Deniers wouldn't be deniers if they had a modicum of common sense. Case in point, a guy who goes under the nickname "The Black Rabbit of Inlé".
His blog features a piece of "research" which he must be very proud of. He discovered that the first time Pvt. H. Miller's famous photo of Buchenwald survivors on the camp bunks was published in The New York Times Magazine on 06.05.1945, the survivor standing near the wooden support was not there.
![]()
![]()
So, he proved that the NYTM published a heavily retouched photo due to some editor's fit of prudishness. The retoucher was so inept that he even forgot to draw the bottom parts of the wooden bunk posts when he deleted the standing man. In the immortal words of Joe Biden, this is a BFD. Not.
But being a Holocaust denier, the Rabbit obviously thinks he uncovered something much more sinister, since his headline screams:
One only need to take a look at the hi-res version (originally from a DOD site) to see that there's no sign of any tampering. And if one supposes (without any proof) that the standing man was pasted into the negative somehow, it would certainly be the most impressive 1940s fake I've ever seen, what with the textured shadow
![]()
and the fine motion blur indicating (to all non-brain-damaged individuals) that the man slightly moved during the process:
![]()
![]()
The details that are quite superfluous (propaganda-wise) because of the graininess and generally not very high quality of the photo reproductions of that time. And yet these details are there. And the lighting fits. Everything fits. Outstanding! Too bad no one with a functioning brain would argue that such mastery would be wasted on pasting a man on a photo for a reason that cannot be discerned.
I mean, it's almost like one could have just asked the man himself, who in another photo in the series just sits around next to the bunk 27 (also seen on the previous photo), to stand up and pose instead of expending time and energy on such a high-quality photo manipulation, apparently just for fun. Or maybe just use one of the many other photos with similar depictions instead.
Unsurprisingly, many other denier idiots have swallowed the bait. One need only look at the comments below the Rabbit's post. Or google. Then one could find any number of rubes mindlessly parroting the claim, among them our old friend Carolyn Yeager, that notoriously stupid neo-Nazi, screeching about "dishonest photo-fakery" at the pathetic "Elie Wiesel Tattoo" site. Oh, and the moon-landing hoax shadows are making a comeback! ROFL.
On one thing I can agree with the Rabbit and the Goebbels in skirt: there is, indeed, fraud involved here. Just not in the photo.
His blog features a piece of "research" which he must be very proud of. He discovered that the first time Pvt. H. Miller's famous photo of Buchenwald survivors on the camp bunks was published in The New York Times Magazine on 06.05.1945, the survivor standing near the wooden support was not there.
So, he proved that the NYTM published a heavily retouched photo due to some editor's fit of prudishness. The retoucher was so inept that he even forgot to draw the bottom parts of the wooden bunk posts when he deleted the standing man. In the immortal words of Joe Biden, this is a BFD. Not.
But being a Holocaust denier, the Rabbit obviously thinks he uncovered something much more sinister, since his headline screams:
Um, sorry? All we see is evidence of a retouched photo in a magazine. Is there any evidence that the original photo has been manipulated in any way? There is none.The Most Famous Holocaust Photo a Fraud
One only need to take a look at the hi-res version (originally from a DOD site) to see that there's no sign of any tampering. And if one supposes (without any proof) that the standing man was pasted into the negative somehow, it would certainly be the most impressive 1940s fake I've ever seen, what with the textured shadow
and the fine motion blur indicating (to all non-brain-damaged individuals) that the man slightly moved during the process:
The details that are quite superfluous (propaganda-wise) because of the graininess and generally not very high quality of the photo reproductions of that time. And yet these details are there. And the lighting fits. Everything fits. Outstanding! Too bad no one with a functioning brain would argue that such mastery would be wasted on pasting a man on a photo for a reason that cannot be discerned.
I mean, it's almost like one could have just asked the man himself, who in another photo in the series just sits around next to the bunk 27 (also seen on the previous photo), to stand up and pose instead of expending time and energy on such a high-quality photo manipulation, apparently just for fun. Or maybe just use one of the many other photos with similar depictions instead.
Unsurprisingly, many other denier idiots have swallowed the bait. One need only look at the comments below the Rabbit's post. Or google. Then one could find any number of rubes mindlessly parroting the claim, among them our old friend Carolyn Yeager, that notoriously stupid neo-Nazi, screeching about "dishonest photo-fakery" at the pathetic "Elie Wiesel Tattoo" site. Oh, and the moon-landing hoax shadows are making a comeback! ROFL.
On one thing I can agree with the Rabbit and the Goebbels in skirt: there is, indeed, fraud involved here. Just not in the photo.