Page 2 of 5

Re: This picture really bugs me

Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2017 4:10 pm
by NathanC
Statistical Mechanic wrote:Protecting them from rampaging bison?


:lol: :lol: :lol:

This reminds me of the old JREF Days. When ANTPogo (Now going by A'isha) rhetorically asked a certain denier what else but people could the "99,000" Gas van document referred to, the Denier suggested Cattle.

Re: This picture really bugs me

Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2017 4:13 pm
by NathanC
Statistical Mechanic wrote:I've searched but not found it. I did find this - the piece by Fisk (in The Independent), pulling together loose ends cited on Wiki and the link I first posted. Fisk concludes that the 4 people on the right are men and that the corpse on the left is that of a woman.


I usually can't stand Fisk, but this is really good work. Given that Fisk is a huge critic of Israel, one couldn't possibly accuse him of "Falsifying" the Holocaust with the intention of "promoting" Israel or Zionism.

Incidentally, this article of Fisk also came up when some brave soul attempted to share your very good explanation about Photography to Monstrous Lite - AKA EtienneSC. Naturally, he handwaved it by saying "But...Walendy! Walendy!"

Re: This picture really bugs me

Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2017 4:31 pm
by Statistical Mechanic
NathanC wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:Protecting them from rampaging bison?


:lol: :lol: :lol:

This reminds me of the old JREF Days. When ANTPogo (Now going by A'isha) rhetorically asked a certain denier what else but people could the "99,000" Gas van document referred to, the Denier suggested Cattle.

LOL

ANTPogo/A'isha is really good.

Re: This picture really bugs me

Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2017 5:25 pm
by NathanC
Speaking about Fisk, there's really something worth quoting in his article. It's the reason why Photos like the EG photo in Jeff's OP exist.

Robert Fisk wrote:I will let Struk describe the photograph in her own words as they appear in her terrifying new book Private Pictures – about the private photographs taken by soldiers, from the Boer and 1914-18 wars through to the post-2003 US invasion of Iraq.

But the tradition, of course, continues. Look at the videos Americans took of their murder victims in Iraq. I shall return to this subject next week.



Simply put, people are really sick. Soldiers and personnel who live and work in an environment where violence isn't only normal but routinized as part of work develop a habit of taking "voyeuristic" photos. And it's not just Soldiers. Some people are even offering tours of poor parts of Europe.

http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21 ... isery-tour

In late September Daniel Pipes, an American critic of Islamism, will take a group to Berlin, Paris and Stockholm to look at what he terms the “new Europe”. A highlight of the trip, he says, will be so-called “no-go zones”: places which, because of their large Muslim populations or high crime rates, are believed by anxious outsiders to be inaccessible to non-Muslims or the police.


IIRC in the Early days of Ghettoization, the German occupiers also took lots of photos, to "prove" what Jews really were in their eyes.

Re: This picture really bugs me

Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2017 5:27 pm
by Statistical Mechanic
I've ordered Struk's book - her first one was very interesting.

Re: This picture really bugs me

Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2017 10:24 pm
by Aaron Richards
@OP:

I remember including this famous pic (and the deniers' attempt to discredit it) in my blog last year, have a read if you like:

http://imgur.com/S1Bhv2t

Jeffk 1970 wrote:I'm also not good enough with uniforms or insignia, that's more of a Matthew Ellard specialty so I don't know if these soldiers are regular Wehrmacht or something else.


It is a German Schutzpolizei uniform - notice the dark cuffs:

Image


http://imgur.com/eRuLLDJ

Re: This picture really bugs me

Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2017 11:10 pm
by Statistical Mechanic
thanks Aaron, good to hear from you again

Re: This picture really bugs me

Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2017 3:23 am
by Jeff_36
NathanC wrote:http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21 ... isery-tour

In late September Daniel Pipes, an American critic of Islamism, will take a group to Berlin, Paris and Stockholm to look at what he terms the “new Europe”. A highlight of the trip, he says, will be so-called “no-go zones”: places which, because of their large Muslim populations or high crime rates, are believed by anxious outsiders to be inaccessible to non-Muslims or the police.


IIRC in the Early days of Ghettoization, the German occupiers also took lots of photos, to "prove" what Jews really were in their eyes.


