Request: Three Wars - Where Are Combat Photographs?

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
4,027
Reactions
15,712
Just donned on me. We do not have a single combat photograph from three major wars/conflicts which took place in the 19th century.

1. Crimean War: 1853 - 1856
Cr_War_1.jpg


2. American Civil War: 1861 - 1865
US_civil.jpg


3. Paris Commune: 18 March – 28 May 1871
Fr_commune.jpg

Let us get some things out of the way first. I'm talking about the photography. At least officially the very first surviving photograph (below) was taken in 1826/27.

View_from_the_Window_at_Le_Gras,_Joseph_Nicéphore_Niépce.jpg

The earliest photograph to include people was taken in 1838, or so they say.

640px-Boulevard_du_Temple_by_Daguerre.jpg

For additional photographs taken between 1840 and 1845 please refer to this thread.

Major Destruction
All three of the mentioned events inflicted some major damages to the infrastructure. This would suggest that the action which took place had to be pretty serious. Here are 3 pictures to demonstrate the magnitude of each.

Crimean War
Crimean War_1.jpg


US Civil War
us_civil_war.jpg


Paris Commune
Paris_Commune.jpg

Obviously, we have way more photographs showing the destruction. Together with the number of casualties mentioned above, this would suggest that some serious combat action had allegedly taken place.

Combat
Not to insult anyone's intelligence here, but here is what related combat images should look like. Using three paintings, I will demonstrate one image for each of the above-mentioned conflicts.

KD: We have hundreds of combat related paintings. We have thousands of photographs pertaining to the above three conflicts.

Question
Where is at least one combat
photograph pertaining to
these three wars?

Hopefully I simply missed/overlooked these combat photographs. Can you find any?
  • If we, indeed, have none, what could it signify?
IMHO: No combat photographs could mean that all the other photos were staged. Meaning the destruction did exist, but what caused it would become unknown. The existing scenery could have been used to create the desired narrative.
kd_separator.jpg


Separately: Below is Charleston, SC (allegedly at least) during the Civil War.
  • What did these buildings look like before?
  • Do the damages look brand new?
  • Who cleaned up the roadways?
  • What kind of weapons did they use to cause all this?
  • Where are the photographs of bombing, or combat in the streets?
Charleston, South Carolina, 1865. Broad street, looking east with the ruins of Cathedral of St. John and St. Finbar.
Broad_Street_Charleston_South_Carolina_1865.jpg


Ruins of the Circular Church in Center - Charleston, SC, April 1865
Ruins of the Circular Church in Center - Charleston, SC, April 1865.jpg


The Charleston Railroad Depot. Destroyed by explosion in 1865.
The Charleston Railroad Depot. Destroyed by explosion in 1854..jpg


Why are the two different?

Northwestern Depot, Charleston, S.C..jpg


View of Ruined Buildings Through Porch of the Circular Church (150 Meeting Street) - Charleston, SC, April 1865
View of Ruined Buildings Through Porch of the Circular Church (150 Meeting Street) - Charlesto...jpg
 

Searching

Well-known member
Messages
331
Reactions
1,896
I've looked. Can't find any. Hard pressed to even find a body in a field that has a wound and blood.

In the photos of destruction, the background (sky) always looks tampered with, to me at least. I can't say that the photos of the aftermath are unedited. I also cannot say when they were taken. I also cannot say what caused the destruction.

It's the same story we get today, though. Pictures of destruction, but no proof as to what caused it.

It's like the Pentagon on 9/11.
"Look here at this picture. A commerical airliner hit the Pentagon."

21927

"Really? Because that does not look like a commercial airliner with a wing span of about 200 ft. hit that building. Do you have security footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon? I mean, out of the 85 Pentagon security cameras, at least one must have captured this plane crash."

"Uh, no, we just have this time lapse footage from one camera that doesn't actually show a plane."
 

jd755

Well-known member
Messages
776
Reactions
2,062
The cameras were too slow/cumbersome to set up and operate in safety?
The mechanics of the cameras of the day were not up to capturing and freezing movement?
There were no photographers willing to risk their lives just for a photograph?
There were no cameras at any of these events as they all occurred prior to the 'invention' of photography?
None of the events actually happened and what we are shown is staged enactments?
Events did happen just not in the breadth we are told nor in the places we are told?
What we are being shown is what actually happened but the dates are bogus?
What we are being shown is real photographs of real events its just the narrative that is bogus?
They are photographs of an alternative dimension/reality/existence?
They are photographs of real conflict in the land beyond what we are told is 'the known earth'?
 

