Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/01/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]B.D. I think you've put the shoe on the wrong tootsie. Let's take point one: B. D. Colen wrote: > Good Lord, Howard - What is so improbable that someone might shoot two > people dying on approximately the same spot if the photographer was > crouched > nearby, camera pointed toward the spot? > What seems quite improbable is the existence of two images, both available, with no other evidence. We have all those fellows waving their rifles, jumping trenches, etc. but only two "death shots". A man gets shot.....his compadres rush to pull in his dead body....another man gets shot....Here come the heroic compadres...All that action and all that lead in the air. If that really makes sense to you then welcome to the Emerald City. *Point two:* > I think what puzzles me the most about all this is not whether or not it is > real, but the seeming compulsion on the part of some to insist that it is > not. > *When is it wrong to question uncorroborated truths? Hell's Bells. it should be simple to prove the validity of what happened. Let's see the frames on either side of the 2 death shots. I don't think I'm the only one who questions what has gone on here. If that were the case, who would give a damn?* *Point three:* > How is it that Eddie Adams managed to push his shutter release at the > precise instant the Gen. Lon's bullet entered the skull of the VC captive? > Was that execution staged for Adams? Was he complicit in it? > > How did Bob Jackson happen to be in precisely the right position to get > that > astounding photo of Jack Ruby shooting Oswald? Was he tipped ahead that the > shooting would take place? > > I don't think anyone asks those questions, yet, if one believes that > uncritical "acceptance of this most improbable coincidence is inadequate, > >> irresponsible journalism" is the only way to view the possibility that >> Capa >> > shot - sorry - two people on the same spot, how can one deal with those > other > two astounding coincidences? > *No, B.D., there really isn't a Santa Claus. Yes, Adams might have thought so since Loan offed the VC at the right moment. Of course, there were others corroborating the event. Seen the Films of the VC and his messy headache? Every time we look at some memorable images do we question how or why? I don't. More often than not these memorable works happen in view of many, but with only a smattering of fantastic shots. I am particularly attached the the Mt. Suribachi image. There has been a lot of give and take about Rosenthal's veracity over the years but it doesn't upset me. What does upset me is this compulsion on the part of so many to blindly accept questionable events which go unproven.We are not in the romance field or the propaganda field but the fact field. The fact that the image was initially questioned should raise red flags. What we have seen published from the original take is enough to give me an uneasy feeling. One thing is certain, I'd not fault Capa for this but all those who followed. The propagandists, the fans of war photography and those in a position to set it to rest. * > B. D. > > > On 1/28/08 11:21 AM, "Walt Johnson" <walt@waltjohnson.com> wrote: > > >> Howard >> >> I knew some good would come from my recent generosity in the collection >> plate. Even the damn clouds are in identical formations. Too much >> cogitation and too little evidence. Any one who has worked an interview >> knows the ease of proving their original point of view. Especially, when >> dealing with such antiquities. Where the hell are Scully and Mulder when >> we need them? :-) >> >> Walt >> >> Howard Ritter wrote: >> >>> Strange that the the writer's painstaking research and cogitation >>> weren't accompanied by even a passing question about how ONE >>> photographer happened to snap the shutter at the moments of the deaths >>> of TWO different soldiers within a few minutes at the VERY SAME SPOT >>> on a hillside. Not a word of skepticism on this point! Uncritical >>> acceptance of this most improbable coincidence is inadequate, >>> irresponsible journalism. >>> >>> To my mind, the second and lesser-known photograph is prima facie >>> evidence of several iterations of a staging. Unfortunately, this piece >>> does nothing to resolve the controversy. >>> >>> --howard >>> >>> >>> On Jan 27, 2008, at 4:31 AM, Tarek Charara wrote: >>> >>> >>>> There was this essay posted here a few months ago: >>>> >>>> <http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/database/capa_r.html> >>>> >>>> For whatever it's worth... :^) >>>> >>>> All the best from the south of France! >>>> >>>> Tarek >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > >