CODOH Forum causes problems for Professor Emeritus

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
Kiwichap
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 739
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 11:54 pm
Location: New Zealand

CODOH Forum causes problems for Professor Emeritus

Postby Kiwichap » 1 decade 3 years ago (Tue Jul 25, 2006 3:39 am)

CODOH Forum causes problems for Professor Emeritus

In my gallery of democide photos

I have removed one photo allegedly of a Nazi soldier shooting a woman
with child

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/RM2.N.SHOOT.WOMEN.JPG

I replaced it with the explanation that there is too much doubt about
its authenticity. I referred to http://www.codoh.info/daspiktur.html
photograph's evaluation, which was brought to my attention about two years
ago. But, I thought the evaluation was weak and continued to display
the photography on my site. However, the following email from Hugo
Haig-Thomas finally decided me to withdraw it:
The picture . . . allegedly shows a German soldier in the Second World
War shooting a woman and her child. In fact, the picture, when seen
in its entirety, shows nothing of the sort . . . . To the right of
the picture you will see a group of men who are taking cover behind
what appears to be some farm machinery from shooting or some danger
coming from the right. The woman with the child is running forward to
join the men taking cover. The soldier is, in fact, firing beyond the
woman in the direction of the danger. There is also doubt that he is
a German soldier because his uniform is quite wrong. The soldier in
the photograph wears boots or puttees which come up almost to his
knees whereas German soldiers wore boots which came only halfway up
their calves. What is more, the soldier in the photograph is wearing
wide breeches-type trousers which the German soldiers never wore in
the field.

The picture, or at least the left half of it with the right half
removed, has been much used to depict a German atrocity. In fact, it
shows nothing of the kind.

Now, since I announced this removal of the photograph, I received
this email:
. . . do you realize that the information on
the inauthenticity of that photography, or at least the page that
you're linking to, is from a Nazi sympathizing organization who's
whole purpose is to have "debate" over the very reality of the
Holocaust? In other words, you seem to be taking the word of
Holocaust deniers. Right on the page they thank someone from the
"Institute for Historical Review", also another notorious Nazi front
type organization.

If there is another, more legitimate source, to show the
inauthenticity of this photography, I'd like to see it, and I'm sure
everyone else will too.

If you think "Holocaust revisionism" has any legitimacy at all,
please post about this immediately. I'm sure it would make extremely
interesting reading. Even If you don't, I'd still love to hear your
views on revisionism.

As I said, years ago I did not find the webpage sufficiently
compelling by itself to remove the photograph, but in any case I was
unaware of the association of the web page evaluating the photograph
with Holocaust revisionism. I've written a book, Democide: Nazi
Genocide and Mass Murder
, which should leave no doubt about my
position on the Holocaust, and absolute opposition to revisionism. I
would hate to have revisionists exploit my dedication to the truth by
simply raising questions about Holocaust photographs. But,
propagandists were active all sides during WWII and one must be aware
of this.

Can anyone provide support for the photograph's authenticity? What
about Haig-Thomas' comments?

Rudy Rummel
Professor Emeritus

http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=H-Holocaust&month=0601&week=c&msg=pJ6fjQS/Ri12AWXItCu3cw&user=&pw=


Note the not so subtil 'heresy accusation':
If you think "Holocaust revisionism" has any legitimacy at all, please post about this immediately. I'm sure it would make extremely
interesting reading. Even If you don't, I'd still love to hear your views on revisionism.


He got a few replies. Here:
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=H-Holocaust&month=0601&week=d&msg=Unb%2bVHTHPQikoNdtpgPgpg&user=&pw=
Here:
From: Steve Paulsson <gspaulsson>

Look at codoh's "uncropped picture", and it shows clear signs of having
been digitally manipulated. All the figures seem to have been cut and
pasted in (if you zoom in, you can see an area around them enclosed in
rectangular straight-line cuts, with a background that doesn't match the
surrounding area). There is also a blurry area down the middle that
suggests two images having been digitally joined, with the join smudged
so it doesn't show.

I would ignore these people. Their epistemology and ethics are purely
teleological, and their telos is one to which few of us would subscribe.
I had originally put it in plainer English - they are ***** and ******** -
but decorum must apparently be maintained.

Steve Paulsson
Centre for European, Russian, and Eurasian Studies University of Toronto


And here: http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=H-Holocaust&month=0601&week=d&msg=gmm7MvwfsskaO%2binSL0Dqg&user=&pw=

Strangely, the last link asks:
Under the picture, in tiny black type on the dark grey background, it
says "Credit: Jerzy Tomaszewski, Poland". A google search on his name
yields:

www.warsawuprising.com/paper/guardian.pdf

According to the article, as of last September, he was alive and well in
Warsaw. Is it possible that someone on this list could contact him and
verify the authenticity of the photo?


This photo appears in the USHMM and it looks like the Professors are only now wondering if it has been authenticated.

Hmmm.

Cheers.
There was no holocaust.

Tit 1:14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10069
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 3 years ago (Tue Jul 25, 2006 10:50 am)

here we go; woman & child pasted in, image cropped:
Image
also appears at the Simon Wiesenthal Center

before cropping was done, but with pasted in woman & child:
Image
discussion:
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=441

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10069
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 3 years ago (Tue Jul 25, 2006 1:15 pm)

. . . do you realize that the information on
the inauthenticity of that photography, or at least the page that
you're linking to, is from a Nazi sympathizing organization who's
whole purpose is to have "debate" over the very reality of the
Holocaust? In other words, you seem to be taking the word of
Holocaust deniers. Right on the page they thank someone from the
"Institute for Historical Review", also another notorious Nazi front
type organization.

If there is another, more legitimate source, to show the
inauthenticity of this photography, I'd like to see it, and I'm sure
everyone else will too.

If you think "Holocaust revisionism" has any legitimacy at all,
please post about this immediately. I'm sure it would make extremely
interesting reading. Even If you don't, I'd still love to hear your
views on revisionism.


Notice this True Believer dodges the specific criticism of the 'photo' given previously. Instead he tries the laughable 'Nazi' distraction. So very typical.

I've written a book, Democide: Nazi
Genocide and Mass Murder, which should leave no doubt about my
position on the Holocaust, and absolute opposition to revisionism. I
would hate to have revisionists exploit my dedication to the truth by
simply raising questions about Holocaust photographs. But,
propagandists were active all sides during WWII and one must be aware
of this.

Can anyone provide support for the photograph's authenticity? What
about Haig-Thomas' comments?

Rudy Rummel
Professor Emeritus

His position on the so called 'holocaust' may be clear, but his ability to back it up is nil, nothing more than what has been debunked over & over again by Revisionists. He does challenge the other desperate True Believer to answer the points previously made, a good start.

From: Steve Paulsson <gspaulsson>

Look at codoh's "uncropped picture", and it shows clear signs of having
been digitally manipulated. All the figures seem to have been cut and
pasted in (if you zoom in, you can see an area around them enclosed in
rectangular straight-line cuts, with a background that doesn't match the
surrounding area). There is also a blurry area down the middle that
suggests two images having been digitally joined, with the join smudged
so it doesn't show.

I would ignore these people. Their epistemology and ethics are purely
teleological, and their telos is one to which few of us would subscribe.
I had originally put it in plainer English - they are ***** and ******** -
but decorum must apparently be maintained.

Steve Paulsson
Centre for European, Russian, and Eurasian Studies University of Toronto

Yes, both versions do look ridiculous and CODOH had nothing to do with it. Notice that this Steve Paulsson character fails to address the fact that both the money making US 'holocau$t' Museum' and the profit oriented Simon Wiesenthal Center display it and use it. Oops.

And lastly, he can show nothing which refutes informed Revisionist research, he merely resorts to baseless attacks.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

friedrich braun
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2003 4:40 am

Postby friedrich braun » 1 decade 3 years ago (Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:49 pm)

The Rummel version (as well as this one posted on the Phora) seem far more carefully scanned and reproduced than the one posted on CODOH.

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthrea ... 949&page=2
"The dead came back from Jerusalem, where they did not find what they were seeking."

"The Seven Sermons to the Dead"

C.G. Jung

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10069
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 3 years ago (Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:56 pm)

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthrea ... 949&page=2

How interesting, notice the additional rifles protruding to the left of the soldier, and the addition of a 'body' below the soldier that we do not see in the other ones. Obviously the desperation of trying to come up with 'evidence' has resulted in the forgers being burned.


- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

Tiberius
Member
Member
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 12:34 pm

Postby Tiberius » 1 decade 3 years ago (Wed Jul 26, 2006 11:37 am)

From: Steve Paulsson <gspaulsson>

Look at codoh's "uncropped picture", and it shows clear signs of having
been digitally manipulated. All the figures seem to have been cut and
pasted in (if you zoom in, you can see an area around them enclosed in
rectangular straight-line cuts, with a background that doesn't match the
surrounding area). There is also a blurry area down the middle that
suggests two images having been digitally joined, with the join smudged
so it doesn't show.


I guess these "clear signs of having been digitally manipulated" and the
"rectangular straight-line cuts" and the "blurry area down the middle"
are simply the result of strong jpeg-compression. Most compression algorithms produce such artifacts if the compression is too strong.

The photo could be anything, it could be manipulated or staged or s.th completely innocent or a real atrocity (unlikely, in my opinion) or from an entirely different war. Unless s.o. can undoubtedly proove the authenticity of the photo, the source and what it allegedly shows, it's dihonest to use it or display it in an exhibition or s.th. like that. It's too easy to manipulate people if you show such a photo without source / caption / description in the "right" context, i.e. together with other photos that show real atrocities. Personally, I wouldn't discuss such photos at all.

kk
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 451
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 11:24 pm

Postby kk » 1 decade 3 years ago (Wed Jul 26, 2006 8:30 pm)

The remarkable soldier on the left is shooting at something that is far away
on the right.
His aiming line is about 2-3 meters to the left of the (most propably) "cut &
paste" figure of the woman with child.

friedrich braun
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2003 4:40 am

Postby friedrich braun » 1 decade 3 years ago (Wed Jul 26, 2006 10:33 pm)

Credit: Jerzy Tomaszewski, Poland

How did he get to photograph a German (?) soldier committing an apparent atrocity? Why would they let themselves be photographed committing war crimes?
"The dead came back from Jerusalem, where they did not find what they were seeking."



"The Seven Sermons to the Dead"



C.G. Jung

driansmith
Member
Member
Posts: 80
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 8:10 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Postby driansmith » 1 decade 3 years ago (Fri Jul 28, 2006 10:59 am)

By the way, has anyone thought of writing to this Paulsson fellow to object to his loathsome slurs against revisionists? I don't think we should tolerate such abuse any longer. His email address seems to be [email protected]

You can send anonymous emails via:

http://anonymouse.org/anonemail.html

kk
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 451
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 11:24 pm

Postby kk » 1 decade 3 years ago (Fri Jul 28, 2006 8:48 pm)

From: Steve Paulsson <gspaulsson>

Look at codoh's "uncropped picture", and it shows clear signs of having
been digitally manipulated. All the figures seem to have been cut and
pasted in (if you zoom in, you can see an area around them enclosed in
rectangular straight-line cuts, with a background that doesn't match the
surrounding area). There is also a blurry area down the middle that
suggests two images having been digitally joined, with the join smudged
so it doesn't show.

I would ignore these people. Their epistemology and ethics are purely
teleological, and their telos is one to which few of us would subscribe.
I had originally put it in plainer English - they are ***** and ******** -
but decorum must apparently be maintained.

Steve Paulsson
Centre for European, Russian, and Eurasian Studies University of Toronto


Well, could anyone show us an original negative or a print please?
Free to examine scientificaly, I mean.
In a free society, even ***** or ******** deserve to know the truth!

And a question to photographers:
Which would have been the right format of this photo, considering the time taken ? It would be obviously a snapshot.
It feels wrong in every instance I've seen it. One can't make history using forgeries.

User avatar
Kiwichap
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 739
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 11:54 pm
Location: New Zealand

Postby Kiwichap » 1 decade 3 years ago (Fri Jul 28, 2006 9:07 pm)

The plot thickens and ends with slavish servitude to the official story.
The Professor makes his 'confession of faith' and continues to show the picture on his site.

