The pictures are definitley all faked for whatever nefarious purposes. I have seen a documenatry about the photographs from WW2 a few years back. The ones you showed were also part of it. That was clearly to paint normal men to be horrible monsters and so to justify a genocide on the german people and all that followed. The war had absolutely nothing to do with justice or the jews or bringing democracy to Europe. I will not say anymore, because there is transatlantian dictated laws in my country to prevent me from doubting the narrative.
But my conclusion is, if they faked those for propaganda purposes and "no man, no problem"-Stalin did as well, why should the rest of them just be made to look nicer? It makes no sense to take a picture and then totally alter it. There are things, we should not see and there are things that we are supposed to think are there, when they weren't. People for instance..... Imakes me think of tartaria and the mud flood.
To establish my cred to comment on this article, I'll note that I sold my first commercial photo sixty (60) years ago. I have many years' experience in wet darkroom work and in the stripping department (yes, that's what the negative prep area is called) in a lithography shop. I'm a collector of historical images and of "real photo" and hand-tinted postcards from 1890 thru about 1920. Some things to consider:
1) Retouching was done during the "pictorial" era in photography to make an image more presentable and saleable - that applies especially to postcards. (The practice continued into the 1960s, where many postcards of different geographic locations all have exactly the same blue sky and fluffy clouds: https://youtu.be/MgpQXz34bqs )
2) Outline-type retouching was done for news photos to compensate for the relatively low contrast of 1920s-50s printed photos on soft newsprint. The retoucher would add a bold line around parts of the subject that needed to be highlighted and clearly separated from the background.
3) Retouching negatives made by portrait photographers was done to enhance the beauty / glamour of the subject -- identical to the Photoshop macros today that enhance eye makeup and cheekbones. This was done to satisfy the vanity of the person photographed and the buyer of the photo.
4) Retouching was a high-dollar, high-skilled subtrade within commercial photography. Anyone with the patience and steady hands to work on negatives over a light table all day, often earned more than the other folks in the darkroom.
5) Lithography strippers retouch negatives after they've been put in place on the carrier sheet, which is then contact-printed on a photosensitized metal plate, then developed and fixed, then mounted on the printing press. This retouching is done to remove scratches, dots, and any other marks that do not belong in the finished photo.
My point is that not all retouching has deception as its goal. Much of it was designed to enhance the pictorial and sharpness qualities of an image, and to satisfy the demands of the image buyer.
Yes, a great comment. Early photos were retouched routinely, for the sake of "beauty" and clarity, and this practice continued through the years. This retouching was considered an art, and professional photographers typically offered this service. My high school graduation photo (1960s) was retouched so that I looked like a wax caricature. I had my photo taken in a Middle Eastern country for a work permit, and I looked like a space alien - and the photographer was tremendously pleased with the result. Of course now they don't retouch the negatives or prints but manipulate digital images.
One of my mentors, who was much older that I was, asked me to touch up - aka change - a photo to be published in a book she was working on, because she said the photo didn't correctly show a feature she knew had been there, and which was germane to the argument she wanted to make. So with reluctance, I painted the feature onto the photo, which was then reshot, and the doctored photo was published. So I myself was a photo-retouch artist. They made entire paint sets for retouching B&W photos. That was in the late 1970s. Her impression of what constituted a viable photo involved the possibility of retouching, with which she had no problem, and yet she was a very honest scholar. She no doubt grew up with the concept and considered it permissible.
Meanwhile, they are now Photoshopping almost every photo that appears in the news or online. ALL the crowd photos - in a demonstration, march, or really any gathering - have people "pasted" in. If you look at them, you will invariably see large people next to small people, body parts cut off or overlapping, and all manner of absurdities. I would say that probably NONE of the photos we now see in the media are authentic representations of reality. And yet most viewers take them all at face value.
Youve got the eagle eyes Agent131. I've seen old photos as you show and always thought they looked odd but it never occurred to me they might have been manipulated or they were ART made to look like actual photos. You'd love seeing some of the vids My Lunch Break (Video) on the Sargeant Major Truther platform on Bitchute.com, here's just one: https://www.bitchute.com/video/1fvhf5lnsIBG/
The author has the same EYE for detail aberrations that you have but he notices BUILDINGS and structures from an old world that our history lies about. Unbelievable what he opens up to us.
p.s.-Loved the pic of the MICHIGAN SAVINGS BANK with VERY visible CHEMTRAILS in the sky over the building.
