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

[Zulu]

Sorry, I should have quoted the source for both photos
http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blog ... amber.html

[TheBlackRabbitofInlé]

These are all the examples I've found (so far) of the photo appearing in the US press prior to the photo (apparently minus the standing man) appearing in the NYT, May 6, 1945:


Moberly Monitor-Index (MO), April 30, 1945, p.4
http://fotos.fotoflexer.com/30ab24c4649 ... 7f4bbc.jpg


Altoona Mirror (PA), April 30, 1945, p.1.
http://fotos.fotoflexer.com/ff02dd4723c ... fde4ba.jpg


The Monessen Daily Independent (PA), May 1, 1945, p.2.
http://fotos.fotoflexer.com/e0040358654 ... 36cda4.jpg

[Jerzy Ulicki-Rek]

Now it's getting better.
Please have a look.



POSTED ON DECEMBER 23, 2012 AT 4:27 AM
Break the Spell! Magic and Trickery are what the “Holocaust” is made of

By Carolyn Yeager



This very famous image associated with the so-called “Holocaust” that was discussed in the previous post has turned out to be fraught with fakery. A sharp-eyed reader, Paul Borresen, noticed something that, once seen, makes one wonder how it was not seen before!
What he noticed is that, in addition to the fake standing man exposed in my previous post, one of the men in the bunks appears twice in this Famous Buchenwald Lie Photo, and the similarity is unmistakeable.

Viewing the photo enlarged as much as it can be … find the young man lying on his back with head turned toward the photographer, in the 2nd row up from the bottom, 3rd from the left. His head is resting on his food bowl. (close-up on left, below, designated ‘Original’)



Now look at the young man in the same position in the bottom row, 4th from the left. He is the same man! (close-up on right, above, designated ‘Copy’) The food bowl has been removed from underneath his head, leaving it to a military intelligence photo-retoucher to redo his throat and neck, but in a very un-anatomical manner. Have you ever seen a neck that looked like that? I have not. In an attempt to retain a lesser portion of the ‘gown’ he was wearing so that it would not look the same as the ‘original,’ more bare skin is left showing, but without any anatomical correctness whatsoever.
The retoucher was not a trained artist and was in over his/her head with this assignment. For example, look at the ear. It consists of a few strokes of light-colored paint in an attempt to make something resembling an ear, but failing. Ears are one of the most difficult parts of the body to draw or paint in a convincing manner, but it was necessary to add an ear to this ‘copy’ because the ear is not showing on the original man in the bunk above; it is buried against the upside-down food bowl and some material that’s covering it. The botched ear of the ‘copy’ is one of the biggest giveaways of fakery in this photo, but not the only one.
What’s with all these thick, black eyebrows?
Let’s look at the eyes and eyebrows next. The man whom we are calling “the original,” has very dark, thick eyebrows but otherwise looks normal. The shadow under his chin is probably what was actually there – bringing attention to the fact that a very bright light source in a dark room was shining on the men, and hitting the lower two rows of bunks more than the upper two rows. His “copy” also has very dark, flat eyebrows but they have been redrawn to begin higher up from the bridge of the nose and extend down to the outside corner of the eye, giving him a wild look. Adding to this wild-eyed look is the delineation of more distinct eyelids, rounding the eyes and enlarging the pupils, all of which create the zombie look which the ‘original’ doesn’t have.
A couple more things were done in a futile effort to camouflage this ‘copy’: the rounding of the forehead, head, and hairline, and the squaring of the chin and lower jaw. A crude line of black paint, applied all the way up to the big, white ‘cauliflower’ ear, was evidently thought to suffice for a shadow under chin and jaw. Look closely especially where it meets the ear and you can recognize it is paint.
Yet, the nose, mouth, upper jaw and facial shadows remain exactly the same in both figures. The result is a grotesque second person that I suppose has been eliciting sympathy from clueless viewers all these years.
This grotesque, over-worked ‘copy’ is also slightly smaller than it should be for the bunk it occupies – actually being the same size as the man peering out from the next bunk further down. Now, this peering man has clearly had his eyebrows and eyes emphasized with black paint or pencil. Or he may be totally fake. Others whose eyebrows were treated similarly are: The “elie wiesel” face has heavily emphasized eyebrows; also the second and third man in the third row, and all the men in the top row. I believe the best explanation for this phenomenon is this: the poorly painted eyebrows of the ‘copy’ would stand out too much from the natural-looking eyebrows of all the rest, so it was decided to give a swipe of black paint to many other eyebrows also, including our ‘original.’
As a practicing artist most of my life, from childhood on, who has drawn and painted hundreds of faces and done many portraits, I know quite well how to touch up faces and how tiny adjustments can make a big difference in attaining a likeness. The assignment here was to do the opposite of attaining a likeness; it was to take a photographic carbon copy and make it look unlike the original. If I had done the work on this photograph it would be far superior to the image we have, which is a really sloppy job by people who are not artists and therefore don’t have “an eye” for how things actually look and/or don’t know how to make it look that way. Which is a good thing for us!
Hundreds of forged and mislabeled photographs make up the “Holocaust”
This is one photograph out of many that were also forged. I believe it is one of the most important because it has been given such a prominent place among the documents “proving” the “Holocaust.” Elie Wiesel, or his handlers, no doubt selected this photo – from many possible others wherein he could be falsely identified as one of the crowd – because it was already so well-known and was in many books and publications. However, they didn’t count on it being exposed as a fraud – they never do. But now it has been, and it’s up to us – all of you reading this – to see that the exposé becomes known everywhere this photograph appears. This is what it will take to break the spell.
What we have to fight against – our own people
A fellow revisionist who helps me with technical issues from time to time for this blog actually wanted me to hold back on this because he could not be sure that the two figures discussed in this article are the same man! What would it take to convince him? A confession from the perpetrators? A corroboration from an authority figure or a Jew? Why the difficulty in contradicting the given narrative?
A poster at Stormfront who boldly calls himself “The Hammer of God” had this to say when confronted with the empty black area in the NYTimes reprint:
Idk, newspapers did have pretty low-quality pictures at that time, so maybe that whole area was just set to black, but it looks bright enough for that person to have shown up. The lighting actually seems a bit brighter on that man, which makes it even stranger why that section would appear black. So, perhaps it is a forgery, but I can’t say for certain.
Some hammer. How do you “just set an area to black?” And why would they? When I saw that reprint of the NYTimes article it was instantaneous … Eureka! I didn’t have to think about it or doubt myself.
People like ‘The Hammer” should spend more time studying how the magic spell works. It works like this: Evidence doesn’t count; don’t trust it; trust the consensus. Far too many of us cannot break out of the consensus about the “Holocaust” and the ” evil Nazis.” For this reason, we need to clearly understand what is being done, and how it’s being done. The “how” is very important. It’s a kind of sleight of hand, a magic act, and we are the ones being both entertained and kept in servitude by it. What will it take to Break the Spell?

http://www.eliewieseltattoo.com/break-t ... s-made-of/


Jerzy

[TheBlackRabbitofInlé]

I thought it was Christmas Eve, but must be April's Fool's Day.

They don't look ANYTHING alike.

[EtienneSC]

There are photos of that same guy sitting in the next photo in the series from Buchenwald. [.....]

Most people who claim "forgery" so quickly have never spent any time in a dark room developing film, forgeries back in the day were and are still very hard to do.

Either he was edited out of the Times photo, or the Times photo is so low quality, he actually is in there, if a higher quality version is accessed. [.....]

The technique described by Udo Walendy in relation to claimed photographic forgeries of Soviet origin is montage, which would involve taking another photograph of the montage. If the same technique applied in this case apparently of US origin, the intricacies of the dark room and developing film would not cause additional problems. The evidence of forgery would consist of the quality of blending in of inserted objects, the consistency of lighting, size and posture in relation to surroundings and the loss of quality and depth caused by the re-photographing.

