The alleged Beersheba Charge Photograph

[Guest Bill Woerlee]

Mates

The alleged Elliott Photograph

Forum members might be familiar with an ongoing discussion of the alleged Elliott photograph of the charge at Beersheba. The primary discussion of this can be read on the Australian Light Horse site through a reproduction of the Ian Jones article called: "Is This The Charge At Beersheba?" It was published in the Journal of the Australian War Memorial, October 1983.

BEERSHEEBA... THE CONTROVERSIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF THE CHARGE

http://www.lighthorse.org.au/histbatt/photo.htm

In essence, Elliott claims that the photograph shows the charge of the 4th and 12th LHRs of the Australian 4th Light Horse Brigade at Beersheba, Palestine, 31 October 1917. His Statutory Declaration claims that he was in an advanced position performing range finding duties and was unaware that the charge was planned but fortunately had a small camera with him and so took a quick snap as the horses charged towards him. In his latest work, The legend of the Light Horse written by Ian Jones in 2007, the arguments are reiterated with a few modifications but essentially alleging the same conclusion as made in 1983.

Taking this as the starting point, I examined the internal evidence of the photograph, a process which allows the document or photograph tell its own story. By use of Ian Jones' photograph from the 1983 journal article, there have been some significant and startling discoveries made.

The first part of the story can be found at:

9th LHR On Manoeuvres, Part 2

http://alh-research.tripod.com/Light_Horse...oeuvres-part-2/

In essence, logical inconsistencies of the alleged Elliott photograph claims are tested against the internal evidence of that very photograph. At the end of the day, the claims of Elliott and Jones cannot be sustained through simple examination of the photograph that was in the possession of Jones and used for his article. Unless some startling new evidence to support the Elliott allegation is found - and that can only be the roll of negatives from his camera which shows this picture amongst a number of other pictures he has taken - then this issue is at an end.

Part 1 of this discussion should also be read in conjunction with this part of the story. It is found at:

9th LHR On Manoeuvres

http://alh-research.tripod.com/Light_Horse...-on-manoeuvres/

This details other, circumstantial evidence relating to the photograph.

I hope members enjoy reading the findings and please feel free to discuss the issues that arise.

Cheers

Bill

Australian Light Horse Studies Centre

http://alh-research.tripod.com/Light_Horse/

[bushfighter]

Well done Bill

I wonder how many other "action" photos of the time could stand up to such forensic examination.

The comments on the duties of a range-taker are interesting - not a job for the faint-hearted!

Harry

[stevenbecker]

Bill,

Of cause my concerns about Elloit's claims are wel known to us on the LH site.

I am still to see how a Pte soldier was doing what he said he was that afternoon.

First making a range card was the job of a NCO or an officer not a pte. Now he could have been doing the drawing for the officer but the Ranges and berrings would be from a officer.

Secondly Why was he where he was?

It wasn't untill 1600 that orders were recived to charge Beersheba and the movment of the 4 LH Bde begun to concentrate the Bde. There was no order for the 4 LH MG Sqn to provide MG suport for the charge, only the British RHA.

So why would the MG Sqn need a range card for the charge?

Thirdly, The 4 LH MG Sqn moved to the rear of the attacking Regts behind the last Sqn's of the 4 and 12 LHRs, so as to be on hand when the Bde captured Beersheba or to suport them when they stopped. There was no order to set up the MG's to give cover fire either by direct or indirect fire at the Turkish trenches. Was some order given for them to do so? not that I've found.

Thats my main problem with Elliots account, now if we concide that he was where he said he was we still have to wonder why?

S.B

[SiegeGunner]

Those of us who have not been following this topic on the ALH Forum are at something of a disadvantage here. Can we assume that the photograph has passed a certain number of basic tests, namely that it is a genuine photograph (not manipulated or montaged) of a full-scale charge (as opposed to just a mounted advance) by the LH units concerned, over terrain that plausibly resembles Beersheba?

[Ozzie]

Siege, you can get the drift and the links here.

http://www.lighthorse.org.au/forum/topic.a...Terms=beersheba

Cheers

Kim

[SiegeGunner]

Too complicated, Kim, and life is too short. Is there an executive summary, or is this, like the machine-guns at Anzac thread, still an ongoing saga?

Mick

[George Armstrong Custer]

Too complicated, Kim, and life is too short. Is there an executive summary, or is this, like the machine-guns at Anzac thread, still an ongoing saga?