To be fair, Pipes did later publish an article where he declared "no-go zones" to be a misnomer.

Re: This picture really bugs me

Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2017 3:25 am
by Jeff_36
Jeffk 1970 wrote:
NathanC wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:Photos, IMO, are tricky and never the literal truth. They are 2-dimensional, they stop time, we see prints from negatives, perspective is important, we don't know what is going on outside the frame or before/after the shutter release, there are quality issues, lenses distort what things look like, someone took the photo for a purpose, the negatives/prints have a chain of custody, etc. I have a big problem with posts of photos that seem to say, Look, literal proof! Like other evidence, they need to be evaluated in context, and, as you did, we need to ask critical questions about them on their own terms.



It is shocking that as a "believer" I don't automatically swallow whatever evidence is put in front of me.

:lol:


In an old JREF discussion, someone quoted SM/Lemmy Caution's well thought out explanation on the nature of photography in a futile attempt to convince EtienneSC to {!#%@} off. EtienneSC, being too dense and the "polite" version of Monstrous, missed the whole point and kept ranting about how "But...Walendy! Walendy said it was fake!"


Ah, yes. The old Walendy disprove of the SK photos from Birkenau. To me it always looked like Walendy was the one who doctored the photo.


I was just about to say that. The only version of the photo that looked like that was in the screed published by Walendy. That is not a coincidence and I don't care what anyone says.

Re: This picture really bugs me

Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2017 3:29 am
by Jeffk 1970
Jeff_36 wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:
NathanC wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:Photos, IMO, are tricky and never the literal truth. They are 2-dimensional, they stop time, we see prints from negatives, perspective is important, we don't know what is going on outside the frame or before/after the shutter release, there are quality issues, lenses distort what things look like, someone took the photo for a purpose, the negatives/prints have a chain of custody, etc. I have a big problem with posts of photos that seem to say, Look, literal proof! Like other evidence, they need to be evaluated in context, and, as you did, we need to ask critical questions about them on their own terms.



It is shocking that as a "believer" I don't automatically swallow whatever evidence is put in front of me.

:lol:


In an old JREF discussion, someone quoted SM/Lemmy Caution's well thought out explanation on the nature of photography in a futile attempt to convince EtienneSC to {!#%@} off. EtienneSC, being too dense and the "polite" version of Monstrous, missed the whole point and kept ranting about how "But...Walendy! Walendy said it was fake!"


Ah, yes. The old Walendy disprove of the SK photos from Birkenau. To me it always looked like Walendy was the one who doctored the photo.


I was just about to say that. The only version of the photo that looked like that was in the screed published by Walendy. That is not a coincidence and I don't care what anyone says.


I agree, Walendy doctored the photo. Only bone-headed deniers fall for that crap.

Re: This picture really bugs me

Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2017 3:31 am
by Jeff_36
Jeffk 1970 wrote:
Jeff_36 wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:
NathanC wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:Photos, IMO, are tricky and never the literal truth. They are 2-dimensional, they stop time, we see prints from negatives, perspective is important, we don't know what is going on outside the frame or before/after the shutter release, there are quality issues, lenses distort what things look like, someone took the photo for a purpose, the negatives/prints have a chain of custody, etc. I have a big problem with posts of photos that seem to say, Look, literal proof! Like other evidence, they need to be evaluated in context, and, as you did, we need to ask critical questions about them on their own terms.



It is shocking that as a "believer" I don't automatically swallow whatever evidence is put in front of me.

:lol:


In an old JREF discussion, someone quoted SM/Lemmy Caution's well thought out explanation on the nature of photography in a futile attempt to convince EtienneSC to {!#%@} off. EtienneSC, being too dense and the "polite" version of Monstrous, missed the whole point and kept ranting about how "But...Walendy! Walendy said it was fake!"


Ah, yes. The old Walendy disprove of the SK photos from Birkenau. To me it always looked like Walendy was the one who doctored the photo.


I was just about to say that. The only version of the photo that looked like that was in the screed published by Walendy. That is not a coincidence and I don't care what anyone says.


I agree, Walendy doctored the photo. Only bone-headed deniers fall for that crap.


Either he doctored it or the edge of the page bent towards the spine while he photocopied it - thus distorting the image by accident. Walendy realized that it was an accident, but decided he had been given an opportunity and ran with it. I lean towards the second one.

