality is much less good, and they claim it is a USN image.

ElAurens
03-02-2008, 09:44 AM
Remember guys, this is the UBI GD, all claims made by US sources are believed to be false, unless corroborated by Luftwaffe documents.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Tater-SW-
03-02-2008, 09:56 AM
What did Nimitz know, he didn't win the war with his uber submarine forc... oh wait, he actually did win a war with an uber submarine force.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

ElAurens
03-02-2008, 10:02 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

SeaFireLIV
03-02-2008, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by JadehawkII:


SO before you arm chair photo experts claim something, check it out first and please do not give an opinion unless you really can back up your claims.

Agreed. Too many people making assumptions that it`s fake like they`re experts when they don`t actually know.

Patriot_Act
03-02-2008, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
Remember guys, this is the UBI GD, all claims made by US sources are believed to be false, unless corroborated by Luftwaffe documents.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

I am beginning to understand that fact.
But it's why the Germans got beaten so badly.
Remember Gallands complaint to Goering
that downed Allied fighter planes were confirmed
down at Aachen?
Goering replied that perhaps they had glided there.
Galland said something to the effect that they
would have tried to "glide" back to home.....

The light and shadows in the photo are spot on.
The gun placements in the photo are all 40MM Bofors, no 5" guns should be visable.
The photo is genuine and I was
born in Munich in 1955.
Guess I qualify as a Luftwaffe confirmation?

P.A.

K_Freddie
03-02-2008, 02:01 PM
The aeroplane photo is as old as ... since it happened http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
I have 3 problems with the gun emplacement photo...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v297/vanjast/KamikazeGunMissouri.jpg

- Circled is a wierd shadow 'anomoly' which doesn't seem to match the actual gun.
- The shadow alignment is a lot straighter than the gun - taking the sun elevation angle into consideration and photographers angle.
- Lastly.. the crew are not 'concerned' about it. If I had kamakazie's attacking my boat I'd whip that barrel off and replace it asap - I'd need every working barrel. So possibly that gun was not there in RL.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Plunkertx
03-02-2008, 02:28 PM
You see, even if Jesus came back to earth today with photographic evidence, no would still believehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Seriously, what can we trust? Was Julius Caeser even real?

K_Freddie
03-02-2008, 02:47 PM
Jesus just knew where the underwater rocks were...

And on the eight day.. he said...'Go forth and photoshop it - there are those that will believe'
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Tater-SW-
03-02-2008, 03:04 PM
I don't think the 2d pic is fake, either. The shadow is fine. Considering that the japs had just been trying to kill them, and a plane recently slammed intothat very spot, I don't think their lack of concern is meaningful. How long should they stand around pointing and acting shocked, exactly? Clearly the image was long after the wreckage was cleared, too.

gizmo60
03-02-2008, 03:44 PM
the sun would be shining from the top right of the picture so depending on the inclination of the machine gun its bent barrel could give a straight shadow.
the triangular bit of the shadow (circled) looks like it could be from torn cooling sleeve.
by the attitude of the crew it would seem the engagement is over.
surely the gun crew of this sort of weapon would not be the ones replacing barrels, wouldn't that be down to the armourers.

having said that, the shadow does look really straight.

my own opinion, its not faked.
if they wanted propaganda stuff they could come up with something far more 'spectacular'

SeaFireLIV
03-02-2008, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by gizmo60:
the sun would be shining from the top right of the picture so depending on the inclination of the machine gun its bent barrel could give a straight shadow.


Very true and while I was a bit suspicious of their indifference to the gun, this is but a moment in time. They probably had enough `surprises` and seen enough things that this becomes nothing to their jaded eyes, unlike our forum `we know it all` attitude. They probably had their moment of surprise earlier before the camera pic was taken anyway. And what`s so amazing about a gun stuck in such a position? For more incredible things have happened in reality during war. Real life does things that if it were a computer game would be returned for all the strange things it does and `bugginess`.

Also, this talk of propaganda. What propaganda? This isn`t propaganda.

flyingloon
03-02-2008, 07:08 PM
is the obviously distorted barrel of the AA gun not a good indicator? and distortion matches the shadow as well... if you're going to take the trouble to fake a picture like this, are you really going to get the fine detail perfect and screw up a major detail like the mg shadow?

stugumby
03-02-2008, 08:09 PM
Well ive looked at this several times now, if the large turrett on the deck in the first picture is a 5 inch then the guns must be depressed all the way down, therefore cant be seen. if airbrushed out by censors it might have been showing enemy a blind spot just below the rails etc, so maybe they were airbrushed out by navy censor. i found this pic in a squadron signal book as well so im thinking its genuine, the 2nd i dont know and wont speculatem, may not even be same gun tub as at point of impact?