Mick

Yes, maybe some of our Aussie pals could cut a long story short and bring us up to speed with a concise summary of what the latest thinking and consensus - for and against - there is on the photo.

ciao,

GAC

[ShirlD]

That would be handy for some aussies too

Cheers!

[Ozzie]

OK, it's late so don't expect too much.

VERY simply to a not so simple question.

Camp A says the photo is genuine, siting Elliot's and others say so.

Camp B says it is not because the of the lack of dust and a few other things, like why was Elliot out there.

Beersheba Charge was/is a big deal, as it was a charge by Light Horse over four mile, ( Light Horse usually rode up, dismounted and attacked, this was a mounted attack) at a fortified position. And it worked, very well.

The 12th and 4th LH were the chargers, with other regiments softening up the position during the day and taking other positions.

There are many things that come into it. Was there a race for water? Why did the Turks stop firing.

Who was where, and was the photo of the charge or a mock up later.

It is a debate that will probably never be proven one way or the other, unless iron clad first hand evidence is produced.

It seems that everyone can produce evidence to promote their theory, but not prove it outright.

To understand Beersheba one has to examine the evidence and make up one's own mind, and that is not light reading.

The Charge at Beesheba draws debate for all sorts of reasons, least of one is the photograph.

Again, you have to do your own reading and make up your own mind.

Cheers

Kim

[Guest Bill Woerlee]

Mates

I would like to thank everyone for their excellent contributions and raising all the points that each one of has. Some are good, others are retelling of old and familiar tales which bear little relevance to the thesis presented but it is always good to have them retold.

The thing I keep telling everyone when dealing with an issue such as this is to follow the money trail. See who stands to gain by maintaining the myth.

Well without keeping anyone in suspense any longer, I will give an idea as to two organisations that stand to gain financially by peddling this myth.

1. The RSL

2. Whatever historical company [read - marketing company] that chooses to come up with some legend to flog items at over inflated prices.

Evidence.

For a hundred dollars, you too can be the owner of:

THIS FANTASTIC LIMITED EDITION PRINT TITLED THE BATTLE OF BEERSHEBA HAS BEEN ENDORSED AND LICENSED BY THE R.S.L. THE RSL's LOGO APPEARS ON BOTH THE PRINT AND THE COA. THE PRINT HAS TO BE SEEN AND READ TO BE FULLY APPRECIATED. THE VICTORIA CROSS HAS BEEN EMBOSSED AND BRONZE FOILED. THE TITLE HEADING AND SUB HEADING AS WELL AS MANY OTHER PARTS OF THE PRINT HAVE ALSO BEEN BRONZE FOILED. THE PRINT HAS A GLOSS FINISH APPLIED TO THE MAIN IMAGE AND TWO FANTASTIC WATERMARK IMAGES OF THE LIGHT HORSE IN THE TOP LEFT AND TOP RIGHT CORNERS OF THE PRINT WHICH MAKES THIS PRINT LOOK SPECTACULAR. A COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE SOLDIER WHO TOOK THE PHOTO ACCOMPANIES EACH PRINT. THE TEXT ON THE PRINT TELLS THE STORY OF THE LIGHT HORSE AND THE BATTLE OF BEERSHEBA AND A PRINT SHOULD BE HANGING IN EVERY HOME IN AUSTRALIA.

And here is the print:

You can see it in situ for the next few days

http://tinyurl.com/6mclzf

Apart from no VC's being won there, and this fact should have been known by the RSL, this piece of dross is no more than a sick joke made at the expense of the brave men who were at Beersheba on that day.

Folks need to get their heads around the concept that when you endorse the Jones thesis, which has been proved conclusively to be wrong by his own evidence, regardless of all the other circumstantial arguments floating around, then you endorse the exploitation of these brave men in this fashion. These ordinary men become mythologised into cartoon, cardboard cut out characters by this dross. It demeans and dishonours their sacrifice.

Cheers

Bill

[SiegeGunner]

Bill,

If there is no authentic photograph of the charge at Beersheba, the 'Elliott' photo, however flawed, is in itself no more offensive than the excellent film 'The Light Horsemen'. The ethics of the RSL marketing 'blurb' are, I think, a private matter for Australia to resolve. From a perspective of thousands of miles away, I cannot see this photo as demeaning the men who actually charged at Beersheba. The image itself certainly does not, to my eyes, at least, reduce them to mythological cardboard cut-outs. It appears to be an un-manipulated photograph showing several lines of Australian Light Horse beginning to charge. If it does in fact depict other LH units, photographed by Frank Hurley (in which case, though, why aren't there more pics taken at the same time?), on exercises in another location, it is still no more fraudulent than the thousands of other 'staged' photos of major actions in the Great War.

Mick

[Auimfo]

I must admit that I probably tend to believe this photo to be of a staged charge taken after Beersheba. However, the origins of this photo have never conclusively been proved and in all reality will probably be debated over for years to come with very little chance of ever establishing the absolute truth.

In that respect we can therefore only accept the belief of those who claim it to be of the actual charge and wish to portray it as such. We might not agree with their thesis but we cannot deny their use of it because there is not enough evidence to totally refute their claim.

It does appear that some marketing company is trying to make a profit from the poster but if it's such a 'sick joke' then why didn't we see any hue and cry over the 'over-inflated price' of the previous one in the series depicting the 11th Bn posing on the side of the pyramid in Egypt?

The only real difference between the two presentations is that the photo of the charge is questionable. And when you actually examine both the poster and the sales blurb, no where does it state that this photo is of the actual charge. In fact, would the same concerns be made if the photo was changed for George Lambert's painting of the charge? He did not witness the charge and only painted his depiction of it. Ultimately there is no difference between that and the photo other than the artistic medium used.

Other than perhaps being a little tasteless by cashing in on Australia's military history, I don't think the actual representation of the poster causes any harm nor perpetuates any myth. (although I would like to be able to read the actual text of the poster).

Cheers,

Tim L.

[stormboy]

Tim

Thank you for posting the other item in this series.

Until today I had not been aware that the VC was embossed on each installment of the publication. I had allowed myself to be infuriated by the presumption that the RSL had willingly 'authenticated' the suggestion that Victoria Crosses had been won at Beersheba. On seeing this new picture, I reread the opening paragraph above and now realise that we have been conned....

[Ozzie]

Stormboy,

The Australian Light Horse Association also maintains the history of the Australian Light Horse.

Cheers

Kim

[ceebee]

This is an interesting topic that has attracted much attention and debate across the years.

Having read the posts, the articles on the Australian Light Horse Studies Centre and various other articles, I can throw in a few comments of my own.

1. The problem with the ebay sale, for someone with an informed appreciation of the photo, is that the uniformed reader and prospective buyer are not given a balanced statement. This is a common situation in many sales and may not be the fault of the vendor if they are genuinely unaware of particular details relating to an item they are selling. At the end of the day it’s caveat emptor.
2. Whilst the ebay blurb doesn’t say that the photo is an image of the actual charge, it also doesn’t say that it is a photo of a re-enactment or a photo of a real charge taken at another time and place. However, the language used and the picture’s caption strongly imply that the photo shows the actual charge at Beersheba. Furthermore, the sales blurb states: “A copy of the letter from the soldier who took the photo accompanies each print.” If this is the statement by Elliot there is a direct link to the assertion that the image shows the actual charge.
3. Statements that the article “has been endorsed and licensed by the RSL” and that “the RSL’s logo appears on both the print and the COA” are clearly included to support the photo’s authenticity.
4. One would assume that the RSL, as an endorsing agent, has seen the finished product and therefore concurs with a view that the image can be taken as an authentic picture of the charge. In saying this, I assume that the ebay print was produced after the publications in the JAWM and Wartime and that RSL personnel were aware of the research and its conclusions. I’m also assuming that the print is not a publication of the RSL.
5. I have to disagree with comment about the ebay item and Lambert’s painting (post 12). Whilst I acknowledge that both images could be labelled “representations”, in my view there is a distinct difference between the manner in which the ebay image is being sold and the sale of a print of Lambert’s painting. The latter clearly could not be sold with the same sales pitch. By this I mean that the ebay sale strongly implies that the image was made at the time of the event whereas Lambert’s painting was made after the event and is an artistic representation.

Bill, here are some comments and thoughts for your consideration.

In his account of the event Elliot states: “ ..having a camera in my haversack I got it out and took a shot.” Simple as that.

What type of camera did Elliot use and was it technically capable of taking a panoramic style photo with variable focus, shutter speed and depth of field? Presumable it was a small hand held camera, as he carried it in his haversack. It was a roll-film type camera because in the same account Elliot states, “In Jan 1918 I met a fellow of the 4th A. L. H. Regt. who was returning to Australia. I gave him my spool and asked him to have it developed.”