It seems to me that there is an element of speculation in interpretation here as regards details. Considering possibilities though, the emaciated figure third from the left in the lower bunks looks inserted to me in the same manner as the standing man. He is not supporting the weight of his torso with his left arm as you would expect a weakened person to so. In addition, the shadows on the two figures to our left indicate a light source to the right, whereas for the third figure there is no shadow from his head onto his right shoulder blade and the light source seems to be from his front and above (judging by the shadows below his head). The shadow on his right arm is what you would expect though.

There is also the question of what inferences are drawn from the forgery, if it is accepted as fact. The intention seems to be merely to insert an image of an emaciated figure into an image originally intended to illustrate the living quarters of the inmates and perhaps to make the bunks look (even) more crowded than they apparently were.

[TheBlackRabbitofInlé]

It's true, this is a doctored photo. More on how I got hold of this better copy.
http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blog ... fraud.html

[Kladderadatsch]

Brilliant work, Black Rabbit!

As you know, I had my doubts as to which direction the manipulation went, but while the discovery was important either way, a sin of commission on the part of the propagandists is just that much more important than a sin omission on the part of a few prudish editors at the NYT, and now you've proved it. You stuck with the problem, did the legwork and paid the pennies out of pocket, and finally sealed the deal. I know that other people were also involved at various stages along the way, and they deserve credit too; all I can say from my perspective is, My hat goes off to all, but especially you.

It merits an article in Inconvenient History.

[Zulu]

There are photos of that same guy sitting in the next photo in the series from Buchenwald. [.....]

Most people who claim "forgery" so quickly have never spent any time in a dark room developing film, forgeries back in the day were and are still very hard to do.

Either he was edited out of the Times photo, or the Times photo is so low quality, he actually is in there, if a higher quality version is accessed. [.....]

The technique described by Udo Walendy in relation to claimed photographic forgeries of Soviet origin is montage, which would involve taking another photograph of the montage. If the same technique applied in this case apparently of US origin, the intricacies of the dark room and developing film would not cause additional problems. The evidence of forgery would consist of the quality of blending in of inserted objects, the consistency of lighting, size and posture in relation to surroundings and the loss of quality and depth caused by the re-photographing.

May be that one

Buchenwald Man.jpg (2.48 KiB) Viewed 8049 times

Buchenwald_Reduct.jpg (20.97 KiB) Viewed 8049 times

Title "These are slave laborers in the Buchenwald concentration camp near Jena; many had died from malnutrition when U.S. troops of the 80th Division entered the camp.", 04/16/1945
Author Unknown or not provided
Record creator Office for Emergency Management. Office of War Information. Overseas Operations Branch. New York Office. News and Features Bureau. (12/17/1942 - 09/15/1945)
Date 16 April 1945
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: ... 535560.tif

Investigation may be made at the Office of War Information. It seems weird that the author is not mentioned (Unknown or not provided) because they weren't a lot of photographers embedded in that time. Moreover, the field is restricted to the liberation of Buchenwald.

[TheBlackRabbitofInlé]

Brilliant work, Black Rabbit!

[...]

Thanks Kladderadatsch

[borjastick]

This is indeed fine detective work and should be applauded by all. For my two pennies worth I would say the guy who appears to be in the bottom picture twice IS the same person.

But my main point and one which may have been covered here already, though I haven't seen it, is the timing of the photo. If this was taken in mid April 1945 I would suggest this barrack room would be cold or very cold. If the truth was that these guys were overworked and under fed then they would be unable to keep warm via high calorie burn etc. To show them mostly in a state of undress or underdress suggests this picture was taken a good deal later and definitely posed.

[spaceboy]

I applaud these findings, but is it still impossible that the man could have been censored out? (possibly because the paper originally found the nearly nude man to be a bit too offensive). I'm just playing devil's advocate.

Also, consider this Soviet photo that removed Nikolai Yezhov after he was arrested and shot:

[TheBlackRabbitofInlé]

I applaud these findings, but is it still impossible that the man could have been censored out? (possibly because the paper originally found the nearly nude man to be a bit too offensive). I'm just playing devil's advocate.

