Something Strange Seen In US Civil War Photos

Hi all,

Recently I was doing some research into The Civil War and found some pictures on line of wounded or dead. What I noticed after looking at a number of photos is the lack of blood. First if you look at the pics where the bodies were photographed where they fell you would atleast see a blood stained ground. Or if you see the photos where the bodies are lined up ready for the grave you don't even see blood stained clothing. Is there any reason for this?

[edit on 24-9-2007 by Djdoubt03]

Hmm, possibly because a body stops bleeding after the heart stops beating. The blood congeals and collects and the lower parts of the body due to gravity. If a person dies on their back you will see a body length bruise of congealed blood.

Also, the musket rounds were of a lower velocity than modern rounds and did less internal rupturing.

But I dunno, what are you getting at?

reply to post by Shadowflux



I think that is what I was looking for. But Shouldn't the clothing have some blood stains on it? if it helps here is the link to the sit I was using

www.civilwarphotos.net...

It's kind of strange that you're studying the pictures for blood, etc. Do you actually think blood stains would stand out readily on a black and white photo? or that blood would be pooled around someone's body on the ground? Blood will soak into the soil - right? Plus the majority of the men in the photos have been moved off the battlefield so that their deaths can be recorded and their families notified. However, if you look closely, you can definitely make out stains on their clothing.

Or are you a conspiracy theorist and you're proposing that the Civil War never occured and all the pictures were staged by an ancestor of George W?

I think he just noticed that there was no blood on the pictures (at least viewable)..

Originally posted by Makuahine
Or are you a conspiracy theorist and you're proposing that the Civil War never occured and all the pictures were staged by an ancestor of George W?

That is a ridiculous supposition when it is obvious that the North used some sort of biological weapon.

Look into the faces of the dead southern men. How many do you see that are frozen in a moment gasping for breath? Compare that to how many have bullet wounds on them or seem dismembered by cannon blasts.

Jon

Originally posted by Djdoubt03
Hi all,

Recently I was doing some research into The Civil War and found some pictures on line of wounded or dead. What I noticed after looking at a number of photos is the lack of blood. First if you look at the pics where the bodies were photographed where they fell you would atleast see a blood stained ground. Or if you see the photos where the bodies are lined up ready for the grave you don't even see blood stained clothing. Is there any reason for this?

[edit on 24-9-2007 by Djdoubt03]

its kind of wierd u are looking @ pics that old plus black and white i cant see anything in these photos to old i think yeh we need something new to look @ i cant really tell the pics arent clear

Most times those photos were taken a week or weeks after the battles, there wouldn't been blood stains evident in the quality photos after that time.

The north used a biological what ?....no,..no,..no,...the north whipped out there lazar beams ...set to stun for all eternity...my cat calls

Biological? Laser? Them dadburned yellow bellied Yankees always did fight sneaky. And having aliens on their side don't surprise me none.

And they still barely won.

Wow I'm glad I created some disscustion.

I wasn't looking at these pics to see blood and gore. I live in Fredericksburg VA and have never actually did research into the many battles that occured in my area. I was looking at those pics only to see have the area has changed since the war. Some of those pics turned up in my search on the area. Some of the pics were takin not far from my house. But while looking I just thought to myself where is all the blood. Seemed odd to me, I guess I watch too many movies and tv. lol. But all of the reasons stated above seem reasonable. Well all but the chemical warfare. lol but after all this is a conspiracy board.

by the way any more conspiracies about the civil war?

Originally posted by Djdoubt03
Well all but the chemical warfare. lol but after all this is a conspiracy board.

by the way any more conspiracies about the civil war?

Sure I was really just kidding but consider that, at that time, chemists had knowledge of several types of reactions that would produce toxic gas. They also had artillery capable of sending an exploding shell over the enemy lines from a safe distance.

The south in fact tried several times to use toxic gases in irregular warfare against the north. They targeted mostly civilians in cities with the substances and were all recorded by history as failures but the capability did exist at the time.

The civil war was a time when a lot new things were tried out (like the spotting balloons) and it just makes me wonder if either side tried to use chemical weapons.

If it was the south that tried, I am sure we would have already heard about it like we have heard about their attempt at targeting civilians with deadly gas weapons. Yet if it were the north that tried it, I am sure most of the records would have been destroyed after the war.

Jon