Reading mode: Light Dark

Most inspiring photo of all time....

Go to last post
Not sure what history channel you are watching but there were no British in Trenton that night, they were Hessians paid for by the British to there respective lords.

http://apollo.carroll.com/bchs/Pages/crossingatdtrenton.html

Tom
Mezidar said:
There might have been Hessian mercenaries in some units, but it was
the British Army. You need to watch a little less MTV and tune into
the History channel once in a while.

Zidar
Alaska

--
It's not about stuff.
http://www.pbase.com/zidar
Click to expand...
--
Tom
 
It's not controversial at all if you take the time to read the history of it

which you apparently haven't. Perhaps it's not wise and prudent to comment on something you have not done your research on.
danks said:
Did I miss it? I have not seen it come up in this thread. The photo
is quite controversial. Apparently it was a reenactment, for the
camera. The "real" flag raising had occured earlier. So, in a way,
the photo is a fake I suppose.
--
Terry Danks
Nature & Wildlife (Hummingbirds!) Photography
http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/n1dcmc78/home.htm
Click to expand...
--
DavidRoy
 
I think that some photos were faked, because, as many of you have pointed out, it would be hard to get good ones on the moon. Some may have been faked in the studio to give the press some nice photos. Some are probably real (ie the poorer ones). I won't bother going in to all the minor points.

However the moon landings definitely took place, as they placed a mirror on the moon's surface, in order that more detailed measurements could be taken from Earth. An Earth based laser is bounced off it, and it comes back every time. If there were no moon landings, nothing would come back.

And before anyone else comes up with conspiracy theories (ie NASA 'claims' they get a signal back but they don't really), these experiments can be conducted by any independent lab, in any country, with a big enough laser.

Also in about 1 years time a Japanese probe is going to take very detailed surface pictures of the moon. This will be conclusive proof (either way), as it will see if the Apollo missions really di leave anything behind.

I hope this clears it up for you. Oh, and by the way, I'm an astrophysicist, so I'm not plucking this out of thin air.
 
It was the British bleeping army. They were fighting to maintain British control, not Hessian bleeping control. Is the US Army now the Puerto Rican army or the Mexican army because there are a lot of Mexicans and Puerto Ricans in it? The French Foreign Legion is 40% Russian and 35% Polish, but it's still the FRENCH Foreign Legion.

Zidar
Alaska
--
It's not about stuff.
http://www.pbase.com/zidar
 
Calling them suicide bombers greatly cheapens those who have committed suicide for a belief - without taking out other people's lives in the process.

I think of Monks who set have set themselves on fire
I think of Chinese individuals standing in front of tanks

Walking into a starbucks strapped with explosives is about Murder, not suicide.

So I also disagree with Thomas use of homicide bomber - I prefer "Murderers"

Makes it a lot clearer.

Don't fall for the propaganda that makes it sound like a noble calling to kill people while they are just enjoying their lattes.
grumpy said:
grumpy said:
grumpy said:
What are you, a puppet for Fox News? The phrase is "suicide
bomber" no matter how many times Ari tries repeats the incorrect
phrase. The distinction should be obvious.
Click to expand...
That must be it, I have no independent thought.

Some call it a vehicle. Others call it a car. Some call it an
automobile. You can call it anything you want, we'll both know
what you're speaking about.

They're terrorists that like to commit homicide. They're "homicide
bombers". It's an appropriate name for their behavior. If you
want to call them something else, that's fine, I'll not call you a
puppet.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
The more things change, the more things change
 
National pride is a really funny thing. I moved to the US in 1982 from Australia, and I find that Americans don't talk openly about how great the country is, but will display and rally around the flag with pride. you will see a lot of American flags in shots.

In Australia, you can't go for more than a couple of minutes listening on the radio before you hear what a great country it is, but no rallying around the flag.
Ron H
Kool March One said:
For me it's the photo of the individual single handedly stopping
the tank column before the Tiananmen Square massacre.

How bout you?

--
Not taking life too seriously.
http://www.pbase.com/march1/root
Click to expand...
 
If shooting a 12 year old makes you feel like you're stopping suicide bombers then you are a very sick man.
Thomas Gardner said:
BabyNSX said:
Thomas Gardner said:
Please, put the blame where it belongs, the homicide bomers that
want this death and distruction to contine.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Why? Because you're above being disagreed with? When you
purposefully strap on a bag of explosives, walk into a shopping
mall and pull the pin, you are wanting the death and destruction to
continue.

Why? Because you know full well, that in committing this act,
there will be deserved retaliation.

When the intent is purposful, the reason is also clear.
Click to expand...
 
Is shooting a 12 year old not considered murder then?

Is dropping a bomb on a building in the hope of killing a suspect, but at the same time killing dozens more children not murder?
koalafarm said:
I think of Monks who set have set themselves on fire
I think of Chinese individuals standing in front of tanks

Walking into a starbucks strapped with explosives is about Murder,
not suicide.

So I also disagree with Thomas use of homicide bomber - I prefer
"Murderers"

Makes it a lot clearer.

Don't fall for the propaganda that makes it sound like a noble
calling to kill people while they are just enjoying their lattes.
koalafarm140687 said:
koalafarm140687 said:
grumpy said:
What are you, a puppet for Fox News? The phrase is "suicide
bomber" no matter how many times Ari tries repeats the incorrect
phrase. The distinction should be obvious.
Click to expand...
That must be it, I have no independent thought.

Some call it a vehicle. Others call it a car. Some call it an
automobile. You can call it anything you want, we'll both know
what you're speaking about.

They're terrorists that like to commit homicide. They're "homicide
bombers". It's an appropriate name for their behavior. If you
want to call them something else, that's fine, I'll not call you a
puppet.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
The more things change, the more things change
Click to expand...
 
davidroy said:
It's not controversial at all if you take the time to read the
history of it
Click to expand...
.............. what happened was simple enough, they took the hill and war correspondents were despatched to get a few pics, one was obviously raising the flag, a firm favourite.

However, by the time the film and still crews arrived the enthusiastic brigade leaders had already raised the flag. So a few soldier taking a break were asked to raise the flag again for the cameras, which they did with enthusiasm.

So it is a fake in one sense, but the event did happen, what’s open to question though is the amount of choreographing with the soldiers, this was a propaganda movie and stills spectacular.

It was a spectacular achievement in the first instance so that’s what that fake photos and movie represents and not an attempt to deceive anyone.

As I would consider a fake photo to be one trying to deceive, then this raising of the flag shot does not fall into that category and is not really a fake at all. I do “fake” shots all the time, I arrive at “person of the year” presentations and get a shot in a private room of the presentation to make a deadline, the paper might be printed by the time the actually announcement is made but the exercise was not to delude people so I’d not consider the pic fake.
 
Discovery Channel documentary on the South Sea invasion fleet and facts are that the war correspondents were sheltering and were NOT allowed to follow the troops up the mountain, which was one of the most bloodiest and costly little turds of land within a campaign that was the most costly of all campaigns anywhere in the world at any time.

Orders were given for them to take a flag raising shot, there were several stills photographers there as well as two film crews. The US was taking a battering and losing men and machines at an unsustainable rate, this particular battle was seen as the turning point in a demoralised US marine invasion and island clearing operation.

An operation that was threatening to defeat the US is sheer numbers lost and the impetuous for the dropping of nuclear weapons ~ though that fact was not known to the ground troops. The flag raising shot is captured by two film crews and at least three other photographers, your American friend, Joe Rosenthal was one of them and in a not uncommon alliance between the otherwise rival news crews, Rosenthal’s picture was the only one officially sanctioned in an effort to provide a morale boosting image for the consumption of the combat marines.

In point of fact, there was no one on that hilltop when the flag was raised initially but it’s rising was a significant contribution to the continued fighting. In other documentaries it was revealed that a minor officer gave the command to raise the flag despite having orders to wait for the media to arrive, the media did not climb the hill with the troops but there was still a decisive battle to be won and American troops were still engaging an unrelenting enemy and the flag was raised to give them morale boost and increased fighting vigour.

This was not lost on the army press corps and the flag raising was re-staged for the press there is nothing wrong with that and it takes a tiny weenie mind to make the comments you made to me.

I want an apology.
 
Beth - Take my comment literally. It appears you are reading an attitude about political debates or which "side" he appears to favour. I would have said the same had he advocated for the other "side" and I would have said nothing if he had not claimed he didn't want a political debate. My comment was directed strictly at what I was sure was a phony statement or lie. And it did turn into a political debate, didn't it?
Beth said:
From my perspective, it is only a problem when other people MAKE it
one.
Beth
50/1.4 said:
BabyNSX said:
BabyNSX said:
I don't want to turn this into a political debate,
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Canon 1D, 50mm 1.4, 28-135 USM IS, (something wide coming next), I
didn't realize how soon! 20-35mm 3.5-4.5.
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/galleries/cokids
Click to expand...
 
zidar said:
There might have been Hessian mercenaries in some units, but it was
the British Army
Click to expand...
Paid German mercenaries by the crown are not British Army Troops.
They were not even trained by the British or commanded by them.
zidar said:
You need to watch a little less MTV and tune into the History channel
once in a while.
Click to expand...
How does one correct someone and then goes about insulted that
person they disagree with in the first place. How about skipping the
correction that I say you are wrong and go directly go to the insult.
Saves time for everyone.

Also I would suggest you stop watching TV and read a book.
No not a comic book!

Bill
--
“What actually happens in the real world is what photographers needs to know.”
Michael Reichmann – Luminous Landscape
 
I think your criticism of William C. is not well founded. Unlike your example involving the FFL, the Hessians served in autonomous units and hired themselves out as such, not as individuals, with little direct control by British officers. William C. was being specific, making a comparative statement of the Hessian military to other militaries, including the British military. William C. was making a military, not political, comment which would not make his point if he used the more general term "British" that you suggest. You want to pretend there was nothing to distinguish the Hessians from the British, while many military experts see this distinction clearly. The training and equipage of these Hessians was done on the mainland of Europe, not the British Isles.
zidar said:
It was the British bleeping army. They were fighting to maintain
British control, not Hessian bleeping control. Is the US Army now
the Puerto Rican army or the Mexican army because there are a lot
of Mexicans and Puerto Ricans in it? The French Foreign Legion is
40% Russian and 35% Polish, but it's still the FRENCH Foreign
Legion.

Zidar
Alaska
--
It's not about stuff.
http://www.pbase.com/zidar
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top