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

[Hannover]

borjastick, well said.

- Hannover

[Stevia]

Christopher Louis:

Such an explanation would fit wouldn't it?

It's funny, when asked to provide proof of the holohoax, the best the hoaxers can come up with is "explanations that might fit."

Christopher, I have a question for you:

Do you deny that the photo in question is fraudulent?

[TheBlackRabbitofInlé]

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"?

The world's leading Auschwitz expert claims your "combining of two photos" is a genuine photo, he even has a tale about it, which isn't true, therefore it's false, a synonym of "fake". Much like the photo.

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?

No one except you, whilst you were building strawmen, has suggested that Toncman wasn't present during this photo shoot.

The "problem" is that the arguably most iconic Holocaust photo, is a doctored fraud. A doctored fraud that is passed off as a genuine by:
A. The world's leading expert on Auschwitz
B. The Buchenwald museum

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?"

It's pretty pathetic of you to have wheeled out the same strawman again.

Even if you could find a person who claimed Toncman wasn't present during this photo shoot, I'm no more answerable for their silly opinions than I am for yours.

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?

No, as Simon Toncman doesn't appear in the New York Times in May 6, 1945! That's how this matter came to light.

Your claimed "Occam's razor" reasoning, is laughable, even aside from the aforementioned point.

How do you know that Harry Miller was accomplished in the art of photographic manipulation?

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.

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.

viewtopic.php?p=56871#

[Christopher Louis]

It's funny, when asked to provide proof of the holohoax, the best the hoaxers can come up with is "explanations that might fit."

Christopher, I have a question for you:

Do you deny that the photo in question is fraudulent?

First suggesting that I am a holohoaxer is innacurate and ad hominem. (Er... isn't that against forum rules?)

To answer your question:
At this stage I would deny that it is definitely fraudulent. I don't think any of us know for sure, and the confidence with which so many are jumping to conclusions with such absolute certainty about this does rather alarm me.

Having said that, it does look to me as though some photo manipulation has occurred. That does seem certain.
As has been suggested by another contributor, it could be the other way and Toncman was deleted in the NYT version because of his nakedness.
That is another possible simple scenario and explanation, isn't it.

We don't know at this stage do we?

I would have to know the details of what exact photo manipulation was done before I called it fraudulent.
If the scenario I suggested was what occurred it would NOT call that fraudulent.

[Stevia]

Christopher Louis:

Having said that, it does look to me as though some photo manipulation has occurred. That does seem certain.

...

If the scenario I suggested was what occurred it would NOT call that fraudulent.

fraudulent [ˈfrɔːdjʊlənt]
adj
1. acting with or having the intent to deceive
2. relating to or proceeding from fraud or dishonest action

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fraudulent


Manipulating a photo, especially without mentioning the fact that it has been manipulated, is dishonest and an act of deception and thus a fraudulent act.

Which means Christopher, that you are denying that the photo is fraudulent.

And do you know what being in denial makes you Christopher?

A denier.

[Stevia]

Christopher Louis:

As has been suggested by another contributor, it could be the other way and Toncman was deleted in the NYT version because of his nakedness.

That doesn't exactly fit your "Occam's razor" reasoning, now does it Christopher?

I can't wait to hear Christopher's reasoning for how "such an explanation would fit" into the decision to delete Toncman from the photograph.

Oh do tell us Christopher how that would "increase the dramatic effect" of the photo.

[Hannover]

Christopher Louis:

Your 'The New York Times wouldn't publish nakedness photos' excuse holds no water. Here's 'Occam's razor': 1.The man is not naked. 2.They had no problem in publishing completely naked diseased corpses that Allied troops ordered stacked upon each other and photographed from various angles in attempting to make the numbers appear larger than they were.

The photo was manipulated and there was a reason for it.

'The New York Times wouldn't publish nakedness photos' ... don't make me laugh.

- Hannover

[Stevia]

TheBlackRabbitofInlé :

They don't look ANYTHING alike.

http://www.eliewieseltattoo.com/wp-cont ... copied.jpg

I'm not so sure TheBlackRabbitofInlé.

It looks to me that the eyebrows in the left photo have been manipulated, as well as the hairline.

It isn't the same photo, but it sure looks to me like it's the same man.

[Stevia]

So what was the real reason for fraudulently inserting Toncman into this photo?

It's quite simple really. Look at this photo and the caption:

http://fotos.fotoflexer.com/dfac6a1c82e ... bcab9b.jpg

Toncman was inserted into the photo to cover up all the empty bunks.

And of course all the empty bunks prove that the photo was staged as well as doctored.

Even the photo that hasn't had Toncman inserted was manipulated in some cases. The empty bunks were darkened so they couldn't be seen to be empty.

So again, what we have is a staged (read fraudulent) photo that has been doctored (read fraudulent) in more ways than one.

[Stevia]

And speaking of touched up eyebrows, take a close look at the eyebrows of the two inmates on the lower left.

http://i.imgur.com/n1t9k.jpg

How obvious can you get?

[borjastick]

In fact almost all their eyebrows have been tampered with, either with make up before the picture was taken or afterwards with a re-touching brush. They all look very odd indeed. It thus leads me to think that this was a total set up, posed and composed and nothing near the reality of the situation.

[Thames Darwin]

Remember also that although they'd been planning the hoax for a long time, this picture was released just when they started their hard launch of it. I don't think they expected that they were going to get called to the mat on it, so they were lazy with their techniques. They get more sophisticated over time with their methods. In a way, it's a form of proof against the hoax on its own that the techniques get better with time.

[TheBlackRabbitofInlé]

TheBlackRabbitofInlé :

They don't look ANYTHING alike.

http://www.eliewieseltattoo.com/wp-cont ... copied.jpg

I'm not so sure TheBlackRabbitofInlé.

It looks to me that the eyebrows in the left photo have been manipulated, as well as the hairline.

It isn't the same photo, but it sure looks to me like it's the same man.

This is the kind of thing that plays into the hands of the hoaxers, it allows them to divert attention from the fact this photo was doctored, by asserting that those "Holocaust deniers" claim the strangest things about this photo: this guys eyebrows, this guy's ear, blah blah.

We've evidence that this photo has been published, several times, without Simon Toncman present. That's a fact, and that's what should be concentrated on.

[Stevia]

TheBlackRabbitofInlé

This is the kind of thing that plays into the hands of the hoaxers, it allows them to divert attention from the fact this photo was doctored, by asserting that those "Holocaust deniers" claim the strangest things about this photo: this guys eyebrows, this guy's ear, blah blah.

LOL! Look at the eyebrows of the two inmates on the lower left TheBlackRabbitofInlé.

http://i.imgur.com/n1t9k.jpg

In your opinion, have those eyebrows been touched up or not?

[TheBlackRabbitofInlé]

This is the kind of thing that plays into the hands of the hoaxers, it allows them to divert attention from the fact this photo was doctored, by asserting that those "Holocaust deniers" claim the strangest things about this photo: this guys eyebrows, this guy's ear, blah blah.

LOL! Look at the eyebrows of the two inmates on the lower left TheBlackRabbitofInlé.

http://i.imgur.com/n1t9k.jpg

In your opinion, have those eyebrows been touched up or not?

This is the kind of thing that plays into the hands of the hoaxers, it allows them to divert attention from the fact this photo was doctored, by asserting that those "Holocaust deniers" claim the strangest things about this photo: this guys eyebrows, this guy's ear, blah blah.