Elie Wiesel

[scrmbldggs]

I hope Joe comes along we'll see he's trying to figure out how the site works.

JR

Has he signed up but his first post not been approved yet? If so, it's still waiting in the queue and will show up once Pyrrho got to it.

[scrmbldggs]

Because anyone disturbing Ian's little talking-to-himself fest and answering the questions of deniers must be a Jew?

Jim once accused me of thinking like a Jew.

I'm not surprised. Anyone not aligning with his sentiments is probably viewed as the enemy. Come to think of it, anyone engaging in that cranial activity at all most likely is too.

[scrmbldggs]

Newest member: JoRizz.



( What on earth was he thinking?)

[Denying-History]

Its rather far from clever.

[Jeff_36]

There is no doubt the Germans suffered tremendously after the WAR,

... not as much as they made others suffer during the war that they started.

Did Jews kill Germans....I have no doubt.....they were on the war path searching out German soldiers specifically for exacting their vengeance upon them. In my interviews with Holocaust Survivors Germans (not Jews) this week the Jews were plenty busy stealing and robbing the refugee Germans form all their property and homes.

It was the Jews who were refugees you moron. And I am legitimately taken aback that you would refer to some scattered reprisals as a Holocaust.

Also: I had no idea that there were so many embittered Ost-Deutschen living in T-dot.

[Jeff_36]

Newest member: JoRizz.



( What on earth was he thinking?)

His brother or just another sockpuppet?

[scrmbldggs]

Maybe worse: Twin.

[Jeff_36]

Maybe worse: Twin.

[Ian Hazard]

I will take this latest lie filled reply from Denying-History as an admission he has abandoned ethics altogether.

I have never asked you for the location of Elie Wiesel's tattoo. Please provide the exact quote where you claim I have done so. I am sure any attentive readers who have been following this topic would also like to see some solid evidence backing this latest lie assertion.

I am still waiting for you to answer my questions about the camera used to film the Eva Kor documentary.

Denying-History wrote:

Might I also explain that this was a cheap camera filming the documentary. It's a 90's camera and detail isn't like what it is today.

The very simple question Denying-History keeps running from:

Please provide us with the make and model of camera used in filming the documentary you speak of. We will then all have an opportunity to make educated judgment as to whether the camera was a cheap and cheerful piece of junk incapable of capturing any real detail as you claim, or a camera which could be trusted to do just the opposite.

[Jeffk 1970]

I will take this latest lie filled reply from Denying-History as an admission he has abandoned ethics altogether.

I have never asked you for the location of Elie Wiesel's tattoo. Please provide the exact quote where you claim I have done so. I am sure any attentive readers who have been following this topic would also like to see some solid evidence backing this latest lie assertion.

I am still waiting for you to answer my questions about the camera used to film the Eva Kor documentary.

Denying-History wrote:

Might I also explain that this was a cheap camera filming the documentary. It's a 90's camera and detail isn't like what it is today.

The very simple question Denying-History keeps running from:

Please provide us with the make and model of camera used in filming the documentary you speak of. We will then all have an opportunity to make educated judgment as to whether the camera was a cheap and cheerful piece of junk incapable of capturing any real detail as you claim, or a camera which could be trusted to do just the opposite.

I believe I told you to get me information about the camera Hunt used to film his documentary.
Why have you not provided this information?

[Ian Hazard]

I will take this latest lie filled reply from Denying-History as an admission he has abandoned ethics altogether.

I have never asked you for the location of Elie Wiesel's tattoo. Please provide the exact quote where you claim I have done so. I am sure any attentive readers who have been following this topic would also like to see some solid evidence backing this latest lie assertion.

I am still waiting for you to answer my questions about the camera used to film the Eva Kor documentary.

Denying-History wrote:

Might I also explain that this was a cheap camera filming the documentary. It's a 90's camera and detail isn't like what it is today.

The very simple question Denying-History keeps running from:

Please provide us with the make and model of camera used in filming the documentary you speak of. We will then all have an opportunity to make educated judgment as to whether the camera was a cheap and cheerful piece of junk incapable of capturing any real detail as you claim, or a camera which could be trusted to do just the opposite.

I believe I told you to get me information about the camera Hunt used to film his documentary.
Why have you not provided this information?

I have never ever claimed to know what cameras Eric Hunt uses to film his documentaries. If you want to know that type of specific information I suggest you ask Mr. Hunt himself.