Thanks.

Here's my opinion on what happened:

It's a staged photo. I don't think any serious person would argue that the photographer crept-up, and snapped a photo of unsuspecting inmates lying on their bunks.

It's a powerful photo, but unfortunately (for the hoaxers) half the bunks are empty, which detracts from the over-crowdedness they wished to portray. Which is why the inmate was manipulated into this photo; to cover the empty bunks.

Somehow, the NYT had a copy of the original photo.

IF the naked inmate was doctored out by a NYT photo editor, who was—or happened to have on staff—an expert in photo manipulation, because he was either: A. "antisemitic" (I've seen someone seriously suggest this), or B. In order not to upset NYT readers. Then the photograph manipulator at the NYT made a sterling effort of drawing the empty bunks, as they appear far more realistic than the naked inmate's left arm against that post.

A quick browse through other newspaper published in April / May 1945, shows that U.S. editors weren't shy about showing their readers the "horrors" of Nazi regime. Admittedly none of these are from the NYT, but the NYT's online archive can't be browsed, unless you've access to a site like ProQuest, who only allow universities and large libraries to subscribe.





I suspect some long dead photo editor at the NYT is going to be made the scapegoat for this, IF it ever attracts enough attention to warrant "debunking" by the Industry. But having said that, it's barely raised a mummer on codoh, so that's unlikely.

[friedrichjansson]

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.

[TheBlackRabbitofInlé]

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.

[friedrichjansson]

Eric Hunt has raised some pertinent issues:

one of the beams holding up the bunk doesn't reach the ground in the NY Times version of the photo. The angles on the beams that were obscured by the standing man look odd, too. The NY Times version is of lower quality.

I feel the naked guy was burned and dodged out of this NY times version of the photo using lightroom techniques, as others have said, maybe to protect the sensibilities of the public.

First, the post that doesn't seem to reach the ground. Was it too dark to see, was it recessed, did it really not reach the ground, or is this evidence of photo fakery in the opposite direction? I can't say for sure, but here's another picture from the Buchenwald barracks that also shows a post which can't be seen to reach the ground.
http://collections.yadvashem.org/photos ... 01553.html
Here's a close up:

As for the angles, I suspect that it's just ramshackle construction. Where two horizontal boards join there seems to be a slight shift in direction, but this can also be seen on the version of the photo with the naked man.

Now for the possibility that the man was edited out. Things are going to get a little more complicated. Here's another version of the photo:
http://collections.yadvashem.org/photos ... 55039.html

We now have three different versions to compare. To save time, I'm only going to post a few close ups here, so if you want to follow the comparison, download all three images and zoom in on the respective sectors under consideration.

First comparison [click to enlarge]:

Note the following:
1. The Yad Vashem version has what seems to be an angled beam next to the man's head. To me, this suggests that that's a cruder, preliminary attempt to edit him in, one which failed to remove all the traces of wherever he was originally photographed.
2. Observe the men on the top bunk. In the Yad Vashem version, the man on the left of the image is invisible (it could just be too dark to see him, but why should he disappear when others who were less illuminated in the other version did not?). Black Rabbit's version shows both of these men.
3. On the second bunk from the top, the Yad Vashem version shows only one of the two men in the other version. The version Black Rabbit found also shows both men.
4. A white oval appears off the man's shoulder in the Yad Vashem version, but not in the others.

Second comparison:

Yad Vashem's version doesn't show the men in this bunk, or rather, it seems to show a smeared out version of them. Facial features can be discerned in the smear, but they're in the wrong place. Black Rabbit's version does show them. Note also the angle at which they appear to be lying - unless they were crooking their necks at unnatural angles their bodies would cross the people beside them.

It's also worth studying the irregularities appearing in the various versions on the post next to the naked man

My conclusion is that none of these images is a true original. The man was edited in, other manipulation was done, and multiple versions of the doctored image leaked out.