[decimon]

I paged you for not being sure this post is acceptable.

[neodad]

I’ve seen some of those in books. Especially the one with the two destroyers in dry dock.

[Tribune7]

ping

[Daffynition]

Snopes: Real photos; inaccurate description

The photos are great though. I recall when they made the rounds and was amazed. ;-D

[Tijeras_Slim]

I’ve seen a couple of those, but not all. THANKS!

[BluH2o]

These pictures of the Pearl Harbor attack are authentic;
several months ago they first appeared on the Internet.
Beyond that I'm not sure who took them or the type of camera in use,
it could be a Kodak Brownie, although I was under the impression Kodak
didn't come out with that particular camera until sometime in the early 1950's.

[poindexter]

#12 has a clock face superimposed in the right-hand corner. Pro job.

[VOA]

It’s a great collection of photos (and hijacked to my hard drive!).

BUT...at least for the drydock photo, it appears to be the same as
one already listed with the navy.
Now, if that’s not to say that the dry dock photo (and others)
didn’t originate from film in a Brownie found sometime after the
great day’s events.

Here’s URLs for the Navy photo and main index for the Navy’s online
photo collection:

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/g10000/g19943.jpg

http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org11-2.htm

[JRios1968]

WHere’s the irrefutable evidence of Pearl Harbor being BUSH’S FAULT?

[miele man]

Picutre 15 appears to have a bit of color in the smoke plume plus some faded color on the right side border. Is this a B&W pix that was “colorized” and which has faded?

[Mike Darancette]

Those are remarkable pictures and a historical treasure.

[Psycho_Bunny]

I've seen most of them before.  They look like they were lifted from the Navy archive site and had their captions cropped.

[ThomasThomas]

It dosen’t look like the same type of film was used in all the pictures. The brownie had a fixed focal length. It changes in the pictures.