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

[Out to Lunch]

Conclusion: Burnett does not like WPP anymore.

 

[38Deardorff]

Conclusion: Burnett does not like WPP anymore.

Conclusion: Burnett knows what he's talking about....

 

[wlewisiii]

I'm reminded of why Mr. Burnett has always been one of those who has inspired me for decades. He still does with this.

 

[Bill Blackwell]

I’m a little late in this thread, but I've always understood the "napalm girl" photo was captured with a Leica M2. I understand there has been recent controversy over its authorship, but I personally find these claims hard to believe.

 

[boojum]

It seems a discussion between those who were there and those who were not. And while eye-witness accounts can be blown apart in court I'd hazard the opinion that the present photojournalist witness has the more valid recollection than someone who was not there and is associated with a film promotion. But that is just my cynical view. As usual, YMMV.

This will continue to be of interest as it unfolds. Mr. Burnett's testimony is pretty solid.

 

[boojum]

Conclusion: Burnett does not like WPP anymore.

That may be true but what is important is what are the reasons? You can dislike you neighbor and dislike Hitler. Not the same dislikes.

 

[steveyork]

I'm seeing

It seems a discussion between those who were there and those who were not. And while eye-witness accounts can be blown apart in court I'd hazard the opinion that the present photojournalist witness has the more valid recollection than someone who was not there and is associated with a film promotion. But that is just my cynical view. As usual, YMMV.

This will continue to be of interest as it unfolds. Mr. Burnett's testimony is pretty solid.

There are independent witnesses supporting each side, and each side has people "who were there." And all this evidence can be "blown apart" on the witness stand because it's all filled with inconsistencies - on both sides, even Burnett's recent Facebook post. It does seem that people, organizations are adopting a conclusion first and then finding the evidence, premises to support it, instead of objectively looking at the evidence. Shame the photo editor in Saigon did not bring this up earlier, while Ernst Haas still alive, so that he could have the opportunity to explain or refute.

 

[boojum]

I'm seeing

There are independent witnesses supporting each side, and each side has people "who were there." And all this evidence can be "blown apart" on the witness stand because it's all filled with inconsistencies - on both sides, even Burnett's recent Facebook post. It does seem that people, organizations are adopting a conclusion first and then finding the evidence, premises to support it, instead of objectively looking at the evidence. Shame the photo editor in Saigon did not bring this up earlier, while Ernst Haas still alive, so that he could have the opportunity to explain or refute.

Kind of makes me wonder. There may be more than one explanation. But only one will be the right one.

Evidence can "be blown apart" and discredited. But it is not all equally changeable. Not all evidence is equally valid. So it must be weighed, each testimony individually. Just go down the list and review the evidence "without fear or favor." The trick is an open mind, to keep an open mind.

 

[boojum]

I just caught this AP article on the internet. If it has been posted, sorry.

Photo group says it has 'suspended attribution' of historic Vietnam picture because of doubts

There's more muddle now to an issue that has split the photographic community. An organization that honored The Associated Press' Nick Ut with its “photo of the year” in 1973 for an iconic image of a naked girl running from a napalm attack during the Vietnam War now says it has “suspended its attrib

apnews.com

 

[peterm1]

Possibly both took a picture. But only one was published! Stranger things have happened in the heat of war. (And that explanation is not even all that strange - it sounds like an every-day incident to me.)

 

[boojum]

Possibly both took a picture. But only one was published! Stranger things have happened in the heat of war. (And that explanation is not even all that strange - it sounds like an every-day incident to me.)

This is sad. WP has stirred up the pot but said they can draw no conclusion. Solomon has cut the baby in half. Great. That has really helped a lot. And there is that nagging doubt in my mind that WP has an ax to grind as does the fellow who was let go from AP.

So if WP cannot make a decision one way or the other who benefits from this? Why did WP raise the question and offer no answer? The Roman law of history is "Cuit bonit?" Who benefits? Deep Throats said it as "Follow the money."

 

[wlewisiii]

The thing that makes this smell the most is that the issue was not raised until after the one person capable of solving the question had passed away. Why wait that long? "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark" as the saying goes.

 

[peterm1]

This is sad. WP has stirred up the pot but said they can draw no conclusion. Solomon has cut the baby in half. Great. That has really helped a lot. And there is that nagging doubt in my mind that WP has an ax to grind as does the fellow who was let go from AP.

So if WP cannot make a decision one way or the other who benefits from this? Why did WP raise the question and offer no answer? The Roman law of history is "Cuit bonit?" Who benefits? Deep Throats said it as "Follow the money."

I don't know. I have no dog in the fight. I am just postulating based on my life experience. Life is like that - synchronicity and all that.

 

[boojum]

I don't know. I have no dog in the fight. I am just postulating based on my life experience. Life is like that - synchronicity and all that.

WP just does not "feel" right. I have no evidence obviously. But they created this commotion and then walked away. If they really had a case they would have presented it. They have no case. They waffled. There was a president here who was famous for being "categorically and definitely neither for nor against" things.

They have not generated knowledge, they have generated confusion and doubt. We really need more of that.

 

[p.giannakis]

Is the documentary online? Has anyone watched it?

 

[Out to Lunch]

Is the documentary online?

Not yet. It is making the rounds at a number of film festivals and the producers are in the process of negotiating a distribution deal.

 

[boojum]

Not yet. It is making the rounds at a number of film festivals and the producers are in the process of negotiating a distribution deal.

This may be why the fuss and commotion and press.