[rerevisionist]

What would now be called 'iconic' black and white images of the dome of St Paul's surrounded by smoke were part of the war propaganda effort. It struck me they might be fakes - though I haven't checked carefully.

These images are taken from google images; I haven't copied down the dates and locations (if these were given)


These three images seems to be taken from the same viewpoint. And yet the lighting and smoke seem inconsistent. The foreground buildings don't look right, as though they have one wall only, and seem very irregular for London's closely-packed buildings; and there just seems too much smoke and special effects. And presumably it was after a night raid; could there be as much light during a blitz, or as much smoke in daylight?
But I stress I haven't attempted any serious examination. The similar pair could have been developed with different contrasts and the other image, rather than being retouched, might have been taken at a different time.



More smoke effects. The right hand image looks to me like St Paul's added to a photo of a single building.


Two views of St Paul's during rebuilding of the surrounding area. Even these look strange!

[NUKELIES]

What about the 1666 Great Fire of London? I think that was artificially ignited in order to clear space for the City of London.

Note added 24 June 2016 by Rerevisionist:
Great Fire: there are many old maps of London online, and quite a number are dated around 1666. In addition, there are plans for London, including Sir John Evelyn's (never implemented) and Christopher Wren's. And there is at least one plan of localised destruction, suggesting the extent was exaggerated, perhaps to insist on the need for rebuilding; and some Dutch maps may have had the purpose of exaggeration. I don't know of any studies of the possibility suggested so plausibly by Jesse Waugh here. However, conspiracy ideas appear not to be new, judging by historical comments now available on Internet.

---

Old Jewry in London presumably existed, or flourished, from c 1066 to c. 1290, and/or from c. 1655.

Great Fire of London Monument.jpg (63.95 KiB) Viewed 152 times

[rerevisionist]

Sweet Jesus - another highly convincing idea.

1642 Start of Civil War, nominally Charles I vs Parliament. Jewish money supports Cromwell
1649 Cromwell and others execute Charles I - 'Commonwealth' interregnum begins without a monarch
1660 Charles II crowned
1664 New Amsterdam rechristened New York
1666 Great Fire - after that, only brick and stone buildings allowed within a certain radius
1667 Rebuilding Act
1669 Hanseatic League ends or weakens
1681 Wren starts work on Paul's Church
1685 Death of Charles / James II who was pro-Catholic. Wars and revolts started, or were fomented
1688 'Glorious Revolution' - William of Orange, aka Dutch WIlliam & Mary become Protestant monarchs
1694 Bank of England building in Threadneedle St finished
1697 St Paul's Cathedral into use for the first time
1745 (approx) poem and music of Rule Britannia

The Great Fire had something like the effect of Haussmann in Paris in the 19th century - wider roads and opulent squares. And the fire made it easy to prohibit building from any material other than stone or brick. (This situation lasted until the new Globe Theatre, only a few years ago, became the first wooden building in London since the 'Great Fire').

But - now you mention it... Where exactly did the money for rebuilding come from? An online source says there was a levy on coal! Anyway the same source says the Builders' Guild (I'm not sure of its name) monopoly was abolished. Public buildings were given priority, and these included the Guildhall, City Guilds' Houses, many Wren churches, and Newgate Prison. And the Bank of England building in Threadneedle Street. I have to wonder whether the fuss over St Paul's wasn't a distraction from other such buildings.

Could the fire have been deliberate? It does seem odd that a bakery should be tolerated near tinder-like housing with apparently nothing much in the way of firefighting precautions.

The Monument [photo in NL's post above] was also built to commemorate the fire. It was designed by Wren and Robert Hooke, built of Portland stone, measures 202ft and was completed in 1677. An inscription on the north side explains the height

"In the year of Christ 1666, on 2 September, at a distance eastward from this place of 202 ft, which is the height of this column, a fire broke out in the dead of night which, the wind blowing, devoured even distant buildings, and rushed devastating through every quarter with astonishing swiftness and noise...."

[NUKELIES]

Great Fire - after that, only brick and stone buildings allowed within a certain radius

And the fire made it easy to prohibit building from any material other than stone or brick.

That right there would exclude the plebitude. The Temple Church has been located in what's now the City of London since the late 12th century. I've surveyed the architecture of buildings in the City of London and it has the highest concentration of esoteric iconography of any architectural conglomeration in the Anglosphere - only Rome beats it really, and maybe India. The most striking examples are the statues of Gog and Magog on the Guildhall.

Despite their generally negative depiction in the Bible, Lord Mayors of the City of London carry images of Gog and Magog (depicted as giants) in a traditional procession in the Lord Mayor's Show. According to the tradition, the giants Gog and Magog are guardians of the City of London, and images of them have been carried in the Lord Mayor's Show since the days of King Henry V.

Also, Queen Elizabeth II has to ask permission from the Lord Mayor of the City of London to enter it. This means she is subject to the Crown.

On a side note, I met with ewing2001 here in Manhattan just now and it was great to hear his take on many issues!

[rerevisionist]

You met ewing! Maybe you should edit him ; -)

[ewing2001]

...and *here [half-offTopic] in nyc [2012] this week the new twintowers shined in "red". can vouch for some 'me-witness' ;
they have odd color code messages imo ;

http://gothamist.com/2012/02/27/one_wor ... goes_r.php
Take That, ESB: One World Trade Center Goes Red For Cardinal Dolan



i wrote about a lotta fire riggings in history plus my own thesis on all that at http://1649beginningofhumanz.tumblr.com

[NUKELIES]

You met ewing! Maybe you should edit him ; -)

Lol - His 'uneditedness' is quite cool - talk about connecting the dots!

One World Trade Center Goes Red For Cardinal Dolan

You think that's true ewing? Kinda makes sense actually. I've been wondering ever since Tony Blair converted to Catholicism and Prince Charles attended the Ratzinger installation what's really going on in 'Vatican X' Rome. And now with the current shakedown...

i wrote about a lotta fire riggings in history plus my own thesis on all that at http://1649beginningofhumanz.tumblr.com

ewing that link requires a password

[ewing2001]

i know. i didn't know that tumblr isn't public. i work on some mirror soon ...

[Exorcist]

The St. Paul's photos appear genuine to me but they could well have been touched up to highlight the dome and over emphasise the smoke giving a more dramatic composition.

[rerevisionist]

@Exorcist - it's hard to tell re St Paul's. BUT
[1] Bombing was at night, and London had a blackout - all windows had blackout curtains etc. Could black and white film have been sensitive enough to show detail?
[Note added later: it occurs to me there seem very few photos of night firebombing of Tokyo, Dresden, Hiroshima etc; admittedly people would have other things to do- rerev]
[2] As far as I can recall, most blitz photos (e.g. of cheery milkman in the ruins) are in daylight.
[3] Why would the dome happen to be visible with smoke all round? It's like that 1957 British 'H bomb' film where the clouds have obviously been retouched around the sun. It's what you'd like the photo to show, but, in real life, objects don't often arrange themselves anthropocentrically.

Much easier to get a photo of the dome and smudge clouds around it! Easier and allows for a front page photo next morning.

The angle from which photos of the dome were taken is easy enough to work out ,from the position of the two front towers (one with a clock) and I suspect the linear arrangement of burnt-out facades, in the top photos, has been superimposed.

[Exorcist]

@Exorcist - it's hard to tell re St Paul's. BUT
[1] Bombing was at night, and London had a blackout - all windows had blackout curtains etc. Could black and white film have been sensitive enough to show detail?
[2] As far as I can recall, most blitz photos (e.g. of cheery milkman in the ruins) are in daylight.
[3] Why would the dome happen to be visible with smoke all round? It's like that 1957 British 'H bomb' film where the clouds have obviously been retouched around the sun. It's what you'd like the photo to show, but, in real life, objects don't often arrange themselves anthropocentrically.

Much easier to get a photo of the dome and smudge clouds around it! Easier and allows for a front page photo next morning.

The angle from which photos of the dome were taken is easy enough to work out ,from the position of the two front towers (one with a clock) and I suspect the linear arrangement of burnt-out facades, in the top photos, has been superimposed.

You are right re the "news headline" images but I can't see anything wrong with the last two images. They appear to be genuine.

[rerevisionist]

Comment extracted from mileswmathis.com/dresden.pdf. The photo here is downloaded from German archives. The date is given as c. 1945-6. As far as I know, there's no additional commentary: maybe it was made to recreate the appearance after bombing; maybe it shows the destruction was less large than claimed; maybe other possibilities. Mathis's article was based on Wikipedia—which shows, or showed, unconvincing horror photos.

Was Dresden Another Fake? — by Miles W Mathis Jan 28th, 2016

The back part of the photo, representing the undamaged city, is real. But the forward 2/3rds of the photo has been spliced in. To get your eyes working, start in the open area to the left, where you see some light poles. That is the worst part of the fake. Look at the shadows those poles are casting. Now notice that the black sculpture in that area isn't casting a shadow. Neither is the light pole nearest you, dead center of the photo at the bottom. Now that your eyes are working, study the buildings closely. They have different shadows. Some are black to the right and some aren't. If you don't see what I mean, start in the front right corner. Those burned out buildings are lit from the front, and the right side walls are also lit. Now go back a block, to the row behind that row. Those buildings are facing the same way as the others, but they are brightly lit from the front—going almost white—and they are black on the right side walls. That tells you this photo is a paste-up.