There are many photos of troops standing around, but I've never seen any photos of combat
>inb4 shutter speed was too slow!
If that's your argument, I'll accept blurry photos of troops in combat
There are many photos of troops standing around, but I've never seen any photos of combat
>inb4 shutter speed was too slow!
If that's your argument, I'll accept blurry photos of troops in combat
Christ, he's right. They're just standing there. That Martin Sheen film was full of shit.
truth is right now
Thanks for at least posting a photo. What is the truth you speak of?
They took a lot of photographs just sitting around. Why would there be none of combat?
>Why would there be none of combat?
They were too busy combatting?
You don't think President Lincoln might want photos of the fighting? Photos from the frontline? I've never seen photos of blue coats fighting grey coats
a troony and two masons
>I've never seen photos of blue coats fighting grey coats
To be fair, you can't tell what is blue in photos from those days, because they were all taken in black and white, unfortunately. The colours they are meant to portray have been lost in the sands of time. Who knows what they depict?
we still have uniforms from the civil war. we know what colors they were.
Freemason pose
Just look at those effeminate shoulders on that homosexual.
>the hidden hands
sigh
Jacobins blackmailed him because he was a Peter Puffer
Söyish stature even by today's standards
homies were rolling into battle with their fifes and drums playing yankee motherfricking doodle, and you expect me to believe nobody thought to capture some combat photos?
Theyvwerent playing drums for fun
War drums and fifes issued commands and maintained cohesion.
What moron is lugging a 19th century canera onto a battlefield to take a swirling blurry pic of something that might kill them.
Also good art hadnt been invented yet in the US so nobody thought how cool a blurry pic might be
and why did they all have such big foreheads?
>and why did they all have such big foreheads?
That's a common WHITE MAN trait, you israelite homie cattle.
Small foreheads with a hairline an inch above the eyebrows is a mutt thing.
>american flag
Oh..
high T white men
why do you think everything was invented from 17XX to 1911
Cameras back then took 15 minutes to take a picture if I recall.
Didn't stop the British in Crimea
>Why would there be none of combat?
they would have had to stand still in the middle of a battlefield or around it....
During the Civil War, civilians famously had picnics and watched the fighting. Why no photographers? No one wanted to even ATTEMPT to photograph a battle?
That was only during the first battle of bull run.
a lot of glass plates were damaged or destroyed
a lot
>photos of combat
>with the technology at the time
because it was the height of tech at the time and it was not easy, you cant just lay around with your I phone you stupid frick
https://www.alternativephotography.com/a-visual-guide-for-beginners-to-making-a-tintype-photograph/
The war was over taxes and tariffs by the way
This is a moron thread, all who bump are homosexuals... unless you post old time comfy tech
No shit? Do you have any idea how long the exposure of cameras back then was? A picture of a battlefield would be nothing but blurs. moron
Why do you still discuss
The cameea shutter shit.
It doesn't matter.
Its all about the moronic narrative...
You fall for a monkey business Illusion.
Read:
And
My family was directly affected by the Civil War.
Your family was affected, by the stupid laws and extortion resultingfrom the laws created as a, reaction to this narrative.
It was Theatrorism.
Not a war.
The powers that was, burned a shitton of cities.
Derailed trains, and starved people.
That put guilt on the """war""".
And yes. Your family was directly by it.
By the word theatre.
Extrotion happened.
Starvation happened.
And all justified by a event that had a
> REENACTMENT
When it wasn't even finished?
Really?
What stupid story is that?!
This thread is moronic. Cameras in those days had a very slow shutter speed. That's why almost all photographs from that era are portraits of people posing. Also why people didn't smile. Try holding a smile for 5 minutes.
OP IS A homosexual
2-3 second exposure time by 1851
That's still not enough time to take a photo of violence.
yes, it is when the violence is in line formation
2-3 seconds of movement is blurry as frick. You think they're just going to stand still for a photo? Tou think a cameraman is going to expose himself in the line of fire for 2-3 seconds?
they stood still to shoot at each other man even took 20-30 secs to reload. you would still see the formation while the individual soldiers might be indistinguishable
Also setting up a camera was a laborious affair. You wouldn't be assembling it the minute a bombardment starts or exposed on a battlefield.
you don't need to be in combat when your focal length is roughly 100mm. there are also accounts of people watching the battles from afar but still close enough to see what was going on which is enough to at least capture a battle with blurry soldiers in line formation. perhaps the smoke would be hard to deal with but at least it would be an example of civil war combat photography
poor people get to be footsoldiers and kill eachothers, rich people get to be horsemen and pose for portraits, that's war
A lot of horsemen died too. Serving in the cavalry wasn't really fun. being ordered to attack quarrees of infantry and artillery with nothing but a fricking sabre or lance. Didn't do that in the civil war, though. Most cavalry mainly used their pistols afaik.
Itnwaant a war so much as a standoff that was broken when the north invaded and burnt cities in the south. It was more about paying off the revolutionary war debt the US founding fathers had borrowed from israelites to fund. The north felt they were entitled to southern plantation materials for free to pay for the war debts.
Yes
Is this another moronic slide thread?
No I'm just generally curious if anyone has American Civil War combat photos. I haven't seen them.
Look into history of photography. Silver oxide takes time to be properly exposed on glass plates. Long exposure time, glass plates, heavy wooden camera frames, big glass lenses and deadly, mortal combat don't mix well.
So you don't have any photos of combat?
>history of photography
they got the exposure time down to 2-3 seconds 10 years prior to the war using a collodion photography. more than enough for combat in my opinion. sure, blurry but the surroundings (cannons, auxiliary, trees, etc) would be in focus and it would work enough to get the formations
There also seem to be a lot of people in this thread who have absolutely no understanding of line doctrine.
Units in formation stand still most of the time. They rarely manoeuvre because when the enemy shoots them they don't stay ranked up as easily. You want to be in position before you have to be in position.
Then quite unlike the TBS movies, the lines stand still and shoot each other from a distance. They don't move in, they don't approach, they don't even charge.
Especially by the ACW, musketry had advanced to the point where maintaining maximum range was the preferred strategy for all. The casualty rate was simply too high otherwise.
That's why the ACW barely moved when engagements did occur.
Point being, the ACW may well have been the single most suitable military conflict for 19th century photography.
If there were going to be photographs of combat in action, 1862 would've been the time to take them.
No. A civil war is different parts of the population fighting for control of the government. The south legally left the union. The war was a war of conquest by ~~*Federalists.*~~ It was a war to undo what had been done during the revolution.
This has to be a bot.
I am asking an image board for photos, not opinions
did anything happen before photography, homosexual?
Frick off to /r/, Black person. This is a political discussion forum.
Unironically I'm starting to think it didnt
This guy gets it.
>muh Constitution can never be broken by the signatories to it (the various States), ever
>South says frick that, it's a contract between the states, and we're withdrawing because the North didn't follow the rules
>legally broke the contract and formed their own sovereign nation
>lincoln gets butt-hurt and invades what is essentially a foreign nation
>muh greatest president ever even though he could not get his policies passed by Congress, half the states withdrew because of his shitty leadership, and he got 750,000 Americans killed or maimed
>This has to be a bot.
Nope. Not everyone thinks Lincoln was right.
Nobody is talking about any of this.
I just want to see any photos of combat in the Civil War. I don't give a frick about Lincoln or who was right.
>I just want to see any photos of combat in the Civil War. I don't give a frick about Lincoln or who was right.
And I'm saying this is now a "Civil War: Right or Wrong" thread so you can frick off out of it.
is that an elephant
Whoa... what's with the megaphones?
>Whoa... what's with the megaphones?
re-enactments. probably to coordinate the battle scenes
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/photo-booth/richard-barness-civil-war-renactments
Seriously... didn't know they had megaphones back then. How did they work? What did they do? They surely weren't electronic, right?
got it from here, they're re-enactment photos photgraphed with civil war era cameras, so not what youre looking for. the other ones are real from here https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/brady-photos
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2207344/Civil-War-brought-life-Photographer-uses-period-techniques-recreate-battlefields-centuries-ago-glimpses-modern-world.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathew_Brady
https://allthatsinteresting.com/civil-war-photos#3
Anon the more you post the more I think the Civil War is fake
>no visible faces
>no visible blood
Look anon, I fell for a holohoax once, I know what to look for.
these guys are doing it right. Lying absolutely still. great shot.
Look if you're not going to post combat photos can you stop? This is just more camping.
does this constitute a battle photograph to you or are they just resting?
Hey this one's not half bad, no megaphones either
It is weird thay the blood on the left guys hand perfectly cuts off at the wrist, but this is the best you've posted so far
Because his sleeve covered his wrist, and has slightly raised when he fell back giving that line of blood to no blood.
