Matrix Games Forums

I gather that Asahi Shimbun who mentioned this picture by name at Nuclearfiles.org is a peace activist from Japan. Why would a peace activist mention a staged combat picture in a commentary? But that doesn´t mean a lot I couldn´t find his email.

It is possible that this picture is both fake and actual combat. The two Japanese troops and the explosion in it could be from an actual combat picture and when they went to put it on billboards in Tokyo they added a dirt foreground with an American flag laying on it. That is a possibility too.

ORIGINAL: Ike99

I gather that Asahi Shimbun who mentioned this picture by name at Nuclearfiles.org is a peace activist from Japan. Why would a peace activist mention a staged combat picture in a commentary? But that doesn´t mean a lot I couldn´t find his email.

It is possible that this picture is both fake and actual combat. The two Japanese troops and the explosion in it could be from an actual combat picture and when they went to put it on billboards in Tokyo they added a dirt foreground with an American flag laying on it. That is a possibility too.

If it's "fake & combat" then it's fake. Only the original picture would be an actual combat photo. However, I don't see anything in the picture to lead anyone to believe it originated outside of a "Hollywood" backlot. If not for the credit on the game box, I'd peg as a still from a Hollywood film produced during the war that was further enhanced into a movie poster.

ORIGINAL: Ike99

I gather that Asahi Shimbun who mentioned this picture by name at Nuclearfiles.org is a peace activist from Japan. Why would a peace activist mention a staged combat picture in a commentary? But that doesn´t mean a lot I couldn´t find his email.

From Wikipedia: "The Asahi Shimbun (朝日新聞, Asahi Shinbun?, IPA: [asaçi ɕimbɯɴ]) is the second most circulated out of the five national newspapers in Japan;"

It is possible that this picture is both fake and actual combat. The two Japanese troops and the explosion in it could be from an actual combat picture and when they went to put it on billboards in Tokyo they added a dirt foreground with an American flag laying on it. That is a possibility too.

The explosion might be actual combat footage - the guys in the foreground have the white line between themselves and the explosion, indicating they are not part of the footage with the explosion. No lines that i can see between the flag part and the soldiers, which would indicate they were probably shot together.

However, I don't see anything in the picture to lead anyone to believe it originated outside of a "Hollywood" backlot.

mjk428, take a look at this unstaged, actual combat picture from the Phillipines in 45´ on the left. Look at the explosion.

Now compare that explosion to the explosion in the Japanese picture on right. Certainly when compared to the unstaged explosion on left the explosion in the Japanese picture in question looks very authentic.

You have seen the explosions from the war movies of the time. The explosion don´t look like this.

ORIGINAL: Ike99

However, I don't see anything in the picture to lead anyone to believe it originated outside of a "Hollywood" backlot.

mjk428, take a look at this unstaged, actual combat picture from the Phillipines in 45´ on the left. Look at the explosion.

Now compare that explosion to the explosion in the Japanese picture on right. Certainly when compared to the unstaged explosion on left the explosion in the Japanese picture in question looks very authentic.

You have seen the explosions from the war movies of the time. The explosion don´t look like this.

Yes - probably the explosion is (probably) real as noted above - combat footage is rear projected onto a stage screen.

Note the line between the actor's helmet and the dark explosion in the background. This shouldn't be present if they were shot together.

ORIGINAL: Ike99

However, I don't see anything in the picture to lead anyone to believe it originated outside of a "Hollywood" backlot.

mjk428, take a look at this unstaged, actual combat picture from the Phillipines in 45´ on the left. Look at the explosion.

Now compare that explosion to the explosion in the Japanese picture on right. Certainly when compared to the unstaged explosion on left the explosion in the Japanese picture in question looks very authentic.

You have seen the explosions from the war movies of the time. The explosion don´t look like this.

War movies at the time quite often intercut actual war footage.

I'd be stunned to find out that this anything other than something pieced together for publicity/propaganda purposes. It's obviously doctored but even ignoring that, It would still have to be one of the most astonishing combat photos ever taken. One in a billion. Infinitely more likely that it was cranked out by the film industry.

rtrapasso-Note the line between the actor's helmet and the dark explosion in the background. This shouldn't be present if they were shot together.

Ahhh...

Take any black and white Japanese camera from the period and where black or a shadow meets a bright or lighter area it produces a line. You can zoom up any one of these pictures and find projection screen lines all over the place, look.

[:)] Ike , I've heard a lot of reasons why people seem to feel that this photo is staged . Why specifically do you feel that it's genuine combat footage?We have explored supporting data , but it's still lacking. Tell me your gut feelings and why. I'm willing to be convinced. [:)]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

rtrapasso-Note the line between the actor's helmet and the dark explosion in the background. This shouldn't be present if they were shot together.

Ahhh...

