False atrocity photo?

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
Panzermahn
Member
Posts: 3639
Joined: 13 Jul 2002 03:51
Location: Malaysia

Post by Panzermahn » 25 Jul 2005 08:17

I remember there is a thread in HCW posted by Michael Mills on the retouched photo with added smoke coming out from a nowhere at Auschwitz where the original one did not have

User avatar
Kal_El
Member
Posts: 171
Joined: 05 May 2003 18:59
Location: Denmark

Post by Kal_El » 25 Jul 2005 14:02

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... c&start=15

here is thread about that picture Panzermahn mentioned

Pieter Kuiper
Member
Posts: 319
Joined: 14 Jun 2005 19:12
Location: Sweden

Square format on the negative strip

Post by Pieter Kuiper » 25 Jul 2005 15:20

Judith Lermer Crawley sent me files that show the contact prints with more of the borders of the negatives.
One can see that som light leaked in on the sides of the roll.
This gave me the orientation of the frames on the strip.

I put a montage together, and I think that the negative strip may have looked like this:
Image

tloB
Member
Posts: 23
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 18:18
Location: Sweden

Post by tloB » 26 Jul 2005 00:05

Pieter Kuiper wrote:Those are the best online versions that I have seen of these photos. Where do they come from?
These pics are taken from within Krema V. This is a full scan from the page in Pressacs book along
with a drawn description of the location. Also a pic how it looks like today from where the pit pictures were taken.

http://www.vex.net/~nizkor/ftp.cgi/camp ... n-pits.jpg

Sean_Lamb
Banned
Posts: 165
Joined: 30 Jun 2005 04:01
Location: Australia

.

Post by Sean_Lamb » 26 Jul 2005 01:52

This gave me the orientation of the frames on the strip.

I put a montage together, and I think that the negative strip may have looked like this:
Pieter Kuiper, English is my 2nd language. And I dont always understand what is meant. I took the liberty of putting your quote through an automatic translator, and was suprised by the results!

I took that automatic translation and ran it through the same programme in the other direction and I came up with this.

Translation: "Oh blast, we have just realised our supposed prints directly from the negatives are a completely hetereogenous set of sizes and shapes. SH*T, SH*T, SH*T."

Is that roughly what you were trying to say?

Sean_Lamb
Banned
Posts: 165
Joined: 30 Jun 2005 04:01
Location: Australia

.

Post by Sean_Lamb » 26 Jul 2005 02:30

An aside, I notice that one of the highly knowledgable posters on a much earlier thread on this topic said that these photos were accompanied with a message
Urgent: send us two rolls of film for a 6 X 9 camera as quickly as possible. It is possible to take more photos
I should add I have as little knowledge about WW2 camera as I do about perspective or what narrow gauge railway track looks like. But on the face of it this may suggest that the negatives ought to be dimensions 6 by 9 something? Maybe?

If so you might like to re-examine the scans of the contact prints with the light leaking onto the film. Because yours look rather squarish to me. Just a thought.

Actually, why not just post the scans of the contact prints themselves if that is OK with the person who provided them.

Pieter Kuiper
Member
Posts: 319
Joined: 14 Jun 2005 19:12
Location: Sweden

Post by Pieter Kuiper » 26 Jul 2005 07:29

The pictures were taken on 120-film: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/120_film

This fits both cameras with the 6x9 cm format (8 exposures) and 6x6 format (12 exposures).

I have asked for permission to post the files on the web.

Sean_Lamb
Banned
Posts: 165
Joined: 30 Jun 2005 04:01
Location: Australia

.

Post by Sean_Lamb » 26 Jul 2005 08:19

The pictures were taken on 120-film: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/120_film
Really?! Pieter Kuiper I didnt know that photographic forensics were part of your highly diverse skill-set!

Well, I am prepared to run with it, anyway.

As I say, I know nothing about old cameras.

But how was this 6 by 9 camera able to take square photos - as you seem to be indicating it did?

Hadnt you better re-examine the contact prints? On close examination you might find it is the square photos taken amongst the trees that have light leaking into the sides, that will reveal themselves to have been cropped from the 6 by 9 original?

Just a thought. I like to lend a helping hand.

