Come on, Tim. You know more than you're letting on. Those tyres look suspiciously modern, as does the truck in the background. And that Lola artwork wouldn't look out of place on a B-17.
I have four theories:
a) It's a cunning forgery that's been made sepia with Photoshop.
b) It's a WWII spoof. A lot of work for a gag that very few people will have got.
c) It's Max Hundleby as a child in his first pedal car.
d) The photo was taken in Cleveland, and just out of shot is someone called Jeanette, who has a 14 year old sister.
-- Edited by James H at 00:15, 2008-06-24
__________________
"Sometimes things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.
the look of the armour is similar to a cardboard model with lines and rivets painted and not in 3D. And I suspect the head poking through the hatch is Manfred Freiherr von Richtoffen
the look of the armour is similar to a cardboard model with lines and rivets painted and not in 3D. And I suspect the head poking through the hatch is Manfred Freiherr von Richtoffen
Judging from the cap, pre-1933? And if the artwork is Marlene, the film was released in 1930 and banned in '33, so it must be within those 3 years.
Tyres look agricultural, but only small. Size of wheel plus front mudguard suggests early type of quad bike. Too small and wide for a Kettenrad. Front wheel doesn't seem to turn for steering and looks too wide to steer by leaning. The vehicle appears to be stationary but upright, but would wide tyres be enough to keep it that way? Is it a tricycle arrangement with rear-wheel steering?
The A7V hull is highly detailed and accurate, so someone knew what they were doing. Someone with knowledge and/or experience was involved. Vollmer?
A publicity stunt for The Blue Angel? A prop for a war film? A way for Hindenburg to get down the shops?
As we used to say in England, "COME ON, TIM!"
__________________
"Sometimes things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.
The barracks are German Type 1936. There's a hill with trees in the background. So, it's not Wünsdorf/Zossen. But Erfurt would be possible, home of PzRgt 1 since 1935.
Usually followed by a groan and deep disapointment with mutterings of 'well perhaps next year'.
Well Centurion, you may be right, in a year or two maybe I will get around to telling everyone what I know, (which is not much). Unlike the 150ton and 200ton American Landships article, which took about that long, (Which is posted on Landships) I will post what I know this afternoon after work.
All the Best
Tim R.
__________________
"The life given us by nature is short; but the memory of a well-spent life is eternal" -Cicero 106-43BC
What Centurion and I are referring to is the fact that every few years we in England produce a half-decent tennis player whom we immediately believe to be capable of winning the Men's Singles at Wimbledon. No Englishman has done so since Franklin D. Roosevelt was your president, yet we continue to delude ourselves, despite the procession of Americans, Germans, Australians, Swedes, and Swiss who have walked off with the trophy and the money every year since 1938. There have even been wins for a Frenchman, a Dutchman, a Spaniard, a Czech, a Croat, a Peruvian, and an Egyptian.
Over the years England's hopes have been pinned on Roger Taylor, Mark Cox, Buster Mottram, David Lloyd, and, most recently, Tim Henman. Never heard of them? I thought not.*
Tim Henman reached the semis 4 times, the last occasion being 6 years ago. During the annual attack of "Henmania", his matches were punctuated by shrill cries of, "Come on, Tim!" from his contingent of young female admirers. It was all to no avail.
Now the banner has been taken up by Andrew Murray, who is actually Scottish, but, as is the custom, we shall claim him as "British" in the unlikely event of his winning it.
So it was not a slur on your alacrity, merely a reference to our perennial postponement.
*I forgot Greg Rusedski. He was Canadian, and he didn't win, either.
-- Edited by James H at 19:31, 2008-06-25
__________________
"Sometimes things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.
It looks to me like the A7V-body - but not the tyres or the driver - is photoshopped. It looks a bit brighter, different somehow, than the rest of the picture. That's my guess.
I suspect Mr. R is having a huge laugh at our expense.
The creases on the pic look like a "shop" job. But look at the shadows of the MGs on the hull; a bright sun overhead, but no shadow of the hull itself on a dull day. It reminds me of an episode of Columbo.
I think Lola is a CGI from a site that does 3-D pics of Tanks . . .
Do I win a free funeral?
__________________
"Sometimes things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.
"Sometimes things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.
I've got a feeling we're all thinking 1:1 when we should be thinking smaller...
The 'model' stands out a bit from the background, like the size and the DoF don't match - how can the curb be blurred at the same distance that the rear of the tank is sharp?
I think 'Action Man' might have something to do with it
__________________
"You there on the port!". "S'gin actually, but thanks for noticing [hic]".
Ok, as stated before, I do not no very much about this photo, I can not tell you weather or not it is original, as stated above (By me. Sorry, just to keep you guessing.... ) or photo shopped. Your guesses is a as good as mine. The caption states the following; "German motorcycle type R (PzR)"
thats it, thats all I know.
I have no references to this motorcycle, so I do not know if there was any such thing. I have been unable to find anything on the net... I just thought it would bring on some interesting discussion, weather or not it is original or not....................................................
All the Best
Tim R.
__________________
"The life given us by nature is short; but the memory of a well-spent life is eternal" -Cicero 106-43BC
Its a long time since I worked at Fort Dulop but I'd still say that those tyres are definitely post WW2. I suspect that someone has sepia'd up a more modern photo
I'd go along with that. I'm sure there's quad bike in there somewhere. Funnily enough, I did a spell at Dunlop GRG in Manchester many years ago, and they did fork-lift truck tyres about that size.
This pic has many elements, and a lot of work has gone into it.
Speaking of fork-lifts, in my opinion Mr. R's revelation is something of an anti-climax.
__________________
"Sometimes things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.
Hi all, here's my two-peneth, the shadows of the 2 mgs on the side are very sharp and clearly show the position of the sun, the curbing on the left side of the road would all be in bright sun light except for the shadow that should have been from the vehicle.
The doorway on the r/hand side has the shadow going the wrong way.
I'd rather the photo was genuine .
__________________
ChrisG
The cure for boredom is curiosity. There is no cure for curiosity(Dorothy Parker)
you may be right, in a year or two maybe I will get around to telling everyone what I know,
(which is not much). Unlike the 150ton and 200ton American Landships article, which took about that long, (Which is posted on Landships) 
.
