Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
In 1983, died Alfred Nakache, a swimming champion born in Constantine (Algérie) in 1915, another former inmate. Named as the "Auschwitz swimmer", he trained in the pool during his detainment.
We still can see the pool in the camp.
Here is a modern ground photo.
Yes, I've recently found the swimming-pool on Google Earth - go to 'Auschwitz' then south-South west to the base-camp, and see the rectangular pool at the back of the camp.
Everyone quotes the 'Arbeit macht frei' but no-one says what was the work they did at the base-camp. Using Google maps, go to 'Auschwitz' (Oswiecim) and then a mile due East see the remains of Monowitz the huge industrial centre of I.G.Farben .
You can also inspect this using Google Earth.
Also, from the base-camp, due North-West is the remains of an armaments plant which many of them would have worked at.
If each day the inmates went out to work, I guess it was one of these two sites they went to.
Here is a map showing the industrial sites where the 'arbeit' took place at A.:
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/media_nm.php?l ... ediaId=306
John Ball studied wartime air photos, and we in some degree carry on his work by using the modern Google Earth-map.
We really need to know what a 1978 microstereoscope would have shown to an untutored eye when routinely applied to a 1944 aerial photo. In olden days a local store could routinely “develop” a perfect image because it was immanent within the original plate. I hear that satellite photography can recover a city from a blob, and there must be some basis to the movie cliché wherein a narrow-eyed hero barks: “blow up that corner of the window; no, go closer!”; and with perfect clarity we all recognise the face of whatever European actor is cast as villain. In such cases an immanent image, mechanically enlarged, needed no further analysis. Perhaps the Dogpatch photo, minus the explanatory legends, is what might emerge from some mechanical procedure.
On the other hand, the most powerful modern microscope will not detect microbes if applied to an old photograph of a cheese. I suspect that the prettified Dogpatch photo was the sort of thing analysts would have passed upstairs after some expert “interpretation” had been done on the blobs and patches. Frame 3185, being the least clear of all the available shots of the Krema 2 area - at least as found in this and related threads - may have supplied the most food for such interpretation.
I have not found the CIA book or Brugioni’s later fakery book. So as to what a microstereoscope could do. my only clue is a Brugioni interview about satellite photography. Only the last two paragraphs are strictly on-topic, but the rest is too interesting to leave out.
NOVA: Is it true that surveillance photos also helped belie the missile gap—Kennedy's fear that the Soviets had many more intercontinental ballistic missiles, or ICBMs, than we did?
Brugioni: Yes. That was the second most important thing we did, I think. In 1960, when President Kennedy was running for election, he had two points—there was the missile gap and the Cuba problem. Now, when we launched our first satellite in August of '60, the Air Force estimated that there were from 100 to 250 ICBM sites in the Soviet Union. After successive missions in 1960, we could say they were not there. The missile estimate that was made in 1961 indicated that there were only 15 to 25 missile sites in all of the Soviet Union. There were, in fact, only 12.
President Kennedy never admitted that he was wrong about the missile gap. He had Robert McNamara go out and say, "Because we have some new information, the missile gap doesn't exist." But the fact that this was a national issue that we had solved by our efforts—that made me quite proud, too.
NOVA: Is it hard to do what you do? You make it seem easy.
Brugioni: It really is easy. I would draw a 25-mile circle around whatever we were looking at. Keep in mind that most of the areas that we were photographing—in the Soviet Union, China, the Middle East, and so forth—if you draw a 25-mile circle, in many cases man is born, raised, and dies within that circle. So we looked at that circle real carefully.
Take the Shenandoah Valley, for example. Let's assume I've never been there. I can look at an aerial photograph, and the first thing I'd say is, "Those people are meat eaters." I can look in the fields and see cattle. I can probably see hog pens. Might even see some turkey farms.
If I want to find out where a person would be born, I look for a building with a parking lot, and in some cases it might even have a Red Cross symbol or something to indicate it's the hospital. I can distinguish a hospital from a school fairly easily. When I get to a grade school, there is playground equipment. I can take it further—high school, college, and so forth. I would also watch all the rail lines and the spurs that lead into the factories, and I'd see what's going into the factories and what's coming out.