The "black lines everywhere" in the Empire Hotel photo are telephone lines, partially retouched out of the photo for pictorial reasons. Look at virtually any b&w photo of an American city circa 1920 - 1950, and you'll see hundreds of lines running over the main streets. And telephone poles with as many as a dozen crossbars, each with a dozen insulators. Very few cities buried their overhead utilities pre-1950.
Old real-photo postcards and stereoscopic views ("Keystone" and similar) of city streets, from the turn of the 20th century, often have out-of-scale motorcars added to, and horse-drawn wagons removed from, the streets, because "modern". All done to meet the demands of the buyer of the photo.
I just finished reading an old newspaper from Albuquerque Journal, The month of August 1955. My exact comment, same stuff different year. I've always said, same sh$$%t, different modes of transportation.
I was 11 yro in 1967 when our parents took us to expo67, from Toronto for two weeks we rented a summer cottage just outside of Montreal and we pretty much covered all the grounds. Looking back now, it was the launch of the nwo and the digital age, every country and culture was represented, we even had passports that got stamped at the entrance of all the exhibits...
When we imagrated to Canada in 62, we didn't need passports just ID they called travel documents back then.
As a photographer and photoshopper, I'm mainly correcting issues with lighting, or color shifting... Sometimes remove a bird in the sky because it looks more like a smudge or dust spot and it distracts from my subject. What I've noticed about old newspapers is that the process printing photos itself, brings on a whole new set of issues... they place a screen over them (dot matrix) to get the image to show... however, they often look dingy... I think whiting out the sky, or cutting things out and outlining is attempts to make the end result, the newspaper, better looking. I don't think anything sinister was going on in most cases.
Matt Roeske (Cultivate/Elevate) suggests that dirigibles and zeppelins were painted out of the skies of many photos of old-world buildings, along with the docking stations near the tops of the buildings where they let people out on a ramp. Part of the more advanced technology that the old world apparently had that we are not supposed to know about.
Why do you only regurgitate previously available information on your substack, acting as if it was new? All of the stuff you post has been known for decades.
The pictures are definitley all faked for whatever nefarious purposes. I have seen a documenatry about the photographs from WW2 a few years back. The ones you showed were also part of it. That was clearly to paint normal men to be horrible monsters and so to justify a genocide on the german people and all that followed. The war had absolutely nothing to do with justice or the jews or bringing democracy to Europe. I will not say anymore, because there is transatlantian dictated laws in my country to prevent me from doubting the narrative.
But my conclusion is, if they faked those for propaganda purposes and "no man, no problem"-Stalin did as well, why should the rest of them just be made to look nicer? It makes no sense to take a picture and then totally alter it. There are things, we should not see and there are things that we are supposed to think are there, when they weren't. People for instance..... Imakes me think of tartaria and the mud flood.
To establish my cred to comment on this article, I'll note that I sold my first commercial photo sixty (60) years ago. I have many years' experience in wet darkroom work and in the stripping department (yes, that's what the negative prep area is called) in a lithography shop. I'm a collector of historical images and of "real photo" and hand-tinted postcards from 1890 thru about 1920. Some things to consider:
1) Retouching was done during the "pictorial" era in photography to make an image more presentable and saleable - that applies especially to postcards. (The practice continued into the 1960s, where many postcards of different geographic locations all have exactly the same blue sky and fluffy clouds: https://youtu.be/MgpQXz34bqs )
2) Outline-type retouching was done for news photos to compensate for the relatively low contrast of 1920s-50s printed photos on soft newsprint. The retoucher would add a bold line around parts of the subject that needed to be highlighted and clearly separated from the background.
3) Retouching negatives made by portrait photographers was done to enhance the beauty / glamour of the subject -- identical to the Photoshop macros today that enhance eye makeup and cheekbones. This was done to satisfy the vanity of the person photographed and the buyer of the photo.
4) Retouching was a high-dollar, high-skilled subtrade within commercial photography. Anyone with the patience and steady hands to work on negatives over a light table all day, often earned more than the other folks in the darkroom.
5) Lithography strippers retouch negatives after they've been put in place on the carrier sheet, which is then contact-printed on a photosensitized metal plate, then developed and fixed, then mounted on the printing press. This retouching is done to remove scratches, dots, and any other marks that do not belong in the finished photo.
My point is that not all retouching has deception as its goal. Much of it was designed to enhance the pictorial and sharpness qualities of an image, and to satisfy the demands of the image buyer.
Yes, a great comment. Early photos were retouched routinely, for the sake of "beauty" and clarity, and this practice continued through the years. This retouching was considered an art, and professional photographers typically offered this service. My high school graduation photo (1960s) was retouched so that I looked like a wax caricature. I had my photo taken in a Middle Eastern country for a work permit, and I looked like a space alien - and the photographer was tremendously pleased with the result. Of course now they don't retouch the negatives or prints but manipulate digital images.
