MasterGoodale's Mystery WWII Photo Thread (Pics Posted!)

[MasterGoodale]

OK, this just happened to me tonight when my wife and I and my daughter went to visit my grandfather in Maine for a few hours. My grandfather served from 1941 - 1946 as an artillery gunner in Europe. He was the guy who read and set the azimuth on the "Long Toms" he called them. Large guns I guess. He said there was an azimuth and an elevation thing I don't remember what he called it but it was his job to set the gun once they recieved the azimuth from the spotter.

Anyway, gramp was in the "Battle of the Bulge" and has always been very reluctant to even mention the war for some reason. He grudgingly talks about it and it's like pulling teeth to get anything out of him. He's 82 years old.

During our visit tonight we got on the subject of WWII (gee I wonder who's idea that was ) and he brought out some really cool books on Nazi Germany and WWII that I ended up borrowing to read. Then after some more talk his wife suddenly piped up about some pictures my Gramp had of Hitler and Goehring and Nazi soldiers that he had. This was complete news to me and a shock somewhat that somebody in my family still alive had stuff like this. So my big greedy ears perked up and my eyes got all scammy and I asked what they were talking about. My gramp just kind of mumbled and shrugged it off and said they have been in his drawer for about 50 years and haven't hardly moved. He said they were probably no good anyway. Now you can just imagine my interest and hidden excitement at this point wondering what in the hell he is talking about. So I continue to pry, trying not to reveal my anxiety and simply projecting my interest in his service and the war. Neither one of them have ever known what a WWII freak I am.

My gramp finally tells me that when he was in Munich, I think near the end of the war or right after or something, this is a guess as he just said it was in Munich, he found a camera in some rubble that had evidently been dropped or left behind and picked it up. He eventually had the film developed and ended up with about 100 pictures, each about 3.5 inches long by 2.5 inches tall. They are all black and white. The pictures were of Hitler as a young upstart and a couple after he took power, as well as Goering and a few other people I have seen around him in History channel documentaries on WWII. Some of them are VERY close up as though this photographer was allowed to get close to Hitler. Others are of what I think must be famous buildings in Europe (some show street names in downtown Germany somewhere) and others are of what I think are Hitlers henchmen meeting people on the street or something. Many of them are of a few people he seems to be photographing downtown from a distance. There are also many pictures of the Nazi troops in formation with Hitler and generals there with all the swastikas and everything. Amazing stuff. These are ONE OF A KIND photos of Hitler that nobody else in the world has because they were taken right from the camera of God knows who (hehe maybe he was a spy)

So my grandmother (By marriage) tells me that soon after they got married (about 1970 I think) they decided to adopt a foster kid because they just wanted to do their part and help. Well this foster kid finds out about these pictures and wants to bring them to history class for a presentation or something. He comes home and tells Gramp that the history teacher told him they are very valuable and couldn't believe he had them. So the little bastard stole about half (50) of them and sells them to somebody. My grandparents caught him and sent him back to the foster home, but they were pretty upset that they would never get them back I guess.

Well guess who has the other 50?? That's right - MasterGoodale, GrandMaster TNT Chucker!! :mad:

I'm looking at them right now. I couldn't believe it when he told me I could have them. I guess my enthusiasm for the War really impressed him. They are all in great condition but small and curled up slightly from being in a drawer rolled up for so many years. Here is my plan:

Step 1: I am going to flatten them out gradually and carefully in a big heavy book between the pages for about a week.

Step 2: Take the to a high-tech machine or place where somebody can enlarge and enhance the images to about 5 x 7. I pray this can be done without losing a noticeable amount of quality.

Step 3: Try to figure out when and where these photos were taken, and in some cases who the people are. This is where all you Grognards come in!! I plan to eventually post them on the web so that people can help me figure this out. There are no dates on any of them

Step 4: Put all of the pictures, copies and originals, in a nice photo album and make one for me and one for Gramp - hopefully with some information on what they are of and when they were taken etc.

Step 5: This is IFFY, but maybe these can someday be digitally redone in color?? That would be a dream come true.

Step 6: Find that little maggot who stole half of them and kill him.

What do you think? Does anyone want to help me figure out what some of these pictures are of and perhaps when they were taken?

I figure the guy must have been trusted by Hitler and his aides as close as he got to them. There's nothing like the one where Hitler is marching by the camera man all alone with his full uniform and that swastika on his left arm!!! I hope technology enables me to make a nice large photo of that one!!

[ January 30, 2003, 10:05 PM: Message edited by: MasterGoodale ]

[Michael Dorosh]

The Long Tom is the 155mm gun - yes, very big indeed.

