PDA

View Full Version : The Nitrate Films Story revealed.



Pages : [1] 2

Stephen Frizza
04-28-2009, 03:23 AM
Just to update everyone, I had the rolls of films examined and their content date and location have been identified. They are of the Australian and American war effort in Buna north of Australia in New Guinea 1942/1943 against the Japanese.

Six of the films are specific records detailing remains of the Japanese who perished in combat and also footage of those who did not perish being captured in conflict. The seventh roll half contains aerial surveillance of the location and ground filming of an airfield where there are stockpiles of bombs and other ammunition being transported by trucks to aircraft while the other half of the film is full of poor exposures of planes in they sky and bomb drops from the air though these unlike the rest of the films aren't exposed very well.

The films are prints onto nitrate stock and not the original film that had been shot in camera. More research is needed to determine if this footage belongs to any archive and what rights I have to display their content.

AgX
04-28-2009, 05:41 AM
So all those speculations of Japanese committing atrocities are wrong?

Stephen Frizza
04-28-2009, 05:50 AM
i never speculated that.

PHOTOTONE
04-28-2009, 06:32 PM
So, there isn't any on-camera footage of atrocities being committed? By-the-way, your website link from your profile doesn't work.

Removed Account
04-28-2009, 06:38 PM
i never speculated that.

I think the speculations that AgX is referring to belonged to others, not yourself. Thanks for keeping us posted on the progress of this! It's a very interesting situation you've found yourself in.

mike c
04-28-2009, 06:45 PM
Well thats where,what,and a kinda muddy who and why, that going ok so far. Let us know how things unravel.or unreel.

mike c.

Kino
04-28-2009, 10:28 PM
I think the speculations that AgX is referring to belonged to others, not yourself. Thanks for keeping us posted on the progress of this! It's a very interesting situation you've found yourself in.

So now is the speculation a problem when it was solicited in the beginning?

I see; no good deed goes unpunished.

good luck with that.:rolleyes:

Anscojohn
04-28-2009, 11:51 PM
i never speculated that.
******
The speculation was all ours. Questions remain: were there live images depicting atrocious acts? If so, who was committing them? And upon whom?

Stephen Frizza
04-29-2009, 12:15 AM
I think shooting people, blowing them to pieces or burying them but not completely is pretty atrocious but
war is war its not meant to be nice

tim_walls
04-29-2009, 03:18 AM
I think shooting people, blowing them to pieces or burying them but not completely is pretty atrocious but
war is war its not meant to be nice
Stephen, I think there is a certain amount of confusion here because your two posts seem to disagree about what the films are of.

Your original post said

To my my discovery the films contain Horrific images of mass murder, mutilation and other atrocities. Men having their brains blown out the backs of their heads, men being gutted and left to be eaten by the birds or being buried with only their backsides out of the ground mooning the sky to name a few of the seriously sickening images these films capture of mans dark nature.
whereas now you say

Six of the films are specific records detailing remains of the Japanese who perished in combat and also footage of those who did not perish being captured in conflict.

So I think what some people are curious to know is - which is it?

Do the films record the atrocities being committed as the original post said ('having' their brains blown out, not 'who have had', and 'being gutted' rather than 'who have been gutted' being pretty clear statements that the film records the acts in progress,) or are they recordings of the aftermath as you say in this thread?

Ignoring morbid curiosity, it also puts the whole thing into context and asks very different historical questions (like, if it's the former, what the bloody hell were the allies doing making such films!)

Removed Account
04-29-2009, 03:44 AM
We know that both sides comitted attrocities; war is ugly no matter which side you're on. The attrocities committed by the Axis just happened to overshadow ours, not to mention that we won so we got to write the history books! Talk to some folks who have recently seen active service in the armed forces; if they trust you they'll tell you some pretty chilling stories about what some people on our side have done in the recent past. You need look no further than Guantanamo Bay.

Stephen Frizza
04-29-2009, 03:58 AM
Stephen, I think there is a certain amount of confusion here because your two posts seem to disagree about what the films are of.

Your original post said

whereas now you say


So I think what some people are curious to know is - which is it?