That's a pretty clean line though, you have to admit
You are asking for photos, now you're just trying to match your bias that something didn't happen. It's probably more dirt than blood.
>trust me, it was 6 gorzillion
This is what you sound like right now.
Schizo.
it's real
>US Civil War. Second Battle of Fredericksburg, (Second Battle of Marye's Heights), May 3, 1863, was part of the Chancellorsville Campaign. Andrew Russell photographed the dead Confederate soldiers behind the stone wall at foot of Marye's Heights, 20 minutes after the successful assault of the 5th Wisconsin and the 6th Maine Infantry regiments. (BSLOC 2018 8 119)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_J._Russell
These photos are all the same, never show the target. No photos of southern cities getting flattened. Only union soldiers loading cannons
Very few people want to stand between the cannoneer and the cannonee.
Given the self-preservation typical of the photographers I know, that alone may not have prevented action shots. However, the fact that the man standing between cannoner and cannonee is ALSO between the cannonee's last defensive fusillade and the cannoner may have reduced the number of that type of action shot that were successfully taken and developed.
>>only head would be exposed
His position is pretty wide open from behind, as shown by the amount of space between camera and corpse. If the enemy overran the trench from both sides, or stealthily infiltrated, they could have shot him in the back. If he was unaware of enemy presence, he could have climbed up higher to survey. Keep in mind, also, that the weapons of the time were often pretty inaccurate - it may be a wiser option for a soldier to stand tall and get a good view of enemy positions for a fraction of a second than to use up all his ammo firing from a turtle position and get overrun anyhow.
>totally dug in to his position
>only head would be exposed
>shot dead, apparently
>no wounds on head
Come on, anon, give me proof
No bullet wounds, no blood
Obvious crisis actors
this is the closest I could find of an active battlefield
here is a naval battle
>George Cook, half stereo of Federal ironclads firing on Fort Moultrie, Sept 8, 1863 (click to enlarge) – The Valentine, Richmond, Va.
Interesting Stanfort. Better than nothing, we're getting somewhere.
Ok so we've got people and boats in motion with minimal blur, proving combat photography would be possible. Notice the boat in the foreground. And all these people, no major motion blur. So where's the grey vs blue combat?
>minimal blur
The ones moving look like fricking ghosts. Even the ones standing still are blurry af. Stop being moronic.
>Stop being moronic.
He can't or the thread stops
another
>ITT we prove homies wuz kampin'
Looks like people doing cleanup aftera tornado
Wait I thought cameras were cumbersome and photographers weren't in combat, how'd they get there in only 20 minutes?
>cameras were cumbersome
so were cannons
Can see one dead guy looking at his iphone. Reenactment fail.
Must be for the director who is staging the photographs just like they staged the holocaust ones.
edison invented the first electronic megaphone after the war, that there is electronic
This is a step in the right direction, thanks. Keep them coming if youve got more.
Hey there's a megaphone here too... what's up with this?
Probably a gramophone playing war songs
moron detected
Exposure times were like 5-10 seconds
In battles that rage on for days, I'm sure there were periods of 5-10 seconds during bombardments that photos could be taken. I'm just looking for any photos showing active combat.
Nobody will stand still for them. The photos would just be a blur.
what's the best film to watch about the American Civil War?
Hollywood hates Gods and Generals.
It took a long time to take pictures back then. You had to sit still for 10-15 minutes. If you didnt the picture came out a blurry mess. In combat people dont just sit still staring at the camera for that long.
This
Other anons said it took 5-10 seconds. I don't think anyone is arguing a photo took 10 minutes back then. Howd they get the horses in my OP to stand still for 10 minutes?
If every photo took 10 minutes and there are 1000s of photos, whyd they waste so much time taking photos at all during the war?
We give Zelensky shit for giving interviews during his war but Abraham Lincoln was out there having photos taken all the time.
>Though early daguerreotype images required an exposure of around twenty minutes, by the early 1840s it had been reduced to about twenty seconds. Even so, photography subjects needed to remain completely still for long periods of time for the image to come out crisp and not blurred by their movement. Sometimes squirming children were put into restraints for the duration of the photo shoot. This need for stillness made posing for a picture a serious business, so the practice of smiling for the camera did not become standard until the 1920s, when technological advancements in camera production allowed for shortened exposure times.
https://dp.la/exhibitions/evolution-personal-camera/early-photography
I guess they took so many for the civilians. I dont fricking know man.
