Babi Yar Air Photos

[Nessie]

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?

I have answered you, and you have failed to answer my question, how would you determine what was being burnt on a fire, from the aerial photos?

[curioussoul]

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?

I have answered you, and you have failed to answer my question, how would you determine what was being burnt on a fire, from the aerial photos?

You have not. 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? This is crucial.

[Nessie]

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?

I have answered you, and you have failed to answer my question, how would you determine what was being burnt on a fire, from the aerial photos?

You have not. How did you determine that the photograph is taken "too far up", and too far up to see what?

I said "Aerial photos of Babi Yar are too high up and of low enough resolution, to not show any significant evidence" and by evidence, I mean evidence of the massacre. Even if the photo had been taken when people had gathered at the location, it would not necessarily be clear what was happening, just from the photo. Evidence from ground level would be needed.

How did you form that opinion? This is crucial.

I can see from the resolution of the photos that something as small as a corpse lying on the ground would not show up, nor would a covered over mass grave would be apparent, or if corpses were being burnt, smoke may be seen (as it was in the aerial photos of Birkenau) but it would not be clear what was being burnt.

You are suggesting that you could see those things from an aerial photo. My eyes say you cannot.

[TlsMS93]

I have answered you, and you have failed to answer my question, how would you determine what was being burnt on a fire, from the aerial photos?

You have not. How did you determine that the photograph is taken "too far up", and too far up to see what?

I said "Aerial photos of Babi Yar are too high up and of low enough resolution, to not show any significant evidence" and by evidence, I mean evidence of the massacre. Even if the photo had been taken when people had gathered at the location, it would not necessarily be clear what was happening, just from the photo. Evidence from ground level would be needed.

How did you form that opinion? This is crucial.

I can see from the resolution of the photos that something as small as a corpse lying on the ground would not show up, nor would a covered over mass grave would be apparent, or if corpses were being burnt, smoke may be seen (as it was in the aerial photos of Birkenau) but it would not be clear what was being burnt.

You are suggesting that you could see those things from an aerial photo. My eyes say you cannot.

This did not prevent the Americans from determining that the aerial images of Birkenau were of prisoners being marched to gas chambers where there were openings in the Kremas slab, some of which were clearly faked shadows that would give an absurd size to these openings and rows of prisoners marked in pencil.

Was the aircraft low at the time? Tell us, master.

[Nessie]

...

I can see from the resolution of the photos that something as small as a corpse lying on the ground would not show up, nor would a covered over mass grave would be apparent, or if corpses were being burnt, smoke may be seen (as it was in the aerial photos of Birkenau) but it would not be clear what was being burnt.

You are suggesting that you could see those things from an aerial photo. My eyes say you cannot.

This did not prevent the Americans from determining that the aerial images of Birkenau were of prisoners being marched to gas chambers where there were openings in the Kremas slab, some of which were clearly faked shadows that would give an absurd size to these openings and rows of prisoners marked in pencil.

Was the aircraft low at the time? Tell us, master.

That a line of prisoners is annotated as marching to the gas chambers, is not from the evidence of the aerial photo. It is from evidence from the selections and witnesses who were inside the camp.

[curioussoul]

I have answered you, and you have failed to answer my question, how would you determine what was being burnt on a fire, from the aerial photos?

You have not. How did you determine that the photograph is taken "too far up", and too far up to see what?

I said "Aerial photos of Babi Yar are too high up and of low enough resolution, to not show any significant evidence"

Precisely. This is what you've authortatively asserted, and when pressed on the matter you conceded that this was based on nothing but your personal opinion. So my question remains: based on what is the photograph "too far up"?

I am not suggesting anything, I'm merely questioning you on the basis for your claim that the photograph is "too far up" to see "any evidence". Surely, making something up in your mind (your opinion) is not a sufficient basis for determining whether an aerial reconnaissance photograph is useful or not? Would you agree?

[Nessie]

You have not. How did you determine that the photograph is taken "too far up", and too far up to see what?

I said "Aerial photos of Babi Yar are too high up and of low enough resolution, to not show any significant evidence"

Precisely. This is what you've authortatively asserted, and when pressed on the matter you conceded that this was based on nothing but your personal opinion. So my question remains: based on what is the photograph "too far up"?

I am not suggesting anything, I'm merely questioning you on the basis for your claim that the photograph is "too far up" to see "any evidence". Surely, making something up in your mind (your opinion) is not a sufficient basis for determining whether an aerial reconnaissance photograph is useful or not? Would you agree?

If the aerial photo had been taken on the 30th September 1941 and it showed lines and groups of people, it would be evidence people had gathered there. If it was taken in late 1943, and it showed smoke coming from the ground, it would be evidence something was being burnt.