Re: This picture really bugs me

Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2017 3:46 am
by Statistical Mechanic
Hans's conclusions are worth quoting:
Finally, version D can be tracked down only to Udo Walendy’s Bild-"Dokumente" für die Geschichtsschreibung?, 1973. Walendy writes that the close up was taken from Kulakowski and thus should be identical with version B, but this is not the case. The retouched corpse appears as in version C, but the contours of the Sonderkommando prisoner have been not or somewhat slighter enhanced. . . .

b) Version B, C and D can be obtained from a bright version A with some pen strokes. It is easy and straightforward to imagine and reconstruct how they originated from version A.

c) The additional contours of the Sonderkommando prisoners in versions B and C and the blackening of the person in version C seem unnatural and do not fit to the lightening conditions of the photograph

d) The additional features in version B, C and D are lacking on the second photograph (ASM neg. 281) of the scene.

Moreover, [Walendy] has published version D and referenced it with Kulakowski, but the reproduction neither corresponds to the retouched variant in Gdyby Hitler zwyciezyl... or Die SS-Henker und ihre Opfer. So he either failed to provide a correct source for it or - even worse - did some retouching himself. . . .

Re: This picture really bugs me

Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2017 5:53 am
by Oozy_Substance
Speaking of pictures, I saw somewhere that Mechanic posted a photo with another angle for this photo :

4b980074d4de3a123d93cf1bf5f56642.jpg


Mechanic, can you post it again?

Re: This picture really bugs me

Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:05 am
by scrmbldggs
I think it's been posted several times but maybe you saw this one from this post?

Re: This picture really bugs me

Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:12 am
by Oozy_Substance
scrmbldggs wrote:I think it's been posted several times but maybe you saw this one from this post?


Yes. Thanks.

btw, Mechanic writes :

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Some additional photos from the Mizocz action include this one and this one.


Yet the 2nd link leads to nowhere.

Re: This picture really bugs me

Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:21 am
by scrmbldggs
Yeah, I noticed that. Such happens at times. You will find more on this page. It might have been one of those.

Re: This picture really bugs me

Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:33 am
by Oozy_Substance
btw, I'm looking at pictures of mass graves in HC, out of this link

These two pictures look pretty weird. Kinda like a painting.
The labels say "A mass grave in Drobitski Yar near Kharkov"

0000002085_1_web.jpg

0000002086_1_web.jpg


Are there any insights about these two pictures?

Re: This picture really bugs me

Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:59 am
by Xcalibur
Oozy_Substance wrote:Speaking of pictures, I saw somewhere that Mechanic posted a photo with another angle for this photo :

4b980074d4de3a123d93cf1bf5f56642.jpg

Mechanic, can you post it again?


That's one of a series of 3 frames, iirc. it was discussed eons ago at RODOH 1...To no conclusion.

Re: This picture really bugs me

Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2017 7:08 am
by Oozy_Substance
Xcalibur wrote:
Oozy_Substance wrote:Speaking of pictures, I saw somewhere that Mechanic posted a photo with another angle for this photo :

4b980074d4de3a123d93cf1bf5f56642.jpg

Mechanic, can you post it again?


That's one of a series of 3 frames, iirc. it was discussed eons ago at RODOH 1...To no conclusion.


What's there to discuss? It's a clear execution.
I once met a denier who said on this picture that this is mercy killing because the women had typhus.
I think he was just trolling ..

Re: This picture really bugs me

Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2017 7:36 am
by Denying-History
Oozy_Substance wrote:I once met a denier who said on this picture that this is mercy killing because the women had typhus.
I have a feeling if Monstrous sees this he might go looking for a CODOH post to support it.

Re: This picture really bugs me

Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2017 1:24 pm
by Statistical Mechanic
Monstrous, we've found a likely forgery - by Udo Walendy, a denier. Hah. Is that what you were trying to tell us all along?

Re: This picture really bugs me

Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2017 1:54 pm
by Jeffk 1970
Oozy_Substance wrote:
Xcalibur wrote:
Oozy_Substance wrote:Speaking of pictures, I saw somewhere that Mechanic posted a photo with another angle for this photo :

4b980074d4de3a123d93cf1bf5f56642.jpg

Mechanic, can you post it again?


