Discovered! Iconic photo in Buchenwald is dishonest photo...

[Hektor]

Fantastic work. Any plans for publicity? This is precisely the kind of thing that could get the public to take notice, if we can get anyone to report it.

Thanks.

I think your right, it's very easy for the proles this one. They don't have to read anything, or even sit through a documentary. It's immediately registering proof that there's dishonesty afoot.

I think we should first make out, whether there are still more versions of this picture. Or if it is subdivided into another number of versions.
Just to make sure.

[Jerzy Ulicki-Rek]

Black Rabbit
I stand up and salute you:)

Jerzy

[TheBlackRabbitofInlé]

Black Rabbit
I stand up and salute you:)

Jerzy

Thanks Jerzy

[borjastick]

Video cover shot in colour

Ravensbruck cover pic.jpg (34.03 KiB) Viewed 4285 times

Just come across this picture on Ebay, thought it might be of interest to readers here.

[Christopher Louis]

The NYT newpaper photo is an interesting anomaly, sure. But...
So what if the standing naked man was later added to a photo of the men in the bunks?
I don't see what difference it makes.
Standing-naked-man was photographed at the same time in the same camp. Or do people doubt even this?

So what if two photos from the same time at the same camp were combined for a better compositional effect and for a more striking result?

Do people really think that possible darkroom artistry and technical skill somehow prove its all a hoax and that these people weren't in the camps at the time of its liberation?!

[Hannover]

So what if the standing naked man was later added to a photo of the men in the bunks?

It demonstrates manipulation and fakery. Something that is the norm for things 'holocaust'. Those with the truth on their side do not need to resort to manipulation and fakery. Surely you agree with that.

There are endless faked / altered photos that have been exposed at this forum. You really should look around.

- Hannover

[Christopher Louis]

But what is "fake" other than the composition?

All these men were photographed at Buchenwald.
They were all malnourished.
They were all shaven headed.
They were all inmates in a concentration camp.
Weren't they?

What in the photo/combined photos is "fake"?

[Hannover]

But what is "fake" other than the composition?

All these men were photographed at Buchenwald.
They were all malnourished.
They were all shaven headed.
They were all inmates in a concentration camp.
Weren't they?

What in the photo/combined photos is "fake"?

The man 'standing' is fake as well as some other curious positioning of men in this compiled 'photo'. Reading the thread would be helpful.
The question remains, why was this photo manufactured? Why do manipulators manipulate?

- Hannover

[Enlightened Student]

One thing I find interesting in the photos is the shadows cast of the standing naked man and the men in the bunks. If you look at the man standing the shadow from his head and chin is cast to the side across his left shoulder. The men in the bunks if you look closely all the shadows are from a light above casting the shadows down and not to the side like the man standing. I have a friend who is a photographer he says pictures with shadows going different ways always will give off that the photo is fake.

[Christopher Louis]

Well. This is educational. Hmmmm? OK.
So.... er...
Q: What in the photo is fake other than the composition?
A: standing naked man is fake!
Q: Oh really? So what exactly is fake about him? Is he a fake man? A wax dummy?
A: Read the thread.
I have read the whole thread. There are photos of this same man in a sitting pose taken at the same time.
And there are a series of photos showing dead bodies being piled up before being photographed with locals/ civilians(/investigators.
This also is somehow regarded as proof of fakery!!?
Q: But fakery of what? Were the dead inmates being piled up fake corpses? Was the whole scene a plot to hoodwink the world for posterity?

Curiouser and curiouser?

[borjastick]

For me the issue is one of intent to deceive.

It isn't an issue of whether the man is real or a waxwork, no one is suggesting that, but if he was placed there post capture of the pic or not. Further, that for me the whole picture was composed after the event and as such is meant to replicate something from an earlier time rather than be an accurate news item picture of the event in real time.

The thing to focus on isn't one particular picture, though we could tear this one apart, but the amount of faked pictures designed to deceive millions of people. There are so many, most of which seem to me to originate from the Russians who clearly had an agenda of disinformation and misinformation to totally undermine the sworn enemy, Germany.

[TheBlackRabbitofInlé]

The NYT newpaper photo is an interesting anomaly,

There's been other appearances of your "anomaly"


http://www.eliewieseltattoo.com/cover-o ... nding-man/

So what if the standing naked man was later added to a photo of the men in the bunks?

So why does the world's leading expert on Auschwitz (Robert Jan van Pelt) claim this (from a book published in 2012):

Five days after the liberation of Buchenwald Private Harry Miller of the United States Signal Corps entered block 56. He decided to take a photo showing the many emaciated and naked inmates (inclusive Elie Wiesel) as they were crowded in their bunks. In order to increase dramatic effect, Miller asked one of them to get up, step forward and lean against a post. This inmate was Simon Toncman. This photo appeared in the New York Times in May 6, 1945.

Koker, David. Edited by: Van Pelt, Robert Jan. At the Edge of the Abyss: A Concentration Camp Diary, 1943-1944. Everston, IL: Northwestern Uni. Press. 2012. p.328.

I don't see what difference it makes.

There's none so blind as those that will not see.

J Heywood, Dialogues of Proverbs II (1546)

Standing-naked-man was photographed at the same time in the same camp. Or do people doubt even this?

You only know this thanks to Eric Hunt, a "Holocaust denier", according to the world's no.1 Auschwitz expert (Robert Jan van Pelt, see above), Simon Toncman (the naked man) is present in the original photo.

So what if two photos from the same time at the same camp were combined for a better compositional effect and for a more striking result?

A photo that Holocaust scholars claim is original, and have even created, and maintain, a lie about how it was taken?

Do people really think that possible darkroom artistry and technical skill somehow prove its all a hoax and that these people weren't in the camps at the time of its liberation?!

Strawman idiocy.

[edited for typo]

[TheBlackRabbitofInlé]

Well. This is educational. Hmmmm? OK.

We're learning all about you, that's for certain.

Q: What in the photo is fake other than the composition?
A: standing naked man is fake!
Q: Oh really? So what exactly is fake about him? Is he a fake man? A wax dummy?

The naked man was doctored into the photo, it's a fake photo, a fake photo propagated to this day as genuine, even by a leading Holocaust scholar who has a little fake story about how it was taken.

A: Read the thread.
I have read the whole thread. There are photos of this same man in a sitting pose taken at the same time.
And there are a series of photos showing dead bodies being piled up before being photographed with locals/ civilians(/investigators.
This also is somehow regarded as proof of fakery!!?
Q: But fakery of what? Were the dead inmates being piled up fake corpses? Was the whole scene a plot to hoodwink the world for posterity?

The piles of bodies "stacked like cordwood", were mentioned (p.13) in the report "Atrocities and Other Conditions in Concentration Camps in Germany", submitted to the US Senate in May 1945.
http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/Atrocities-01.pdf

Within days after the liberation of Dachau, Kossie Atkins’ platoon checked out the camp and were staggered by the gruesome piles of dead bodies stacked and ready to be thrown in to the ovens. To people who refuse to believe the existence and atrocities of the German concentration camps, Kossie declared: “I would like for them to have seen that!"

Culpepper, Marilyn Mayer. Never Will We Forget: Oral Histories of World War II. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group. 2008. p.126.

What Kossie clearly didn't know, is that these piles of dead bodies had been stacked by the Americans to create the very impression that had such an effect on Kossie any many more like him.



[edited for typo]

[Christopher Louis]

But... What you are calling 'fakery' is merely the possible combining of two photos isn't it?
If so, in what way have we been "deceived"?
Do you doubt that Simon 'naked standing man' Toncman was at Buchenwald at the same time as the bunk photo?
If not, what's the problem?

Oh yeah. But I've already said this:
"So what if the standing-naked-man was later added to a photo of the men in the bunks?
I don't see what difference it makes. Standing-naked-man was photographed at the same time in the same camp. Or do people doubt even this?"

Applying Occam's razor to find the most uncomplicated explanation, try this scenario:

"Private Harry Miller of the United States Signal Corps decided to take a photo showing the many emaciated and naked inmates as they were crowded in their bunks. (Photo 1)
In order to increase dramatic effect, Miller asked one of them to get up, step forward and lean against a post. (Photo 2)
This inmate was Simon Toncman.
Later back in his darkroom Miller decides he likes the photo of the bunk inmates better in photo one, but prefers the composition of Photo 2. SO he combines the two by adding Simon Toncman from Photo 2 into the dark area of Photo 1 to achieve the best of both photos. This composite photo appeared in the New York Times in May 6, 1945."

Such an explanation would fit wouldn't it?
Or what's the alternative explanation? Is it that Private Harry Miller was some kind of psy-operative falsifier of history? Is it that Simon Toncman was never at Buchenwald? I mean, what are you actually suggesting here BESIDES the fact that the original 'bunk' photo didn't have Toncman standing by the post. Give me your best explanation of the deception as you are seeing it with all its ramifications. As I don't get what the fuss is about.

If its just:
Oh, but you can't do that. That's a deception, fakery and a deceit! Here we have yet more definitive proof that the holocaust is a giant sham...

then somehow I don't think many converts will be won over with this type of reasoning and 'evidence'.

[borjastick]

The Holocaust story neither stands nor falls on this one picture or any other single picture. What it does show is a cumulative effect of deceit and manipulation of the masses by the all powerful media at the time. Indeed one could argue that the control and influence the press and broadcast media had over billions of people was truly astonishing until recent times when the internet opened things up dramatically.

In the UK if Pathe news showed a newsreel film about the war in the cinemas it reached 30m + people and they all believed it. What this picture and many others proves is that the message to show those horrible scumbag bastard German Huns was well planned, orchestrated and totally wrong.