Professor Rummel:
RUDOLPH J. RUMMEL, b, 1932, BA and MA from the University of Hawaii (1959, 1961); Ph.D. in Political Science (Northwestern University, 1963); Phi Beta Kappa, Phi Kappa Phi, Omicron Delta Kappa. Taught at Indiana University (1963), Yale (1964-66), University of Hawaii (1966-1995); now Professor Emeritus of Political Science, University of Hawaii. Received numerous grants from NSF, ARPA, and the United States Peace Research Institute. Frequently nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize (see here). Received the Susan Strange Award of the International Studies Association for having intellectually most challenged the field in 1999. And received the Lifetime Achievement Award 2003 from the Conflict Processes Section, American Political Science Association.


http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/RM2.N.SHOOT.WOMEN.HTM

I had withdrawn the cropped photo that was here and is shown in the Room 2 thumbnail. Doubt about its authenticity was raised here, and by an email from a person writing a book on German soldiers who pointed out that the soldier's uniform is wrong. I thus withdrew the photo and posted a blog explaining why and asking for any information people might have on the photo. I also asked on the H-Genocide list for such information. The responses I received well indicate the photo is real, and provided me the uncropped photo here. I explain this in my blog. The photo has been the target of Holocaust deniers, and its special display of barbaric inhumanity encapsulated in a he-on-her dramatic atrocity, shows why. Here we have a soldier about to shoot a mother holding her child tightly while trying to escape the grave nearby. Why shoot her and doubtlessly her child? Violently steal their precious lives? Simple. They are Jews.


I recall a caption to this photo 'The woman is probably a Jew because Jews were mostly killed" something like that. Yet the Professor is certain she is a Jew.

The Professor sees a grave nearby.

And we have the ever present Jewish melodrama
The photo has been the target of Holocaust deniers, and its special display of barbaric inhumanity encapsulated in a he-on-her dramatic atrocity, shows why. Here we have a soldier about to shoot a mother holding her child tightly while trying to escape the grave nearby. Why shoot her and doubtlessly her child? Violently steal their precious lives?


The Prof asks for comments on his blog.
http://freedomspeace.blogspot.com/2006/01/holocaust-photo-is-it-authentic.html
http://freedomspeace.blogspot.com/2006/01/shooting-of-woman-with-child-holocaust.html
There was no holocaust.



Tit 1:14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

polardude
Member
Member
Posts: 69
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 7:28 pm

Postby polardude » 1 decade 3 years ago (Sat Jul 29, 2006 1:48 am)

As far as the provenance of the photo is clearly dates from the war period. This does not make it genuine rather a fairly typical example of war black propaganda.

As far as it goes for myself I doubt there is anything about that photo that could be used to definitively prove it false. After all suppose I worked for the NKVD, got a few people to don german uniforms and lined up a few Jews you would end up with a photo that was impervious to attempts to disprove.
However, the application of a little common-sense and an understanding how how Ministries of Information worked on all sides at that time means its authenticity can easily be questioned without having to fall into the mug's game of "burden of proof"

In order to see how the photo is purported to have entered Western propaganda canon you can do no better to read the Professor's own blog.

http://freedomspeace.blogspot.com/2006/01/shooting-of-woman-with-child-holocaust.html

The only right photograph is the one at the USHMM. The photograph was taken near Ivangorod (Ukraine) in 1942 and sent home by a German 'soldier' but intercepted in a post-office by a member of the Polish Resistance. That is what Jerzy Tomaszewski, who owns the credits for this photograph, has told me. I've read the story of the interception somewhere else but they could be referring to the same source, so don't take this story for absolutely true. If you're looking closely you'll see on the right side of the photograph that several people are digging in the ground, probably digging their grave. You see the shovels and a man who is in the pit up to his chest. Several people are holding what look like stones. On the left side are pointed guns and you can see what probably is a corpse. Hugo Haig Thomas is wrong. The story he tells was fabricated by Faurisson, the French 'revisionist' (holocaust denier or 'negationist' is a better term, as revision is one of the tasks of a historian), in 1978. Sincerely,
Gie van den Berghe
Professor University of Ghent, Belgium


This information from van den Berghe is very useful. It is not necessarily "true" but it provides the background of how the image entered into discourse that can makes a good exemplar of how "truth" is manufactured in our societies.

Personally, I find Faurisson's explanation far too glib and unconvincing. It falls into the catagory of explanation of "the document is true and there is a perfectly innocent explanation", when usually the document is a patently obvious forgery and only credible interpretations of it would be totally non-innocent.

IMHO, revisionists need to realise that such explanations look unconvincing and are easily refuted to the casual reader. This is the role of such sites as Holocaust controversies or Holocaust-history.org or Nizkor.