You don't think the federal government would take photos for reconnaissance and other military research purposes?
They had scouts for that back then. The Battle of Gettysburg happened partially because a scout fricked up.
No problem.
Yeah the answer of course is no. It was fake and gay like everything considered by the typical /misc/ ‘tard considers. The historic battlefield sites are f&g, the cemeteries are f&g, the soldiers themselves??? You guessed it! F&G like their uniforms, flags, states etc etc etc. All F&G. The fact is everything is F&G including you OP, nothing has ever happened, not even once. Cope.
>everything considered by the typical /misc/ ‘tard considers
Don’t be a Black person and learn something OP. Fricking hell. https://www.thoughtco.com/combat-photographs-from-the-civil-war-1773718 Your ignorance is just painful you fricking prostitute Black person.
So then photos like this are staged?
>I know you're busy loading casualties onto the wagon, but my camera is slow so do you mind standing still for a moment?
Literally yes.
It was a new technology.
For fricks sake we still do equally stupid shit to this day
It's obviously staged
How would that wagon get in that position without running over the wounded behind it? Or did they just back the wagon in?
the two directly behind it look like they haven't been moved but the men on stretchers could have been brought over to be loaded after the wagon passed them
This is not necessarily as staged as it looks.
Two of the men are lying on blankets, which means either the "other side" shot them while they were on blankets or they were moved onto the blankets after being injured. It is reasonable to suppose that they may have run out of blankets and just had the two right behind the wagon flop there.
While backing up a horse-drawn carriage is more annoying than backing an automobile, it's certainly possible. Video related. In addition, the horses are detachable, so the wagon could be pushed into position.
The only bit that appears clearly staged is everyone holding still for a long-exposure phote. However, the wagon has limited capacity and the injured people have nothing better to do than lie around trying not to die; posing for the photo is unlikely to have meaningfully disrupted their medical care.
(Given the state of medicine at the time, I'm not sure if disrupting their medical care would have made things worse or better, but that is beside the point.)
earth was created in 1912, moron, of course the civil war never happened
exposure times were too high in early photography, so only people standing still can show up.
The hard truth is, they were battling dinosaurs
>Formerly Chuck's
wtf
The sign is a subtle joke. The shop is called "Sneed's Feed & Seed", where "feed" and "seed" both end in the sound "-eed", thus rhyming with the name of the owner, Sneed. The sign says that the shop was "Formerly Chuck's", implying that the two words beginning with "F" and "S" would have ended with "-uck", rhyming with "Chuck". So, when Chuck owned the shop, it would have been called "Chuck's Feeduck and Seeduck".
https://www.jewworldorder.org/jews-caused-civil-war/?__cf_chl_tk=Ezl3K7ujT.71XHd9w.irV89id50SkTxDEOcAPeqaTfs-1670295546-0-gaNycGzNSuU
my great grandfathers father was in the civil war. hes 96 now and trust what he says
So far ITT we've had
>discrediting shills
>blatant posting of reenactment photos
>LOTS of camping
>Some guys loading cannons
What we haven't seen ITT so far
>photos of combat from the American Civil War
>photos of combat from the American Civil War
I know your trolling but didn't old cameras take like 20 minutes to set up and everyone had to stand perfectly still?
Thanks will check it out
There's countless old photos like this, what'd they do, tell everyone in the street to stand still?
>everyone had to stand perfectly still?
They had instant cameras back then, but the most common cameras took 2-10 seconds to snap a photo. Pretty sure SLRs were around like ten years before the Civil War, but idk how easy it was to get one to the US
The whole discussion about:
> MUH POTENTIAL technology.
The whole story does not make sense.
There was so much shit happening in that time, that is considered a "mystery".
And "oh we accidentally lost all records of it".
And then of course the wierdest narrative cementing ritual was created:
> lets make a theatre play each year to remember the Civil war
> memorial day
> Reenacting the American Civil War began even before the real fighting had ended. Civil War veterans recreated battles as a way to remember their fallen comrades and to teach others what the war was all about
And this happened.
Yeah... sure.
How moronic is it to have a reenactment, WHEN THE WARE ACTUALLY DID NOT EVEN END?
SO HOW DO YOU KNOW THESE PHOTOS ARE NOT FROM THE REENACTMENT?!
I'm not arguing with you or saying otherwise, I just posted what tech they would've had back then. Lord knows if it really happened or not
> Lord knows if it really happened or not
Yes. Only Lord knows.
cool psyop idea, I bet we could make it work
homie we already been psyoped. I'm just noticing it kek
we killed more btw
How is he doing that?
Holy shit. I lived on belle plains road. I've been right where this photo was taken.
Fakes are as old as pictures, also retakes
the world is only 200 years old. it came pre-created with many of the houses and roads already built. we are currently in a simulation prison where we labour and toil for things that do not matter. we stress and grieve for things that do not matter. we cry and feel constant pain and defeat. its called hell.
I agree, I believe God made all the old architecture. We put up shitty wooden copies and wage slave our ways into debt. It's all becoming clear.
Check out jon levi and mind unveiled channels.
They dive into this.
Mind did a video series on how these photos are completely staged and muh shutter speed is literally a none argument
This video is why I made this post. I've been watching Jon for years
looks like they interviewed soldiers on the battlefield. here's your proof.
I’ve literally visited my great (x3) grandfather’s grave. He fought in the union army and lived until 1917. You’re telling me that he never fought? I also have relatives down in Georgia that owned a plantation and fought in the war. You’re telling me they never fought? Why has no civil war veteran ever mentioned that it never happened?
>My grandma was a holocaust survivor! How dare you!
Anon, we're just looking for truth. I just want photos.
Bait post
Didn’t pics take like ten fricking minutes back then for one frame?
no, 2-3 second exposure times by 1851
War isn't massive armies marching upon one another. War is psychological. Capture the media apparatus of a nation, capture their institutions, destroy their financial districts. Look at the locations of all the 'great fires' of the major cities of the US during the 1800s; they all started in financial districts; a massacre of the prior elites.
At this point I've got to believe your an MI6 homie trying to get this thread archived as fast as possible. You're just posting the same shit that isn't what I'm asking for. SHOW ME WAR, NOT CAMPING
I've posted dead soldiers still holding their rifles, guys loading cannons, an active battlefield, a naval battle, and spectators watching soldiers preparing for battle all in 4k.
no holohoax victims?
Have you ever been to a civil war battleground? I live 15 minutes from one. Theres still musket ball holes in the house in the middle of the field. You can dig and find old musket balls, along with other shit there. Pieces of cannonball too.
Yeah I live pretty close to Gettysburg and took my obligatory field trips as a kid.
Maybe you should go again and dig this time. I love doing that, I found an old canteen at Plymouth. I live close to Bentonville.
I did not expect OP to convince me coming in, but homosexuals posting re-enactment photos to try and fool him while being able to provide nothing that he asked for is pretty telling
Even people like are no different than those who say "look at this massive pile of shoes! There's even a red one, like that movie you goys love"
The only US Civil War combat any of us have ever seen is in film
And theres a reason for that.
Like an hour ago I never doubted the Civil War but now I'm almost convinced it didn't happen. Sure, homies wuz kampin' but I've yet to see them fight.
In the unlikely event the so-called US Civil War ever happen irl, let it be remembered by picrel
https://www.thoughtco.com/combat-photographs-from-the-civil-war-1773718
Just read this.
>Just read this prebunk
Jesus christ I thought pol was better than this
Because it pretty much summarizes it.
>cameras too big to carry around
>too dangerous even though people had picnics to watch the battles
Only one battle is that documented happening. And the chemical process of it with extremely sensitive chemicals also made it hard to do in battle.
people are having picnics at the same time which would mean more than enough time for a 10-minute process. some people would haul their collodion equipment thousands of miles just to shoot landscapes back then. I'm not denying the civil war just think its interesting not a single photographer tried combat photos
Im sure somebody tried. The picture probably came out so blurry you couldnt even tell what was going on. Or the conditions ruined it.
Most likely. But the picnic thing only happened once.
Even if it was a bad photograph technically speaking there are examples from ww2 that are blurry and fricked. these were still cataloged and saved. but I guess I could understand if one might throw away his costly wet plate if it wasn't good enough even if I wouldn't personally. especially if I wanted to remember the settings along with the resultant photograph(as a bad settings example) to avoid the same mistake
also, nobody watched any other battle besides Bull Run from afar?
This reals like NASA moon landing cope. Thousands of words when we only asked for non-CGI photos
Because it was practically impossible dude.
>Why weren't they all livestreaming to twitch?
>thread by a drooling moron
>148 moronic replies
/nupol/ cancer
I don't know about psyop civi war, the fake and gay is definately the reasons we are taught it was faught oveer now. I'm curious if this is a real practice slide thread or if something is actually going on this Sunday morning
sage.
sage
sage
sage
Look to the current record.
Monuments, statuary. all references being scrubbed.
The whole Civil War was just a meme.
Pictures of armies never show thousands at a time, it's never even more than 100. Not even just the civil war: anywhere.
Supposedly, tens of thousands fought in every major battle in the civil war, with thousands on each side dying. Pictures don't show that, ever. Not any world war pictures either.
There were Nazi ones but still
id you really doubt it happend and you main indicator is missing "action" pictures, do it the other way around: search for other conflits that occured during those years and see if you can find "action" pictures. If not a conflict then maybe a train in full run or cowboys galloping or something like that ... cant find any? then the chance that the shuttertime was just too long has upped a lot. Find plenty? ...well maybe you are on the trail of something suspicious (which i knda doubt, look for "record of rebell yell" are the wake of the 20th century some vets were invited to record that iirc)
There is a fine line between hypercritical and paranoid anon ..
Gee if only the south was littered with statues of important figures, monuments to a war now passed but placed there to serve as a remembrance of the past, that it may never be forgotten.
Also yes it happened, I went back and checked .
Sorry but a bunch of troons tore those statues down two years ago so you better get your photographic evidence out there so it's never forgotten
I wouldn't be surprised one bit of you were a troony
George Floyd Murals
recorded at some point in the 30s, cant find the link to the older recording now
>45 posts
Goddamn I know it's a sunday but frick
gonna find something better to do with my day than this.
israelite well poisoning, anon. Just point it out every opportunity you get and then move on. They're behind flat earth threads too.
>asks for evidence
>no one delivers
>this is israeli well poisoning
Now I know I'm onto something...
I grew up in Prince William County VA and you can still to this day walk around and find war detritus all over the place, musketballs wedged in trees etc.
You know how the left complains about gun ownership and the 2A didn't mean "assault weapons". The Civil war was heavily funded by private entities and those cannons on the battlefield were privately owned.
It was just some genocide and bombing of cities of people who didn't want tsome NWO shit going on.
There were laws which forbid the growing of wheat and shit.
A lot of mystery "Fires" like in chicago, peshtigo etc.
A lot of burned Patent offices during that time.
It was more "tetrorism" than a war.
They just bombed and burned cities.
Then they pretended a war happened, what it was acutally just some extortion method by deploying some chaos.
They had litterally:
Bomb squats.
They bombed the buildings to "extingish" fires.
https://odysee.com/@WakeUpMirror:3/cbs:4
https://odysee.com/@ChadPrestonOfficial:9/the-demo-crew-conspiracy-r-us:6
Prolly they just destabilized the more or less independent communities to force them into what the USA now is.
The israelites were the winners of the Civil War. It benefited them greatly.
This, making 1/10 people in the country a slave was enough to get a foothold and open the floodgates after a century later.
You can find numerous battlefields across the Southern and Eastern US where to this day they find spent rounds and shrapnel from the battles. You are a fricking idiot.
Not what I asked for
I hate these gay stealth tartaria threads. Let's all put our collective effort into the federal reserve conspiracy. After that you guys can go back to playing with one world free energy government utopia.
Ok you're not wrong but neither am I.
&yes this is a tartaria thread
I care about you anon. Tartaria is a limited hangout. A psyop to make you accept resets and one world government,
The key to preventing more resets is to identify the controllers and expose them. They may try and reset us again, but we must try and understand the extent of their power and the ways in which they employ them.
This is a simple ask: combat photos from the American Civil War
192 replies later and none provided.
Every square inch of land on Earth is the rightful clay of the White man. You’re damn right I believe in a one world government - ours.
Tartaria was destroyed by israelites to start this whole mess of a global society we live in now.
Tartaria was built for wireless electrical generation ala Coronamotors. Atmospheric Energy systems.
World War I was part of the depopulation and destruction of the various royal families and nations of Tartaria.
Here are warships battling in the 1860's
http://www.annavonreitz.com/annavonreitz.pdf
Two notes:
- One: /misc/ is not the United States of America. Posting your dumbshit PDF her does not count as legal process service to any person, group, corporation, or government. It doesn't even count as legal process service to hiromoot.
