For rodochcodohwatchwatch
In one of my previous posts, I was examining a photo that was tampered and altered by "revisionist" reverend Udo Walendy. I zoomed up on the photo and stated thusly:
Rodohcodohwatchwatch noted:
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
But wait a second. Is my saying that the stuff in codoh is filth justified? Yes it is. Once when I went there, the "revisionists" there were trying the disprove the infamous photo of cremations in Birkenau.
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=1103
How did they do this? Hargis (one of the moderators there) zoomed up on the alleged photo which showed spaghetti-like corpses.
After a few seconds of looking at the photo with the spaghetti corpses, I immediately realized that the spaghetti corpses where faked. Try zooming up on the photo. I don't see anything strange when doing so. This is what I get whan I zoom up on the corpses:
it quickly becomes obvious that there are in reality no spaghetti-like corpses; this was just done by a fucked up "revisionist', apparently Udo Walendy, for his own ideological reason.
Rodohcodohwatchwatch noted:
Your commentery would carry more weight if you had zoomed in on the same area of the photo that Udo had.I then said:
Well, you can still see part of the same part of the photo were walendy zoomed in.Rodohcodohwatchwatch then made a ridiiculous assumption:
Exactly, which makes me wonder why you did not try to exactly replicate Udo's work? My assumption is that when you did so the bodies looked rather spaghetti like - so you moved the field to the right.Ok, I was nice enough to make a post specially for adressing this absurd notion. Just for Rodohcodohwatchwatch, I zoomed up on the part of the photo were Walendy also zoomed in:
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
posted by 104839sobe104839 at 4:23 PM
8 Comments:
So it appears to me that your claims of forgery against Udo are totally unfounded.
There are still difference between the two close-ups.
1. Udo's is still significantly more magnified
2. There is a greaer contrast in black and white toning - but the Musuem has published multiple versions of the photo. So I don't think that is significant.
Your photo contains the same feature that Udo's has. If you had magnified to the same extent the only difference would be the difference in black and white contrast.
Incidently, I should just repeat: The photo can be easily identified as either fake or not taken outside Krema V by comparing with the December 1944 aerial photo: this shows that open fields adjoined Krema V, not a line of screening trees.
Incidently here is the version that Udo would have used. Its from the Auschwitz Museum website
http://www.auschwitz-muzeum.oswiecim.pl/html/eng/historia_KL/foto/krematorium_komora_5_foto_spalanie.html
It is not as sepia toned as sobe's version and it is quite obvious that Udo is done exactly what he said he did, magnified a portion without alteration.
"There are still difference between the two close-ups.
1. Udo's is still significantly more magnified"
Go ahead and zoom up on the photo with your own paint program. you won't find anything to help you, that's for sure.
"Your photo contains the same feature that Udo's has. If you had magnified to the same extent the only difference would be the difference in black and white contrast."
whatever; however you want to look at any version of the photo at any magnification, you still find no spaghetti bodies.
"Incidently, I should just repeat: The photo can be easily identified as either fake or not taken outside Krema V by comparing with the December 1944 aerial photo: this shows that open fields adjoined Krema V, not a line of screening trees."
Can you link to this photo?
"http://www.auschwitz-muzeum.oswiecim.pl/html/eng/h"
Broken link.
"it is quite obvious that Udo is done exactly what he said he did, magnified a portion without alteration."
No, with any version of the photo at any magnification, there still is no trace of the supposed spaghetti corpses. Udo is a fucking liar, what can I say? I invite my readers to zoom up on the photo and examine for theirselves.
Try this tinyurl
http://tinyurl.com/2n3ttz
This is the original photo from the Museum website.
You can see exactly where Udo has magnified it. And you can see he magnified it without any alteration.
So your accusations of fraud are disproven and I think you owe him an apology.
If you disagree with his interpretation that is another matter.
The aerial photos can be found here.
http://tinyurl.com/3453k5
I know where this photo is supposed to have been taken. And there is no line of trees on the other side of the fence to act as backdrop. Only open fields, open to view.
My opinion. Udo didn't use the same photo as we can find on Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial Muzeum website. " rodohcodohwatchwatch said... Incidently here is the version that Udo would have used." This's simply not true. And I will show why. He must alter this photo but only slightly. His version of that photo was altered in order to look like drawing. Because 'revisionists' need to discredit this photo. Also we must say that Sobe is not true when he claims that the photo was altered significantly.
This is my zoom on the same detail:
http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/9938/sonder66detailuf6.jpg
I used the photo from rodohcodohwatchwatch's link.
And this is Udo's version:
http://bp0.blogger.com/_0ILfh9mviWk/RdlWmIaNLHI/AAAAAAAAAAw/W0hH52YCjqY/s320/WalendyA-krema3.jpg
There is a difference in colours and also quality, isn't it?
And now let examine this photo and Udo's argument. I emphasized these bodies:
http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/2908/sonder66detail1yi8.jpg
Yes, some extremities or whole bodies are in the strange or abnormal position. But remember. They are not live people, they are dead corpses which are jumbled up.
So Udo didn't disprove anything.
Whether or not Udo disproved anything is open to question.
But its very unlikely Udo fabricated anything and its impossible to claim this from the material represented here.
Udo's magnification is quite old and almost certainly didn't get his source material using web technology. He would either have used a version printed in a book (possibly the Auschwitz Album, a coffee table style book that reproduces this in large scale) or written to get a negative from the Museum. When you use jpgs from the web you are using images that have already lost significant resolution and undergone compression. If you want to demonstrate Udo was fraudulent (as opposed coming to a conclusion you disagree with) you would need to replicate how he got his image and get the best image reproduction possible, ie from the original negatives.
Incidently, Udo spent three years in prison for publishing the booklet this appeared in.
Worth bearing in mind. He paid a price for saying what he believed in
I only wrote my opinion. You said, that "here is the version that Udo would have used." I showed that it´s not true.
And where did Udo write his source for that photo? Hargis didn´t specify that. He posted only sepia toned version and then Udo´s strange zoomed version.
However, I showed that abnormal position of some extremities/corpses doesn´t disprove the credibility of that photo.
I don't know why, but link to the photo with emphasized corpses is broken. So I hosted it again:
http://img93.imageshack.us/img93/8266/sonder66detail1zo0.jpg
Post a Comment
<< Home