Take any black and white Japanese camera from the period and where black or a shadow meets a bright or lighter area it produces a line. You can zoom up any one of these pictures and find projection screen lines all over the place, look.

Sorry - they do not look the same to me at all. The lines show differing thickness in the "grenade" photo.

Also, do not confuse these with "Mach" lines - lines you eye will "create" in seeing different densities next to each other... they are a form of optical illusion:

"Mach bands are optical illusions produced by an extensive lateral inhibition network within the retina. They are seen on every radiograph. Both positive and negative Mach bands can be seen at a boundary, but only one type is usually seen at boundaries created by biological structures because of their shape."

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/ab ... alCode=vru


These show up in looking at x-rays where i first encountered the phenomenom - but they also show up in looking at almost anything when you carefully examine stuff (esp B&W photos).

When you encounter them, you will swear there is a line present - but if you scan with a densitometer, there is no line actually present. They are usually very thin and pretty homogenous, not varying greatly in thickness.

EDIT: Notice the lines you have pointed out are between light and dark objects. The lines on the "grenade" photo are seen consistently (not just in one area) between two dark objects (the helmet and the explosion so indicate light being projected onto the foreground object.

If the light colored line was just on one side (instead of all around) you could possibly argue it was reflection from a light source from that side, but not if a light line it is on two separate sides.

Notice there is light on 3 sides of the fist from the photo from the "grenade" photo.

ORIGINAL: Ike99


If it does come back as an actual combat picture....well honestly, I really don´t know what your going to say.

The only thing I could say it that your "experts" are either liars, or fools lacking any common sense. As an honorable man with common sense, that would have to be the answer.

I don't feel compelled to present my credentials for your examination-it is strange that you would ask; in a round about way, or any way for that matter.

You may comfort yourself with the thought of me reading about the pain and suffering of the Japanese army fighting against the "red haired barbarians", as I will buy one of your suggested books tonight. I may come across a few new atrocities I was not aware of already, but that will not change the strategic situation of one side being on the "right" and the other on the "wrong".

I do wish you luck in finding the origins of the photo. Don't be surpised if it turns out to be U.S. prapaganda material. As I'm sure you can imagine, many do not like to see "Old Glory" lying in the mud at the feet of the enemy-slightly irritating.

Ike,
 
What's the point of asking the question, if you've already decided what the answer is, and that everyone that offers a different hypothesis is wrong?
 
-F-

It's called trolling, I think...

It's fake. I took the picture, already. [:D]

What a waste.

TOMLABEL

ORIGINAL: TOMLABEL

It's fake. I took the picture, already. [:D]

You rascal!!! [:-] [:D]

.

FWIW, I did a google search and this wargame critic claims the boxtop pic was from a wartime Japanese propaganda poster on the side of a building in Tokyo.

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/75646

I learned to take pics in the late 50's on a pair of war era Leica 35mm cameras, and for "action" pics, I find the pic remarkable in that it is "in focus", and set for such a short distance.
If it were not staged for such a short distance, one might wonder why a combat photographer would be willing to get so close to enemy exposure??

My personal combat "credentials" are such that I know it would be foolish to expose ones back to an enemy, and I doubt many American fighting men would have ALLOWED their flag to be on the ground, as in this pic, (besides, such a small flag would not be standard issue for any unit in the American army.)
This is a staged pic.

Back to the game.

ORIGINAL: Sabre21

Hey guys

From my observation of the original photo posted at the top of this thread, the explosion and sky in the background was an added in backdrop. If you look carefully at the outline of the two guys, you will see just that...an outline, which indicates an added backdrop. You dont see that in the other black and white photo with the troops carrying the flag.

From a realistic perspective, and having spent a long time in the infantry myself, the guy taking the picure would not be in front of the guy throwing the grenade nor would the guy next to him just be lying there lacksadaisical like. He would either be taking cover from the upcoming blast or be firing his weapon suppressing the foe so his buddy could get his grenade off without getting whacked.

So if I wanted to be looking for the source of this pic, I would be looking at either the Japanese or US film making industry. This could very well have been a US made picture for either a WWII movie or propaganda, or it could have been Japanese. Either way it is definitely a staged scene.

Just a sidenote. Is it entirely possible that the lying soldier doesn't know the standing one is standing? Yes. Is it even more entirely possible, in real combat that is, that even if he does know he is standing there, that he doesn't know the other is fixing to throw a grenade? I say yes to that too. Taking the shot alone, you cannot conclude with all certainty that the one on the ground sees/knows what you see/know.

ORIGINAL: mlees

In combat, you don't want to stand in between the two opposing forces to snap a picture.

Standing in the line of sight/line of fire violates the camera warranty.

I have two words to say to this: Damien Parer (1912 - 1944) - look him up.

Unfortunately the second statement also proved to be accurate.

So this will remain one of the great controversial mysteries of the Matrix Forums only to be unearthed when things are peacefully quiet?