In other words the best explanation for the image is that it was produced during the time of war in order to mentally coerce populations into supporting war, into becoming killers or victims.

As such it should be of great interest to Professor Rummel - sadly at his advanced years I expect his modes of thought are far too entrenched to cope with the concept that his beloved narratives of genocide are in fact an integral part of the "power kills" construct he criticises.

polardude
Member
Member
Posts: 69
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 7:28 pm

Postby polardude » 1 decade 3 years ago (Sat Jul 29, 2006 1:54 am)

I especially like it how Jerzy Tomaszewski "owns the credits" for this photo.

This suggests a degree of proprietorship highly unusual for a supposedly purloined image. Surely the German soldier ought to have the copyright.

Co-incidently....or not, Jerzy Tomaszewski happens to have been a photographer working for the Home Government in Warsaw charged with supplying images to support the Government in Exile.

Perhaps that should help put this image in its correct perspective.

'My duty was to take pictures'

On August 1 1944, Polish resistance fighters launched the biggest insurrection the Nazis ever faced - the Warsaw uprising. Two months later, a quarter of a million Poles were dead, the city in ruins. Until he was injured in the fighting, photographer Jerzy Tomaszewski recorded the uneven battle. He tells Janina Struk how he went to war with a camera


Indeed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/secondworldwa ... 56,00.html

It reminds me a little bit of Wag the Dog, when the Producer who had staged the whole war demanded he be given "the credit' for his production, likewise Jerzy wants to keep the copyright for the photo allegedly found in the German postage system by an unnamed resistence worker.

And Poles wonder why people make Polish jokes!

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10069
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 3 years ago (Sat Jul 29, 2006 10:04 am)

The professor states:
The conclusion of all this is that the photo, the full one this time, is going back up on my website here.

Thanks to all of you that researched this question or responded with what you know. The information you sent me, the responses above, and the speed with which this was done well displays the power of the Internet to get at the truth.

This man is, while bowing to his masters, really doing a job on them. I think the more that this full version is shown the worse it is for the absurd storyline. In fact the site http://freedomspeace.blogspot.com/2006/ ... caust.html
is precious, ex.:
But how do we know that they are digging 1. graves, 2. their graves? The gun certainly does not point directly at the woman. Without the letter it was with, we will not know what happened there. I also wonder, if it truly was a photo taken during a massacre, whether a soldier would send a such a picture to Mom and Dad?

These negationist sites have a useful purpose in forcing historians to do
more careful work in identifying sources.

Thomas Reimer


I look for this topic to curiously disappear from that site.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
Kiwichap
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 739
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 11:54 pm
Location: New Zealand

Postby Kiwichap » 1 decade 3 years ago (Sat Jul 29, 2006 7:01 pm)

A couple of friends and I have spent some time looking at the large photo:
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=10949&page=2

We think this is what we see.

The body next to the soldier is another soldier,. We think the hat on the body is similiar to the one worn by the standing soldier. We think we can see the the knee length puttie on his leg. Did the woman or child kill him. We dont think so. Ha ha. A dead soldier makes the atrocity story stupid.

The shading is also suspect. All the men in the picture seem to be more distinct because of the lighting, their clothing is more visible, creases etc, but the woman's clothing is not.

We think the object near the three men is a hand cart, we think there 'may' be a body covered with a blanket... on the cart. Is that a leg/foot we can see sticking out from under the cover?

Are they digging a grave? Perhaps. We can see two wide mouth shovels lying on the ground. Of course one would/could not dig a grave with a wide mouth shovel.

The best we can come up with (if the entire picture were genuine) is perhaps this was a burial party come under attack.
We think the dead soldier is the give-away.

I think the woman is a cut and paste. Other versions I have seen show the cut and paste line around the figure.

The original query to the Professor was the soldiers uniform was not German. This query has been conveniently forgotten by the Professor.

My mate is sure this is a photo of a team sent to recover bodies on a battlefield. The woman and child dont belong in the photo and the team has come underfire. One soldier has been killed and the men are taking cover.

I reckon the dead soldier gives the atrocity story away - no matter what is going on. That is probably why the body is shown without the hat like in the Professors original.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/RM2.N.SHOOT.WOMEN.JPG

As the picture is, we dont see Jews, we dont see an atrocity and would like to know more about it before coming to a conclusion.
There was no holocaust.



Tit 1:14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests