The Terror of War—Was Nick Ut's "Napalm Girl" photo taken with a Pentax camera?

Not just the Stringer's claim. A photo editor in Saigon at the time claimed he was instructed to mis-credit the negative by the head of photo operations, himself a well know photojournalist. Add to that Ut claimed he had two Leicas and two Nikons on the day in question, and the AP report now says the negative was shot on a Pentax? Not saying this is proof of anything, the circumstantial evidence is conflicting, but this is more than just some guys lone allegation.
 
Last edited:
steveyork said:
Not just the Stringer's claim. A photo editor in Saigon at the time claimed he was instructed to mis-credit the negative by the head of photo operations, himself a well know photojournalist. Add to that Ut claimed he had two Leicas and two Nikons on the day in question, and the AP report now says the negative was shot on a Pentax? Not saying this is proof of anything, the circumstantial evidence is conflicting, but this is more than just some guys lone allegation.
Click to expand...

What we are dealing with here is hearsay. When signed testimony is presented it will move from gossip to maybe fact. I am always skeptical of "what someone says." Especially if it would steal someone's glory. We all know that hearsay is not admissible in court because it is such shaky evidence. It's shaky outside of a courtroom, too.
 
boojum said:
What we are dealing with here is hearsay. When signed testimony is presented it will move from gossip to maybe fact. I am always skeptical of "what someone says." Especially if it would steal someone's glory. We all know that hearsay is not admissible in court because it is such shaky evidence. It's shaky outside of a courtroom, too.
Click to expand...
It's not hearsay. This stuff would be totally admissible in a court of law if these guys were put on the stand. I know, I've litigated enough cases in my life. Some of it is direct evidence, not even circumstantial, albeit disputed and conflicting. The Stringer said he took the pic. The photo editor said he mis-credited the negative. I mean, that's not hearsay, that's direct evidence. Just because there's direct evidence going in the opposite direction doesn't change that fact.
 
steveyork said:
It's not hearsay. This stuff would be totally admissible in a court of law if these guys were put on the stand. I know, I've litigated enough cases in my life. Some of it is direct evidence, not even circumstantial, albeit disputed and conflicting. The Stringer said he took the pic. The photo editor said he mis-credited the negative. I mean, that's not hearsay, that's direct evidence. Just because there's direct evidence going in the opposite direction doesn't change that fact.
Click to expand...


What you say is true. I was operating under the impression that someone had heard what someone else had said and was putting it forward as truth. Nevertheless I remain skeptical. You have been through moot court. You know that several people can see the same thing differently. My understanding is that eyewitness testimony is shaky. If there were a number of people with the same testimony or, better, a photo or two, I could feel comfortable with it.

My training in school required me to review reams and reams of "evidence" and accounts of "evidence." Variance was common, indeed the rule. There are some things indisputable. That Viet Cong shot by the South Vietnamese general during Tet. There is no denying that. There could be dispute about the still camera and the movie camera used at the scene.

One thing that has me confused is how AP can say that film was shot in a specific camera. I have a feeling this will unravel until we have something similar to Rashoman. And if it is just coming out now why did it take so long? The situation raises a lot of questions for me. It does seem a lot like Rashomon.
 
His cameras:
“Investigating The CameraUt has said in multiple interviews that that day he was carrying two Leicas and two Nikons. The Leica M2 that purportedly took the Napalm Girl photo was donated to the now-closed Newseum in Washington D.C.”

I was in combat in Vietnam. Navy on a DE. On the ship for 288 days and off one night during R&R in Hong Kong.
 
Things like this bug the heck out of me:

"Another obstacle was the loss of negatives of a large portion of AP’s photo coverage from the Vietnam war era. Boxes of negatives were disposed of in the New York headquarters after the war. Many other negatives were donated to private collections; for instance some of Nick Ut’s negatives were loaned to Hal Buell during his writing of the book “From Hell to Hollywood.” Following his death, Buell’s family told Ut they had been thrown away."

Hal Buell's book is about Nick Ut, and his family told Nick that the his negatives were thrown away after Hal's death. Disgusting.
 
Very interesting, thank you for sharing this. I'll try to spend some time reading the statement @Out to Lunch posted.

I suppose, what really draws my interest is why now? Why half a century down the line when people are either dead or retired? Why not back then when everyone was still around and these claims could be easily checked?
 
I have read the 30 pages of narrative supporting the AP's conclusions but not the following pages of technical explanation and support. The initial story discrediting Ut had the, and excuse the pun, "What's wring with this picture" air about it. It just did not seem to look or sound right. There is the alleged Vietnamese photojournalist and the disgruntled AP employee later let go by AP. And then there are all the rest. All the rest would have to have been sworn to secrecy for a conspiracy to exist. And that's where conspiracies fall apart: keeping them a secret. If there were some skullduggery I believe we would have heard about it long ago. I am subscribing to what appears to be a very sober, objective investigation by the AP. But that is just my opinion. YMMV

Vietnam remains our Tar-Baby.
 
Last edited:
Well worth the read: ‘The Stringer’ Review: Who Took the Historic Vietnam War Photo Known as ‘Napalm Girl’? A Riveting Documentary Says the Answer Lies in a Conspiracy

While it does have some characteristics of a conspiracy theory, there are way to many gaps in the official story.

- Ut was always saying he was carrying Leica's and Nikon's. Suddenly it is found out that a Pentax took the photo, and AP and Ut go beyond their way to prove he had one of these cameras that he had used in the past.

- Why would the original editor lie 50 years later?

- The position of Ut was too far away, and AP's story is that people were running back and forth so it is not conclusive....

Whereas the Stringer offers a much more plausible explanation: "Faas ordered the shot to be credited to Nick Út, because he wanted it to be an AP staff photo". Which by the way is supported by the editor, the alleged photographer and the data relating to the location of the pictures relative to the photographers...


In any case, all these do not take away the power of the original picture as we had with the "falling soldier"
 
If they had the original negative under investigation- would be convincing. Too many variables for a negative to go to a print, enlarger lens used, cropping, etc.
The original negative would show the mask of the camera used, and exact size of the image would give an indication of focal length used. I filed down a negative carrier "back in the day" to print more of the image from my 24/2.8 used on a Nikon F2.
 
I couldn't figure out how they determined that the negatives were shot with a Pentax - what was it about a Pentax that produced specific characteristics, as opposed to a Leica or Nikon? I assume there were brand-specific markings on the negatives?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom