These 65 Rare Historical Photos Will Change How You See The Past.

Great post.

Hope the baby gas mask experiment went well.

Have to give the kid (he looks like he's barely in his early 20's) props in pic 32, five guys pointing guns at you about to kill you? You just stand there, arms crossed, with a defiant look on your face. I'd probably be crying or pissing my pants

The statue of liberty was built in Paris!? Then what, they moved it to America?! You learn summat new evry day...

originally posted by: new_here
a reply to: joshint

#4 - Albert Einstein. Did men wear shoes like that in his day, or are those... I'm not judging. Serious question. Are those mens' shoes?

Hahahaha! Well I don't know about in his day, but they sure are women's shoes in this day! Cute shoes!

Mister MC squared bringing sexy back.

a reply to: joshint

the statue of liberty looks like elvis

originally posted by: PhoenixFreeman
The statue of liberty was built in Paris!? Then what, they moved it to America?! You learn summat new evry day...

Yep, but I'm pretty sure they took it back apart and shipped it in pieces to be reassembled on site.

What I want to know is, why don't human's make huge cool statues anymore?

Amazing photos...I would like to see more like that

It's funny how Bin Laden looks like a different person again in his photo after Judo practice.

Thanks for posting!

Loved it

Very nice pics!
I saw the most of them in some collections on LiveLeak, take a look if you like pics like that:
www.liveleak.com...

a reply to: Eunuchorn

yes, you're correct. We should idolise gods who choose humans as their earthly proclaimers (not the irish band). Maybe the irish band.

a reply to: new_here

We do, or humans do, theyre being erected on the moon as we type. George Foreman is there with his grill and I believe Ren will be completed before the next lunar eclipse

a reply to: pikestaff

Why do we all forget about Zuse?

a reply to: new_here

I believe there were TWO statues of liberty: a model and the final one that was shipped to New York. I believe it was a gift from France to the USA. The model still can be found in France.

a reply to: alldaylong

Not wishing to be pedantic, but didn't Charles Babbage build the first computer (albeit mechanical)?

Thank you, That was absolutely amazing. I absolutely love history and these photos are very impressive.
There is something about seeing photos from the past, especially ones of historic significance, its almost like you can taste the age and feel the air when you look at them. This made my day, kudos. a reply to: joshint

Photograph Number 2 is incorrect.

Not only that - a lot of the stuff was incorrect. The picture of 'Titanic' was not a picture of Titanic, for example, but of the sister ship, RMS Olympic.

The Nagasaki survivor would have died, if the story about atom bombs, radiation, etc. was true (and the picture is proof that the whole 'radiation is deadly and melts your eyes' stuff was invented much later, when people started wondering why nuclear bombs are not used in the Vietnam war. Eyes don't melt, btw..)

As to the whole point and claim of the topic and the topic in the site - nope, they didn't change anything. They only reinforced 'how I see the past' (not that 'the past' can be immediately 'seen' anyway without a time machine or existence in a higher plane than what most of the Terran physical plane-denizens are usually used to).

The roman sun goddess-statue is still hideous and looks like elvis, and the masonic oligarchs had too much power even a really long time ago.

What were these photos supposed to change?

Funnily, some of the sixties photos are of much worse quality (and resolution) than the photos from 1800s..

(and some of the photos are grossly distorted because of forced aspect ratio, and a lot of them are in really low resolution and awful quality - not that much could be expected as far as photo quality from old pictures, but why do the bad quality pictures always get scanned with such a low resolution, too? It's like adding insult to injury)

Seems very filipino-centric stuff - they are very emotional and a bit childish people, from what I know. I mean, the site creators do not take into account that all photos can always be captured, saved, transferred, so 'preventing right-click' is only a useless nuisance. They also didn't realize internet is international, not only filipinos can view the 'photos will change how you see' collection, but anyone on the planet with an internet connection can. So when they say "our president" or "our leader" or whatever, it sounds pretty thoughtless.

Also, when they say that churchill was 'handsome' in his youth, they must be joking. He looks like a cross between Mr. Bean and the big-eared bloke from 'Men Behaving Badly'.

These 'royalty' types parading in their expensive, militaristic, elitist 'uniforms' make me sick. But all the site creators see is 'handsomeness'.. give me a break.

Not to mention that Churchill was a cruel warmonger that didn't want German to have a good, working economy, and according to certain sources, actually WANTED a war, and STARTED it. Perhaps he is one of TPTB, for no real 'leader' of a country could have ever made such diabolical plans when it comes to other countries... they would only have worried about the welfare of the people in their own countries. But Churchill was glad to let the british be butchered by germans, and vice versa, as long as he got his lust for power and control satisfied - he was clearly expressing and working for an agenda, and if not his own, then.. we probably all know, whose.

So to call this ugly, cruel murderer and warmonger madman 'handsome' is just an atrocity in itself - especially, because he is ugly as sin. Both inside and out.

Btw, why was it important for us to see / know the color of Hitler's eyes? Why so many photos of Hitler? Why ANY photos of Hitler? Do filipinos or at least the control freaks that created that site (no right-click allowed, sheesh - it can be easily circumvented, but it's needless work and very, very annoying) secretly admire / worship Hitler and the nazi ideology?

Besides, it said the photo is COLORIZED, so they are not the 'true color' of his eyes. If it's colorized, it means that color was added later on, and that color could have come from a paint bucket for all we know - and the true color could have been something else very easily. Even camera does lie (colors are not necessarily the same in a photo as they are in real life, as photographers know - all kinds of things affect this, from lighting to the actual hue that's photographed - 24 bits really do not take you very far when you want to capture the real colors of the physical reality, they offer only 256 different brightnesses, after all), let alone some paid painter!

"Aber mein Führer, your eyes are brown!"

"Just paint them blue, schnell! I want to appear Aryan in the photo!"

"Javohl, mein Führer! Danke schön!"

Who knows?

Also, I really hate topics that make a bold claim about "YOU", when they don't really know "YOU" at all. "This will change how you think about this" or "10 Secrets you didn't know about (topic)", or whatever.

And lastly, the whole "(number) these that will (do this to you)" format is so childish, reeks of advertising and the modern "quick facts on a silver platter, please, because I don't want to try to do actual thinking for myself"-attitude of the morons, and the dumbing of the masses, and I THOROUGHLY hate it.

I wish google would stop giving me those 'claims that begin with a number' instead of real facts and the truth, and deeply involved explanations that can be multiple pages long.

I wish someone in a CONSPIRACY CONVERSATION FORUM would at least rise an eyebrow when stuff like this is shoved down our throats, but.. oh well. I live in the wrong world, on the wrong planet, and it's all my own fault, so.. never mind.

Forgot to ask another question..

Why would these photos CHANGE anyone's perception of anything?

Didn't anyone think that Rushmore used to be just rock without carved faces on it?

Didn't anyone think Hitler did any other stuff than military and speech stuff in his uniform?

Didn't anyone think Churchill's body was once young?

Didn't anyone think they wore different clothes when running in the 1800s?

Didn't anyone think that there were photos taken of 'Titanic' before the 'accident' 'happened'?

I mean, what are these photos supposed to CHANGE?

Sure, some of them are things that a lot of people haven't usually seen in the mainstream, but surely most of us have known that Einstein didn't always wear the same clothes, or that the ENIAC was a physically humongous computer? What's so 'changing' about this?

Surely everyone knew that the masonic roman sun goddess statue isn't some eternal landmark that has always existed there, that some kind of men manufactured it?

What's so mysterious about any of these? There's nothing that would CHANGE anyone's perception of what the past must have been like. Just because you haven't SEEN something, surely you have KNOWN that it happened that way. Like, you haven't seen Hitler sitting on the toilet, reading the funnies on the paper. But surely you know it MUST have happened (well, who knows what he read, if anything, on the toilet, but as he had a human body, he must have defacated).

So if you saw a photo of Hitler on the toilet, it wouldn't change anything about how you see the past or what you think about the past, or whatever (unless you mean quite LITERALLY, how you _SEE_ the past, because previously, you have seen the past from perhaps different photos and videos, and now you see photos that not everyone has probably seen of the past, but that's quite weak).

I think it's just a weak, forced sensationalism, applied to some crappy collection of photos that someone figured might be 'rare' and 'unseen to most people'. So they slapped them together with some other photos that they thought might be interesting and came up with as fancy topic for it as they could.

But as usual, the collection doesn't deliver - empty promises, false claims, and soulless, bad-quality, lores photo collection from some control-freak, who doesn't want to let people use both buttons of their mouse (perhaps a Mac-user?). So we see Einstein without a shirt. Should I send my recorded applause to the website owner now, because the way I see the past changed SO MUCH because of this? Wow, I didn't know Einstein had an actual human body under his shirt! What a revelation, hold the press, change everything!

a reply to: Shoujikina

Soooo... that's a nay-vote, right? You didn't like them.

Got it.