Raviolli

Member
Messages
13
Reactions
36
Photographers and Their Equipment
65. Two photographers having lunch in the Bull Run area before the second battle, 1862. 90-CM-42. National Archives Identifier: 522912

21979


66. Mathew B. Brady under fire with a battery before Petersburg, Va., June 21, 1864. Brady, in the foreground, is wearing a straw hat. 111-B-346. National Archives Identifier: 524765

21980

67. Brady's photographic outfit in the field near Petersburg, Va., 1864. 111-B-5077. National Archives Identifier: 529185

21981


68. Barnard's photographic equipment, southeast of Atlanta, Ga., 1864. Photographed by George N. Barnard. 111-B-4753. National Archives Identifier: 528870

21982

source
The website implies that there were photographers during the war. But no pictures of the combat?
Third photo (67) looks very fake but maybe thats how the cameras used to give pictures, im no expert in cameras.
 

codis

Well-known member
Messages
136
Reactions
285
As far as I know (heard, i.e. second-hand information), the required exposure time was several seconds at that time.
The resulting "action" image would be a fuzzy gray cloud. Could be an explanation for the missing action photographies.
Hope that didn't spoil the day.
Apropos "day", happy 4.th of July to all fellow Americans !
 

codis

Well-known member
Messages
136
Reactions
285
The Venus passage link gives no timing specifics, we could well deal with several seconds per frame. Which is still common for pictures of the night sky.
But the Lincoln funeral link apparently shows people in motion, albeit not from up close. But it suggests the exposure times were already short enough for such photographs. Assuming they are legit.
To be honest, I don't know what photographic equipment was available at the time frame of the mentioned wars, and how exactly it evolved. At least a point to consider.
But I think it would be foolish to assume reporting from and about wars was not a tightly controlled propaganda instrument at that time. As today.
 
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
4,027
Reactions
15,712

EmmanuelZorg

New member
Messages
10
Reactions
18
The photography of the time is not easy to get action images. Exposure time depends on how much light is present, and the method of photography (Daguerreotype vs Ambrotype / tintype). I’ve been to re-enactments where photographs (‘images’) are captured using the technology of the time. I posed for some of these myself, and exposure times for wet plate images (ambrotype and tintype) varied from two or three seconds up to maybe ten seconds - depending on light and shadow. The Daguerreotype was something like a two minute exposure.

Cameras were wooden boxes on tripods and the wet plates had to be prepared and ready in a limited time before exposure. None of this is convenient to prepare in a battlefield. The field of focus was also somewhat limited as well, so distance images would only work for long exposure times and one would have to know where the action would be taking place.
Collodion process - Wikipedia

I don’t know if the Lincoln funeral was a staged photo but if it was a quick exposure it was a bright day but not much direct sunlight which tends to create a haze appearance over the distance (it makes it look foggy and hazy in the image, all because it’s capturing the bright light reflecting across the subject being photographed).

Photographers at the time did take images after a battle, but they had a tendency to be creative with staging the photos.
 
Last edited:
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
4,027
Reactions
15,712
The photography of the time is not easy to get action images. Exposure time depends on how much light is present, and the method of photography (Daguerreotype vs Ambrotype / tintype). I’ve been to re-enactments where photographs (‘images’) are captured using the technology of the time. I posed for some of these myself, and exposure times for wet plate images (ambrotype and tintype) varied from two or three seconds up to maybe ten seconds - depending on light and shadow. The Daguerreotype was something like a two minute exposure.

Cameras were wooden boxes on tripods and the wet plates had to be prepared and ready in a limited time before exposure. None of this is convenient to prepare in a battlefield. The field of focus was also somewhat limited as well, so distance images would only work for long exposure times and one would have to know where the action would be taking place.
Collodion process - Wikipedia

I don’t know if the Lincoln funeral was a staged photo but if it was a quick exposure it was a bright day but not much direct sunlight which tends to create a haze appearance over the distance (it makes it look foggy and hazy in the image, all because it’s capturing the bright light reflecting across the subject being photographed).

Photographers at the time did take images after a battle, but they had a tendency to be creative with staging the photos.
Every time we post a cliche answer like this, we play into their hands.

They would have broken the matrix if they allowed the actual technology to be seen. Luckily we have some slip ups to judge the capabilities of the time. The exposure issue is highly questionable, and there are multiple examples to back this claim up, for some images did get through the system censorship. Spotting those is easy, but does require at least an attempt to find some.

Here is a few from 1850s-1860s
Seascape with a ship leaving port in Sète, France, 1857
Seascape with a ship leaving port in Sète, France, 1857.jpg

Source

Young man and girl seated on the Canadian side of Niagara Falls, circa 1858.
NiagaraFallsManAndWoman.jpg

Source

Cloud study over Paris, circa 1850s
Cloud study over Paris, circa 1850s.jpg

Source

Fountain - St. Peter's, Rome 1860s
Robert MacPherson fountain.jpg

Source + 1
The existence of the above type photographs could also explain why so many staged photographs have heavily edited skies. Additionally, events like government sessions do not involve that much movement at all. We still have none.

