Archive/File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/transcripts/day010.04
Last-Modified: 2000/07/20

   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I think one may be the mirror image of the
        other but I am not sure it matters very much whether they
        are the same photographs?
   A.   So the question posed to me was the size of the objects.
        It is very difficult to determine the size of the objects,
        because of the way the shadow works.  If one looks at the
        shadow of the chimney, one sees that the chimney really
        projects considerably out of the building, the shadow of
        the chimney.  So it seems to be the sun is coming in this

.          P-26



        case from the southeast.  I do not know exactly what time,
        maybe it comes from the east more.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I would not build too much on that, because
        I think it could be the same photograph which has been put
        in the wrong way round, as it were.
   A.   No, they are exactly the same.
   MR IRVING:  I accept they are the same photographs.  Would
you
        agree that both the chimney of the crematorium and
        whatever these pipe like objects you say are would all
be
        vertical?  They would not be leaning in any one
direction?
   A.   The object, you mean?
   Q.   Yes?
   A.   The chimney itself and the ----
   Q.   Both the crematorium chimney and the protruberances on
the
        roof which you think these dots are, would they all be
        vertical?
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   So they would all cast shadows in the same direction,
at
        the same angle, would they not, if that were so?
   A.   Yes, that is quite likely.
   Q.   On this photograph they clearly do not cast shadows in
the
        same direction.  The smudges or dots appear to be
first
        one way and then another?
   A.   Yes, that is the indeed true.
   Q.   Are these dots visible on any of the other air
photographs
        taken of that building?

.          P-27



   A.   Yes they are.
   Q.   Either before or after?
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   Are you going to show these photographs to us?
   A.   No.  I just selected one.
   Q.   Well, might I suggest that it would have been helpful
to
        the court if you had produced the other photographs
that
        you allege exist containing these dots?
   A.   I thought that this was sufficient, but I presume the
        court can obtain them if they want it.  But I think
that
        these dots show very clearly that there are four
        introduction devices in morgue No. 1, or four
something on
        top of that roof.
   Q.   Professor, I strongly suggest that is a major quantum
leap
        to suggest that a dot which on the face of it is about
15
        feet long on the roof of this crematorium building can
        have anything at all to do with the protruberances
that
        you were talking about earlier, which at its largest
        extent in the eyewitness evidence that I have seen is
of
        the order of 36 inches.
   A.   Mr Irving, the whole of the width of what you call the
        alleged gas chamber I think is something like, what is
it,
        a little less than 20 feet.  So, if you look at the
width
        of this room and you look then at the dots, we are
        certainly not talking about dots which are 15 feet
wide.
        We are more looking at dots which are probably 3 feet

.          P-28



        wide.
   Q.   I strongly disagree.  They are over one quarter of the
        width of that roof in all their versions and
        manifestations on these various photographs.
   A.   I am not going to argue at moment about the width.
   Q.   Moreover, they cast no shadow.
   A.   It is impossible to say what kind of shadow they cast.
   Q.   They cast no shadow.
   A.   Mr Irving, we are looking at an immensely enlarged
image
        from a small negative.  These negatives, by the way,
my
        Lord, have been preserved.  They are sitting all on a
roll
        and they have been preserved.  These photos have been
        analysed by two different parties.
   Q.   Would you name those two different parties please?
   A.   Mr John Ball in Canada and in British Columbia was the
        first one who analysed these photos in the early
1990s.
   Q.   Is it not correct they were first analysed by a man
        called Mr Brigioni?
   A.   Yes, the CIA.  I am sorry, indeed the CIA published
these
        photos in 1979.
   Q.   About 1974, I believe?
   A.   Whatever, 1974, 1979.
   Q.   Are you aware of the fact that Mr Brigioni, the author
of
        that publication of photographs, the CIA operative
who,
        with a fellow author, first published these
photographs,
        has recently published a book called Photo Fakery?

.          P-29



   A.   I am not.
   Q.   In which he sets out chapter by chapter how easy it is
to
        forge photographs, as we all know. Using modern
computers
        and this kind of thing you can take people out of
        photographs and move people around. This same Mr
Brigioni
        is an expert on photo forgery.  Are you aware of that
        fact?
   A.   I was not.  I presume that, with today's computer
        technology, he indeed would be able to do this.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY: Are you suggesting, Mr Irving, that these
        photographs are forgeries?
   MR IRVING:  I am not suggesting that per se, my Lord, but
what
        I am suggesting is that one has to be alert to the
        possibility that somebody, for whatever reason, has
put a
        smudge on these photographs.  The National Archives of
the
        United States, where the original photographs were
housed
        in the cartographic division, at the time they were
issued
        by the CIA, the National Archives issued a disclaimer
        saying these photographs, as they are housed in the
        National Archives Cartographic Branch, do not contain
the
        labelling which the CIA has attached.  They made no
        references to these actual dots or anything.  They
just
        dissociated themselves from the kind of treatment.
   A.   My Lord, may I continue?  Because I was asked ----
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes.  What question do you think you are
        answering?

.          P-30



   MR IRVING:  Do you have any opinion as to the integrity of
        these photographs?
   A.   I have an opinion on the integrity of the photographs
        which is based on an analysis by Dr. Neville Bryant at
the
        NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasodena done in
1996,
        and I actually was present in the room with him when
he
        got his job.  I was not present when he actually
handed in
        the report.
   Q.   Professor van Pelt, is this report of the Pasodena Jet
        Propulsion Laboratory in evidence before us?
   A.   It is not, but I have testimony of Mr Michael
Schurmer,
        who commissioned the report, of the results and I just
        want do explain the position of Dr Bryant.  He is the
        supervisor of cartographic applications and image
        processing applications at the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory
        and he seems to be the most experienced analyst of air
        photos in the United States.
   Q.   Is Mr Schurmer a friend of yours?
   A.   No, he is not.  We have met a couple of times.
   Q.   Is there any reason why he would not have provided any
        written version of that testimony to you for the
purposes
        you needed it for?
   A.   I do not think that at the moment it is necessary to
have
        a testimony by Dr Bryant in court.  You will have to
prove
        this is a fakery, Mr Irving.  These photos are at the
        moment evidence as photos.  If you want to say that
this

.          P-31



        is a fake, I would say prove it and then we can get
the
        report of Dr Bryant.
   Q.   Professor van Pelt, I think that his Lordship will
educate
        you as to the burden of proof in an English defamation
        action.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I am not sure that is really quite right.
If
        you are not saying that these are fakes, and I think
you
        just told me that you were not putting forward that
        positive case, then it does not seem to me that it is
        necessary for this witness to refer to the expert
analysis
        at all.  But, if you are saying it is a forgery or has
        been tampered with in some way, then it may be that we
do
        need to see what the expert said.
   MR IRVING:  In that case, my Lord, I think we ought to ask
the
        witness as to the nature of the expertise given by the
Jet
        Propulsion Laboratory, which did not go to the forgery
        aspect, as I understand it, but to the aspect of what
        those objects were and how large they were.  Am I
right,
        Professor?
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Is that right?
   A.   No.  The question which was asked to Dr Bryant was
very
        simple.  The first question was: Had these negatives
been
        tampered with?  It was partly based on a suggestion by
        Mr Ball who had analysed them in 1990, using
        analogue machines, which means he did not use computer
        enhancement but he used analogue machine, in which Mr
Ball

.          P-32



        had said that in the CIA report things had been added
to
        the photo, and this went very specifically to groups
of
        prisoners being marched around the camp where at a
certain
        moment one could see something like a little ----
   MR IRVING:  Brush marks?
   A.   Brush marks which had been drawn in.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  That is not these photographs, anyway, is
it?
   A.   It is actually in these photographs, but it is too
small.
        But that was one of the"proofs".  It was that group of
        prisoners which is not seen in this enlargement.  They
are
        walking around in the camp.
   Q.   Can we remain with these photographs, please?
   A.   They are in these photographs but not visual. I am
just
        trying to explain the brief which Mr Bryant got.
   Q.   Was he given the original negatives to look at or
copies
        of the negatives?
   A.   The negatives are in Jerusalem.
   Q.   The original negatives are in Jerusalem?
   A.   Yes, there is a roll of negatives in Jerusalem.
   Q.   How did the American government negatives come into
the
        possession of the Jerusalem authorities?
   A.   I have no idea.  They are in the Abfashen(?)
   Q.   Are you sure this is not just a duplicate made by the
        National Archives of the United States?
   A.   I am not sure.  I know there is a roll of negatives in
the
        Abfashen and I have been always under the impression
that

.          P-33



        it is the original roll of negatives given to Israel
        because of the importance of this material.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  What I think we are really looking for is
        what was the was conclusion at which Mr Bryant
arrived?
   A.   What Dr Bryant did was analyse these images by using
        computer technology, and he said that the problem
which
        occurred in marching these prisoners which were
marching
        around is that the size of a head of a person is the
same
        as the size of a grain in the negative, and that the
        result of that was that a morey effect which occurs
when
        also in the newspaper when you photograph a picture
which
        has been screened twice.  This is one of the problems.
        When you go to the very small scale, it becomes very
        difficult to exactly understand the behaviour of these
        individual grains at that level.
   MR IRVING:  Can we remain with the dots on the roof,
please? Is
        there any morey effect visible on them?
   A.   We are basically talking about very small objects, and
        I do not know if there is morey effect on them.  But
the
        issue which Bryant had to address was that the so-
called
        proof Ball had for the tampering with these photos
were
        these lines of prisoners.  Once Bryant showed that
these
        had not been tampered with, that there had been
absolutely
        no tampering with this image, then the issue of if
they
        had been tampered with, the dots on top of the
        Leichenkeller No. 1, became in some way irrelevant,

.          P-34



        because the issue which Ball had brought to him was
based
        on those groups of prisoners.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes.  So Bryant did not actually address
the
        question whether these dots that we see on the
        enlargements were added, forged additions?
   A.   No.  He looked if there was any proof of addition to
it
        and he had said no.
   Q.   Generally speaking?
   A.   Yes, generally speaking.  There is a second one and
this
        is quite an interesting one.  Again, the big problem
with
        all of this of course is that nothing of this has been
        published.  It would have been published by Schurmer
if it
        was not for this libel case.  People are waiting to
see
        what the outcome of this libel case is.  That is that
        these photos were taken in sequence, which means that
it
        is a mechanical camera which starts running, and
photos
        were taken for bombing raids on the Bunaplatz in
        Monowitz.  So what happened is that, as the bomber
starts
        to approach, this was probably taken by a Mosquito,
the
        camera starts to run 10 to 15 minutes ahead of time,
and
        starts taking photographs as it is approaching the
bombing
        site.

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor