"nice one you cheater you stole my post mark i was the one who origionally found it didn't you read the paper it had my name in it now thanks to you my postmark has been deleted"

Given the stack of evidence aginst you this( ^ ) is a most unworthy post <joins the shaking Head Clan>....I think an apology would be in order, or is that me being English?

I'm POSITIVE this is fake.

1. The leading edge of the main plane is sweptback more or less correctly, but the trailing edges should be swept forwards similarly.

2. What height is it supposed to be? Folk have explained the shadow being missing by saying it's so high, the shadow's on another 'screen', or something, which I would buy, except that: surely if it was SIGNIFICANTLY closer to the camera than the houses below, it would appear a lot bigger in relation to them than it actually does. How big is a WW2 heavy bomber compared to a 4 bed house? Plus, it's a Lancaster - how high do they usually fly? Not as high as the USAAF bombers of the same era - that's partly why the RAF had to do all its work at night. And now it's 60 odd years old...

Whenever I've been lucky enough to see it flying (and I mean in transit, not AT a display), it's been fairly low - low enough to have people rushing out of their houses to see it pass. So where's the shadow?

Of course, I might be wrong, in which case... *shrugs*

Quote:

---

Plus, it's a Lancaster - how high do they usually fly? Not as high as the USAAF bombers of the same era - that's partly why the RAF had to do all its work at night. And now it's 60 odd years old...

---

I think they flew low at night because our RAF boys were - and still are - masters of low level flight, not because the plane couldn't fly higher...



And the wings look right to me:

1. It is always useful to rotate the view. Your eye is often more "clever" than yourself. You'll find that the photograph was taken from front above. You can tell it also by looking at the houses below, what walls you see and what you don't. So, the image is not from directly above.

2. I don't think they fly that Lanc very high. Nor do the remaining B-17s. It's no idea to climb to old operational altitudes. The measure tool gives a wingspan of 50,5 meters when it really is 31 meters. About 63 percent too much. Perhaps some mathematician will calculate the altitude. Lancaster's service ceiling was 8,160 m, B-24 had about the same (8,500 m) and B-17 considerably more (10,850 m). I think that 8th Air Force just took the burden of daylight operations. Also the Lancasters flew high at nights.

This is my explanation for the missing shadow:

This is an aerial photograph and the sun is shining from behind, about SSW. The plane is flying north, so the shadow should be in front of it. From these "dirty cases" we have found that the photographing plane is flying on a north-south course. Maybe it is the case with this image too and the photo was taken on the southward leg of the photoplane. The two planes had opposite courses and the shadow did not get in the first (northern) frame but the Lanc itself did make it in the next (southern) frame.

A reverse to this can be seen in Heathrow 09L. There the photoplane flew from west to east and got a landing Air France Airbus in four consecutive frames.

Ask yourself this simple question, Charlie: WHY?
Why would anyone go to the effort of manipulating the GE image bank - and expertly, I might add - to display an image of an historic and well known aircraft over a town in the English countryside?
I can't think of a good reason and I dare say the conspiracy mongers couldn't either.

Noone noticed the other plane near it?
EDIT: Deleted silly placemark so as not to clutter the area.

Bad Cyclonic!

Cyc, you should relly not encourage those conspiracy theoretists !