Do the films record the atrocities being committed as the original post said ('having' their brains blown out, not 'who have had', and 'being gutted' rather than 'who have been gutted' being pretty clear statements that the film records the acts in progress,) or are they recordings of the aftermath as you say in this thread?

Ignoring morbid curiosity, it also puts the whole thing into context and asks very different historical questions (like, if it's the former, what the bloody hell were the allies doing making such films!)

My apologies for being unclear the films contain a variety of footage showing killings by various methods done by Australian soldiers, footage of suicide in action (Japanese who shoot themselves) remains of people after brutal deaths and also activities being done to the deceased. They also Include footage of an air field and aerial surveillance and bomb dropping.

the majority of the film i would say a good 80 percent is simply footage of dead bodies who have all been killed by violent means.

Stephen Frizza
04-29-2009, 04:07 AM
I should also state these films seem to be a document of soldiers ability to kill enemy combatants.

BrianShaw
04-29-2009, 02:33 PM
I should also state these films seem to be a document of soldiers ability to kill enemy combatants.

This might be a good time for folks to reflect upon two things:

1. Justin Silber's post
and
2. Article 3 of the Geneva Convention.

BTW... these seem to pre-date Australias' signing of that Convention, which I believe occured in 1952.

BrianShaw
04-29-2009, 02:39 PM
Ignoring morbid curiosity, it also puts the whole thing into context and asks very different historical questions (like, if it's the former, what the bloody hell were the allies doing making such films!)

This is a great question, but not just in the case of "the latter"... also in hte case of "the former." Perhaps we have some combat-experienced vets who would like to help the rest of us understand how/why war make some people do things that they would not otherwise even think of doing.

Kino
04-29-2009, 03:19 PM
And I see no reason why this should turn into some form of hand-wringing, apologetic discussion because I guessed it might have been Japanese atrocity footage.

If you wish to indulge in such, be my guest but I want no part of it.

Urmas R.
04-29-2009, 04:04 PM
Thank you for the update. It is very interesting.

As we all know, the war crimes or crimes against humanity to not expire. Any kind of torture and causing of unnecessary suffering are punishable by law. In the European Union there are still several cases currently open against WWII criminals. These include for instance cases against former Soviet Union military officers. Soviet Union had not signed any convention as well, but this does not save them from court now (unless Russia refuses to give them out). Likewise, there are cases against former Nazi Germany officers or also against some leaders of African states.

If the photos depict any act that could be interpreted as crime against humanity or war crime and if the person or military group is recognisable, then I see no reason why one cannot turn to the international court.

Anscojohn
04-29-2009, 04:27 PM
Thank you for the update. It is very interesting.

If the photos depict any act that could be interpreted as crime against humanity or war crime and if the person or military group is recognisable, then I see no reason why one cannot turn to the international court.
********
I think this is why Steven Frizza has been advised by we ignorant folk to find the proper venue, disposition, and usage of these films.

Regarding the origin of the films: they were made for military reasons. As documentation, perhaps. But of what?

In the course of research, I have found it necessary to consult autopsy protocols from the battles on Bougainville in 1943-1944 which included photographs. These were considered necessary for better treatment of wounds.

What could be the purpose in making some of these films. Bombing runs and effectiveness of same, obvious. But why the others.

FWIW from someone trained as an historian, it is important that these films be turned over to such care that they will be preserved; and not destroyed or buried. Their usefulness must remain to be seen and only if the films, themselves, remain to be seen.

Stephen Frizza
04-30-2009, 08:48 AM
Just to update everyone over the next few weeks I will be uploading images from the films to Flickr where they can be viewed. I Strongly warn that scenes in the film MAY BE DISTURBING TO SOME VIEWERS but those withing to view scenes within the films can do so at the link attached. I will be uploading more scenes when i get available time to do so.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/29279649@N02/

Moopheus
04-30-2009, 11:38 AM
The films are prints onto nitrate stock and not the original film that had been shot in camera. More research is needed to determine if this footage belongs to any archive and what rights I have to display their content.

Does that mean it is not determined if this is a copy of footage that already exists in an archive somewhere, or some film not previously known?