I've never been in your house, but if you give me an aerial photograph, I'll draw you a diagram of that house. The first thing I would do is look for vents on your roof. One of the vents will be your bathroom, another vent will be your kitchen. Where your stack is, that's usually your living and dining room, and then I go negative. The rest of the house is bedrooms. That's because man builds to a pattern, and rules and regulations.
“Finding missile sites in the Soviet Union wasn't that hard.”
NOVA: You were looking mainly for large installations in your work, of course.
Brugioni: Yes. When you're searching, your eye will be drawn to installations. Now, the Soviets had a penchant for what we call horizontal security. Their strategic installations would have as many as four or five fences, and that's very visible from above.
So say we're searching in Central Asia with satellite photography, and you look down and see two big black blobs. Of course, your eyes are immediately drawn to these shapes because they don't conform with anything in the area. Not only that, there's a lot of activity there. There are power lines, there are roads leading into these installations. You would put that image under what we call a microstereoscope, and you would enlarge it.
Say it was an MRBM site. It would have the five fences and, if you look closely, there are automatic weapon positions all around for protection of the site. While the Soviets might have done a good thing in keeping people from entering this thing by putting up that many fences, that just helped the photo interpreters. So finding missile sites in the Soviet Union wasn't that hard.
Finding things isn’t that hard if you know they are there. Can there be a general expertise in aerial photography? A radiographer’s expertise is not so much in X-ray photography as in human anatomy and pathology: this sort of disease leaves that kind of shadow. I have looked at expert archaological interpretations of aerial photographs, but the expertise on show turns out to be a knowledge of the terrain or its history. There are experts who can “enhance” a painting because they have a theory of what the underlying image should be; or else they think they can recognise and eliminate visual “impurities”. There are experts who can at a glance identify a fake painting much better than a non-expert; but not without a high error rate. And there are experts, such as the interpreters of Rorschach ink patterns, who are probably charlatans.
nathan wrote:I have just been reading Family of Secrets, a book in which the manipulative hokum-mongering CIA agent George H. Bush is referred to throughout as "Poppy." I recommend it.
I read that one too. It is an interesting treatment of the Bush family. There was a photo of "the tourist guy" that circulated around the Internet in 2001. It showed a man in a heavy winter coat standing in the observation deck of the World Trade Center with an passenger plane heading toward him in the background. The picture was a fake. It was originally meant as a bad joke, but got passed around as authentic. Soon "the tourist guy" started getting photo-shopped into pictures of all kinds of disasters. That is what the Family of Secrets brings to mind: "Poppy" Bush repeatedly stands in close proximity to political disasters, but he remains just far enough removed to make you wonder if it all just a coincidence.
nathan wrote:I have not found the CIA book or Brugioni’s later fakery book.
I can help you out there, nathan.
The CIA booklet can be found here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/imint/holocaust.htm
John Ball's book is online here:http://vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndaerial.html
Photo Fakery is out of print, but used copies are available through Amazon for as little as $3 and some change. You might want to check your local public library. They might have a copy to lend.
nathan wrote: Finding things isn’t that hard if you know they are there. Can there be a general expertise in aerial photography? A radiographer’s expertise is not so much in X-ray photography as in human anatomy and pathology: this sort of disease leaves that kind of shadow. I have looked at expert archaological interpretations of aerial photographs, but the expertise on show turns out to be a knowledge of the terrain or its history. There are experts who can “enhance” a painting because they have a theory of what the underlying image should be; or else they think they can recognise and eliminate visual “impurities”. There are experts who can at a glance identify a fake painting much better than a non-expert; but not without a high error rate. And there are experts, such as the interpreters of Rorschach ink patterns, who are probably charlatans.
