Chinese Super-Duper-Catamaran Carrier w/ Scary Email Message

[dannydale]

Wait, you get emails with pics of your own fake secret project proclaiming it's real? Maybe we should use it and some of the others in this thread as stupid-people-bait. ;D

 

[Jemiba]

Wait, you get emails with pics of your own fake secret project proclaiming it's real?

.. and he probably will have difficulties then in assuring, that it was a fake and nothing but a
fake ! To make such drawings, is like opening Pandora's box, especially in our internet era !

Perhaps we should add the 11. commandement : "Secret Projects are a serious affair and you
shall never contrive one just for amusement, because it will be spread over online sources
worldwide and taken for serious, because you are known as a serious person, but you wasn't
and now you will be accosted by your own chimera until the end of your live. And you will never
succeed to eradicate it again, because the internet is unforgiving and will never forget your
disgrace. "

Well, honestly I know such problems, I'm a penitent, too ... :-\

 

[Orionblamblam]

Wait, you get emails with pics of your own fake secret project proclaiming it's real?

Not "my own." I don't invent "fake projects."

To make such drawings, is like opening Pandora's box, especially in our internet era !

Perhaps we should add the 11. commandement : "Secret Projects are a serious affair and you
shall never contrive one just for amusement, because it will be spread over online sources
worldwide and taken for serious, because you are known as a serious person, but you wasn't
and now you will be accosted by your own chimera until the end of your live. And you will never
succeed to eradicate it again, because the internet is unforgiving and will never forget your
disgrace. "

I would support such a commandment. As something of a historian, having to wade through a bunch of noise to find the truth can be difficult enough; having to wade through an added layer of crap (both in separating the fake from the real, and in trying to set the record straight for people who bought into the crap. I've no problem with people working up artwork of "fake projects," just so's they don't advertise 'em as real

But the fact is that anything that hits the internet is For The Ages. You can make a farciful rendering and clearly label it as fiction, and if there is *any* chance that someone might think it's real, someone else will take that image out of context and sell it as real.

Beware what you put on the internet, and how.

 

[Avimimus]

Wait, you get emails with pics of your own fake secret project proclaiming it's real?

Not "my own." I don't invent "fake projects."

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7951.0;attach=91392;image
Now *this* was a "battleplane..."

*cough* That was real? I just figured that out!

 

[Jemiba]

Often the problem simply is the internationality of the internet. Picture and in most cases
designations can be read, whatever the language of the site is. But if it is meant for real,
or was just a joke between participants of a forum, or if the site is just about "alternative
history" often isn't recognisable without a basic knowledger of the language.
So "new" projects turn up, unintended by the draftsman. And sometimes, not even a contact
can be found in the editorial, so rectifying is difficult. And if, it already was spread like ashes
in the wind .

 

[Orionblamblam]

*cough* That was real? I just figured that out!

Yes, it was real, if profoundly goofy.

 

[dannydale]

Wait, you get emails with pics of your own fake secret project proclaiming it's real?

Not "my own." I don't invent "fake projects."

My apologies, good sir.

I also agree with you on 'please let us know you DIYed it when you make an amateur plane design'. I've noticed an uptick in fake/amateur stuff lately, some of it disturbingly good. I've also been asked if one of my artsy fartsy mspaint designs was intended to be real or not. All I can say to that accusation is ;D █▄ █▄█ █▄ ▀█▄ ;D

 

[Stargazer]

I would support such a commandment. As something of a historian, having to wade through a bunch of noise to find the truth can be difficult enough; having to wade through an added layer of crap (both in separating the fake from the real, and in trying to set the record straight for people who bought into the crap. I've no problem with people working up artwork of "fake projects," just so's they don't advertise 'em as real

But the fact is that anything that hits the internet is For The Ages. You can make a farciful rendering and clearly label it as fiction, and if there is *any* chance that someone might think it's real, someone else will take that image out of context and sell it as real.

Beware what you put on the internet, and how.

Being an active purveyor of "what if" aircraft in both plan and especially photo forms, I plead guilty on all accounts. Well, almost. The fact is I always make a point of signing the material and indicating in the page that it is a fake and should not be taken seriously.

Still, as you rightly said, some folks, either by sheer ignorance of the English language or because they think it's a smart thing to do, will take the material out of context and pretend it's for real. That's sad but it can't be helped.

In this information age, real information has never been so well circulated, but neither has fake information. On a couple of occasions, I myself fell a victim of those fake designs (especially when they come with a history and lots of detailed specs) but I'm against any attempt to discourage creation and imagination. It is indeed the responsibility of "whiffers" to clearly indicate in the documents that they are fakes, but it is also up to the historians, whether full-time seasoned experts or occasional ones, to tell the wheat from the chaff. And the same holds true for the media in general, which have a growing tendency to relay information that they don't always verify beforehand.

 

[Avimimus]

Often the problem simply is the internationality of the internet. Picture and in most cases
designations can be read, whatever the language of the site is. But if it is meant for real,
or was just a joke between participants of a forum, or if the site is just about "alternative
history" often isn't recognisable without a basic knowledger of the language.

So, you're essentially saying that this website needs to invent an internationally recognizable pictograph for this purpose...? Or did I make that leap on my own?

*cough* That was real? I just figured that out!

Yes, it was real, if profoundly goofy.

Sir, I continue to be profoundly amazed.

I love it here.

 

[Orionblamblam]

In this information age, real information has never been so well circulated, but neither has fake information.

Eventually, the internet, or some distant descendant of it, will have all the information in the universe in it. Every fact will be on record. But then... every lie will be on record as well. And for every fact, there are an infinite number of non-facts.

"Computer: what is the value of 'pi'?"
"Four. No... five."

I'm against any attempt to discourage creation and imagination.

Note that the news and history industries theoretically discourage "imagination." They tend to act upset when one of their own gets found out for using too much of it.

the media in general, which have a growing tendency to relay information that they don't always verify beforehand.

And thus we elect Presidents without sufficient vetting.

 

[Jemiba]

So, you're essentially saying that this website needs to invent an internationally recognizable pictograph for this purpose...? Or did I make that leap on my own?

Maybe it would work in some cases, but I doubt, that it would be very useful in the end. Pictographs today are just another
"foreign language" (just have a look at the blurb in your T-Shirt ! ), and cannot even be translated via Babelfish or
Google. So those people, who used it incorrectly would face just another problem. And they probably would solve it the
same way, as usual, just by removing it, together with all other tags, like name or copyright. :-\

But I thought about a section here, cataloguing known and proven fakes, could be a quick way to prevent discussion,
like the one about this flying battleship based on the Kalinin.

 

[Stargazer]

I think it would be neat to have a standardized digital watermark on all official sources, which would automatically disappear when someone resizes or modifies it. Only the registered publishers and media companies would be able to watermark their contents. This way it would be easy to tell what is real and what is not.

 

[Jemiba]

Wouldn't that mean, that someone, who wants to use it illegaly, just has to resize it, maybe to 99,9 %,
or modify it in a way, that doesn't spoil the whole source and the watermark would be removed ?
That could work, of course, if all sources would be watermarked, so Illegal copies could be recognised
at once.
But to reach that level seems highly improbable to me. And quite probably you couldn't do it on your own,
not even for your own pictures. You would need an institution, that grants a kind of licence to you. And this
would hardly come for free, I'm afraid.

 

[Stargazer]

It wouldn't remove the copyright indications but only the certificate of authenticity. I know that such a system would require for all sources to be submitted to that system, and that of course is improbable given the amount of pictures currently circulating on the web.

But... this could be made possible if a new graphic standard was created. JPG, GIF and the others would be restricted to the older files or the "copies". Yes, there would probably be a cost to use the originals, but it's already the case at present if you are a media person and request high-resolution files from the publishers.

 

[Jemiba]

Yes, there would probably be a cost to use the originals, but it's already the case at present if you are a media person and request high-resolution files from the publishers.

My point was, that you, as the creator couldn't provide your originals with such a watermark just by using a specific
software on your own computer, because then everybody else could do the same with your slightly modified pictures/
documents, turning them into "originals" again. There had to be an institution, with higher rights and capabilities and
such services are very rarely for free. That means, you, as the creator would have to pay first for the protection of
your work. Could work, but the proverbial "poor artist" would have to pay the piper, as he couldn't afford this kind of
protection.

 

[Stargazer]

Agreed. It would be complicated to set up. :'(

 

[Grey Havoc]

With regards as to the Zheng-Yu Class, some of the inspiration for the design may have come from this:

1963 plans for US Submarine Aircraft Carriers with 20-30 STOL Aircraft AND 27 IRBM !
size of 40 feed (12,192 meter) high 300 feet (91,44 meter) long, 80 feet (24,384) wide and 12000 tons displacement.
feature Retractable Conning Tower, tow Aircraft Catapults. Submarine Power by tow nuclear Reactor.

From the same source (Cold war Submarine Aircraft Carriers Projects thread), another supposed PRC sub design, actual origin unknown:

If this is/was a real design study, I can see see some problems with it. By the way the Zheng-Yu concept is also mentioned in the thread, but in the linked blog post it was referred to as the 'Zheng He'.