Here is actually the first photographs claimed to be a combat related one. I don't even know what to say on iys contents.
  • This 1870 image is considered the first actual photograph taken of a battle. It shows a line of Prussian troops advancing. The photographer stood with the French defenders when he captured this image.
This 1870 image is considered the first actual photograph taken of a battle.jpg
 

EmmanuelZorg

New member
Messages
10
Reactions
18
The seascape image is exemplary. Waves don’t tend to sit still for seconds.

Niagra and the water fountain I don’t view as being difficult to capture at the time. Water is moving but the general appearance of the water doesn’t change enough to alter the image.

Clouds over Paris - a clouded day and the focus was on the sky not on the usual subjects. The city itself is not the focus and shows up very dark.

1870 battle image is amazing.
 
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
4,027
Reactions
15,712
Niagra and the water fountain I don’t view as being difficult to capture at the time. Water is moving but the general appearance of the water doesn’t change enough to alter the image.

Clouds over Paris - a clouded day and the focus was on the sky not on the usual subjects. The city itself is not the focus and shows up very dark.
According to what we know, any movement more or less has to provide for the blur. In the fountain image the wind is clearly blowing from right to left, and we get a bunch of water dust with no visible blur.

As far as "focus was on the sky" goes, how could they focus on the moving clouds when taking a picture allegedly required seconds of exposure?

We are lead to believe that people needed stands like the one below to provide for a stable non blurry photograph in 1860s.


Yet they can make clouds, and water waves stop to get a good focus on. I find it hardly possible without proper technical capabilities. There has to be a blur similar to what we see in people moving.

1856 - 1857
Gustave_Le_Gray_-_Gustave_Le_Gray_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg

Source

Here is a Great Flood of California in 1862. Allegedly of course it is.
  • Downtown Sacramento following the Great Flood of 1862. The city remained underwater for months, triggering a massive reconstruction project to raise the downtown area 10 to 15 feet.
california_flood_1.jpg

Source

Basically the reasons for not having combat photographs are hardly sufficient. Nobody is asking for the high def photos, just give us something. Unfortunately we don't have anything, or so it seems.

The big question is whether the figures were painted onto the plate afterwards.
Also why the war of Independence tactics are being used in 1870. Those two lines in the picture I posted appear to be 200 feet apart. That’s like a lead ball musket tactics.
 

asatiger1966

Well-known member
Messages
225
Reactions
1,019
Just donned on me. We do not have a single combat photograph from three major wars/conflicts which took place in the 19th century.


Let us get some things out of the way first. I'm talking about the photography. At least officially the very first surviving photograph (below) was taken in 1826/27.


The earliest photograph to include people was taken in 1838, or so they say.

For additional photographs taken between 1840 and 1845 please refer to this thread.

Major Destruction
All three of the mentioned events inflicted some major damages to the infrastructure. This would suggest that the action which took place had to be pretty serious. Here are 3 pictures to demonstrate the magnitude of each.

Crimean War
View attachment 21916

US Civil War
View attachment 21917

Paris Commune
View attachment 21918
Obviously, we have way more photographs showing the destruction. Together with the number of casualties mentioned above, this would suggest that some serious combat action had allegedly taken place.

Combat
Not to insult anyone's intelligence here, but here is what related combat images should look like. Using three paintings, I will demonstrate one image for each of the above-mentioned conflicts.

KD: We have hundreds of combat related paintings. We have thousands of photographs pertaining to the above three conflicts.

Question
Where is at least one combat
photograph pertaining to
these three wars?

Hopefully I simply missed/overlooked these combat photographs. Can you find any?
  • If we, indeed, have none, what could it signify?
IMHO: No combat photographs could mean that all the other photos were staged. Meaning the destruction did exist, but what caused it would become unknown. The existing scenery could have been used to create the desired narrative.
View attachment 21926

Separately: Below is Charleston, SC (allegedly at least) during the Civil War.
  • What did these buildings look like before?
  • Do the damages look brand new?
  • Who cleaned up the roadways?
  • What kind of weapons did they use to cause all this?
  • Where are the photographs of bombing, or combat in the streets?
Charleston, South Carolina, 1865. Broad street, looking east with the ruins of Cathedral of St. John and St. Finbar.
View attachment 21942

Ruins of the Circular Church in Center - Charleston, SC, April 1865
View attachment 21946

The Charleston Railroad Depot. Destroyed by explosion in 1865.
View attachment 21943

Why are the two different?

View attachment 21944

View of Ruined Buildings Through Porch of the Circular Church (150 Meeting Street) - Charleston, SC, April 1865
View attachment 21945
Just donned on me. We do not have a single combat photograph from three major wars/conflicts which took place in the 19th century.


Let us get some things out of the way first. I'm talking about the photography. At least officially the very first surviving photograph (below) was taken in 1826/27.


The earliest photograph to include people was taken in 1838, or so they say.

For additional photographs taken between 1840 and 1845 please refer to this thread.

Major Destruction
All three of the mentioned events inflicted some major damages to the infrastructure. This would suggest that the action which took place had to be pretty serious. Here are 3 pictures to demonstrate the magnitude of each.

Crimean War
View attachment 21916

US Civil War
View attachment 21917

Paris Commune
View attachment 21918
Obviously, we have way more photographs showing the destruction. Together with the number of casualties mentioned above, this would suggest that some serious combat action had allegedly taken place.

Combat
Not to insult anyone's intelligence here, but here is what related combat images should look like. Using three paintings, I will demonstrate one image for each of the above-mentioned conflicts.

KD: We have hundreds of combat related paintings. We have thousands of photographs pertaining to the above three conflicts.

Question
Where is at least one combat
photograph pertaining to
these three wars?

Hopefully I simply missed/overlooked these combat photographs. Can you find any?
  • If we, indeed, have none, what could it signify?
IMHO: No combat photographs could mean that all the other photos were staged. Meaning the destruction did exist, but what caused it would become unknown. The existing scenery could have been used to create the desired narrative.
View attachment 21926

Separately: Below is Charleston, SC (allegedly at least) during the Civil War.
  • What did these buildings look like before?
  • Do the damages look brand new?
  • Who cleaned up the roadways?
  • What kind of weapons did they use to cause all this?
  • Where are the photographs of bombing, or combat in the streets?
Charleston, South Carolina, 1865. Broad street, looking east with the ruins of Cathedral of St. John and St. Finbar.
View attachment 21942

Ruins of the Circular Church in Center - Charleston, SC, April 1865
View attachment 21946

The Charleston Railroad Depot. Destroyed by explosion in 1865.
View attachment 21943

Why are the two different?

View attachment 21944

View of Ruined Buildings Through Porch of the Circular Church (150 Meeting Street) - Charleston, SC, April 1865
View attachment 21945
The.
Charleston, South Carolina, 1865. Broad street picture caught my attention. Probably not much.
The weeds shown at bottom left, in particular the small bush, one inch wide, would grow from nothing to as shown, 12-18 months.
The was ended in April 1865. The picture looks appropriate for that season.

Someone has cleaned the buildings, removed the debris, washed all heat signatures away on said buildings, over a year ago?

Had to be fire only. No holes in walls, sidewalks, roads and lampposts still standing after being run over by fire crews with axes, hoses, horses, wagons, on and on.

This fire type is quite common. In the South it is called "Yankee Fire"
It can burn whole city blocks of mainly brick and stone buildings and has the ability to contain itself in only the designated target area.

This weapon oops, fire is helpful to the next tenants, they have foundations along with trees, and we know how long it takes those hardwoods to grow.

I do not even know what questions to ask, if you do ask them.

Broad_Street_Charleston_South_Carolina_1865.jpg
Post automatically merged:

I've looked. Can't find any. Hard pressed to even find a body in a field that has a wound and blood.

In the photos of destruction, the background (sky) always looks tampered with, to me at least. I can't say that the photos of the aftermath are unedited. I also cannot say when they were taken. I also cannot say what caused the destruction.

It's the same story we get today, though. Pictures of destruction, but no proof as to what caused it.

It's like the Pentagon on 9/11.
"Look here at this picture. A commerical airliner hit the Pentagon."

"Really? Because that does not look like a commercial airliner with a wing span of about 200 ft. hit that building. Do you have security footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon? I mean, out of the 85 Pentagon security cameras, at least one must have captured this plane crash."

"Uh, no, we just have this time lapse footage from one camera that doesn't actually show a plane."

Thoughts:

Most Generals know what happened on that day the ruling class needed money, territory and wanted to display their control over the U.S., that is just a start.
Korbens question is who are they. I think it changes slightly over time.
The Pentagon was hit by a missile fired from a Dolphin Class diesel submarine. /israel/popeye-t.htm cruise missile design for deploy ability from the 650mm torpedo tubes in its Dolphin Class submarines Everything else is misdirection.

Look for the plane, or missile that looks similar to a small plane?

Notice that a wild fire broke out in the Twin Towers parking lot.

The gateway to most killings starts in "The City of London" or Israel. Is it 10, 20, 1,000. We do not know, obviously not their brain washed people. Most regime changes starts in Israel. As an aside,They have won for the last few decades the title of "largest sex slave trading country".

We do not for a minute think that the controllers start here. When you actually work, train and fight with these people, you know they are devious, hateful,smug, laughing behind your back A hxxx.
The saving grace, they are not that smart, they follow orders, so thinking is not on their plate.

Who runs these people, do not know but you will need to get through the upper management to find out.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Top