Pieter Kuiper
Member
Posts: 319
Joined: 14 Jun 2005 19:12
Location: Sweden

Post by Pieter Kuiper » 26 Jul 2005 12:29

I am saying that there was no 6x9 camera. The resistance is quoted as having requested film for a 6x9 camera, but that is exactly the same 120-film as used in 6x6 cameras.

Judith Lermer Crawley assumes that it is OK for me to put the files on the web.
Do not get your hopes up too much: they are .jpg files of only approximately 30 k.

Image
That is the scene that the thread started with. The rest is at:
http://w3.msi.vxu.se/users/pku/Historia ... esistance/

User avatar
PPoS
Member
Posts: 848
Joined: 22 Sep 2004 12:35
Location: Sweden

Post by PPoS » 26 Jul 2005 18:08

Who took the pictures?

Pieter Kuiper
Member
Posts: 319
Joined: 14 Jun 2005 19:12
Location: Sweden

Post by Pieter Kuiper » 26 Jul 2005 18:30

Taking the pictures was a collaborative effort.

But the guy pressing the button was Alberto "Alex" Errera, a Greek jew, officer in the Navy.

http://www.sonderkommando-studien.de/ar ... resistance
http://shoa.de/kz_auschwitz_soko_aufstand.html

Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002 14:12
Location: Europe

Re: .

Post by Andreas » 26 Jul 2005 22:07

Sean_Lamb wrote:
This gave me the orientation of the frames on the strip.

I put a montage together, and I think that the negative strip may have looked like this:
Pieter Kuiper, English is my 2nd language. And I dont always understand what is meant. I took the liberty of putting your quote through an automatic translator, and was suprised by the results!

I took that automatic translation and ran it through the same programme in the other direction and I came up with this.

Translation: "Oh blast, we have just realised our supposed prints directly from the negatives are a completely hetereogenous set of sizes and shapes. SH*T, SH*T, SH*T."

Is that roughly what you were trying to say?
What was the point of this post Sean? If you were trying to add to the topic, please make it clear. if you were wasting bandwith and trying to goad other posters, don't do it again.

Andreas

tloB
Member
Posts: 23
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 18:18
Location: Sweden

Post by tloB » 26 Jul 2005 22:25

This is a pic taken from the same occation

Image

I dunno if this is a larger version of one of the pics Pieter posted; they're
so small. However one can see some of the victims a tad better here.
It seems to make sense that these are the people that lay dead later in the
other couple of pics.
Very skinny weak women. Not surprising if their arms were
broken off or twisted when they were dragged out of Krema V

Pieter Kuiper
Member
Posts: 319
Joined: 14 Jun 2005 19:12
Location: Sweden

Post by Pieter Kuiper » 26 Jul 2005 22:56

tloB wrote:This is a pic taken from the same occation
http://holocaust-info.dk/auschwitz/Auschwitz/aktion.jpg
I dunno if this is a larger version of one of the pics Pieter posted; they're
so small.
Yes, that is from contact print 282a.
You will see that the relevant part of contact print 282 is unusable, because the interesting corner of the negative got folded, which also lifted part of the negative from the photographic paper.

As for skinny and old - there exists an enhanced/retouched/falsified (choose what applies) version in which the women have become younger and supplied with more attractive features:
Image.
Pressac writes (p. 423):
The major changes are:
  • The attribution of faces to the three naked women, whereas they are totally indistinguishable on the original, each of the three bodies received a distinct face, with the lighting matching that of the rest of the picture:
  • Transformation of their bodies, those of OLD women (thus unfit for work and destined for gassing and cremation) into those of YOUNG women (thus fit for work, so they should not be there, an embarassing contradiction which escaped the "retoucher"), their breasts. fallen on the original. being lifted and redrawn.

Sean_Lamb
Banned
Posts: 165
Joined: 30 Jun 2005 04:01
Location: Australia

.

Post by Sean_Lamb » 26 Jul 2005 22:59

I am saying that there was no 6x9 camera. The resistance is quoted as having requested film for a 6x9 camera, but that is exactly the same 120-film as used in 6x6 cameras.
Well, at the risk of being seen as ridiculing your work here, it seems a little odd that they would request film for a 6X9 camera if they didnt have one?

Why not request film for the type of camera they had? What if the resistence outside had sent film that could only have been used in a 6X9 camera?

Why, if as you claim, they had a 6X6 camera didnt they ask for film for a 6X6 camera?

Not wishing to goad anyone here, but it seems a legitimate question.

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”