INSANE: Fascinating old history pics | Rare Historical Photos

Undiscovered History is one of the few online accounts run by the folks at History Defined. It's a blog that shares important and unusual historic facts and stories we probably don't learn in a history class at school. Their content includes such interesting stories as why Christian monks had such weird haircuts and the fashion of the decades from the 1920s up to the 1990s.

Besides this Facebook page, you can find History Defined and their content on Instagram, X, and YouTube. We've actually covered their IG page a couple of times, and you can find the article here and here. Their X page is currently the most popular with over 670k followers.

The content channel describes their goal as "to create exciting content, whether you're casually interested in history or an expert." The Instagram page came first in October of 2021, and other social media accounts followed. They also accept contributions from their followers, asking them to reach out through their contact page.

In May 2023, History Defined launched the Threads of History Facebook group, taking their audience's submissions even further. That's where their followers and fans can share any fascinating stories and photos from the past they find interesting and worth sharing.

Nowadays, we consume tons of visual media. Videos, photos, cinema, and TV can help us learn new things every day. However, they can just as easily misinform us. With the rise of AI-generated images and other means to doctor photographs, it's hard to know when we can trust what we see as true. Interestingly, what we now consider historical images were sometimes altered even before the advent of Photoshop.

Perhaps the most iconic portrait of U.S. President Abraham Lincoln is actually fake. In the image, Lincoln is standing, but that's not his body. Printmakers superimposed his head from a 1964 portrait by Anthony Berger onto John Calhoun's body. Hany Farid, a professor specializing in image analysis at Berkeley University, claims it might've been because there were no "heroic style" portraits of Lincolns at the time.

Stalin was a big fan of removing his enemies and those who fell out of his favor from photographs. One example is a 1922 image where the dictator is standing next to the Moscow canal. In the original photo, a secret police official Nikolai Yezhov is standing next to him. But in 1938, he fell out of Stalin's favor and was secretly arrested, tried, and executed. Thus, the leader had photo retouchers remove him.

The National Geographic is also a culprit when it comes to altering images. Their February issue cover in 1982 featured the pyramids of Giza. However, in the image they used, the two pyramids are too close together than they are in reality.

The magazine later expressed their regrets and said: "We no longer use that technology to manipulate elements in a photo simply to achieve a more compelling graphic effect. We regarded that afterwards as a mistake, and we wouldn't repeat that mistake today."

Did you know the iconic album cover for The Beatles' Abbey Road was also altered? In the original, Paul McCartney was holding a cigarette in his right hand. In the United States, the poster companies airbrushed the images and removed the cigarette from his hand in 2001, 14 months after George Harrison passed away from cancer.

Apple Records later issued a statement, saying they never agreed to this. "It seems these poster companies got a little carried away. They shouldn't have done what they have, but there isn't much we can do about it now."

A 1970 photograph by photojournalism student John Filo taken at a protest against the war in Vietnam was doctored as well. But not in an attempt to change history. The original simply broke the main aesthetic rule of photography: a fence post terminated on top of the subject's head. The photograph won a Pulitzer prize, so, it was worth it, probably?

And how can we forget to mention celebrities getting airbrushed on the covers of magazines? One of the earliest examples was a TV Guide cover of Oprah. The editors superimposed her head on the '60s star Ann-Margaret's body. Interestingly, the magazine didn't ask either woman's permission before they chose to do that.

Photographs can be a great source of history. But, sometimes, we should take them with a healthy dose of skepticism. As David Levi Strauss writes for TIME magazine, "Technical images have now become a form of information, to be consumed like all other bits and bytes. As we consume them, we should perhaps take a moment to reflect, not just on how we manipulate and change them, but also on how we are manipulated and changed by them."