- Two: Your legal document is schizo bullshit. The US is not a religious corporation of any sort. The Pope has no legal authority over the US and cannot revoke bar association licenses.
- Three: a minor note, but under real laws (as opposed to papal sovereign schizo law) killing people to collect on their life insurance policies is a crime. Real law enforcement investigates suspicious deaths; should someone collect millions of dollars in life insurance payouts, both cops AND INSURANCE COMPANIES will notice and wonder if the person collecting the money had anything to do with the killing.
- Four: Income tax is explicitly authorized in the United States Constitution; additionally, income tax was not forbidden prior to the Amendment authorizing it. Rather, corrupt Supreme Court officials ruled, falsely and without precedent, that the United States was not permitted to impose income taxation.
- Five: The document begins with:
>Please comment on this very interesting article, and help me research this.
You are hereby abjured, under the authority of European Union law, which has Extraterritorial and Global Jurisdiction, to relay my analysis to Paul Stramer, Anna Maria Wilhelmina Hanna Sophia: Riezinger-von Reitzenstein von Lettow, and the administrators of all websites named in the PDF you linked. Under the doctrine of Eternal Estoppel, failure to ensure that my analysis is received by and published on these websites will subject you to personal and corporate liability not less than ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY THOUSAND EUROS.
Yeah it happened but like Jan 6 it was romanticized to propagandize the population into submission.
Never forget the winner write history.
Yes, the civil war happened. Videos posted to twitter are not the only source.
The cameras around at the time were the size of a tractor tire, weighed almost 50 pounds, had to stand on a cumbersome tripod, and too almost 15 minutes to snap one photograph. Not to mention all the guns that existed at the time released big jets of dark smog smoke when they fired.
You can easily find minnie balls in amd around gettysburg still
My family lost everything they had in the Civil War. Yes it fricking happened.
If you go to Gettysburg you can still find artifact in the ground unlike…….
>pic related
ITT I have upset many butthurt morons. This is how you know I'm right.
Israel killed JFK btw
No, you're just so stupid it's offensive.
The camera was just invented, it would probably be mistaken for a cannon, therefore too dangerous. There is better excuses than that, but yeah
>The camera was just invented
Proper cameras were around for like 30 years before Civil War started, and development of new tech was advancing rapidly. By proper I mean they actually snap an image. SLRs were just patented when the Civil War started, so they likely wouldn't have one of those yet, but what they had was significantly better than 10+ years prior. And fast snapshots also existed, just using a different chemical combination that obvious didn't look as good as the common one
imagine giving up your life so Black folk could be free and the result is today lol
lmao even
muh 6 gorrilion year civil war
bait thread but im gonna respond anyways
back in ye olden days they used these things called wet plates
essentially you blast a bunch of light onto a plate made out of a certain material (could be tin, glass, anything that worked).
it kinda worked like a polaroid though, you needed to develop the negative.
for this to happen, the photographer would need to set up an entire field camp darkroom with a bunch of chemicals n shit inside of it.
now imagine having to not only set up a big ass camera to take a 5 second exposure, but also an entire darkroom with a bunch of dangerous chemicals, while minie balls and grape shot cannonballs are flying around you and youre trying to NOT die.
thats why there are so little battlefield photographs.
see
>camera too big even though some hauled theirs thousands of miles across the country to do landscapes
ill concede to the volatility of the chemicals though, that is a decent point. but if people felt safe watching from a distance I would have tried as a photographer
>people felt safe watching from a distance I would have tried as a photographer
they did that ONCE, and then realized not only was it dangerous but also grotesque. kinda ruins your picnic lunch to see a bunch of guys get slaughtered
We are getting so close to the truth.
We were invaded roughly 200 years ago. All of history as we are taught by modern institutions is a lie. The cover is for the 1000 year kingdom of Christ which ended at the dawn of the US empire.
The year is 1270 AD. The second coming of Christ already happened. The third and final return is imminent.
It is going to be biblical.
Nothing can stop what is coming.
Why would you trust photos to be evidence? We make fake photos all the time. We also make fake videos about imaginary things.
because flash photography wasnt invented yet. didnt they teach you how to make pinhole cameras in jr high anon? you had to sit still for like 2 hours to do a photo otherwise the photo would look like a spooky ghost (also why so many old photos have spooky ghosts)