That's one of a series of 3 frames, iirc. it was discussed eons ago at RODOH 1...To no conclusion.


What's there to discuss? It's a clear execution.
I once met a denier who said on this picture that this is mercy killing because the women had typhus.
I think he was just trolling ..


:shock:

That's a new one.
Typhus is not universally fatal and even at the Reinhard Camps victims were allowed a few days to recuperate.

Re: This picture really bugs me

Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2017 1:58 pm
by Statistical Mechanic
Jeffk 1970 wrote:
Oozy_Substance wrote:
Xcalibur wrote:
Oozy_Substance wrote:Speaking of pictures, I saw somewhere that Mechanic posted a photo with another angle for this photo :

4b980074d4de3a123d93cf1bf5f56642.jpg

Mechanic, can you post it again?


That's one of a series of 3 frames, iirc. it was discussed eons ago at RODOH 1...To no conclusion.


What's there to discuss? It's a clear execution.
I once met a denier who said on this picture that this is mercy killing because the women had typhus.
I think he was just trolling ..


:shock:

That's a new one.
Typhus is not universally fatal and even at the Reinhard Camps victims were allowed a few days to recuperate.

Yeah but shooting sick people was among the life-saving measures touted by David and Fritz Berg as Nazi policy for Jews.

Re: This picture really bugs me

Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2017 2:04 pm
by Oozy_Substance
Jeffk 1970 wrote:
Oozy_Substance wrote:
Xcalibur wrote:
Oozy_Substance wrote:Speaking of pictures, I saw somewhere that Mechanic posted a photo with another angle for this photo :

4b980074d4de3a123d93cf1bf5f56642.jpg

Mechanic, can you post it again?


That's one of a series of 3 frames, iirc. it was discussed eons ago at RODOH 1...To no conclusion.


What's there to discuss? It's a clear execution.
I once met a denier who said on this picture that this is mercy killing because the women had typhus.
I think he was just trolling ..


:shock:

That's a new one.
Typhus is not universally fatal and even at the Reinhard Camps victims were allowed a few days to recuperate.


I am pretty sure he was trolling.
He also said the hand-tattoos were a way to easily identify the person in case he dies of typhus, so it could be informed to the Red Cross.

Re: This picture really bugs me

Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2017 2:15 pm
by Jeffk 1970
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:
Oozy_Substance wrote:
Xcalibur wrote:
Oozy_Substance wrote:Speaking of pictures, I saw somewhere that Mechanic posted a photo with another angle for this photo :

4b980074d4de3a123d93cf1bf5f56642.jpg

Mechanic, can you post it again?


That's one of a series of 3 frames, iirc. it was discussed eons ago at RODOH 1...To no conclusion.


What's there to discuss? It's a clear execution.
I once met a denier who said on this picture that this is mercy killing because the women had typhus.
I think he was just trolling ..


:shock:

That's a new one.
Typhus is not universally fatal and even at the Reinhard Camps victims were allowed a few days to recuperate.

Yeah but shooting sick people was among the life-saving measures touted by David and Fritz Berg as Nazi policy for Jews.


Wait, I thought according to David the Nazis only wanted to save people by building showers???

Re: This picture really bugs me

Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2017 2:17 pm
by Jeffk 1970
Oozy_Substance wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:
Oozy_Substance wrote:
Xcalibur wrote:
Oozy_Substance wrote:Speaking of pictures, I saw somewhere that Mechanic posted a photo with another angle for this photo :

4b980074d4de3a123d93cf1bf5f56642.jpg

Mechanic, can you post it again?


That's one of a series of 3 frames, iirc. it was discussed eons ago at RODOH 1...To no conclusion.


What's there to discuss? It's a clear execution.
I once met a denier who said on this picture that this is mercy killing because the women had typhus.
I think he was just trolling ..


:shock:

That's a new one.
Typhus is not universally fatal and even at the Reinhard Camps victims were allowed a few days to recuperate.


I am pretty sure he was trolling.
He also said the hand-tattoos were a way to easily identify the person in case he dies of typhus, so it could be informed to the Red Cross.


Was this one a YouTube denier?

