PDA

View Full Version : Pearl Harbor photos left in camera for 70 years



Unified Serenity
9th December 2011, 01:32
These Pearl Harbor photos were found in an old Brownie stored in a foot
locker and just recently taken to be developed. They are from a Sailor who was on the USS Quapaw
ATF-110.


PEARL HARBOR
December 7th, 1941

Interesting photos:

http://partneringwitheagles.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/ph21.jpg

http://partneringwitheagles.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/ph6.jpg

http://partneringwitheagles.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/ph9.jpg

http://partneringwitheagles.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/ph12.jpg

http://partneringwitheagles.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/ph131.jpg

http://partneringwitheagles.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/ph14.jpg

Flash
9th December 2011, 01:35
they are v ery clear for the time they have been hiding. Surprising it did not got naturally erased.

WhiteFeather
9th December 2011, 02:03
Saw this on Godlikeproductions last year. Amazing Photo's.

Second Son
9th December 2011, 05:20
Too bad... all of that destruction could have been avoided, but it was needed as a pretext to go to war.

Cidersomerset
9th December 2011, 10:09
Thanks u/s These photos paint a very clear and vivid picture of the horrors of the day.....

Daft Ada
9th December 2011, 13:40
Amazing, thank you

Lifebringer
9th December 2011, 13:53
War is ugly and created by warped minds in powerful positions. Greed motivates the sick mind that generates a any and all cost decision. This maladjusted mind isn't logical in our future and those who perpetuate that sort of thinking when it isn't for protections of innocents, will not be welcome in their business or other ventures of trust.

Star Mariner
9th December 2011, 16:38
Really interesting. How long ago did they come to light?? Many historians will go nuts over these.

Makes you wonder, doesn't it, how many 'unseen' photos (and videos) there might be out there from, for example, 9/11

Unified Serenity
9th December 2011, 16:39
Apparently they were hidden in that lil brownie camera for 69 years.

Snoweagle
9th December 2011, 17:06
A variety of interesting historical pictures which would probably have been classified due to their graphic nature. And releasing them recently from an an authoritative archive would probably raise further criticisms. Though they prove advantageous to maintain a constant war theme in forum communities especially as there is now a delay whilst Syria and Iran warfare warms to escalation. Continuing the distraction whilst feeding the frenzy.
These pictures did not come from a single camera. These pictures came from either different cameras or different film stock.
On the quality of pictures taken, probably very good, if not excellent for the time though collectively pale against the more vivid photography we are now feted with from confrontations world wide. After all, with a bit of searching we should be able to find HQ film footage of burned, disfigured and dismembered close ups of equally graphic nature and the camera is still warm to the touch of the photographers blood soaked hands.
Yet the story of the Swiss bankers who oversaw the investment of the last five hundred years is hardly discussed, copied or photographed, least of all presented as a discussion topic, as the cause of the action portrayed within the above photos and the finance that originally bought the photography equipment in the first place.

Interesting.

Corncrake
9th December 2011, 17:14
Thanks US - mazing quality though horrific images - even more so now we know the truth about Pearl Harbour. Exciting to find something new after all that time. We still get the odd unexploded bomb turn up in the Thames!

Unified Serenity
9th December 2011, 18:09
I am going off of the news information regarding these images coming from the one brownie camera found with the film in it as my post stated. I don't know if it's true, I only shared what was there. How do you know it's not from one camera? I do believe the attack went on for a while, and one could move from location to location snapping pics. Not sure how you can say it's not from one camera.

Seikou-Kishi
9th December 2011, 18:12
War is ugly and created by warped minds in powerful positions. Greed motivates the sick mind that generates a any and all cost decision. This maladjusted mind isn't logical in our future and those who perpetuate that sort of thinking when it isn't for protections of innocents, will not be welcome in their business or other ventures of trust.

And allowed by warped minds in other positions

Snoweagle
9th December 2011, 18:47
Oh please do not be offended at my comment as I am unable to substantiate it without the originals. Experience and intuition on viewing them screams at me they are "different" for any number of reasons. The news article would be intent in displaying the pictures and not the fact they probably came from a dusty box in an archive somewhere and used to "pump" viewers to the awesomness of warfare and not some librarian clearing shelf space for more recent material. Indeed, they were probably originally categorised by "the ships photographer" on the USS Quapaw ATF-110 as it appears that ship was not attacked, with photos taken from "other" sources, may have used the ships photo development facilities as others may have been destroyed.

