Babi Yar Air Photos

[fireofice]

Here is an article on the Babi Yar Air photos that were taken:

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... onism.html

One good thing about this article is that Sergey gives us some useful diagrams on where the shootings were said to have taken place. You can look through them yourself, I'll just provide one here:

Babi Yar Diagram.jpg (60.66 KiB) Viewed 1360 times

The other diagrams are also useful in that they give more specific locations, so check those out as well and the sources he provides.

Now at the time, he argued that we didn't have pictures of the right part of the ravine. I am unsure how accurate that claim was at the time. But that clearly seems to be untrue now. Here is just one picture from Mattogno's Einsatzgruppen book:

Babi Yar.png (294.66 KiB) Viewed 1360 times

A photo of the same area is provided in Air-Photo Evidence HH #27 page 154.

Anyone who is interested can read Mattogno's Einsatzgruppen book pages 561-563 where he gives his analysis of the photo and his response to various arguments against the revisionist interpretation of it where he concludes that the photos are indeed evidence against the Babi Yar Massacre.

I just wanted to point out the photo provided here (and elsewhere) when compared with the diagrams indicate we do in fact have photos of where the massacre was said to have taken place. Am I missing something or did I make a mistake? Let me know!

[Hektor]

OK, he finally gives us some details on their thesis.

Concerning the claims of mass-shootings. Did they find some unusual number of bullets at the locations of the shooting?


Did they find some unusually high number of human remains, e.g. tooth at the proposed locations for mass graves as well as cremation?

Except for coached testimony, they should be able to show us some unequivocal evidence for what they claim that is different, if this was just a normal side during WW2 with perhaps some executions of partisans / their helpers... which the Revisionist thesis allows for.

[TlsMS93]

OK, he finally gives us some details on their thesis.

Concerning the claims of mass-shootings. Did they find some unusual number of bullets at the locations of the shooting?


Did they find some unusually high number of human remains, e.g. tooth at the proposed locations for mass graves as well as cremation?

Except for coached testimony, they should be able to show us some unequivocal evidence for what they claim that is different, if this was just a normal side during WW2 with perhaps some executions of partisans / their helpers... which the Revisionist thesis allows for.

They exhumed and cremated everything and crushed the teeth with pestles or pedal-powered bone crushers and made fertilizer.

[Hektor]

...
They exhumed and cremated everything and crushed the teeth with pestles or pedal-powered bone crushers and made fertilizer.

Sounds familiar. But is there a source for this?

Of course those darn Nazis destroyed all the evidence.... after all it was a conspiracy to exterminate all the Jews.

[Nessie]

What did happen to the Kiev Jews, ordered to gather at Babi Yar, in 1941? Show your evidence.

[Archie]

The massacre locations are all reconstructed based on testimonies, some from years after the fact. But the air photo from the 26th does indeed seem to include the potentially relevant areas. And the clean-up operation is not said to have been completed until the 29th. So it is the right place and time for us to see something, if there was anything to see.

Here is another image from Mattogno's appendix.


(As an aside, I will point out that Nessie has predictably dodged the point under discussion.)

[Nessie]

Aerial photos of Babi Yar are too high up and of low enough resolution, to not show any significant evidence. Revisionists like to pour over them, as if they are experts, because of their limited evidential value, so as to ignore what is totally unevidenced.

[curioussoul]

Aerial photos of Babi Yar are too high up

Source? Too far up for what?

[Nessie]

Aerial photos of Babi Yar are too high up

Source? Too far up for what?

To show details, such as if something was being burnt, what was it?

[curioussoul]

Aerial photos of Babi Yar are too high up

Source? Too far up for what?

To show details, such as if something was being burnt, what was it?

Stop playing stupid. What's your source that it was "too far up" and too far up to see what exactly?

[Nessie]

Source? Too far up for what?

To show details, such as if something was being burnt, what was it?

Stop playing stupid. What's your source that it was "too far up" and too far up to see what exactly?

My source is me, and the photos clearly being taken from too high up to show details such as if something appears to be being burnt, what is it?

[curioussoul]

To show details, such as if something was being burnt, what was it?

Stop playing stupid. What's your source that it was "too far up" and too far up to see what exactly?

My source is me, and the photos clearly being taken from too high up to show details such as if something appears to be being burnt, what is it?

Is that so, boy? You're an aerial reconnaissance photography expert all of a sudden? Using your own opinion as a source? That's funny, but not the least bit surprising.

[Nessie]

Stop playing stupid. What's your source that it was "too far up" and too far up to see what exactly?

My source is me, and the photos clearly being taken from too high up to show details such as if something appears to be being burnt, what is it?

Is that so, boy? You're an aerial reconnaissance photography expert all of a sudden? Using your own opinion as a source? That's funny, but not the least bit surprising.

How would you determine what was being burnt on a fire, from an aerial photo taken from the height the photos of Babi Yar were taken from?

[TlsMS93]

My source is me, and the photos clearly being taken from too high up to show details such as if something appears to be being burnt, what is it?

Is that so, boy? You're an aerial reconnaissance photography expert all of a sudden? Using your own opinion as a source? That's funny, but not the least bit surprising.

How would you determine what was being burnt on a fire, from an aerial photo taken from the height the photos of Babi Yar were taken from?

Smoke from open-air cremations is dark and this would obscure part of the landscape depending on the wind.

Unlike the Kremas where eyewitnesses spoke of flames coming out of the chimneys and smoke, it has been proven that they were designed to emit none of this.

[curioussoul]

My source is me, and the photos clearly being taken from too high up to show details such as if something appears to be being burnt, what is it?

Is that so, boy? You're an aerial reconnaissance photography expert all of a sudden? Using your own opinion as a source? That's funny, but not the least bit surprising.

How would you determine what was being burnt on a fire, from an aerial photo taken from the height the photos of Babi Yar were taken from?

Not answering the question, Nessie. How did you determine that the photograph is taken "too far up", and too far up to see what? How did you form that opinion?