Re: This picture really bugs me

Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2017 2:20 pm
by Denying-History
Jeffk 1970 wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:
Oozy_Substance wrote:
Xcalibur wrote:
Oozy_Substance wrote:Speaking of pictures, I saw somewhere that Mechanic posted a photo with another angle for this photo :

4b980074d4de3a123d93cf1bf5f56642.jpg

Mechanic, can you post it again?


That's one of a series of 3 frames, iirc. it was discussed eons ago at RODOH 1...To no conclusion.


What's there to discuss? It's a clear execution.
I once met a denier who said on this picture that this is mercy killing because the women had typhus.
I think he was just trolling ..


:shock:

That's a new one.
Typhus is not universally fatal and even at the Reinhard Camps victims were allowed a few days to recuperate.

Yeah but shooting sick people was among the life-saving measures touted by David and Fritz Berg as Nazi policy for Jews.


Wait, I thought according to David the Nazis only wanted to save people by building showers???
I have honestly never have been able to understand the argument hear... I think the fact people fall for it is appalling...

Re: This picture really bugs me

Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2017 2:27 pm
by Statistical Mechanic
Jeffk 1970 wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:
Oozy_Substance wrote:
Xcalibur wrote:
Oozy_Substance wrote:Speaking of pictures, I saw somewhere that Mechanic posted a photo with another angle for this photo :

4b980074d4de3a123d93cf1bf5f56642.jpg

Mechanic, can you post it again?


That's one of a series of 3 frames, iirc. it was discussed eons ago at RODOH 1...To no conclusion.


What's there to discuss? It's a clear execution.
I once met a denier who said on this picture that this is mercy killing because the women had typhus.
I think he was just trolling ..


:shock:

That's a new one.
Typhus is not universally fatal and even at the Reinhard Camps victims were allowed a few days to recuperate.

Yeah but shooting sick people was among the life-saving measures touted by David and Fritz Berg as Nazi policy for Jews.


Wait, I thought according to David the Nazis only wanted to save people by building showers???

"Showers & shooting": this was the key Nazi hygienic pledge. The slogan was taken from one of Goebbels' articles in Das Reich.

Re: This picture really bugs me

Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2017 2:28 pm
by Oozy_Substance
Jeffk 1970 wrote:
Was this one a YouTube denier?


No, he was some American guy from some imageboard I post in.
I had at least 5 or 6 long debates with him until he disappeardd at some point.
He is basically the guy who got me into fighting deniers. He quoted Rudolf much, and his "Dissecting the Holocaust" book.
I wonder, did HC ever deal with Rudolf's works?

Re: This picture really bugs me

Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2017 2:30 pm
by Statistical Mechanic
Yes, type "Germar" into the search bar there and many pieces pop up.

Re: This picture really bugs me

Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 9:45 am
by Aaron Richards
Oozy_Substance wrote:Image



Oozy_Substance wrote:What's there to discuss? It's a clear execution.


No, you're right.

Look at the bottom right of the image. That's not a human face. That is not a human arm. It very much resembles an artist's sketch.


What's sad is that a reverse image search I tried via tineye only gave me the pics on the HC blog, so it seems a higher resolution is hard to come by

A suggestion of mine is that these images were enhanced by techniques available to publishers in the 50s/60s when they were first printed and published in atrocity reports to help with better visibility, a technique that's referred to as reprography.

I remember some of Sonderkommando prints getting a similar treatment, but I'm not referencing the edits by Udo Walendy. I think the HC blog mentioned this when they refuted Carlo Mattogno's and Germar Rudolf's attempts to debunk them.

Re: This picture really bugs me

Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 12:46 pm
by Upton_O_Goode
Jeffk 1970 wrote:
Oozy_Substance wrote:
Xcalibur wrote:
Oozy_Substance wrote:Speaking of pictures, I saw somewhere that Mechanic posted a photo with another angle for this photo :

4b980074d4de3a123d93cf1bf5f56642.jpg

Mechanic, can you post it again?


That's one of a series of 3 frames, iirc. it was discussed eons ago at RODOH 1...To no conclusion.


What's there to discuss? It's a clear execution.
I once met a denier who said on this picture that this is mercy killing because the women had typhus.
I think he was just trolling ..


:shock:

That's a new one.
Typhus is not universally fatal and even at the Reinhard Camps victims were allowed a few days to recuperate.


