Real or a Hoax

[waheed]

Visit the following website:

http://i.euniverse.com/funpages/cms_content/4462/real_or_hoax1.swf

Tell me what your scores are out of 10.

I scored 8.

[BJ_M]

8 also -- i thought the chicken head was fake and the face of satan in the cloud was fake -- well it IS not the face of satan , but the photo was real ,,,,, kinda a trick question ...

[Devanshu]

I got a 7

[Tommyknocker]

6. I still think the camel spider was real. I've seen some weirder things when I stationed in Kuwait.

[Will Hay]

I got four, bugger!

[Blazey]

Scored a 7.

[aanaravs]

Scored a 7 too

[Dr. DOS]

6 here.... I'm such a looser

[makntraks]

9 here....

makntraks

[offline]

6. I still think the camel spider was real. I've seen some weirder things when I stationed in Kuwait.

I think so too. They might seem overlarge by some sort of optical
effect.

Damn I got 6 too [/quote]

[Baldrick]

8.

[Cobra]

Seven.

[SLICK RICK]

I got a 7.

[vcd4ever]

7.

[housepig]

8 for 10.

[resnullius]

7

[lordsmurf]

5

.... while I know that plane flying into the WTC photo is fake, any photographer can tell you the reasoning they list is entirely incorrect and blatantly stupid inexperience speaking. For one, you'd need to know a LOT more about the camera.

[Capmaster]

5

.... while I know that plane flying into the WTC photo is fake, any photographer can tell you the reasoning they list is entirely incorrect and blatantly stupid inexperience speaking. For one, you'd need to know a LOT more about the camera.

I noticed that too and scratched my head over the logic. Even with 35mm. Get a fast film and even push it a little, use 1/125 or 1/250 shutter, stop it down to f11 or f16 and you get a hellacious DOF, especially in an outdoor daylight shot. Everything would be in sharp focus.

[glockjs]

got 7...but i know that spider in iraq is real...it was just a close up to make it look way bigger than the thing actualy is

[lordsmurf]

5

.... while I know that plane flying into the WTC photo is fake, any photographer can tell you the reasoning they list is entirely incorrect and blatantly stupid inexperience speaking. For one, you'd need to know a LOT more about the camera.

I noticed that too and scratched my head over the logic. Even with 35mm. Get a fast film and even push it a little, use 1/125 or 1/250 shutter, stop it down to f11 or f16 and you get a hellacious DOF, especially in an outdoor daylight shot. Everything would be in sharp focus.

Not even that. My camera goes to 1/16000th of a second. It was a "bland" morning in NY on 9-11 (this alone shows the picture as fake, too bright), give me some ISO 800 (common to find). I bet it would hit f/11 (about what that image shows, with building fuzzed out slight, a good couple hundred feet only in focus). You can stop a 75-100mpg baseball with 500-100 shutter. What's the speed of a plane? Do the math, and then factor in that it was coming AT you, which makes velocity almost a nil factor. A half-ass decent point-n-shoot (one of those zoom jobs) that can hit 250-500 with 800-1600 ISO film and a normally-fixed f/stop could have had a good change to snap such an image.

It's the lighting that shows the image is fake.

Even if the photo was slightly out of focus, a scanner and Photoshop could unsharp mask out a little bit of the detail, especially if the image is small (under 640x480 size). Again, possible, but whoever wrote that was a bit clueless on photo technique.

Whoever think a full image cannot be in focus has obviously never used a macro-focus lens that can hit f/45 and beyond. And that's not really even anything special! Under $100 to get one!

[ZAPPER]

Only got 6 I fell for the fat cat if I had read the story with the photo I don't think that I would have. Speaking of old photo tricks, when we go deep sea fishing a simple trick is to hold the fish away from you towards the camera and the photo makes the fish in the foreground look bigger. Cameras and fishermen will lie if you let them.

[Faustus]

I can't load it.

I blame the firewall here, but with no real evidence

[Ripper2860]

Got 10 out of 10.

Seen most of them debunked before.

BTW -- the spiders are real -- the picture is an illusion as the spiders were held very close to the camera giving them the appearence of being very large in comparison to the soldier standing further back.

[Faustus]

Good old forced perspective. Where would bad old horror movies be without it?

[888888]

I got 8. Last two got me.

[sacajaweeda]

I thought the sculpture and the snowflake were fakes. I got 8 of 10.

[holistic]

5

.... while I know that plane flying into the WTC photo is fake, any photographer can tell you the reasoning they list is entirely incorrect and blatantly stupid inexperience speaking. For one, you'd need to know a LOT more about the camera.

I noticed that too and scratched my head over the logic. Even with 35mm. Get a fast film and even push it a little, use 1/125 or 1/250 shutter, stop it down to f11 or f16 and you get a hellacious DOF, especially in an outdoor daylight shot. Everything would be in sharp focus.

............blah blah ............

Whoever think a full image cannot be in focus has obviously never used a macro-focus lens that can hit f/45 and beyond. And that's not really even anything special! Under $100 to get one!

Hmm hows about . Plane hits building. BOOOOM ! . Body parts ID'ed by DNA. YET FILM SURVIVES. That in itself screams fake.

8

[pacmania_2001]

7.

I thought the McDonalds head and the Snowflake were fake whilst the cat was real.

[Tommyknocker]

I had seen the McDonald's head before (it made news across the country), and anyone who has looked at snowflakes under a magnifying glass knows that's what they look like. Of course, no two are ever identical

I still think the spider could be real, as some carnivorous spiders, like the goliath spiders average a foot across.

[hech54]

I got 7 also