What´s this pictures history?

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Reg

ORIGINAL: mlees

In combat, you don't want to stand in between the two opposing forces to snap a picture.

Standing in the line of sight/line of fire violates the camera warranty.

I have two words to say to this: Damien Parer (1912 - 1944) - look him up.

Unfortunately the second statement also proved to be accurate.

"On 17 September 1944, keen to get shots of the faces of advancing soldiers, Parer was walking backwards behind a tank, filming a group of marines advancing under fire. He was killed by a burst of Japanese machine gun fire."

[Sabre21]

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

ORIGINAL: Sabre21

Hey guys

From my observation of the original photo posted at the top of this thread, the explosion and sky in the background was an added in backdrop. If you look carefully at the outline of the two guys, you will see just that...an outline, which indicates an added backdrop. You dont see that in the other black and white photo with the troops carrying the flag.

From a realistic perspective, and having spent a long time in the infantry myself, the guy taking the picure would not be in front of the guy throwing the grenade nor would the guy next to him just be lying there lacksadaisical like. He would either be taking cover from the upcoming blast or be firing his weapon suppressing the foe so his buddy could get his grenade off without getting whacked.

So if I wanted to be looking for the source of this pic, I would be looking at either the Japanese or US film making industry. This could very well have been a US made picture for either a WWII movie or propaganda, or it could have been Japanese. Either way it is definitely a staged scene.

Just a sidenote. Is it entirely possible that the lying soldier doesn't know the standing one is standing? Yes. Is it even more entirely possible, in real combat that is, that even if he does know he is standing there, that he doesn't know the other is fixing to throw a grenade? I say yes to that too. Taking the shot alone, you cannot conclude with all certainty that the one on the ground sees/knows what you see/know.

Well considering the guy lying down does have his eyes open, I would say he is completely aware of what the guy to his right is doing. If you think he is unaware of what the one is standing doing, he would have to be asleep cuz any soldier with at least an ounce of common sense would know what's going on. C'mon now, give them a little more credit than that.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: Sabre21

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

ORIGINAL: Sabre21

Hey guys

From my observation of the original photo posted at the top of this thread, the explosion and sky in the background was an added in backdrop. If you look carefully at the outline of the two guys, you will see just that...an outline, which indicates an added backdrop. You dont see that in the other black and white photo with the troops carrying the flag.

From a realistic perspective, and having spent a long time in the infantry myself, the guy taking the picure would not be in front of the guy throwing the grenade nor would the guy next to him just be lying there lacksadaisical like. He would either be taking cover from the upcoming blast or be firing his weapon suppressing the foe so his buddy could get his grenade off without getting whacked.

So if I wanted to be looking for the source of this pic, I would be looking at either the Japanese or US film making industry. This could very well have been a US made picture for either a WWII movie or propaganda, or it could have been Japanese. Either way it is definitely a staged scene.

Just a sidenote. Is it entirely possible that the lying soldier doesn't know the standing one is standing? Yes. Is it even more entirely possible, in real combat that is, that even if he does know he is standing there, that he doesn't know the other is fixing to throw a grenade? I say yes to that too. Taking the shot alone, you cannot conclude with all certainty that the one on the ground sees/knows what you see/know.

Well considering the guy lying down does have his eyes open, I would say he is completely aware of what the guy to his right is doing. If you think he is unaware of what the one is standing doing, he would have to be asleep cuz any soldier with at least an ounce of common sense would know what's going on. C'mon now, give them a little more credit than that.

No, not really. That line of reasoning seems to be dependant on the notion that they were both laying in a hole there and then the other decided to become radical. Isn't it possible when there's explosions around you that you don't notice him, particularly since he wasn't necessarily alongside him in the first place (could had ran or sneaked up there IOW)? Of course with explosions goes the notion that the laying one wouldn't be putting on a nice little pose either. Just common sense tells me that if I'm not looking up at my comrade's arm, and I likely can't hear him even if he announced that he was throwing one, even if he were orginally in prone position like myself, I don't know for a fact that's what he's doing. He could had pulled out a rifle and shot it standing for instance, especially since his bud just sits there using his firearm as a luxury suite.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Reg

ORIGINAL: mlees

In combat, you don't want to stand in between the two opposing forces to snap a picture.

Standing in the line of sight/line of fire violates the camera warranty.

I have two words to say to this: Damien Parer (1912 - 1944) - look him up.

Unfortunately the second statement also proved to be accurate.

I recall war correspondent Frank Capa said that if you don't like the way your combat photos look, get closer; in so doing, he stepped on a mine covering the war in Indochina.

As for me, during Desert Storm I often used a telephoto lens, but I would never, never get caught dead taking photos between the enemy and my own lines.

[mlees]

(Opinion only: ignore if you wish.)
 
I can understand getting between opposing forces, if you were unaware just how close together they were.
 
The soldier throwing the grenade would seem to indicate that the enemy is within 30 yards or so. I think that is day'am close. The photographer would have to be deaf, and blind in one eye not to see enemy soldiers that close.
 
 

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: mlees

... I can understand getting between opposing forces, if you were unaware just how close together they were.

If you lack situational awareness, you don't belong anywhere near the front lines, assuming there are any front lines in today's asymetrical warfare! Maybe that's why this has been a banner year for dead journalists.

Reminds me of an account written by a Vietnam vet re a civilian photog's first and last day "in country"; just off the plane, dressed in a Hawiian shirt and brightly colored sports cap, the first thing out of his mouth was, "where's the action?"

He soon found it: a round got him right between his eyes.

[Ike99]

Feinder-Ike,What's the point of asking the question, if you've already decided what the answer is, and that everyone that offers a different hypothesis is wrong?

No, I haven´t said definatively this is an authentic picture of Japanese troops in combat. However neither have I said nor will I say definatively it is not until I get some record on it. I´ve said before, and still am, undecided.

My ¨gut feeling¨ says the two soldiers are actualy fighting somewhere with the explosion, could be from China 1937, who knows. Later a dirt mound was added with an American flag for propaganda purposes.

If this picture is fake it certainly is unusual as far as propaganda pieces. You have seen at least some of the Japanese propaganda pieces from the war I´m sure. It´s like 1955´s Godzilla done bad when involving ships and buildings and such.

Then on the other side when using projection screen everything is perfect. As you would expect a picture or film made in a studio setting to be.

In this picture ¨keep shooting¨ the two soldiers are out of focus and a bit blurry. This is odd for a studio produced propaganda picture.

The Japanese Army had combat cameramen. It would not be entirely impossible that these two Japanese soldiers are not posing in a studio somewhere and are indeed, actually fighting.

Japanese troops in combat by combat camera.

http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=4R5pajvYs ... re=related

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

Feinder-Ike,What's the point of asking the question, if you've already decided what the answer is, and that everyone that offers a different hypothesis is wrong?

No, I haven´t said definatively this is an authentic picture of Japanese troops in combat. However neither have I said nor will I say definatively it is not until I get some record on it. I´ve said before, and still am, undecided.

My ¨gut feeling¨ says the two soldiers are actualy fighting somewhere with the explosion, could be from China 1937, who knows. Later a dirt mound was added with an American flag for propaganda purposes.

If this picture is fake it certainly is unusual as far as propaganda pieces. You have seen at least some of the Japanese propaganda pieces from the war I´m sure. It´s like 1955´s Godzilla done bad when involving ships and buildings and such.

Then on the other side when using projection screen everything is perfect. As you would expect a picture or film made in a studio setting to be.

In this picture ¨keep shooting¨ the two soldiers are out of focus and a bit blurry. This is odd for a studio produced propaganda picture.

The Japanese Army had combat cameramen. It would not be entirely impossible that these two Japanese soldiers are not posing in a studio somewhere and are indeed, actually fighting.

