Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
'the little train "photo''
'Altered Aerial Photos and the Shadows of Doom'
These 'holes' do NOT correspond to the so called 'Train photo', and that's a big, big problem for the aerial photos AND this train photo, read & see:
In the Dogpatch photo the Leichenkeller 1 (L1) of Krema 2 shows four patches which to my naked eye seem perhaps ever so slightly staggered and all ever so slightly east of centre. The four patches across the road on L1 of krema 3 however are very systematically staggered a la Tauber, a metre or so each side of a central beam.
I thought the patches owed their clarity to a fancy stereoscopic instrument applied to two consecutive frames. There has been tall talk about this technique. Looking for a stereo partner frame on 3184 and 3186 I find that Krema 3 is in fact not present on any of them. It is off camera. This would imply that the clarity of K3, no less impressive than K2, must be the result of some less advanced, one- dimensional method. Is there a (thoughtful) answer to this?
Assuming for arguments sake that that the patches are meaningful, the extreme zigzag pattern on Leichenkeller 1 Krema 3 entails that any heavy wire columns therein had a markedly different positioning from those in L1 K2. They would have been surrounded by the suffering crowd. Those in L1 K2 would have been closer (but not adjacent?) to four of the central concrete pillars. This is what the CIA photograph tells us. A trick of the light cannot be decently invoked. Aerial photos cannot be held to prove that things exist without also proving where they are. Orthodox literature must at some point in the last thirty years have provided some explanation for this difference between the east-west staggering on the two symmetrical mortuaries. In the three-month time lag between Krema 2 and Krema 3 it was for some reason decided to build things differently. Does anyone know what the standard explanation is? I am not looking for sarcastic hypotheses.
Yes, I remember that. Earthquakes, tsunamis, the guy on the roof was everywhere.Pappy Yokum wrote: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.
Lot's of things are possible with photoshop (in the 1990s for ordinary people):
The question is what would have been possible in the 1970s for people working in intelligence services.
... Thanks for the hint.Pappy Yokum wrote: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.
That's something I also have wondered about more then once. It's reasonable to assume the Allies would have spies over any place in Germany or in the German controlled territories. Especially in areas were there is something of strategic relevance. Auschwitz was such a place. We can be pretty damned sure that the Allies had informers and spies in the Auschwitz area, the camp and industrial complexes. These spies would also have been able to corrobate rumors of gassings that may have existed and reached the ears of the Allied intelligence services. So if there were homicidal gassings in Auschwitz on a more or less regular basis, it's reasonable to assume that there would have been extensive intelligence reports in existence and the Allies had every motive to release information from such reports. To my knowledge, and anyone may correct me here, they didn't. The "reports" on extermination only came up frequently after the "liberation" of the camps. And then this reporting consited of presenting pictures of emaciated corpses that obviously died of malnutrition or disease, something that arose from conditions the Allies did create themselves.Pappy Yokum wrote: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?
The CIA aerial photo has four smudges; the ground level train photo has four suspect objects.
But it has been obvious - to Pressac, Rudolf and others – that the most rightward (eastward) object in the train photo, which appears optically to be under the fifth double window from the left, really is an object under the fifth double window from the left. It is not an object on the roof at all. Only an exceptionally credulous and uncritical person could believe otherwise.
Shermer does believe otherwise. In figure 24 of his Weird Things he includes this banished object among in his highlighted group of “four” which, to make matters worse, includes only two of the others. Four objects and four smudges would have allowed Shermer yet again to deploy the word “consiliance”, establishing himself as Philosopher of Science above the sordid business of checking empirical data. But this Skeptic is zealously and fanatically resolved never to pull up his socks. He described the four aerial smudges on L1 K2 as staggered shadows, although they are barely staggered at all, and it has to be explained how daytime obects cast daytime shadows larger then thamelves. He imposes a marker rectangle around the four smudges in his Figure 23 which aligns the smudges exactly on the central beam, not as others might discern, slightly to the east of it. As published in Weird Things, his enhanced version of Frame 3185 seems dimmer than Brugioni’s, but he says that it is the result of a stereoscopic technique unavailable to Brugioni in 1979. Brugioni had said his photo was the result of a stereoscopic technique unavailable to analysts in 1944. What must be certain is that no ordinary process of enlargement could have revealed these smudges or will ever reveal them. Brugioni was not following the Zionist agenda, which is to spread the guilt for the Holocaust as widely as possible His agenda was to exculpate western governments of 1944.
Everyone but Shermer perceives the three objects, which (see Hannover’s posting 11 Feb) carries imposed measurements 85 55 and 70 cm. The 85 cm object does not seem very rectangular, and Boisdefeu has argued (see the birdseye sightlines) that all these three objects would be clustered in the southern half of the Leichenkeller roof.
Keren McCarthy and Mazal (KMM), as linked above by Hans, must have been influenced by these arguments, even though they do not acknowledge them. They too discard the object apparently under double window five as being an object which is not on the roof. The 85 cm object, which is the wrong shape and size and position for an input hatch, they judge to be, perhaps or probably, part of the wall. The only fit candidates on the train photo are the two objects which are optically under double window number four ( under the big Krema chimney).
So where are the other two vents? KMM drop the Shermer argument that the ground photo corroborates the air photo. They retreat implicitly to the much more modest position: the the air photo is not inconsistent with the air photo. The reconciliation is bold and ingenious: the fourth vent might be peeping out from the train smokestack on its left. Previously one might have taken this to be be just another black smudge, such as one sees all over the place. Or it might have been connected with the metal-looking object in the snow-lined photograph dated by Hans as January
So where is the third vent? KMMs own words, in the article linked by Hans:
The shape under Window 5 is not an introduction chimney but a portal, discoloration, or another shape on the wall of the crematorium proper. Additionally, a lighter shadow appears near the middle of the gas chamber, under the east edge of window three. This does not correspond to an introduction port either. It may be an object on or near the roof of the gas chamber. It is lower and narrower than "Chimneys" 1 and 2. Also, while "Chimneys" 1 and 2 have at the right of their dark shadows shades of gray that are measurably lighter than the wall behind, the shade of gray to the right of the unidentified form is not clearly distinguishable from the wall. This can be verified by scanning the image and examining the gray levels (i.e., intensities).
The top of the western edge of Hole 4 can be seen more clearly in Figure 4 just to the left of a locomotive's smokestack. Its lower half is obscured by snow-covered earth, its southern face by the smokestack. Chimney 3 is entirely occluded by the smokestack. Irving has speculated that the holes are really "drums containing sealant"9 but it is obvious that this cannot be the case: a cylindrical object would produce a gradual light pattern, while the objects above display a sharp change between uniform light and uniform shadow. “
(Emphasis by nathan)_
The identification of the blob as an input hatch is of course less than obvious; the remarkable coincidence which might have placed the third input hatch (away from us) exactly behind the train’s smokestack will no doubt arouse some coarse derision; and the spacing of the objects defies our intuitions of perspective.
The wayward revisionist Provan has written
if the Zyklon B holes on the roof were equally spaced, the distance between the vents furthest away from the camera would appear less than the distance between the vents closest to the viewer. But the photo shows the opposite; whatever the objects are, they are not equally spaced, indicating that they are not equally spaced Zyklon B openings".
In locating the third object behind the smokestack KMM have doubled the difficulty. They have to get four times as much optical space between vent 2 and the hidden vent 3 as between vent 1 and 2. Provan presumably thought the zigzagging of the four objects in L1 K2 was too slight to affect ground level perspectives. KMM have to zig and zag to explain these perspectives.
This is OK in principle, but the relation between the large smudges and the small vents supposed to account for them has to be some consistent causal one. If they are long shadows of short objects then the objecta have to be the on the sunny south east edge of each smudge. On any explanation they must be located at a corresponding point within each smudge. What is not permissible is to locate the first object on the west of the first smudge, the second on the east, and so on. Yet unless they have done this it is not easy to see how they derive the degree of staggering shown in KMM Figure 2a. And it is far from obvious that even this degree of staggering gets them the result they want.
KMM have produced a computer mock-up (their Figure 5) in which the Leichenkeller looks like a floating coffin aimed at some point west of the Krema. This cannot prove anything at all. Conclusions in, conclusions out. What is needed is not a computerised equivalent of the train photo, constrained to place the known and conjectured hatches under the optically correct windows. What is needed is a perfect overhead plan of the four smudges, allowing convergent sightlines lines to identify some possible camera position, west of the building and and south of the railway line, such that it is consistent with all known measurements and with the optical features of the train photo. In principle this should be possible because there are seven attic windows or hatches on the roof of the Krema (KMM omitted them from the computer mock-up) which were visible from directly above and must appear on the drawings. From our ideal camera position the third hatch (allegedly hiding behind the smokestack) would be on a sightline from a point slightly to the left of the second attic window; the third object should appear slightly to the left of the third attic window. Convergent sighlines must allow a generous space between the first and second objects going north; and one four times as generous between the second and third objects; and no space at all between the third and fourth objects.