I said significant evidence, which you changed to any evidence. I agree with you, that your opinion is not a sufficient basis for determining whether and aerial photo is useful or not. Even if the aerial photo showed people, or smoke, its evidential value is limited, and we would need more evidence to determine why people were there and what was being burnt.

[curioussoul]

I agree with you, that your opinion is not a sufficient basis for determining whether and aerial photo is useful or not.

Right, so you authoritatively asserting that the photograph is "too far up" based solely on your antirevisionist beliefs and nothing else, is not a very serious way to conduct a discussion, is it?

If you're going to make a claim, you better back it up with something other than your unfounded opinion. Is that understood going forward?

[Nessie]

I agree with you, that your opinion is not a sufficient basis for determining whether and aerial photo is useful or not.

Right, so you authoritatively asserting that the photograph is "too far up" based solely on your antirevisionist beliefs and nothing else, is not a very serious way to conduct a discussion, is it?

If you're going to make a claim, you better back it up with something other than your unfounded opinion. Is that understood going forward?

It is not my opinion that if the aerial photo showed people gathering at Babi Yar, you would not be able to see if any of them were being shot, or if there was smoke, you would not be able to see if it was corpses being burnt.

As for unfounded opinion, I leave that to revisionists, who are unable to evidence or even agree on what happened at the death camps and cannot evidence millions of Jews being resettled in the east and liberated in 1945.

[curioussoul]

It is not my opinion that if the aerial photo showed people gathering at Babi Yar, you would not be able to see if any of them were being shot, or if there was smoke, you would not be able to see if it was corpses being burnt.

But it very much is your opinion, which you admitted just a few posts prior. Obviously, your personal opinion is of no value when it comes to determining the usability of aerial reconnaissance photographs. Right? You'd have to somehow show that it's "too far up" and what exactly it is you "can't see". Do you even know how far up the photographs were taken?

[Nessie]

It is not my opinion that if the aerial photo showed people gathering at Babi Yar, you would not be able to see if any of them were being shot, or if there was smoke, you would not be able to see if it was corpses being burnt.

But it very much is your opinion, which you admitted just a few posts prior. Obviously, your personal opinion is of no value when it comes to determining the usability of aerial reconnaissance photographs. Right? You'd have to somehow show that it's "too far up" and what exactly it is you "can't see". Do you even know how far up the photographs were taken?

You are dodging my points that if people could be seen, you could not tell that anyone was being shot, or if there was smoke, you could not tell what was being burnt.

[curioussoul]

It is not my opinion that if the aerial photo showed people gathering at Babi Yar, you would not be able to see if any of them were being shot, or if there was smoke, you would not be able to see if it was corpses being burnt.

But it very much is your opinion, which you admitted just a few posts prior. Obviously, your personal opinion is of no value when it comes to determining the usability of aerial reconnaissance photographs. Right? You'd have to somehow show that it's "too far up" and what exactly it is you "can't see". Do you even know how far up the photographs were taken?

You are dodging my points that if people could be seen, you could not tell that anyone was being shot, or if there was smoke, you could not tell what was being burnt.

Your point was to assert, without proof, that the aerial reconnaissance photographs taken by the Luftwaffe was, for some reason, "too far up". What's your source for this?

[Nessie]

But it very much is your opinion, which you admitted just a few posts prior. Obviously, your personal opinion is of no value when it comes to determining the usability of aerial reconnaissance photographs. Right? You'd have to somehow show that it's "too far up" and what exactly it is you "can't see". Do you even know how far up the photographs were taken?

You are dodging my points that if people could be seen, you could not tell that anyone was being shot, or if there was smoke, you could not tell what was being burnt.

Your point was to assert, without proof, that the aerial reconnaissance photographs taken by the Luftwaffe was, for some reason, "too far up". What's your source for this?

My eyes. I can see that the distance is too far to make out what was being burnt to cause any smoke, or if people were being shot. Maybe your eyes are better.

[curioussoul]

You are dodging my points that if people could be seen, you could not tell that anyone was being shot, or if there was smoke, you could not tell what was being burnt.

Your point was to assert, without proof, that the aerial reconnaissance photographs taken by the Luftwaffe was, for some reason, "too far up". What's your source for this?

My eyes. I can see that the distance is too far to make out what was being burnt to cause any smoke, or if people were being shot. Maybe your eyes are better.

Your eyes are not an authority on the usefulness of aerial reconnaissance photographs, especially given your age.

[Nessie]

Your point was to assert, without proof, that the aerial reconnaissance photographs taken by the Luftwaffe was, for some reason, "too far up". What's your source for this?

My eyes. I can see that the distance is too far to make out what was being burnt to cause any smoke, or if people were being shot. Maybe your eyes are better.

Your eyes are not an authority on the usefulness of aerial reconnaissance photographs, especially given your age.

I do not believe that anyone could make out what is being burnt, or people being shot, from the height the photos were taken.