Aaron Richards wrote:Let us not give BroI satisfaction by being reduced to ad hominems.
Aside from projection, it's all they have, poor dears.
Aaron Richards wrote:I would first like to ask BRoI how this evidence we are supposed to present to him should look like. Someone asking for evidence should also have in mind what it is supposed to look like.
Why not start by finding evidence of the NYT manually doctoring any photo to this extent EVER, and I don't mean a little airbrushing for fashion photos or the
photo of Lee Harvey Oswald in his backyard, or one a freelance photographer doctored on a COMPUTER in the modern era. You can't seriously suggest that this was the only ever photo the NYT doctored to this extent.
Here, incidentally, is a photo doctored by the U.S. Army Signal Corps, proving that they were not unaccustomed to drastic photographic manipulation; this is a composite of at least two different photos, just like the B. one:
Aaron Richards wrote:A leaked "behind the scenes" video? An interview with an old geezer who admitted "oh yeah I was part of that decency division responsible for editing out Simon Toncman and many other people in their birthday suits over the years?"
Here are the only three people who could have done the actual doctoring:
- Victor W. Talley, Sunday Dept. Pict. Ed. [died Feb. 1973]
- Florette Robinson, Sunday Dept. Asst. Pict. Ed.
- Emma Little, Sunday Dept. Asst. Pict. Ed.
Any evidence that they ever docotored ANY photo to the extent you claim they doctored the B. photo would be a great start. Good luck.
Fact is, unless BRoI can provide evidence that the image in that article was based on an original print tucked somewhere in an archive
- The Toncman-less version is in the NYT archive, they have refused to give me a print because the copyright to that version is held by Associated Press [unlike the other versions that are credited to the Signal Corps]
- The Associated Press claims only to have Toncman-present version in their archive
- The NYT and AP are private archives, I can't get access to them
- I live in the UK, I hope to get to the NARA soon to look at some particular files of the OMGUS. I usually pay a researcher-for-hire to get me NARA stuff, but I need to do this myself as it'll more likely be a search for clues; I don't expect they were daft enough to leave the original negatives in their records
(which doesn't feature Simon Toncman but a strangely darkened area instead, as compared to the rest of the image's lighting),
Do you expect bunks 20ft-40ft from the light[s]/camera flash to be as brightly lit as the bunks just 5-20ft away? Were you home-schooled?
and as long as he cannot rationally explain the missing bedpost base in said image,
Hooray; we have another one joining Romanov in using Eric Hunt's "missing post foot" theory; another one who knows absolutely nothing about the printing process, or how photos were put into newspapers, or how photos were transferred via wire, or the deterioration of newspapers over time, but is prepared to go on record claiming there's something missing in the photo in a 72yr old magazine that they've only
seen in my photos. You should be embarrassed for posting that nonsense considering your level of ignorance on these topics.
Btw, do you suspect the post-foot isn't visible in the print in the NYT archive either? i.e the copy neither you, Romanov, or any other NYT CT realised even existed, let alone attempted to obtain a copy.
Here's a photo of another page in the magazine in both copies I possess. If some bozo was only shown the copy on the left, and knew nothing about the deterioration of paper and how similar shades of ink blend, they might claim the woman has no right foot. Whereas we can see her right foot is still visible in the same picture in a different copy of this old magazine.
and as long as he cannot provide the original (or even copy, whatever!) image from which Simon Toncman, in that pose, was cropped out of, to be pasted into this famous one, I'd say the burden of proof lies on him. [...] Honestly, the best way to prove "the most famous holocaust photo" is a hoax is by finding the alleged duplicate with a different background which features Toncman in that same pose, perhaps next to other standing inmates.
Finding that would be great and my effort to do so continue. But you're committing a fallacy demanding that until it is produced you have no obligation to provide evidence to support your theory that the NYT Sunday Dept. edited the photo.
After all, HE was the one who came with the allegation that the "most famous holocaust photo" is a fraud, and his evidence only went so far as a physical copy of that newspaper. Not conclusive.
And the evidence presented to prove your theory that Lester Markel's SNYT doctored the photo has been a few internet links. Do you think that's conclusive?
Too bad revisionists always end up being laughed out of the room.
Well, presently I'm laughing at your post exposing your ignorance of wirephotos, hotmetal and rotogravure printing, the deterioration newspaper paper, the history of this photo in the press and government propaganda, and the fallacious *logic* you believe supports an excuse for not providing evidence to support the conspiracy theory about Pultizer Prize winner Lester Markel.