Back in 1966, Playboy magazine had an interview with George Lincoln Rockwell, head of the American Nazi Party, who was asked about all those pictures of bodies stacked like cordwood. He said the Party had an expert on this named Matt Bauer, who identified them as pictures of bombed-out German cities. Deniers will say anything, no matter how idiotic, to avoid facing the truth.

PS, I of course read that issue of Playboy only for the interviews and fiction (cough, ahem! :mrgreen: )

Re: This picture really bugs me

Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 1:12 pm
by Statistical Mechanic
Aaron Richards wrote:A suggestion of mine is that these images were enhanced by techniques available to publishers in the 50s/60s when they were first printed and published in atrocity reports to help with better visibility, a technique that's referred to as reprography.

I believe that in Rodoh1.0 Roberto (and probably Nick) discussed this exact method of preparing photographs for publication. The look IIRC got the handle "Soviet reprographic patina" back in that forum.

It would make sense for you to have seen this on the HC blog.

Re: This picture really bugs me

Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 1:13 pm
by Jeffk 1970
Upton_O_Goode wrote:PS, I of course read that issue of Playboy only for the interviews and fiction (cough, ahem! :mrgreen: )


Of course!!!

That was my motivation when I would sneak my father's Playboys out to, ahem, read them.

:lol:

Re: This picture really bugs me

Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 1:20 pm
by Statistical Mechanic
Upton_O_Goode wrote:PS, I of course read that issue of Playboy only for the interviews and fiction (cough, ahem! :mrgreen: )

Of course, this guy, too. This is how one becomes a hero to the religious right wingers.

Re: This picture really bugs me

Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 1:25 pm
by Statistical Mechanic
by the way Struk's Private Pictures, which covers the photo on the OP, arrived; when I finally finish Weinberg . . . well, if that ever happens!

Re: This picture really bugs me

Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2017 12:01 am
by Matthew Ellard
Aaron Richards wrote:A suggestion of mine is that these images were enhanced by techniques available to publishers in the 50s/60s when they were first printed and published in atrocity reports to help with better visibility, a technique that's referred to as reprography.
That makes sense. I have archaeology books from the same period where the B&W photos have been enhanced and have that weird look. Sometimes I think it is a simple as an artist simply touching up a print with a pencil.

Re: This picture really bugs me

Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2017 12:04 am
by Jeffk 1970
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Aaron Richards wrote:A suggestion of mine is that these images were enhanced by techniques available to publishers in the 50s/60s when they were first printed and published in atrocity reports to help with better visibility, a technique that's referred to as reprography.
That makes sense. I have archaeology books from the same period where the B&W photos have been enhanced and have that weird look. Sometimes I think it is a simple as an artist simply touching up a print with a pencil.



Or Udo Walendy drawing spaghetti corpses.

Re: This picture really bugs me

Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2017 6:30 pm
by Aaron Richards
Udo Walendy did not draw the Spaghetti corpse. He just zoomed in on it, penciled a thighline, and claimed it is a corpse with an afro, rather than parts (limbs etc.) belonging to several other corpses.

Here is Pressac's print of Sonderkommando photograph #280

Image


Here is the "enhanced" version, where the silhouettes suddenly have much better lighting. If you say this is Udo Walendy's magic, that would be incorrect, as it also appears on Wikipedia:

Image

This is (most likely Udo Walendy's) retouched denier crop:

Image

Notice how what would otherwise be too thin a neck is fattened, how a line is added to indicate two thighs, and more details to the face.

Re: This picture really bugs me

Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2017 6:41 pm
by Jeffk 1970
Aaron Richards wrote:Udo Walendy did not draw the Spaghetti corpse. He just zoomed in on it, penciled a thighline, and claimed it is a corpse with an afro, rather than parts (limbs etc.) belonging to several other corpses.

Here is Pressac's print of Sonderkommando photograph #280

Image


Here is the "enhanced" version, where the silhouettes suddenly have much better lighting. If you say this is Udo Walendy's magic, that would be incorrect, as it also appears on Wikipedia:

Image


That was me trying to be funny...and failing terribly.

:D

I agree with all of your points. Walendy zoomed in and highlighted lines, to me it looks like spaghetti. It's a crappy trick that allows deniers to see what they want to see.