Gerry
Junior Member
Peter
Posts: 63
|
Post by Gerry on Aug 26, 2016 10:39:28 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by dave on Aug 26, 2016 10:49:32 GMT -6
Alexander Gardner of Philadelphia was the first photographer to reach the Antietam and Gettysburg battlefields. He and his assistant staged photos by moving bodies and weapons to create more exciting shots. The most famous being the "The Home of a Rebel Sharpshooter" that was taken in the "Devil's Den" area on the southern part of the battlefield. Gardner's photos at Antietam were the first ever taken of bodies laying in the field after a battle. They were shocking and highly sought after by the public who were fascinated by the death photos. One must remember people were more accustomed to viewing the dead in the mid 19th century since few were embalmed so funerals were held in the family parlor with burial soon after. Yet it was the violence and manner of the death that captivated the public. Gardner's photos were graphic and the more gruesome the better. Crimea was the first photographed campaign so the determination of the cannon balls being staged was just the beginning of manipulation of scenes to increase the dramatic effect. To me the memorable photo was the dead Marine taken on Iwo Jima where he is lying on his stomach with bayonet attached to his M1 and a hole in the left side of his helmet. He looks as if he were just resting after climbing the volcanic sand. Regards Dave www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/wapa/extContent/usmc/pcn-190-003131-00/pcn-190-003131-00/images/fig60.jpg
|
|
|
Post by wild on Aug 26, 2016 11:44:27 GMT -6
First off good to see Gerry fronting up , it was no big issue but still an all it take balls .
Here's the thing though ; if we have professional photographers of the era embellishing their work for whatever reason , are not the orals and artifacts prone to the same interference?
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by jodak on Aug 26, 2016 12:24:25 GMT -6
Probably, but the trick is in determining when and to what degree. The photographers were likely motivated by the desire to enhance their reputations or that of their craft, sell more photos, or make some sort of social statement. They were also often in league with the newspapers, which were often not the most ethical of enterprises of the day. Someone may have had similar motivations in manipulating artifacts for other reasons, but I doubt that they would have generally been as strong or widespread. However, in certain circumstances I feel sure that there was some coloring outside the lines, as there is today in some archeological endeavors, so we just have to weigh all of the available evidence and form our own opinions as to what seems reasonable and believable.
|
|
Gerry
Junior Member
Peter
Posts: 63
|
Post by Gerry on Aug 27, 2016 8:06:53 GMT -6
First off good to see Gerry fronting up , it was no big issue but still an all it take balls . Here's the thing though ; if we have professional photographers of the era embellishing their work for whatever reason , are not the orals and artifacts prone to the same interference? Cheers One of the enjoyable aspects of these boards is going through all the links provided by the members, herosrest in particular; as he steadfastly bombards us with links like cannon balls lying in the valley. The following info is interesting from one of HRs links. As it appears that I, for one, fall into every one of her categories of a so-called Custer buff. Buchholtz wrote that "Others critically, almost gleefully, analyze everything their colleagues write", so here is what Ethan E. Harris had to write: "One of the most important standards by which we judge an account to be historical is credibility. There is usually a witness that can verify the trustworthiness of a claim. Even if it’s the enemy, someone substantiates the story. It’s possible not to have this information and so we depend on the chronological or geographical details in a story to increase our trust in the details." EEH "There must be corroborating testimony, either by another person or through descriptions of an event that are undeniably accurate and largely consistent with other accounts of the battle." EEH The Thompson narrative has always had it's problem with credibility primarily due to lack of witnesses. That is a problem that I have always dealt with. That brought me to the Thompson timeline or my "scroll" that has been in discussion. It is event driven, in chronological order, taking into consideration of geographical observations made by Thompson, corroborated with events and descriptions of events that occurred during the battle. That is what I do, besides scouring oral history, studying links to minutia, belonging to organizations that study this battle, discuss what others have written and several times put on my Cavalry uniform and participate in representing Peter Thompson. It is all good. Gerry
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Aug 27, 2016 8:38:56 GMT -6
Gerry,
There were hundreds of witnesses, but they were native americans, where many accounts were never recorded, and some that were badly distorted by language and culture.
I remain astonished that some folks base theories, hypotheses or opinions based on accounts translated by sign language; from tribes that had no common language, then translated to English, through cultural filters.
If we are lucky, 30% of the data was delivered.
Gerry has spent decades doing a microanalysis of Thompson. There are hundreds of way to look at and analyze LBH. I think we need to respect his unique area of expertise and analysis.
Fred does the macro analysis, trying to fit every account and viewpoint into one field of study. One guy uses a microscope, the other guy uses the Hubble telescope. I look at Fred's arguments with Gerry with incomprehension, since their viewpoints are so different. The points of contention I do not understand.
Based on Gerry's very patient responses to posts over the last several years, I believe there is truth in Thompson's account
But he borrowed things he did not witness from others accounts, and added it to his his own.
He also borrowed things from the dime novels of his era, to sex up his account. He claimed he saw trapped US forces go to ground from where he was, near self named ford, with Indians fighting them mounted, riding in circles around trapped forces. No Indian account supports this. No body locations support this. No archeology supports this. This idea was a meme of the fiction of the dime novels. He borrowed things to sex up his account, and it allows doubters to throw his account away.
I lack Gerry's 1876 knowledge. But I have posted accounts of modern battles also sexed up to match fictional cultural norms, and to increase the financial gain to the author. Lone Survivor is a wonderful historical fiction. But following the fiction leads to bad lesson learned. The mission failed to gross incompetence in planning and execution. Enemy casualties were zero. No KIA, no WIA.
How can we compare accuracy of Red Wings fight vice LBH? The bloody thing was filmed by both sides. We have video that contradicts many accounts, and confirms others. It is amusing that people who want to twist facts to support their theory, try to deny the video footage.
The problem with LBH is that agendas overrule facts. This is a weird battle to study.
|
|
Gerry
Junior Member
Peter
Posts: 63
|
Post by Gerry on Aug 27, 2016 10:59:12 GMT -6
This is a weird battle to study. Yes it is. You bring up some good points I would like to respond to but have to run. This battle is a weird one for sure. Gerry
|
|
|
Post by wild on Aug 27, 2016 11:17:18 GMT -6
This is a weird battle to study. Never a truer word was spoken. And the surviving witnesses were not neutral withnesses but participants with their own agendas. A case of agendas being influenced by agendas. And if it is not agendas then it is "context" as prone to picking as the proverbial cherry. Best wishes
|
|
|
Post by wild on Aug 27, 2016 14:14:00 GMT -6
Whoever is last to leave switch off the lights.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Aug 27, 2016 15:42:19 GMT -6
Ugh
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Aug 27, 2016 19:05:01 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by wild on Aug 28, 2016 3:07:19 GMT -6
The reporter is nothing more than a crap stiring scumbag . He has other articles in a similar vain, one dealing with the suicide of a CO . The bollox publishes photos of men who were killed under this officers command. What cause does this muck raking serve other than his own agenda? Stirring up antagonism between brave soldiers, their units and families. Just imagine the effect this sort of gutter journalism has on families trying to come to terms with the loss of loved ones. There is no issue here , no second guessing , If the soldier is due the Medal of Honour then well and good and it ends there. Hurrah
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Aug 28, 2016 4:58:19 GMT -6
Montrose,
Thank you for that, no matter how this comes out, medal or no medal, that Chief had to make a call in real time. Was it the right call? We will, maybe/should never know. There were other team members to be concerned about. Quite often the press gloms on to something and pulls on it like my Labs, stretching the fibers to the breaking point. Those that sent this team in harms way knew the risks, as did team members. When things go side ways there are many who can be questioned. Again thanks for the reality check.
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Aug 28, 2016 5:01:35 GMT -6
Pequod,
Removed some of my previous posts.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Aug 28, 2016 6:17:57 GMT -6
Spot on Tom .
|
|