Sounds like a terrific find. If you could post the pix to the forum for all to enjoy, that would be terrific. If you want to email me with scans, I can try and help - I know a bit about military uniforms and have some references on civilian and Party uniforms but am not an expert. I am sure many others here will be willing to help also.

[flammenwerfer]

Any nude shots of Hitler?

[MasterGoodale]

LOL nope.

[pavlov]

Originally posted by MasterGoodale:

. . .He eventually had the film developed and ended up with about 100 pictures, each about 3.5 inches long by 2.5 inches tall. They are all black and white. The pictures were of Hitler as a young upstart and a couple after he took power. . .

Seems to be a logical problem with gramps story. If gramps found the camera in 1945, why would it have undeveloped film of Hitler as a "young upstart?" I suppose its possible, but that would mean that the camera sat around with undeveloped film for ten or more years.

[Sublime]

Wow that IS really cool goodale. by the way I liked you AAR...

all seem agreed in Boston, MA, that little bastard who took them should be hunted down and tortured, then some ninjas should come out with some REAL ULTIMATE POWER guitars and played a cool song to find the pictures. And by cool I mean totally sweet.

[Eden Smallwood]

Good Lord! Or what exclamation would be appropriate when talking of such pictures...

That's just insanely neat.

For pete's sake MG, before you do *any* of those public things, figure out/find out how to keep them from disseminating all over the web and lose control over them... Whatever the legal terms are, you know what I mean.

Scan them, stick a big Copyright watermark over them... something. Then let me see them, too.

Eden

[MasterGoodale]

Originally posted by pavlov:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MasterGoodale:

. . .He eventually had the film developed and ended up with about 100 pictures, each about 3.5 inches long by 2.5 inches tall. They are all black and white. The pictures were of Hitler as a young upstart and a couple after he took power. . .

Seems to be a logical problem with gramps story. If gramps found the camera in 1945, why would it have undeveloped film of Hitler as a "young upstart?" I suppose its possible, but that would mean that the camera sat around with undeveloped film for ten or more years. </font>

[Snarker]

Good stuff! I would first do nothing to the pictures, short of making sure they aren't disturbed too much more. Find someone (local museum is probably best place to start)who has experience in preserving photos or anything on paper and ask for some advice. If you're not comfortable telling them what you believe you have, just tell them, "gramps photo's from the forties".

Two reasons you need help - if you try to flatten them out yourself, you may end up putting wrinkles or tears in the image layer of the photos, or having portions of the image flake off the backing.

The paper may not be acid free, and you will lose the pictures eventually as they rot away from the acid unless preserved somehow.

OK, three reasons - I'm not sure if scanning the original photos could cause damage to them from the light (not sure how good the processing was back then, or about light sensitivity), or sticking to the glass, etc.

Enjoy your find! Share when prudent and appropriate. Oh, definitely get someone to verify you (or Gramps) are the original owners. Discuss this with a lawyer friend if available.

[ January 26, 2003, 11:46 PM: Message edited by: Snarker ]

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by pavlov:

Seems to be a logical problem with gramps story. If gramps found the camera in 1945, why would it have undeveloped film of Hitler as a "young upstart?" I suppose its possible, but that would mean that the camera sat around with undeveloped film for ten or more years.

yes, plus how come that one camera (= one film) had 100 pictures (exposures) on it? what kind of camera was that?

I am not by any means in the know about cameras, but 100 pics seems unusual.

[A.E.B]

MasterGoodale

There is no reason for anyone to doubt your Grandfather's story. The explaination is simple.

In 1945 it was a bad time to be a Nazi. There were many people - both allied soldiers and victims of the Nazi regime - who would happily take retribution on anyone who appeared to be a Nazi. This would make carrying around developed photographs of Hitler and other Nazi notables very dangerous indeed.

So what your Grandfather found was photographs of photographs. Lacking any other method of quick, safe duplication, the owner of the photographs probably laid them out and took pictures of them. Hence the wide range of dates and subject matter on the one film. The Camera's owner then probably lost the camera while trying to flee from Munich. Solving the mystery of who originally owned the camera could be as facinating as identifying the subject matter of the photos themselves.

I hope this helped.

A.E.B

[ January 26, 2003, 11:32 PM: Message edited by: A.E.B ]

[jeffsmith]

Should you want to display the pictures

to a wider audience

& not want them to go too far

this may be a good place

Wright Museum

[Michael Dorosh]

What rationale would there be for not displaying them publicly though - except to do what the dirtbag in the story already did, and sell them privately for a profit.

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by A.E.B:

MasterGoodale

There is no reason for anyone to doubt your Grandfather's story. The explaination is simple.

In 1945 it was a bad time to be a Nazi. There were many people - both allied soldiers and victims of the Nazi regime - who would happily take retribution on anyone who appeared to be a Nazi. This would make carrying around developed photographs of Hitler and other Nazi notables very dangerous indeed.

So what your Grandfather found was photographs of photographs. Lacking any other method of quick, safe duplication, the owner of the photographs probably laid them out and took pictures of them. Hence the wide range of dates and subject matter on the one film. The Camera's owner then probably lost the camera while trying to flee from Munich. Solving the mystery of who originally owned the camera could be as facinating as identifying the subject matter of the photos themselves.

I hope this helped.

A.E.B

This completely begs the question of a camera that contains film for 'about 100 pictures'.

Please. An interesting story, but the details make it weak, at best.

On a forum dedicated to a game that makes much of historical realism, and amongst a crowd of people who will argue to the death about 'mantlet armour thickness', 'penetrative ability of the 88mm' and such, an unthinking acceptance of what, on the face of it, appears so odd, says more about people's eagerness to believe, than it does about the likelihood of such a story being true.

No affront to Master Goodale, but there's something simply not right about this info.

[Michael Dorosh]

Oh, nothing wrong with giving one the benefit of the doubt - until professional reputations or cold hard cash are on the line.

[LightningWar]

What is a problem with having a camera that is sitting around for a mere 5-7 years? I have heard of photo development places developing film that was from the 1920\30s now.

Film once exposed can last a long time. I even have pictures from highschool(7 years) I have not developed yet.

And as for the 100. It could be any explanation.

1. Grampas memory thought it was more than it was

2. The cameras was in a case with used film rolls

3. There was a camera that was capable of using film that allows for 100 exposures per roll.

Personally I would love to see the pictures. If this is true. This is a great find.

LW

[Gyrene]

There's a simple answer to the 100 exposure question...You must think 1920's to 1940's...

Here's the likely answer

These types of cameras were around for a while, others might have had similar capacities.

Gyrene

[ January 27, 2003, 12:45 AM: Message edited by: Gyrene ]

[A.E.B]

Seanachai

Please don't be so quick to judge.

Cameras of the 1920s to 1940s era were not standardised models like we have today. There were many different apertures and film sizes. I have personally seen a Lecia tourist camera - dating from the early 1930s - that could take 120 small (1.5 inch by about .8 inch) pictures. This practice of large film / small pictures was due to the difficulties that many photographers had in obtaining new film in the days before the 24 hour photo booth! Without knowing more about the particular camera involved, it is impossible to say whether MasterGoodale's grandfather's story holds water. But I am willing to give the benefit of doubt.

The other point of doubt is whether the original photographs that were rephotographed were actually taken by the camera's owner. There were huge numbers of pictures of Hilter, Goering and other Nazi notables, as well as of parades and other events, circulated by the propaganda ministry and German media, so the photos could be from a quite common source. This could also explain why some of the photos appear to be close ups.

As for the story of how MaterGoodale's grandfather came across the camera? I remember the particular scene from the excellent "Band of Brothers" series where the soldier steals Hitler's personal photo albums from the Eagle's Nest. That event actually happen, and that soldier managed to smuggle the albums back to the USA. Truth is often stranger than fiction. Soldiers loot, and hungry Germans in 1945/46 could easily of traded a camera for food or cigarettes, so the camera may not have just been lying around waiting to be picked up.

If we get to see the pictures, then we'll be better placed to make judgements.

Regards

A.E.B

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by A.E.B:

Seanachai

Please don't be so quick to judge.

Regards

A.E.B

You're right, of course, in that one should not be quick to judge. The whole story seems a bit odd to me, but then, one of the things you get told in a class on creative writing is: 'Don't put something into a story just because it actually happened in 'real life'. If it's off the wall enough, it doesn't matter if it 'actually happened' because people won't believe it in any case.'

So, no intention of raining on Master Goodale's parade, but I think a realistic note of caution should be sounded. I hope that he is in a position to get these photos to someone who can accurately judge their veracity.

[lucero1148]

That is an exceptional find. However as far as I know there has never been a camera made in that format (2.5x 3.5) that could hold 100 shots in a single roll. The nearest equivalent for modern film cameras would be a 220 roll film (about 12 shots) or a camera with a special 70mm film back (which could give you 200 shots). That would be a large and heavy camera to carry around along with a tripod. Considering the type of candid shots that the original photographer shot and up close as well it would be difficult. I would think he found a camera bag with a dozen rolls of film to process. That would make more sense to me. One way to check is to look at the neg and see what sort of sequential numbers you might find on the film's edge. If there aren't any well then there's no way to verify if it came from one or several rolls of film. If you do find numbers on the edges then you might be able to determine how many rolls of film the shots came from.

Storing of the negs should be in acid free envelopes which you can get from a pro camera store or order from a NY photo shop like B&H Photo or Adorama. Film won't flake off from it's base unless it's been sitting in water for a couple of days. Pressing the negs flat in a book will realy be rather complicated. If you do you might want to see if there is such a thing as acid free archival tape? You should tape each neg separately along four edges to a sheet of acid free cardboard cover the neg with a glassine paper . That way there won't be any errors with the neg accidentaly curling as you try to lay it out flat and it getting creased when you apply a book on for pressure and the glassine paper protects it from scratches.

As for scanning negs as valuble as what you described do not lay the negs on the glass of a flatbed a scanner as you'll get unusable scans due to newton rings forming. You'll need a professional film scanner since the format of your film is outsized and commercial film carriers won't have the correct size. You may have to make your own out of plastic or cardboard of the correct thickness and then tape the neg to the carrier tautly so that there is no sags across the film (to prevent out of focused scans and newton rings across the film) I also wouldn't recommend a drum scanner since that involves applying a special solution onto the film and then taping it down on the glass tube. If the technician is sloppy you'll end up with a lot of dirty and oily negs that will need a lot of sensitive cleaning.

Hope this of some help and good luck,

Patrick

[benpark]

Actually, the Kodak Brownie camera from that link cannot be the camera those pictures were taken with. While the roll of film was long enough to take 100 pictures, the image was round. This was the first consumer camera c. 1900.

While I believe the story completly from my experience (which in this case I am authority on, finaly(!)), there were no cameras that took a 100 picture roll of film. The explanation that there may have been more than one roll is plausible, given the amount and time span the pictures were from.

Gooddale-Don't be afraid to scan them, no harm can be done to them. Black+white papers have a life of over 100 years, so they will be fine. DO put them in a PVC/acid free archival storage sleeve, and not in an off the shelf photo album. Your grandchildren will never see them if you do that.

Good find. Hope you can post a few...

[Snarker]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

What rationale would there be for not displaying them publicly though - except to do what the dirtbag in the story already did, and sell them privately for a profit.

Sadly, the rationale and reality is that one of our Gov'ment agencies may try to claim them. "Bah! Nonsense", you say.

Yeah, that's what I said until I found out some shocking stuff recently. I cannot cut a tree down on my own (newly bought and built on) property unless I get government approval. Nor can I fill the low spot that collects water - the surveyor had to report the 10' x 9' area as "wetlands" to the State. It's on my site map! I checked on the rationale - it falls under Federal juristiction as a "possible navigatable waterway, subject to Interstate Commerce Laws". For what? My kids bathtub boat???

Anyway, I don't want to hijack this thread, and I do want MGA to make sure he takes prudent steps to check on the laws regarding possession and to preserve his Gramps find.

[lucero1148]

That ws pretty interesting about the Kodak box camera. Who knows maybe there really was a camra of that format able to hold a 100 shots but it'll be a bit more sophisticated than the Kodak box camera. For one the descriptions of the photos state a variety of shots from close up to far away. So the lense might have been on an camera body that had interchangeable lense's. If that's the case there has to be a focusing system and that would mean either an accordion bag type or a lense with a rotating focus (like SLR lense).

The Kodak camera appears to me as a fixed focus camera and a simple one at that. If the photographer was able to take a variety of shots from indoors and outdoors all with available light than he'd have to be very good with his exposure. A beer hall shot I would think was probably shot indoors with some sort of flash bulb. If that's the case the lense is another step up in sophistication compared to the Kodak one.

All best

Patrick

[Pvt. Ryan]

The original photographer (and copyright holder) is probably long gone. These photos would most likely now be in the public domain. A good place to share these photos would be www.pbase.com

[mike the wino2]

MasterGoodale , only one problem with your plan. Steps #1-5 might be time consuming and delay Step #6; which in all likelyhood will bring you great satisfaction if you can get far enough away so that you don't get caught shooting the lil bastiche.

I would recommend re-ordering the list to put #6 at #1 and lowering the priority of the rest of the items.

Cheers

[ January 27, 2003, 03:10 AM: Message edited by: mike the wino ]