Such a position may not be impossible, but one can get a quick glimpse the difficulty by taking the edge of an envelope to the Dogpatch photo on which the seven attic windows can be discerned as dots and - supposing a hole at the centre of each smudges - trying to converge on a camera position which satisfies all the constraints. To be sure the aerial view is not a perfect overhead plan, because one can glimpse the east edge of the Krema, and the stereoscopic enhancement may have distorted the viewpoint. Still, as I say, the attic windows can probably be found on the drawings. KMM should go back to their drawing board.
It does seem clear that the four marks are missing from the September 13 photo (the one with the bombs): Orthodoxy’s excuse is that the smoke and haze of the bombing neatly discriminated against the rectangular area of Leichenkellare 1 Krema 2. At the Zundel trial the expert Kenneth Wilson said he could find no evidence of such discrimination.
But are these four marks also missing from the May 31 photo? I would have said so, judging by the online version I link below. John Ball has implied that there are none. And Mattogno has written “in the aerial photograph of 31 May 1944 there appears a single dark patch at the western edge of the roof of Leichenkeller 1 of Krema II.”
One can indeed see a single big patch, not patches plural. And yet as reported in Kulaska's account of the Zundel trial, Wilson has via enlargement discerned patches which were “discolorations on the roof” – and he apparently is speaking explicitly about Krema 2 in the 31 May photo. By way of contrast the the patches on the August 25 photo are reported as visible to “the naked eye.” I always took “to the naked eye” to mean without enlargement or enhancement. My own naked eye, for example, can see a plume smoke on the August 23 photos; but not patches on the Leichenkellar, either in the August 23 photo as posted by the Edinburgh archive or in the August 25 photo reproduced by jnovotiz at the head of this thread. They had naked eyes back in 1944. If Wilson by some enlargement detected exactly four smudges on the May 31 photo I am surprised that anti-revisionists have not made a meal of the fact. But perhaps they don’t want to make too much of an expert who assures us that smudges in any case are not shadows cast by small chimneys.
It is was brave of Wilson to appear for Zundel’s defence. But common sense as well as caution would have made him slow to suspect tampering. His view of the marks as “discolorations” without elevation has allowed Mattogno to develop an idea which has the merit of not involving a conscious hoax. A banal explanation is generally preferable to a conspiratorial one, just as a conspiratorial explanation is generally preferable to one that is outside the range of common sanity. If Mattogno is correctly informed about bitumen etc. then he has offered the least implausible explanation I have seen of the wild variation in the smudge patterns. This does not rule out CIA “interpretation” but it puts something there to be interpreted.
It being determined that the above patches were not shadows, what then were they? Kenneth R. Wilson advanced the hypothesis that they were "discolorations on the surface of the roof." In my opinion this explanation is correct. The covers of Leichenkeller 1 of Kremas II and III were roofs of reinforced concrete 18 cm thick isolated from rainwater by a layer of bitumen which was protected from atmospheric agents by a thin layer of cement. Whoever has worked in the field of building construction knows that a thin layer of cement covering a large area, if it cannot be matched with a scaffolding of iron rods, inevitably tends to disintegrate. In the case in question, at the places where disintegration had occurred the lower stratum of darker bitumen emerged, creating the patches which are seen on the aerial photographs.....
...........In my opinion this explains both the appearance and disappearance over a period of a few months of the above-mentioned patches in the aerial photographs.
The argument above is developed in Mattogno’s essay No Holes no Gas chambers”
To really know a trial you must read its actual transcripts. That is why we will never really know anything about the West German trials. Transcripts are never perfectly accurate, of course, but they will always surprise you. For want of better, in the present case, we have to depend on Barbara Kulaszka’s summary of Wilson’s testimony.
[Kenneth R. Wilson was the twentieth witness called by the Crown. He testified on Tuesday, April 19, 1988.]
