General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNew mystery arises from iconic Iwo Jima image (added 1 paragraph at bottom)
Last edited Sun Nov 23, 2014, 09:56 AM - Edit history (1)
http://dataomaha.com/media/news/2014/iwo-jima/
BY MATTHEW HANSEN WORLD-HERALD COLUMNISTSUNDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2014
Eric stands at the front of a classroom and points at the blown-up image of a famous photo. He's pointing because he believes the photo has long concealed a lie. He's pointing because he believes the same photo can also be used to reveal something else.
"Have we ever looked at this photo?" he asks the handful of people who have gathered to view his research, including a Creighton University expert on American history and a military historian. "Have we really looked at it?"
You have seen this photo, perhaps seen it depicted on stamps you licked or on the covers of magazines you read or on a 60-foot-tall bronze statue you looked up at before entering Arlington National Cemetery.
You have seen this photo because on Feb. 23, 1945, in the middle of one of the fiercest battles of World War II, a group of U.S. Marines carried a flag up the highest peak on the Pacific island of Iwo Jima. As six men struggled to plant the flagpole into the ground, an Associated Press photographer, who was worried he would miss the shot, clicked his shutter without even looking through his viewfinder. You have seen this photo because it's one of the most famous photos in American history.
Eric has stared at this photo for hours. He has zoomed in on the black-and-white image until he can see the creases in the men's helmet covers and can study the unique shapes of their noses. He has combed through dozens of other photos taken that day atop Iwo Jima's Mount Suribachi. He has watched a film clip of the famous flag raising so many times he has each frame memorized.
Eric is an amateur history buff, a World War II enthusiast, a 39-year-old so into the Marines that he maintains a website celebrating the history of the Marines Corps' famed 5th Division.
Added content: He is arguing that another man a Marine who isn't even a blip on the radar of history is in fact standing front and center in the most iconic image of World War II.
FULL feature story at link.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]
CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)People sure do complain about a lot of easily remedied things.
demmiblue
(36,845 posts)This is a randome issue, not an Omaha Steve issue.
Omaha Steve
(99,618 posts)But I added a paragraph for clarity.
OS
demmiblue
(36,845 posts)Some people just get their kicks being rude.
randome
(34,845 posts)My dyslexic 'speed reading' overlooked the pictures entirely.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]
Logical
(22,457 posts)PCIntern
(25,541 posts)thanks for the heads-up. It made great reading on a Sunday Morning
PC
QuebecYank
(147 posts)There's always been a mystery about the flag raising, but, I had never heard of this one. It does seem obvious to me that there was a mistake in identity. Pfc Franklin Sousley, has been robbed of his place in history. As have his family. Of course, Bradley's son, won't look at the evidence. That picture with his dad's name attached to it, is his meal ticket. This story needs to be picked up by a news network, in order for the Pentagon and Marines, and Bradley's son, to take note.
marble falls
(57,080 posts)QuebecYank
(147 posts)Bradley's son, has made money off the books about this historic event, and he's probably done speaking engagements. The movie, 'Flags of Our Fathers' was produced; and like I said before, he refuses to look at the evidence. Why? If he looks at the evidence, he'd then have to provide proof of his father being one of the men there. It shouldn't be shocking to think, someone would want to cash in. Surely, you've heard of people trying to collect money from the government, saying they were victim(s) of the 9/11 attacks and/or Hurricane Katrina. Some people have no shame. And some just don't care about facts. The son, is one of them.
marble falls
(57,080 posts)to the false victims of Sept 11 and the son is a con man.
What about all the authors of historical events they make money off of events they never experienced, shameless exploiters? In that 99.9% of Americans can only name Ira Hayes if they can name any of the flag raisers, I am not sure how many trillions of dollars Bradley's son makes off of the event, and considering that the military and press in this country have an unquestioned, unastralixed, clear view of that history up till now, how did Bradley pere manipulate the Marines, the USN, the press, military historians into accepting his dad as being on MT Sarabachi raising Old Glory?
Sounds personal between you Mr Bradley Jr. Looks like slander at any rate. When did Jr find out his dad wasn't at the raising?
QuebecYank
(147 posts)marble falls
(57,080 posts)we accuse the son of self-aggrandizement on the efforts and concurrently documented bravery of his dad? Let alone a Marine at a battle that wasn't too certainly won when the photo opportunity happened. At a time when perhaps one of four initial Marine invaders were killed or wounded, so dad does deserve some due any ways.
Just saying: so much trouble, so little reward.
And we're talking about another geezer, one who probably looks a lot like me.
QuebecYank
(147 posts)My dad's a Vietnam veteran, so I know about the sacrifices all military personnel endured. As well as their families. But Junior, doesn't seem at all interested. In fact, I believe that, unless someone approaches him at a speaking engagement, he will do everything he can to ignore the question. It appears as if he doesn't want to face a (quite likely) truth. If, this info is true, it's possible Junior may be hurt about his father allowing not just him and the rest of the family, to believe he was part of this historical event. But that the rest of the country, will have been misled as well. So, a dried up meal-ticket, and the truth being painful, are at least 2 solid reasons, for Jr to ignore the information. This info is on the internet, available to all. The questions are not going to go away. Eventually, he'll have to give some sort of official answer concerning this story. If it's his dad in the picture, prove it. Can he prove it? I think he knows he can't.
marble falls
(57,080 posts)Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)I think it's shameful for the father to take credit for something like this if he wasn't there raising the flag. And the son doesn't want to look for answers for fear of the truth. The pant cuffs not so much, but the belt and helmet are damning. I don't know how the son never noticed that. If it's that easily taken apart he's been lucky to ride this lie this long.
QuebecYank
(147 posts)All the more reason, for him to ignore the info. He's probably hoping it'll all go away, if he doesn't respond to any and all questions.
Demit
(11,238 posts)so I clicked your link, then spent about an hour reading other stories that explained what happened to start the rumor the photo had been staged. So thanks for posting! I learned something!
sarisataka
(18,632 posts)Just two different flag raisings. The second became the more well known because of the picture. IIRC it is actually a cropped photo because the photographer was not actually focusing on the flag raising.
Here is a bit on the first raising http://collectinghistory.net/iwojima/
The middle photo is the shot from a different angle and it shows the flag first placed on the mountain.
Demit
(11,238 posts)But I have to correct you, Rosenthal was totally focused on the (second) flag raising. The second photo became more well known because the flag was bigger. That's why the second team was sent up, because the first flag was too small to be seen by the troops, and those in command wanted a bigger flag.
Rosenthal sent the photo as he shot it. It was a horizontal orientation and, when the film was developed, an editor cropped in close to make the photo vertical, & that's what was published.
Autumn
(45,066 posts)lpbk2713
(42,757 posts)John Bradley (center of photo with right elbow raised) was a US Navy Hospitalman (HM2).
Orrex
(63,207 posts)Historic NY
(37,449 posts)I remember seeing them at a display years ago on the Intrepid. I think most confusion came from the original vs the staged shot's later.
UTUSN
(70,684 posts)He was addressing a separate issue (Marine Corps wanting to leave the Navy Department jurisdiction), but public relations had long been known as an USMC strong point. And I am not branch basher.
*********QUOTE********
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/h/harrystrum112322.html
[font size=5]The Marine Corps is the Navys police force and as long as I am President that is what it will remain. They have a propaganda machine that is almost equal to Stalins.[/font]
Harry S Truman
*************UNQUOTE*************
brooklynite
(94,517 posts)That history has mislabeled the two people in the front of pack putting up the flag? even though all six were involved?
Is there a reason this is particularly important?
pa28
(6,145 posts)Thanks for posting it!