The extant photograph of smoke from Treblinka

[Wetzelrad]

Are these two separate and distinct photographs of this scene? Or the same photo but cropped in different ways?

I have 90% confidence they're separate photos.

• None of the photo defects match across pics. If they were made from the same source, you would expect at least some of those black dots to match up.
• The tree branches have slightly moved. See especially the left side of the tree, bottom two branches versus top two branches. It was a windy day.
• The smoke is a different shape. See especially the upper contour of the smoke, which makes a recognizable zig zag, and which matches across both photos but not positionally. The zigzag is higher in the sky in the left-side photo, so it must be chronologically second.

The photographs were taken at different distances from the tree/smoke, or the one in the memoirs is cropped a bit.

Based on the identical positions of everything in the landscape, the cameraman didn't move his feet at all between the first and the second photo. I don't know if that means they were cropped.

[pilgrimofdark]

• The tree branches have slightly moved. See especially the left side of the tree, bottom two branches versus top two branches. It was a windy day.
• The smoke is a different shape. See especially the upper contour of the smoke, which makes a recognizable zig zag, and which matches across both photos but not positionally. The zigzag is higher in the sky in the left-side photo, so it must be chronologically second.

This is the impression I got, too. I couldn't get the smoke lines to match up as well when trying to match the single tree and distant treeline.

The photographs were taken at different distances from the tree/smoke, or the one in the memoirs is cropped a bit.

Based on the identical positions of everything in the landscape, the cameraman didn't move his feet at all between the first and the second photo. I don't know if that means they were cropped.

Comparing the overlaid photos, the "memoirs photo" was zoomed in or it's been severely cropped for inclusion in the book. But it also has an extension on the right side of the treeline that's not in the well-known version from the Jewish archives (which could have that side cropped).

Zabecki said he also gave a copy of the photo to a correspondent from The Times ("Timesa" in the Polish) on January 19, 1965, while testifying in Dusseldorf at the Franz trial. He also says a reporter from the Neue Rhein Zeitung asked to borrow the photos for a report on the Stangl trial also in Dusseldorf. Zabecki testified on August 28, 1970.

Before yesterday, I assumed they were all copies of the same photo, but now I'm not so sure.

Neither newspaper printed the photos in their short stories of the Franz/Stangl trials, based on the archives online.

ChatGPT gives an output that they are separate and distinct photos. This doesn't increase or decrease my confidence, but interesting.

Source (doesn't show the photos, but they're the two on the previous page)

They are not the same photograph simply cropped or reproduced differently.

They show the same scene from essentially the same viewpoint, but they are two separate exposures, taken moments apart (or at least not from the same negative).

Here’s how we can tell:

Key visual differences

Smoke plume shape
The smoke column is not identical.

In the first image, the plume is broader and more left-leaning.

In the second, the plume is tighter and more vertical, with a different billowing structure.
Smoke changes shape rapidly, and these differences are too large to be explained by cropping or contrast alone.

Foreground vegetation and horizon detail
The lone tree and brush are in very similar positions, but the exact contours of bushes and ground texture differ, which wouldn’t happen in a straight crop.

Contrast and tonal structure
The differences go beyond printing or scanning quality. Even allowing for different exposure or reproduction, the internal shapes of the smoke cloud don’t match, which would remain consistent if it were the same negative.

What this implies

• Same location
• Same subject
• Same approximate camera position
• Different moments in time

This is typical of a photographer taking multiple shots of a single event—especially something visually dramatic like a large fire or explosion plume.

Bottom line

These are two distinct photographs of the same scene, not one image reused or cropped.

These are the two images cross-fading into each other:

Spoiler

Same thing colorized because cool:

Spoiler

[Stubble]

I think the fade shows clearly that these represent 2 photographs taken from the same vantage point a few seconds apart. I say this because of the shape of the plume.

Just my opinion though, and, I'm no photographsiologist.

I'll be honest, I want to see the rest of the film roll at this point. It is unfortunate that that will never happen.

[pilgrimofdark]

One more comparison. I cropped the well-known version to the area shown in the entirety of the second photo. The same colorization was used on both.



If there any arguments that they're the same exact photo, that would be helpful.

If the consensus is different photos at different times, that is also interesting.

ChatGPT gave an output that colorizing helps control for contrast/exposure/printing artifacts because "Contrast differences are now mapped into color gradients, Yet the shape differences persist across color boundaries." So "The disagreement is no longer “light vs dark,” but form vs form."

To me, there are two major differences, and a host of minor differences.

1. Smoke plume shape and contour grows and ascends, despite the base remaining the same: indicates wind/convection over time
2. More treeline/bush detail to the right of the second photo (tallest tree not visible in first photo): indicates slight movement of camera between shots

Another big one is the tree branches, indicating more wind movement, as Wetzelrad suggested above.

[pilgrimofdark]

I posted this on the Wiki.

Let it be known that the """evil""" CODOH Forum rediscovered this second photograph of the "Burning of TII" first.

How did I do it? By looking in Zabecki's book at the photograph, instead of relying on secondary source plagiarism.

"Uh oh, the Nazis looked at a book and discovered we've been plagiarizing each other's secondary sources for decades. What do we do now? Does this mean we have to do real work and stop copy-pasting each other's schlocky propaganda?"

The Burning of the Treblinka II Death Camp

I named the page the same as Zabecki named his photo when handing over one of them to Miriam Novitch. Don't shoot the messenger. Go add scare quotes if you want.

I wanted to get this on the record quickly, since someone checked out Zabecki's memoirs from the Library of Congress, so it won't be available from them for 1 year

[Stubble]

Somebody checked out the memoir? You can, do that?

I thought it was only accessible in the reading room!

[pilgrimofdark]

Somebody checked out the memoir? You can, do that?

I thought it was only accessible in the reading room!

Yes, it says "Checked out - Due 12/10/2026."

Must be an inter-library loan. I also didn't know that was possible.

What is the over/under on news articles announcing "Jewish University Professor Discovers Never-Before-Seen Photo of Heroic Jewish Rebellion at Nazi Death Camp?" 3 months?

[Callafangers]

If there any arguments that they're the same exact photo, that would be helpful.

I can't see how they would be. The photo on the right seems like it was taken shortly after by the same person, if I had to guess, given the height and size of the darker smoke. The color difference is obvious between both photos but I don't think this is sufficient to explain the size/shape difference between both plumes.

Tree.jpg (76.34 KiB) Viewed 251 times

Here I have just highlighted the smoke plumes in both. I also show the tree and the horizon in the background as a reference, showing it aligns in both photos, meaning the photographer didn't squat down to make the plume look bigger in either photo. And notice that the light penetrating the center of the tree is different in either photo, likely due to change in wind.

[PrudentRegret]

It's very interesting you have stumbled on this as I have spent hours analyzing photos of Treblinka from the GFH from the 1960s with the exact same inconsistencies: photographic elements which should match between photos but do not, and elements which should not match between photos but they do; two separate images that seem like they should be cropped from the same source but each image has a border zone that the other one does not. I would seriously consider the possibility that GFH was used to launder forgeries and this photograph appearing from the aether in the 1960s along with a bunch of other strange images rings alarm bells.

They are absolutely not the same photo and it's a pattern I've seen from "Treblinka" images out of GHF sourced in the 1960s.

[PrudentRegret]

The Treblinka Trials started in 1964 so there's a motive for these photographs with significant inconsistencies appearing from nowhere.

[pilgrimofdark]

I can't see how they would be. The photo on the right seems like it was taken shortly after by the same person, if I had to guess, given the height and size of the darker smoke. The color difference is obvious between both photos but I don't think this is sufficient to explain the size/shape difference between both plumes.

I agree. Just looking for any disagreements or even "devil's advocate" arguments. A gut check, of sorts.

Here I have just highlighted the smoke plumes in both. I also show the tree and the horizon in the background as a reference, showing it aligns in both photos, meaning the photographer didn't squat down to make the plume look bigger in either photo. And notice that the light penetrating the center of the tree is different in either photo, likely due to change in wind.

Calla, I added your photo (stripped of any metadata) and analysis to the Wiki page under its own section "Fine Details." If you want to add/edit, go for it.

It's very interesting you have stumbled on this as I have spent hours analyzing photos of Treblinka from the GFH from the 1960s with the exact same inconsistencies: photographic elements which should match between photos but do not, and elements which should not match between photos but they do; two separate images that seem like they should be cropped from the same source but each image has a border zone that the other one does not. I would seriously consider the possibility that GFH was used to launder forgeries and this photograph appearing from the aether in the 1960s along with a bunch of other strange images rings alarm bells.

They are absolutely not the same photo and it's a pattern I've seen from "Treblinka" images out of GHF sourced in the 1960s.

I was 99% done with an article on Zabecki, examining the story of how the one photo appeared. Finding a second photo blew up my article, though, so now I have to rewrite it since that is a much more interesting discovery. I recently got a copy of his book, extracted all the Polish text, then AI-translated to English and read it.

In short, for the well-known photo, the story is this:

Zabecki testified in January 1965 at the Kurt Franz trial. He showed the photo, telling the judge someone else took it. After the trial, he traded a copy of the photo to Miriam Novitch of GFH for a photo of Jankiel Wiernik's model of T-II He signed 2 statements when donating the photograph, stating that Zygmunt Wierzbowski took the photo.

Then in Zabecki's 1977 memoirs, the second photo is printed, but not the first.

[Stubble]

He had two shots and he traded the one maybe?

It is unfortunate that there's probably no way to determine if Zygmunt Wierzbowski's family has the rest of the set.

I can only imagine their reaction if 'I' were to ask, for example.

And still, the curiosity regarding the entire set remains. I wonder what was on the rest of the film.

[PrudentRegret]

He had two shots and he traded the one maybe?

More likely the "here's how I happened upon a photograph of the 'Treblinka revolt'" story is a fraud, and these two images are both artifacts of the same operation to substantiate a false claim about what happened in that camp.

[Stubble]

Agreed, hence part of my desire to see the rest of the roll. Point I was driving at was Zabecki had 2 independent frames, apparently. That being the case, or at least seeming to be, my thought was he traded the one and later published the other without remarking that they are different shots.