Christopher Louis wrote:The NYT newpaper photo is an interesting anomaly,
There's been other appearances of your "anomaly"http://www.eliewieseltattoo.com/cover-o ... nding-man/
So what if the standing naked man was later added to a photo of the men in the bunks?
So why does the world's leading expert on Auschwitz
(Robert Jan van Pelt) claim this (from a book published in 2012):
Five days after the liberation of Buchenwald Private Harry Miller of the United States Signal Corps entered block 56. He decided to take a photo showing the many emaciated and naked inmates (inclusive Elie Wiesel) as they were crowded in their bunks. In order to increase dramatic effect, Miller asked one of them to get up, step forward and lean against a post. This inmate was Simon Toncman. This photo appeared in the New York Times in May 6, 1945.
Koker, David. Edited by: Van Pelt, Robert Jan. At the Edge of the Abyss: A Concentration Camp Diary, 1943-1944. Everston, IL: Northwestern Uni. Press. 2012. p.328.
Christopher Louis wrote:I don't see what difference it makes.
There's none so blind as those that will not see.
J Heywood, Dialogues of Proverbs II (1546)
Standing-naked-man was photographed at the same time in the same camp. Or do people doubt even this?
You only know this thanks to Eric Hunt, a "Holocaust denier", according to the world's no.1 Auschwitz expert
(Robert Jan van Pelt, see above), Simon Toncman (the naked man) is present in the original
Christopher Louis wrote:So what if two photos from the same time at the same camp were combined for a better compositional effect and for a more striking result?
A photo that Holocaust scholars claim is original, and have even created, and maintain, a lie about how it was taken?
Christopher Louis wrote:
Do people really think that possible darkroom artistry and technical skill somehow prove its all a hoax and that these people weren't in the camps at the time of its liberation?!
[edited for typo]