One of my mentors, who was much older that I was, asked me to touch up - aka change - a photo to be published in a book she was working on, because she said the photo didn't correctly show a feature she knew had been there, and which was germane to the argument she wanted to make. So with reluctance, I painted the feature onto the photo, which was then reshot, and the doctored photo was published. So I myself was a photo-retouch artist. They made entire paint sets for retouching B&W photos. That was in the late 1970s. Her impression of what constituted a viable photo involved the possibility of retouching, with which she had no problem, and yet she was a very honest scholar. She no doubt grew up with the concept and considered it permissible.
Meanwhile, they are now Photoshopping almost every photo that appears in the news or online. ALL the crowd photos - in a demonstration, march, or really any gathering - have people "pasted" in. If you look at them, you will invariably see large people next to small people, body parts cut off or overlapping, and all manner of absurdities. I would say that probably NONE of the photos we now see in the media are authentic representations of reality. And yet most viewers take them all at face value.
Well-stated. The art of "deep fakery" is many decades old.
Youve got the eagle eyes Agent131. I've seen old photos as you show and always thought they looked odd but it never occurred to me they might have been manipulated or they were ART made to look like actual photos. You'd love seeing some of the vids My Lunch Break (Video) on the Sargeant Major Truther platform on Bitchute.com, here's just one: https://www.bitchute.com/video/1fvhf5lnsIBG/
The author has the same EYE for detail aberrations that you have but he notices BUILDINGS and structures from an old world that our history lies about. Unbelievable what he opens up to us.
p.s.-Loved the pic of the MICHIGAN SAVINGS BANK with VERY visible CHEMTRAILS in the sky over the building.
It was like chemtrails, wasn't it. That was my thoughts as well.
Yet we still say, “Cut & paste,” when no scissors or paste is used.
The "black lines everywhere" in the Empire Hotel photo are telephone lines, partially retouched out of the photo for pictorial reasons. Look at virtually any b&w photo of an American city circa 1920 - 1950, and you'll see hundreds of lines running over the main streets. And telephone poles with as many as a dozen crossbars, each with a dozen insulators. Very few cities buried their overhead utilities pre-1950.
Old real-photo postcards and stereoscopic views ("Keystone" and similar) of city streets, from the turn of the 20th century, often have out-of-scale motorcars added to, and horse-drawn wagons removed from, the streets, because "modern". All done to meet the demands of the buyer of the photo.
I just finished reading an old newspaper from Albuquerque Journal, The month of August 1955. My exact comment, same stuff different year. I've always said, same sh$$%t, different modes of transportation.
No doubt we are being hoodwinked...
I was 11 yro in 1967 when our parents took us to expo67, from Toronto for two weeks we rented a summer cottage just outside of Montreal and we pretty much covered all the grounds. Looking back now, it was the launch of the nwo and the digital age, every country and culture was represented, we even had passports that got stamped at the entrance of all the exhibits...
When we imagrated to Canada in 62, we didn't need passports just ID they called travel documents back then.
https://youtu.be/HaKb3qVL9k8?si=jSu3c23hrpQi3yXC
As a photographer and photoshopper, I'm mainly correcting issues with lighting, or color shifting... Sometimes remove a bird in the sky because it looks more like a smudge or dust spot and it distracts from my subject. What I've noticed about old newspapers is that the process printing photos itself, brings on a whole new set of issues... they place a screen over them (dot matrix) to get the image to show... however, they often look dingy... I think whiting out the sky, or cutting things out and outlining is attempts to make the end result, the newspaper, better looking. I don't think anything sinister was going on in most cases.
CANDACE OWEN talking today about history of sex ed in government schools and the TOTAL LIE around WW2
I went down this rabbit hole with THIS video a while back: https://youtu.be/Qi_QYVFymQw?si=bajy9_18D44k86ew
Matt Roeske (Cultivate/Elevate) suggests that dirigibles and zeppelins were painted out of the skies of many photos of old-world buildings, along with the docking stations near the tops of the buildings where they let people out on a ramp. Part of the more advanced technology that the old world apparently had that we are not supposed to know about.
Agent, you've got "a sairtn set uf skills", as Liam Neeson said in Taken, and you are using them to great effect, thanks.
You should run for President, with Trump as VP. Call the ticket "Agent Orange".
There is nothing new posted on this substack, Everything on here
Why do you only regurgitate previously available information on your substack, acting as if it was new? All of the stuff you post has been known for decades.