Carlz1
03-02-2008, 09:18 PM
Looks real to me.
The Zero would have been in bits before it got to the Quad Bofors. It would take a lot of force for the MG to penetrate the side of the bofors barrel like that.
The guy in the top photo leaning over the Quad Bofors really should get his head down.

Tater-SW-
03-02-2008, 10:18 PM
One, the 2d image is not right after the attack, there would be wreckage, etc., all over. Two, the MG penetrated the flash suppressor, not the barrel.

Tater-SW-
03-02-2008, 10:29 PM
That dual 5" DP is on a pedestal (hard to tell in that image). So it is a deck height above the main deck. The rail you see in no way constrains that gun.

Blutarski2004
03-03-2008, 08:26 AM
Originally posted by K_Freddie:
The aeroplane photo is as old as ... since it happened http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
I have 3 problems with the gun emplacement photo...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v297/vanjast/KamikazeGunMissouri.jpg

- Circled is a wierd shadow 'anomoly' which doesn't seem to match the actual gun.
- The shadow alignment is a lot straighter than the gun - taking the sun elevation angle into consideration and photographers angle.
- Lastly.. the crew are not 'concerned' about it. If I had kamakazie's attacking my boat I'd whip that barrel off and replace it asap - I'd need every working barrel. So possibly that gun was not there in RL.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif


.....KF, I think the shadow cast by the MG is legit. It's just that the sun was high enough in the sky that the two legs of the V formed by the MG lay in the same plane with respect to the sun's rays.

Blutarski2004
03-03-2008, 08:29 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
Remember guys, this is the UBI GD, all claims made by US sources are believed to be false, unless corroborated by Luftwaffe documents.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


..... You owe me a cup of coffee. The one I was drinking went through my nose when I read your post.

You bastage!

AKA_TAGERT
03-03-2008, 08:35 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
Remember guys, this is the UBI GD, all claims made by US sources are believed to be false, unless corroborated by Luftwaffe documents.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif ROTFL

Grue_
03-03-2008, 02:19 PM
A comment about the shape of the Earth would cause an argument on these forums http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

dragonfly1971
03-03-2008, 03:26 PM
Hi
No argument on the first ,ive seen a set of stills from the same incident, about 5 showing the approach,and film of the same!
As for the second ,considering the plane hit a foot of armoured steel("belt") around the hull,and did no other damage to the rest of the ship,it totally amazes me why some of you experts think that that the gun emplacement would be really damaged.
As for the mg stuck at the end of the barrel what makes you think its a fake? That zero would be smashed to kingdom come ,bits ending up everywhere,you know some joe could have put a mug of coffee down when the attack begun and ended up with a kamikazes eyeball in it later ,who knows!(ps. I was going to make a gag out of a Japs eye but didnt because of political correctness,oops said it now ..oh well)
And as to indifference of the crew ...jeeez ,a true story this, an old friend of mine who was conscripted (he honestly told me he had no interest in volunteering at the time) into the army (British ,that is)and was sent to Italy.
Before they saw any action the officer in charge told all the men to walk down a certain road which crossed a river via a bridge(another route could of been taken ..but)
It was only a narrow bridge,and in the middle of the crossing was a dead german soldier.Nothing remarkable you may say but he had been run over by so many vehicles that his intestines came out of his mouth ,and his brains out of his skull.
My friend George (now a healthy 85 year old),and his pals had no alternative but to walk past.
He and the rest were all disgusted ,some threw up,but George said that after that he never batted an eye lid at anything else he saw.
So my point is these men who have just survived a suicide attack ,probably seen some horrific burn injuries etc,wouldnt give a flying toss about a bit of scrap metal suspended on another bit of metal would they.Or do some of you guys really think that would be the most important thing to them.......ermmmmmmmm????

John_Pimlott
03-03-2008, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by Grue_:
A comment about the shape of the Earth would cause an argument on these forums http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif
No way!!
I so can't believe you even said that! How dare you mention the shape of the earth? Talk about insensitive! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

I don't think there's been any tampering at all in those pictures. Why would there be? Plus the colour match is so perfect!
Everyone's entitled to my opinions!
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

AKA_TAGERT
03-03-2008, 06:30 PM
IMHO those who can not 'see it' as being possible and think it is a hoax need to get out more is all..

The real world is full of surprises and reality tends to be stranger than fiction.

R_Target
03-03-2008, 08:59 PM
http://i25.tinypic.com/k4z1ut.jpg

Second attack April 16, 1945:

http://i27.tinypic.com/5eeql1.jpg

Heavy_Weather
03-04-2008, 03:42 PM
this thread turned out to be funny http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

Hawgdog
03-04-2008, 07:25 PM
Originally posted by JadehawkII:


Google is your best friend...



If 10% of all those rubes who forward all that garbage on the internet would just google "incredible" stuff....usually the first sentence and taa-daa...snopes, urban legends...

Google is our friend, use it, and seem smarter!