That is true. It is easy to find something when you know where to look. In 1979 the question was, why didn't the photo interpreters of 1944 find the evidence of the extermination at Birkenau that Brugioni and Poirier "found" in their retrospective interpretation? First, the focus of the 1944 interpreters was Monowitz where the Buna rubber plant was being built because that was the bomb target, not Auschwitz or Birkenau camps. Second, - and this I find a very funny lie offered by Brugioni in 1979 - "[T]he World War II photo interpreters did not have access to intelligence reports, but only to the photographs." [AP story, 25 Feb 1979, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, pg 21A, "Auschwitz Camp Aerial Photos Found"]
I ask you, why would photo interpreters not be given intelligence reports to aid in their analysis? That is absurd. Brugioni's excuse also raises this important question: Where are these 1944 intelligence reports the photo interpreters were denied? In August 1944, the Jewish Agency was lobbying the Allies to bomb the railways leading to Auschwitz and Churchill asked the RAF to look into bombing the gas chambers themselves. The RAF called Churchill's idea "fantastic" and a risk to men and planes for no purpose.
I would like to see the intelligence reports. I have been waiting over 30 years. Why have they not been released? Do they exist?
Is it beyond dispute that the two cracked openings in today’s remains are exactly where Ball has put his two little red marks on his sketch map as linked by PappyYokum on Dec 31?
Irving claimed in court that the four holes were not on the Bauleitung drawings. Can anyone give me an exact source for that? It is probably Pressac. Is the exact date of the blueprint known?
Richard Green somewhere quotes from Micheal Shermer’s book, Why People Believe Weird Things. .
Ball claims these shadows were drawn in, but four small structures that match the shadows are visible on the roof of the gas chamber in figure 24, a picture taken by an SS photographer of the back of Krema II...
Has Shermer’s figure 24 been anywhere online?
Here it is: no holes, no Auschwitz gassings:
text from http://www.air-photo.com/english/undergk2.html
The vent-less morgue roof looks exactly the same as it did in 1943, although it collapsed from the force of an explosion detonated by the Soviet Army between January 27 and February 18, 1945. Inspection at the locations of marks on the 1944 air photos showed no cement patches of previous holes, as any patches would have been visible along the straight line impressions left from the original 1943 cement forms. In 1944 this was what the inside of the ventless morgue roof looked like, before being tilted and partially collapsed from the winter 1945 explosion.
for more see: http://www.air-photo.com/english/altered.html
Further confirmation via this German ground photo, early 1943; no so called 'little chimneys/holes/vents/insertion columns' protruding as is alleged in the wacky story.
According to Jewish supremacist and Auschwitz "expert", Robert Jan Van Pelt (who was paid to appear at the Irving/Lipstadt trial), the insertion columns, which were said to protrude out from the roof, were added as an adaptation in August, 1942.
Hoisted by their own petard.
text from http://www.air-photo.com/english/
Winter 1943 photo of the rear of one of the two cremation buildings with the one metre (3 foot) high concrete morgue (in the right foreground) designed to keep bodies cold before cremation. After this photo was taken, earth was packed up the sides and over the top to keep the subterranean room cold. Construction started in October 1942, and the building in this photo is almost complete. Workers are seen on the roof. The morgue is alleged to have been a human gas chamber.
This is too easy.
The three objects are not present in the snow-covered 1943 photo shown in the previous posting.
Hannover wrote:It couldn't be any clearer than in this damning photo. No alleged Zyklon-B (a slow acting pesticide) insertion holes in the morgue roof in which to kill Jews.
Actually it was shown years ago the holes do exist and were made when the concrete of the roof was poured, see http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... oles.shtml
The January 1943 ground photo does not show the holes, but this is no surprise since the photograph does not show the top of the roof and is covered by a layer of snow anyway. The concrete chimnies visible on the February 1943 ground photograph were evidently added later.
Hans wrote:Hannover wrote:The concrete chimnies visible on the February 1943 ground photograph were evidently added later.
Like the chimney that was added to "gas" chamber #1 after the war?
http://www.aaargh.codoh.com/fran/bsdf/ ... xe_07.html
the location of the "holes" shown on this famous "train chimney photography" is very suspicious.
A clear reproduction of the train photo can be found as illustration 9 in Rudolf’s essay “Some Considerations Technical Chemical...” This is not quite the same essay as the one I cited earlier. Incidentally Rudolf’s Ilustration 10, a section of this train photo, gives a measurement for the width of the mortuary as 9.58 metres. This must surely be a typing error. Following Faurisson, I take the true width to be about seven metres.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Lamprecht and 6 guests