The attentive reader will note Jeffk 1970 has spammed this topic once again without adding anything of value to the discussion. The attentive reader will also understand that spamming, mobbing and trolling are the standard operating procedures of Holocaust promoters on this forum. At SSF it appears as though the "truth" really does fear enquiry.

[scrmbldggs]

Nah, any attentive reader will understand the inanity of the position of deniers.

And also that the action and request of backing up claims through valid evidence and facts is considered "spamming" by them.

[Jeffk 1970]

I will take this latest lie filled reply from Denying-History as an admission he has abandoned ethics altogether.

I have never asked you for the location of Elie Wiesel's tattoo. Please provide the exact quote where you claim I have done so. I am sure any attentive readers who have been following this topic would also like to see some solid evidence backing this latest lie assertion.

I am still waiting for you to answer my questions about the camera used to film the Eva Kor documentary.

Denying-History wrote:

Might I also explain that this was a cheap camera filming the documentary. It's a 90's camera and detail isn't like what it is today.

The very simple question Denying-History keeps running from:

Please provide us with the make and model of camera used in filming the documentary you speak of. We will then all have an opportunity to make educated judgment as to whether the camera was a cheap and cheerful piece of junk incapable of capturing any real detail as you claim, or a camera which could be trusted to do just the opposite.

I believe I told you to get me information about the camera Hunt used to film his documentary.
Why have you not provided this information?

I have never ever claimed to know what cameras Eric Hunt uses to film his documentaries. If you want to know that type of specific information I suggest you ask Mr. Hunt himself.

The attentive reader will note Jeffk 1970 has spammed this topic once again without adding anything of value to the discussion. The attentive reader will also understand that spamming, mobbing and trolling are the standard operating procedures of Holocaust promoters on this forum. At SSF it appears as though the "truth" really does fear enquiry.

The attentive reader will also note that I actually started this thread....and that I did so to honor Mr. Wiesel, not to allow Holocaust deniers to take shots at him.

You are asking D-H for specific information about cameras. Since you can't provide specific information, why would you expect him to? If the documentary was filmed in the 90's, it stands to reason that the camera quality would not be as good as something shot in the last year, 5 years ago or even 10 years ago as HD technology was not available in the 90's.

You are very arrogant, very sure of yourself, Ian. Why don't you stop trolling this thread and come play with the big boys on another, more history/Holocaust specific thread? The deniers on this site could use your help.

I expect a more meaningful contribution from you, Ian. Frankly, you have not impressed me.

[Ian Hazard]

You are asking D-H for specific information about cameras. Since you can't provide specific information, why would you expect him to? If the documentary was filmed in the 90's, it stands to reason that the camera quality would not be as good as something shot in the last year, 5 years ago or even 10 years ago as HD technology was not available in the 90's.

Stop trolling! I have never claimed to have specific information about any camera in this topic. Go back and reread the thread and get up to speed on the discussion. Denying-History claimed the camera used in the making of the Elie Wiesel documentary was a "cheap one". How did he know it was a cheap camera without knowing what model it was? Btw, does anyone here know what company made that particular documentary?

I'll take Denying-History's continued absence from this topic as an admission he attempted to mislead the forum by lying about the camera.

[Ian Hazard]

The attentive reader will also note that I actually started this thread....and that I did so to honor Mr. Wiesel, not to allow Holocaust deniers to take shots at him.

I am not a Holocaust denier. All I did was ask a question about Wiesel's tattoo. Are you also accusing survivor Nikolaus Grüner of being a Holocaust denier because he questions Wiesel's WW2 history?

Any reader with a working moral compass might also wonder why Jeffk 1970 would want to to honor an individual who as a young man attempted to join the Irgun terrorist group which at the time was murdering innocent women and children in Palestine. In later life Wiesel was condemned for failing to speak out after the Sabra and Shatila massacre in Lebanon when thousands of unarmed women and children were murdered by militias allied with Israel. Who will you be honoring next Jeffk 1970, Ariel Sharon?

You are very arrogant, very sure of yourself, Ian.

If standing up to your bullying, trolling and obfuscating makes me arrogant in your eyes then so be it.

[Statistical Mechanic]

[I'll take Denying-History's continued absence from this topic as an admission he attempted to mislead the forum by lying about the camera.

More likely lack of ongoing interest in a topic about which deniers obsess.

[Jeffk 1970]

The attentive reader will also note that I actually started this thread....and that I did so to honor Mr. Wiesel, not to allow Holocaust deniers to take shots at him.

I am not a Holocaust denier. All I did was ask a question about Wiesel's tattoo. Are you also accusing survivor Nikolaus Grüner of being a Holocaust denier because he questions Wiesel's WW2 history?

Any reader with a working moral compass might also wonder why Jeffk 1970 would want to to honor an individual who as a young man attempted to join the Irgun terrorist group which at the time was murdering innocent women and children in Palestine. In later life Wiesel was condemned for failing to speak out after the Sabra and Shatila massacre in Lebanon when thousands of unarmed women and children were murdered by militias allied with Israel. Who will you be honoring next Jeffk 1970, Ariel Sharon?

You are very arrogant, very sure of yourself, Ian.

If standing up to your bullying, trolling and obfuscating makes me arrogant in your eyes then so be it.

Don't make this about Gruner.

Who will you honor next? Heinrich Himmler?


Give it a rest about the Irgun, Ian. You don't care about the Palestinians.

[Jeffk 1970]

You are asking D-H for specific information about cameras. Since you can't provide specific information, why would you expect him to? If the documentary was filmed in the 90's, it stands to reason that the camera quality would not be as good as something shot in the last year, 5 years ago or even 10 years ago as HD technology was not available in the 90's.

Stop trolling! I have never claimed to have specific information about any camera in this topic. Go back and reread the thread and get up to speed on the discussion. Denying-History claimed the camera used in the making of the Elie Wiesel documentary was a "cheap one". How did he know it was a cheap camera without knowing what model it was? Btw, does anyone here know what company made that particular documentary?

I'll take Denying-History's continued absence from this topic as an admission he attempted to mislead the forum by lying about the camera.

I believe you are the troll. No one wants your input about Elie.

I'm still waiting for you to let us know about your knowledge base, Ian.

[Jeffk 1970]

Am I bullying you, Ian?

You have my deepest apologies.

[Aaron Richards]

We're 5 pages in and I am surprised nobody has posted this photo (the position matches perfectly with the old black and white one posted on the first page):



One image discredits the entire "where's elie wiesel tattoo" website.

(now watch the deniers move the goalposts and start saying "well we cannot tell if it says A-7713 or not")

[Jeffk 1970]

We're 5 pages in and I am surprised nobody has posted this photo (the position matches perfectly with the old black and white one posted on the first page):



One image discredits the entire "where's elie wiesel tattoo" website.

(now watch the deniers move the goalposts and start saying "well we cannot tell if it says A-7713 or not")

I'd post this to Carolyn Yeager but apparently I am now "known" to deniers and she wouldn't approve the post.

[Denying-History]

I just realized I never responded to Ian on this thread.

Here is another example of a tattoo that is hard to notice.



Do you need any more examples that this man whom even just died today did have a tattoo?

Might I also explain that this was a cheap camera filming the documentary. It's a 90's camera and detail isn't like what it is today.

Eva Kor's Auschwitz tattoo is never usually hard to notice. She has appeared in numerous documentaries and has been photographed thousands of times from all angles . There is NO DOUBT Eva has a tattoo!

Please provide us with the make and model of camera used in filming the documentary you speak of. We will then all have an opportunity to make educated judgment as to whether the camera was a cheap and cheerful piece of junk incapable of capturing any real detail as you claim, or a camera which could be trusted to do just the opposite.

Perhaps you missed the point of this, it was a cheap camera... This means that it was poor quality recording wise. The camera as also from the 1990's, for some reason you fail to understand that means it's practical the same quality wise as Shoah. Just watch the videos uploaded and you will see how poor the quality of the footage is.

You could maybe look at the photograph I provided any also take into account light concentration, which clearly is the cause for that.

I also don't really see providing the make and model being worth my time, as all the videos which try to show Elie doesn't have a damn tattoo are shown in 360p. One of the lowest qualitys on YouTube.

I find it funny that you push that I claim to know the camera type but I don't, if you have read any of the comments I clearly say that the film quality is complete {!#%@}.

There is one shot of Wiesel showing his arm, but as anyone can see its highly concentrated on...

This is a screenshot from Nikolaus Miklos Gruner's documentary.



There is a chance that Miklos has the wrong person, which may have lead to his conclusions on Elie. As deniers always say, Human Memory is Flawed. Mind also Miklos said the Germans were trying to kill the Jews.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCF9NcJMWdg

So using him as an argument against Elie is being very selective with your sources.

I have shown you the video plenty of times and it gets rather funny when you look at the direct footage! Anyone who can call that shot from that film perfect quality is completely full of {!#%@}.

[ryu]

http://www.eliewieseltattoo.com/ken-wal ... uchenwald/
Did ken waltzed publisher a book with elite wisel in a concentration camp?

[ryu]

I just realized I never responded to Ian on this thread.

Here is another example of a tattoo that is hard to notice.



Do you need any more examples that this man whom even just died today did have a tattoo?

Might I also explain that this was a cheap camera filming the documentary. It's a 90's camera and detail isn't like what it is today.

Eva Kor's Auschwitz tattoo is never usually hard to notice. She has appeared in numerous documentaries and has been photographed thousands of times from all angles . There is NO DOUBT Eva has a tattoo!

Please provide us with the make and model of camera used in filming the documentary you speak of. We will then all have an opportunity to make educated judgment as to whether the camera was a cheap and cheerful piece of junk incapable of capturing any real detail as you claim, or a camera which could be trusted to do just the opposite.

Perhaps you missed the point of this, it was a cheap camera... This means that it was poor quality recording wise. The camera as also from the 1990's, for some reason you fail to understand that means it's practical the same quality wise as Shoah. Just watch the videos uploaded and you will see how poor the quality of the footage is.

You could maybe look at the photograph I provided any also take into account light concentration, which clearly is the cause for that.

I also don't really see providing the make and model being worth my time, as all the videos which try to show Elie doesn't have a damn tattoo are shown in 360p. One of the lowest qualitys on YouTube.

I find it funny that you push that I claim to know the camera type but I don't, if you have read any of the comments I clearly say that the film quality is complete {!#%@}.

There is one shot of Wiesel showing his arm, but as anyone can see its highly concentrated on...

This is a screenshot from Nikolaus Miklos Gruner's documentary.



There is a chance that Miklos has the wrong person, which may have lead to his conclusions on Elie. As deniers always say, Human Memory is Flawed. Mind also Miklos said the Germans were trying to kill the Jews.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCF9NcJMWdg

So using him as an argument against Elie is being very selective with your sources.

I have shown you the video plenty of times and it gets rather funny when you look at the direct footage! Anyone who can call that shot from that film perfect quality is completely full of {!#%@}.

So a horrible camera with lens flare blocks a tattoo we can see in other places...and they say it doesn't exist?

[Denying-History]

I just realized I never responded to Ian on this thread.

Here is another example of a tattoo that is hard to notice.



Do you need any more examples that this man whom even just died today did have a tattoo?

Might I also explain that this was a cheap camera filming the documentary. It's a 90's camera and detail isn't like what it is today.

Eva Kor's Auschwitz tattoo is never usually hard to notice. She has appeared in numerous documentaries and has been photographed thousands of times from all angles . There is NO DOUBT Eva has a tattoo!

Please provide us with the make and model of camera used in filming the documentary you speak of. We will then all have an opportunity to make educated judgment as to whether the camera was a cheap and cheerful piece of junk incapable of capturing any real detail as you claim, or a camera which could be trusted to do just the opposite.

Perhaps you missed the point of this, it was a cheap camera... This means that it was poor quality recording wise. The camera as also from the 1990's, for some reason you fail to understand that means it's practical the same quality wise as Shoah. Just watch the videos uploaded and you will see how poor the quality of the footage is.

You could maybe look at the photograph I provided any also take into account light concentration, which clearly is the cause for that.

I also don't really see providing the make and model being worth my time, as all the videos which try to show Elie doesn't have a damn tattoo are shown in 360p. One of the lowest qualitys on YouTube.

I find it funny that you push that I claim to know the camera type but I don't, if you have read any of the comments I clearly say that the film quality is complete {!#%@}.

There is one shot of Wiesel showing his arm, but as anyone can see its highly concentrated on...

This is a screenshot from Nikolaus Miklos Gruner's documentary.



There is a chance that Miklos has the wrong person, which may have lead to his conclusions on Elie. As deniers always say, Human Memory is Flawed. Mind also Miklos said the Germans were trying to kill the Jews.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCF9NcJMWdg

So using him as an argument against Elie is being very selective with your sources.

I have shown you the video plenty of times and it gets rather funny when you look at the direct footage! Anyone who can call that shot from that film perfect quality is completely full of {!#%@}.

So a horrible camera with lens flare blocks a tattoo we can see in other places...and they say it doesn't exist?

No a shitty camera from the 1990's that was concentrated during a time when light was reflecting off Elies arm.

[Ian Hazard]

I also don't really see providing the make and model being worth my time, as all the videos which try to show Elie doesn't have a damn tattoo are shown in 360p. One of the lowest qualitys on YouTube.

I find it funny that you push that I claim to know the camera type but I don't, if you have read any of the comments I clearly say that the film quality is complete {!#%@}.

Perhaps you missed the point of this, it was a cheap camera... This means that it was poor quality recording wise.

I'll take this as an admission you have lied to me and attempted to mislead the forum regarding the camera. You have claimed it was a cheap camera. That implies you must know the model type. Otherwise how could you have known it was a cheap camera?

What has the quality of the video on YouTube got to do with the quality the camera is actually capable of producing? Are you now compounding your original lie by suggesting this camera can only film at a maximum resolution of 360p?

[Denying-History]

I also don't really see providing the make and model being worth my time, as all the videos which try to show Elie doesn't have a damn tattoo are shown in 360p. One of the lowest qualitys on YouTube.

I find it funny that you push that I claim to know the camera type but I don't, if you have read any of the comments I clearly say that the film quality is complete {!#%@}.

Perhaps you missed the point of this, it was a cheap camera... This means that it was poor quality recording wise.

I'll take this as an admission you have lied to me and attempted to mislead the forum regarding the camera. You have claimed it was a cheap camera. That implies you must know the model type. Otherwise how could you have known it was a cheap camera?

What has the quality of the video on YouTube got to do with the quality the camera is actually capable of producing? Are you now compounding your original lie by suggesting this camera can only film at a maximum resolution of 360p?

Hey Ian, what model did Eric use to record his Treblinka film? What you don't know? Oh well it's totally not like you can tell the quality of the film from the upload quality.

Or could it just be that deniers perposly upload the footage in 360p?

No Ian it implies no such thing. Based on the footage deniers use its awkward angles and an over exposed shot. I have explained this before.

Now instead of dissapearing for months on end to only come back to cause issues over a dead mans tattoo. A man with hardly any impact on the actual quality of the historical research. (Why not complain about an easier target like Blaha?) Just admit the quality of the footage is shitty.

If you don't agree that the quality of this shot is dishonest, then I have nothing else to say to you.



It's a shitty quality 360p reupload into a 'documentary' which is heavily saturated.

If you want to ignore all the clear quality photographs here which show a tattoo then you are just fooling yourself. Aaron's should have ended this, but for some unknown reason you wish to continue this petty issue of camera model. I don't have the camera model, but from the footage quality it's quite clear that 360p is not labeled as HD on youtube in fact it's the 3rd worst upload quality... That alone should tell you something and it implies two things.

A) Deniers are uploading shitty quality videos from the documentary on purpose.

Or

B) The camera was SHITTY.

Giving the uploader of any of the videos a benefit of the doubt, the Camera was shitty. Cause clearly when it's not a shitty camera his Tattoo appears just fine:



Also the Tattoo is quite faded is you look at it. That tends to happen over a period of 60+ years.

Also mind that footage from that period is no where close to modern quality. So the assumption is quite clear here. The camera was ether {!#%@} awful or deniers are being dishonest.

[Statistical Mechanic]

Sergey Romanov blogs about Elie Wiesel's tattoo and personal information - denier claims vs records

[Balsamo]

Who should really care anyway?
I have never understood this obsession.
Yet another illustration that Deniers tend to focus on symbol and not on history.
What scholar has ever used Wiesel as a source anyway?

[Statistical Mechanic]

What scholar has ever used Wiesel as a source anyway?

I rarely even see his name in references in books I read: since I've read nothing of Wiesel's except an old op-ed or two, I can safely say that my understanding of the genocide would not change if all his books/speeches/etc were to vanish.

[Xcalibur]

What scholar has ever used Wiesel as a source anyway?

I rarely even see his name in references in books I read: since I've read nothing of Wiesel's except an old op-ed or two, I can safely say that my understanding of the genocide would not change if all his books/speeches/etc were to vanish.

At my daughter's middle school "Night" was required reading.... for her 8th grade English class.

[Jeffk 1970]

That's pretty much my opinion as well. I've read some legitimate stories on him and he is certainly well known. I also checked into the denier claims about him.

But, if his works were to disappear I wouldn't feel any loss.

[Kleon_I XYZ Contagion]

Sergey Romanov blogs about Elie Wiesel's tattoo and personal information - denier claims vs records

Always, HC's crew write great epilogues in their blogposts. Can't wait each time to reach to the final paragraph. It's always a dirty pleasure, i.e.:

- And the deniers - especially the ever laughable neo-Nazi Carolyn Yeager and the bumbling and mendacious pseudoresearcher Carlo Mattogno, who have been exposed so many times by us, - have shown their true faces once again, latching onto Gruner's tall tale, jumping to conclusions not warranted by the documents they had at their disposal, not applying Occam's razor and not trying to do a better research. These frauds have been discredited - once again.

[Ian Hazard]

I also don't really see providing the make and model being worth my time, as all the videos which try to show Elie doesn't have a damn tattoo are shown in 360p. One of the lowest qualitys on YouTube.

I find it funny that you push that I claim to know the camera type but I don't, if you have read any of the comments I clearly say that the film quality is complete {!#%@}.

Perhaps you missed the point of this, it was a cheap camera... This means that it was poor quality recording wise.

I'll take this as an admission you have lied to me and attempted to mislead the forum regarding the camera. You have claimed it was a cheap camera. That implies you must know the model type. Otherwise how could you have known it was a cheap camera?

What has the quality of the video on YouTube got to do with the quality the camera is actually capable of producing? Are you now compounding your original lie by suggesting this camera can only film at a maximum resolution of 360p?

Hey Ian, what model did Eric use to record his Treblinka film? What you don't know? Oh well it's totally not like you can tell the quality of the film from the upload quality.

Or could it just be that deniers perposly upload the footage in 360p?

No Ian it implies no such thing. Based on the footage deniers use its awkward angles and an over exposed shot. I have explained this before.

Now instead of dissapearing for months on end to only come back to cause issues over a dead mans tattoo. A man with hardly any impact on the actual quality of the historical research. (Why not complain about an easier target like Blaha?) Just admit the quality of the footage is shitty.

If you don't agree that the quality of this shot is dishonest, then I have nothing else to say to you.



It's a shitty quality 360p reupload into a 'documentary' which is heavily saturated.

If you want to ignore all the clear quality photographs here which show a tattoo then you are just fooling yourself. Aaron's should have ended this, but for some unknown reason you wish to continue this petty issue of camera model. I don't have the camera model, but from the footage quality it's quite clear that 360p is not labeled as HD on youtube in fact it's the 3rd worst upload quality... That alone should tell you something and it implies two things.

A) Deniers are uploading shitty quality videos from the documentary on purpose.

Or

B) The camera was SHITTY.

Giving the uploader of any of the videos a benefit of the doubt, the Camera was shitty. Cause clearly when it's not a shitty camera his Tattoo appears just fine:



Also the Tattoo is quite faded is you look at it. That tends to happen over a period of 60+ years.

Also mind that footage from that period is no where close to modern quality. So the assumption is quite clear here. The camera was ether {!#%@} awful or deniers are being dishonest.

Yawn!

I've told you before I am not a Holocaust revisionist. I don't care one way or the other if Elie Wiesel has a tattoo or not.

For the umpteenth time all I want to know is this: How do you know the camera used in the making of that film was a "cheap camera". Tell us the make and model and we will decide whether it was a cheap camera or not.

Stop dodging the question.

[Statistical Mechanic]

>> all I want to know is this: How do you know the camera used in the making of that film was a "cheap camera"

Big ambitions, huh? One thing I want to know, relevant to this thread, is how many times D-H must answer this same question?

[Ian Hazard]

>> all I want to know is this: How do you know the camera used in the making of that film was a "cheap camera"

Big ambitions, huh? One thing I want to know, relevant to this thread, is how many times D-H must answer this same question?

A more relevant question might be why DH repeatedly dodges answering my simple query.

[Statistical Mechanic]

No, I asked the right question. You simply won't accept his answer, troll.

[Ian Hazard]

No, I asked the right question. You simply won't accept his answer, troll.

No! You are the troll.

For the umpteenth time all I want to know is this: How do you Denying-History know the camera used in the making of that film was a "cheap camera". Tell us the make and model and we will decide whether it was a cheap camera or not.

Stop dodging the question.

[Statistical Mechanic]

LOL you are funny, I will give you that

[Ian Hazard]

For the umpteenth time, all I want to know is this: How do you Denying-History know the camera used in the making of that film was a "cheap camera". Tell us the make and model and we will decide whether it was a cheap camera or not.

Stop dodging the question.