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

[hermod]

Discovered! Iconic photo in Buchenwald is dishonest photo-fakery

By Carolyn Yeager



This is the photograph that Allied Supreme Commander General Dwight David Eisenhower ordered, in April 1945, to be posted in every German town and city 1 to show the defeated population the “true meaning of Nazism

(....)

A blogger, the owner of the Winston Smith Ministry of Truth website who goes by the nickname Black Rabbit, decided a week or so ago, out of curiosity, to order the New York Times newspaper article from May 6, 1945 in which this photo was published, and when it came the photo looked like this:




Here is page 2 and 3 of the New York Times article (click to show entire page):


What a shock to see only an empty dark space, and in the New York Times no less!


Continue reading:
http://www.eliewieseltattoo.com/discove ... to-fakery/

The U.S. army forging pictures for atrocity propaganda purposes...

This iconic photo was doctored by men of the U.S. army, not by any reporter acting on his own initiative as some people might think.



http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1 ... 66,5885438

[HeDidNothingWrong]

Has anyone been able to ascertain whether the above photo at Buchenwald is dishonest atrocity propaganda, or is it just a case of the NYT censoring the exposed man for decency reasons? At least, that was what I've been told from holocaust believers.
It seems to be the more plausible case, as the photo with the naked man was published in US newspapers just mere days after it was first photographed, with the NYT version appearing a few days later in May.

[Hannover]

Has anyone been able to ascertain whether the above photo at Buchenwald is dishonest atrocity propaganda, or is it just a case of the NYT censoring the exposed man for decency reasons? At least, that was what I've been told from holocaust believers.
It seems to be the more plausible case, as the photo with the naked man was published in US newspapers just mere days after it was first photographed, with the NYT version appearing a few days later in May.

Try reading the thread.

- Hannover

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

The tide is turning.

[TheBlackRabbitofInlé]

Has anyone been able to ascertain whether the above photo at Buchenwald is dishonest atrocity propaganda, or is it just a case of the NYT censoring the exposed man for decency reasons? At least, that was what I've been told from holocaust believers.

The NYT published a cropped version of the photo on April 29 (main section, p.20) , a week prior to them publishing the 'missing man' version on May 5. If the NYT was so concerned that their readers would be offended by Simon Toncman's near nakedness, why then didn't they just publish another cropped version? Why instead did the NYT decide to elaborately doctor an official U.S. Army photograph, for which, one of their team must have painstakingly drawn in all those empty bunks?

I proved on another forum that the photograph passed off as being from the original negative is at the very least cropped, and therefore the real original image remains under lock and key somewhere.

Another version of the photo is held by the Imperial War Museum, London. It originates from a collection of approximately 250,000 photographs donated to the museum by the US Embassy in 1947.
http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205194348

Although the photo provides no answer to the debate on whether Simon Toncman was doctored into the photograph by the U.S. Army or doctored out by The New York Times and Mel Mermelstein, it does prove that the photograph held by the NARA has been cropped, and is not therefore an authentic reproduction of the negative.

Composites of the IWM and NARA versions show that both photographs have been cropped:

https://rodoh.info/forum/viewtopic.php?p=33507#p33507

[hermod]

Has anyone been able to ascertain whether the above photo at Buchenwald is dishonest atrocity propaganda, or is it just a case of the NYT censoring the exposed man for decency reasons? At least, that was what I've been told from holocaust believers.

That is a quite laughable assertion as most newspapers - including the New York Times, I'm sure - published at that time very numerous pictures of atrocity propaganda with living and dead inmates fully naked (genitalia visible, etc.).

Perhaps that's because I'm European, but I would have never even thought to describe the man in the Buchenwald picture as a naked man.

Here is the kind of ads for swimsuits published in America in the 1940's:

[Hannover]

Here are some images from Vanity Fair of Feb. 1945 which indicate that particular American squeamishness and concern for "decency" that 'HeDidNothingWrong' uses for an excuse.





'HeDidNothingWrong' got everything wrong.

- Hannover

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

The tide is turning.