Furthermore, to go into detail covering these pics means an awful lot of unecessary distraction to some of real life issues in these forums.

How come the same photographer was at the airfield and the docks at the same time? I think with a bit of research into film quality, synopsis of attack and aftermath is of interest but not mine. Please don't be offended, the news media will stoop to any level to "sell" a story.

Unified Serenity
9th December 2011, 18:59
I'm not offended Snoweagle. I do my best to share information factually, and you raise some good points. I tend to distrust most things anyway that are online, and it would not surprise me if these are from different sources. I only shared what info was there for these photos.

Hugs,

Serenity


Oh please do not be offended at my comment as I am unable to substantiate it without the originals. Experience and intuition on viewing them screams at me they are "different" for any number of reasons. The news article would be intent in displaying the pictures and not the fact they probably came from a dusty box in an archive somewhere and used to "pump" viewers to the awesomness of warfare and not some librarian clearing shelf space for more recent material. Indeed, they were probably originally categorised by "the ships photographer" on the USS Quapaw ATF-110 as it appears that ship was not attacked, with photos taken from "other" sources, may have used the ships photo development facilities as others may have been destroyed.

Furthermore, to go into detail covering these pics means an awful lot of unecessary distraction to some of real life issues in these forums.

How come the same photographer was at the airfield and the docks at the same time? I think with a bit of research into film quality, synopsis of attack and aftermath is of interest but not mine. Please don't be offended, the news media will stoop to any level to "sell" a story.

Star Mariner
9th December 2011, 19:25
I was a photographer for 10 years so know a little about the subject, however I'm still finding the quality of these images remarkable given that the film went undeveloped, locked in the back of a brownie camera for some 70 years.

I suppose the key factors here are how and where the camera was stored. That it was in a (dark) foot locker was fortunate, and certainly added to its preservation. Low temperature and humidity would have also played a big role.

Secondly, whether the film stock was of the cellulose nitrate or cellulose acetate type. I would have thought it was acetate, owing to its robustness, and it was certainly in use in 1941. Whatever the case its a minor miracle that the film suffered negligible degradation... and in fact that it has surfaced at all.

Snoweagle
9th December 2011, 20:16
I concur your comment SM, it is difficult and consensus will be jaded without knowledge of just how many of these are sourced as stated. Maybe a couple were added from another batch so share this public presentation with a "truthful" reference to some that were taken from the Brownie. I am also suspicious that pictures went undeveloped for such an enormous event as occurred at Pearl Harbour for such a length of time and the foot locker thang, I would think somebody might have noticed it amongst the boots and socks. Do you know what I mean? An army marches, so is careful with soldiers feet; so what do matlows do? An unused foot locker for seventy years, would create a bit of a stink I would have thought:-)

And Serenity keep on posting girl, feed this Avalon monster all your insight, let the community discuss it openly.

araucaria
9th December 2011, 21:20
They look like different films because of the different greyness/brownness levels. Such differences might occur on the same spool of film but would not be so clearly separated from one image to the next. Why for instance does each picture have the same tone from top to bottom - it could change somewhere in the middle..

Unified Serenity
9th December 2011, 21:24
I was the head photographer for my University, and specialized in B&W photography. I could get various tones via development process, and that could play into this.

Snoweagle
9th December 2011, 21:37
As an aside to the discussion, something dawned on me, whilst looking at the fifth picture of the gargantuan explosion, in that where did I see that before?
Well I turned my monitor on its side and the explosion, the plumes, the expended fragments and the "feel" of that explosion is remarkably like those seen around the collapse of the 9/11 towers. I do accept all explosions look like that but anyways it struck me as odd why that should pop into perspective for something so dis-associative.

NB the monitor thang, was kidding ok

Unified Serenity
9th December 2011, 21:47
Interesting idea there SnowEagle. Do you think 9/11 was a new type of hologram?