Japanese troops in combat by combat camera.

http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=4R5pajvYs ... re=related

if you think the fighter pilots are in better focus than the "grenade guys", i despair of this discussion.

[DuckofTindalos]

He also thought that the Argentinians won the Falklands War; nobody's going to win against that sort of stupidity...

[Ike99]

Terminus-He also thought that the Argentinians won the Falklands War; nobody's going to win against that sort of stupidity...

Excuse me, would you like to copy and paste some of the quotes you credit me with having said are do you just enjoy being a D ick?

[mjk428]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

Terminus-He also thought that the Argentinians won the Falklands War; nobody's going to win against that sort of stupidity...

Excuse me, would you like to copy and paste some of the quotes you credit me with having said are do you just enjoy being a D ick?

C'mon guys, don't fight. You're both right.

[Nikademus]

Apparantly this isn't really a WWII photo, but rather a historical event closer to our time. One that continues to resonate between Japan and the U.S.

[Dino]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

.

[:D] [:D] [:D]

(He's still kicking...[:'(] [&o])

[pasternakski]

.

[DuckofTindalos]

Who was that bearded man in his yellow robe?[:D]

[Ike99]

Terminus-Who was that bearded man in his yellow robe?

uhhh...I made a request from you Terminus.

Ike99-Excuse me, would you like to copy and paste some of the quotes you credit me with having said are do you just enjoy being a D ick?

Would you like to respond? I´ll be waiting for a long time I think because you won´t be able to do this considering I never made such a remark.

I also find it very unusual that just a few post up you called me a troll when one looks at your post on this thread all you have done is troll.

You have brought nothing to this thread of any substance as to where this picture came form or when be it a staged, doctored or genuine picture. Nothing, Nada, Zero.

In fact you have offered nothing but smartarse little one line comments. Yes or No?

So it seems now trolling isn´t good enough for you and now we have simply reduced ourselves to out and out misquote lying in an effort to gather support among other morons such as yourself. As if that would garner any validity to any discussion on anything. But I do understand Morons think like this.

Yes I believe the title of D ick fits rather nicely around such a person who does this.

And by the way 23,744 post sence 2005!? And I thought I was bad! Spend a little time with a woman little sad man from Denmark.

I´ll be waiting for your copy and paste of

He also thought that the Argentinians won the Falklands War; nobody's going to win against that sort of stupidity...

Not that it will ever come.

[Ike99]

And so Terminus? What are you waiting for? I see you posting on other threads.

tm.asp?m=1646388

What, your waiting for one of the other Morons to come on here and say something first because you don´t have the balls to stand alone?

Que te pasa? No tenes las pelotas?

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

And so Terminus? What are you waiting for? I see you posting on other threads.

tm.asp?m=1646388

What, your waiting for one of the other Morons to come on here and say something first because you don´t have the balls to stand alone?

Que te pasa? No tenes las pelotas?

[:@] Do you honestly have to turn this into a conflict between websites? That's the fastest way of getting this thread shut down and someone banned. Why should Terminus answer your question when YOU never answered mine? [:@]

[bobogoboom]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

Terminus-He also thought that the Argentinians won the Falklands War; nobody's going to win against that sort of stupidity...

Excuse me, would you like to copy and paste some of the quotes you credit me with having said are do you just enjoy being a D ick?

He also though that the argentine government of the time didn't just start the war to save their own ass. and tried to defend that dictatorship. Seriously this guy should just be ignored.

[bobogoboom]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: Ike99

And so Terminus? What are you waiting for? I see you posting on other threads.

tm.asp?m=1646388

What, your waiting for one of the other Morons to come on here and say something first because you don´t have the balls to stand alone?

Que te pasa? No tenes las pelotas?

[:@] Do you honestly have to turn this into a conflict between websites? That's the fastest way of getting this thread shut down and someone banned. Why should Terminus answer your question when YOU never answered mine? [:@]

Go read the falklands article in the main forum and you will see how logic and reason have no place in this thread.