This photograph outraged millions, yet there are strong indications that it's a total forgery. For what purpose, we don't know.

At the very least, I don't believe it's what people have assumed it to be - a colonial taxi ride.

There are a few gravely suspicious irregularities in the image, but first let's look at what people simply missed about it.



1. Why is this picture the only one of its type. Where are the others?

2. Why is she standing still? Show us a picture of her walking with that man on her back. The only way she could walk hunched over like that with a man on her back would be to waddle at an agonisingly slow pace with very tiny steps. What would be the point?

3. His weight is so high and so far forward with his centre of gravity near her shoulder blades that even if she had the strength to hold him up, leverage alone of his weight would likely cause her to fall flat on her face. You can piggy-back someone, but only if you stay upright. If you lean back, or well forward you will usually topple over.

4. What is holding him on? Surely this would require a strong harness. The only visible restraint is the strap on her forehead. Why wouldn't it simply slip off over her head due to his massive downward weight? If it was fixed, it would very likely snap her neck.

5. How did he get up there into that basket? Surely she didn't bob down while he got in, then stand up again with him in the basket. If so, then I ask again what is holding him on?

6. Why would he take such an obvious risk of getting his neck broken? She could easily stumble. The woman has bare feet! If she stepped on a thorn or stubbed her toe things would suddenly get very interesting for him. A carry-chair is normally suspended from a pole carried by at least two people. This women couldn't hope to carry a man like that for any more than very a short distance.

7. On close inspection there is no sign at all on her face, body or clothing that she is grimacing, straining or under any significant load, let alone having the weight of a full-grown man on her back in a basket. She looks relaxed.

Here are the biggest indications that the picture is a forgery:-

a. Directly behind the woman's head, the back part of which seems to be missing, is a shaded area. It looks suspiciously like a backrest the man is leaning against that has been blacked out.

b. Below the basket in which the man is sits is what appears to be the bottom of a different basket, disconnected from the upper basket, but too hard for an early forger to remove without obvious tell-tale signs.



c. The shadow behind the woman seems wrong. It is clearly tending towards her right, whereas the shadows of the pots is either straight or angled slightly to her left. Some shadows indicate that the sun is directly overhead. Furthermore, the shadow of the boots on the end of his legs is unrealistic. Below is a picture of a shadow of a boot taken at similar height and with sun at a similar angle and elevation. It looks nothing like the one in the colonial image, in which the boots look ridiculously stuck on the end of his legs, with the shadows of them looking far too long.




d. The man's right shoe has a clear shine on it suggesting a flash. However, if a magnesium flash was used, why are there so many shadows on the people? If instead it was from a bright overhead sun, why is the ground behind the woman darker than in front?

My guess is that this is an early demonstration of photo manipulation. The man was sitting in a basket on a different form of conveyance, possibly an elephant. A forger, for unknown reasons, has manipulated the image onto the woman's back. Why? Possibly to demonstrate what was known in the pre-digital age as 'trick photography'. Perhaps it was just done to be humorous.

I am willing to proven wrong.