Kenneth R. Wilson was tendered as an expert in photogrammetry, specializing in aerial triangulation, digital mapping and rectification of photographs. He graduated with a Master of Applied Science at the University of Toronto in 1969 in Photogrammetric Engineering, and was a member of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario, the Canadian Institute of Surveying and Mapping and the American Society of Photogrammetry and Mapping. (32-8925, 8926) Wilson was asked by the defence to study aerial photographs of Birkenau and Auschwitz taken in 1944 by the Allies. These photographs were enlargements of photographs in the possession of the National Archives in the United States and had been prepared by the Archives staff. (32-8921) His purpose was, firstly, to determine whether black patches appearing on the roofs of the Leichenkellers at Kremas II and III at Birkenau had any elevation; secondly, to determine whether there was any water in the swimming pool at Auschwitz I; and, thirdly, to study the location of a road in relation to the two crematories at Birkenau. (32-8914)
Aerial Photograph No. 3055 (May 31, 1944)
This photograph showed Kremas II and III at Birkenau. Wilson determined that the patches on top of the Leichenkeller at Krema II were flat and had no elevation. (32 8927, 8928) Wilson could not say what the patches were but believed they were discolorations on the surface of the roof. Wilson doubted whether the photograph could be tampered with without it showing up on the 12 times enlargements which he studied. (32-8936)
Aerial Photograph No. 3185 (August 25, 1944)
This photograph showed Kremas II and III at Birkenau and was taken at a scale of 1:10,000. (32-8938) Wilson studied black marks which were visible to the naked eye on the Leichenkellers of both Kremas. He determined that the patches were not shadows but did not have any elevation. He could not identify what the patches were or what caused them. (32-8929, 8930)
Wilson found nothing higher than a metre on the roofs of the Leichenkellers of either Krema II or Krema III. His accuracy, which he considered reasonable, was down to the metre level. The crematorium itself had a roof higher than the ground around it and the chimney was quite high. (32-8931) Wilson could not say what the elevations of the chimneys were. Some of the elevations he obtained were reasonable based on some of the crematories he had seen; some were quite a way out based on stereo geometry. (32-8941-e)
He agreed with Crown counsel that the reference report of the Cartographic Branch of the National Archives rated the image quality of the photograph as "good." (32 8941)
Aerial Photograph No. 6V2 (September 13, 1944)
This photograph also showed Kremas II and III at Birkenau and was taken at a scale of 1:12,000. (32-8939) Wilson could not see stereo with this photograph as it had no stereo mate. He could not detect on the roof of Leichenkeller I of Krema II any of the patches he had seen on the other photographs. He could see only slightly a patch close to the crematorium. On the roof of the Leichenkeller of Krema III, however, he could see a similar pattern of patches as he had seen in the other photographs. On neither roof was there any elevation above one metre. The marks were not shadows. Wilson believed the marks were just patches with no elevation. (32-8931, 8932)
Crown counsel showed Wilson a reference report from the Cartographic Branch of the National Archives which stated with respect to 6V2: "Image quality average. Smoky or hazy appearance because of bombing activity." Wilson agreed haze and smoke would affect image quality if it covered the imagery he was interested in. However, he believed he had good imagery of what he was specifically looking at in this photograph.
Aerial Photograph No. 4058 (November 29, 1944)
This photograph also showed Kremas II and III at Birkenau. Wilson determined that the roof of the dressing room Leichenkeller appeared to have fallen down or to have been removed. (32-8933, 8934)
Auschwitz I Swimming Pool
In several of the photographs of Auschwitz I, Wilson saw what appeared to be a swimming pool. In one photograph, it looked as if diving boards were present. (32 8934) Wilson also believed there was water in the pool based on colour tone and the casting of the shadows along its edge. He agreed a reservoir that had water in it would exhibit the same features. He could not say how old the swimming pool was. (32-8941a, 8941b)
Birkenau Road System
Wilson identified a road leading between Kremas II and III at Birkenau which joined up to other roads to the north of the camp. (32-8934)
Wilson testified that the question of image quality was very much a subjective assessment. Better imagery would be obtained on a photograph taken on a scale of 1:10,000 than on a photograph taken on a scale of 1:23,000. (32-8937, 8938) Because the aerial photographs were taken with a very long focal length, they were not good for determining the height of things based on stereo and the geometry involved in stereo. They were very good, however, for determining elevations of some features based on the shadow that they cast. (32-8941c to 8941e; aerial photographs entered as Exh. 134 at 32-8941g))
I see that in a my previous posting I misleadingly wrote "air photo" twice. Never mind.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Lamprecht, MSN [Bot] and 5 guests