What evidence is there that Frank Hurley took the photo? We have Hurley’s diary account of a re-enactment carried out on 7 February 1918. Andrew Woodhead and Jacqui Lobach mention the diary and re-enactment in their Wartime article.

Alasdair McGregor, in his book Frank Hurley A Photographer’s Life, provides a further account of the re-enactment.

The re-enactments and staged events grew more elaborate. In early February, two squadrons (about 300 men) of the 4th Light Horse Brigade were detailed to accompany him to Gaza. Here they were photographed mounted on mass parade at one extreme, or as individual troopers inspecting the ruins of the town’s grand mosque at the other. Soon after, two regiments (1000 men if Hurley is correct) of the same brigade turned out to re-enact their bayonet-wielding dash at Beersheba. Hurley was impressed: “In some small degree I sensed the excitement myself, for the charge was directed against the very position which I occupied.” [see my note below] But his excitement overlooked the demeanour of many of the troopers, who refused to push their horses at the full gallop just for the cinematograph. For them, Beersheba was a glorious but anxiety-filled victory that was best honoured in the memory and not to be trivialised through the fakery of re-enactment. (p.188) [This last sentence is footnoted thus: Information courtesy of Ian Jones. In the 1970s Jones conducted interviews with former Light Horse troopers, Vic Smith and Arch Lobban, who claimed that the men of the 4th Brigade resented taking part in what they termed Hurley’s ‘rehearsals’. Fragments of Hurley’s footage seem to have been used in the Charles Chauval film,

Forty Thousand Horsemen

(1940). See Ian Jones,

The Australian Light Horse

, p.122]

[My note: Several riders to the right of the photo are advancing directly towards the camera and at least one rider in this group is looking at the cameraman.]

Interestingly, Ian Jones was apparently well aware of the re-enactment for Hurley’s benefit.

Did Hurley film and photograph the re-enactment? Woodhead and Lobach’s extract from Hurley’s diary states: “photographed various stunts ..two regiments turned out and re-enacted their famous charge at Beersheba …The charge was directed against the position which I occupied.” (p.32) Woodhead and Lobach conclude that the photo is “a carefully prepared image of a re-enactment of the charge stage for Frank Hurley on 7 February 1918.”(p.32) However, they fail to state whether they have seen the photo in Hurley’s portfolio. This would provide conclusive evidence that the image was not taken at the charge and also was not taken by Elliot.

A large selection of Hurley’s WW 1 photos can be viewed on-line at the Australian National Library, the NSW State Library and the Australian War Memorial. I haven’t come across a photo of the “charge” attributed to Hurley in my many visits to these collections.

Curiously, the books I have on Hurley do not contain the image. One might reasonably assume such an iconic image would appear in a publication on Hurley’s life and works.

The explanatory note for the AWM’s image, AO2684, states “Hurley's diary records filming such a re-enactment, although none of his footage taken on the day remains. It is probable that another person photographed the event.”

Could it be that Hurley only filmed the event? This could explain the absence of the image in Hurley’s photo collections.

[stormboy]

Great War Forum _ Other theatres _ GAZA photographPosted by: aley Feb 23 2007, 11:42 AM Hello all, I wondering if anyone may have come across this image before and/or if they can offer some informed opinions. Some background. The image in question comes from one of my Grandfathers photo albums covering his time in Egypt, Sinai and Palestine with the 3rd and later 4th Australian Light Horse Field Ambulance circa 1916 - 1918.The majority of images in these albums where taken by him. I know this as I have the corresponding negatives and neg. files with captions. Several, including this one, have no corresponding negs etc. These all share a similar quality, or lack of. To my mind they look like a photo of a photo.This image bears an inscription (not i believe his) verso which reads: "Turkish HE in front of our trenches GAZA".I am aware that he saw action with his unit (4LHFA) at second Gaza. In comparing image quality, hand writing and considering absence of corresponding neg. and written reference, my feeling is the image was not taken by him.I showed this and the other similar images to the Photography Curator at the AWM and they suggested that they were souverneir prints, probably purchased at the time. - David. Posted by: Ozzie Feb 23 2007, 08:43 PMWelcome to the forum.It does appear as you say, but maybe others may know more. To compare, there are many photos in the collections on line at the AWM Site. Just put in Gaza. CheersKim Posted by: stevebecker Feb 23 2007, 09:12 PMMate, I agree its not an artillery shell going off. I am thinking it could be a demo charge/charges either being used or being tested. We (ALH) under took a number of operations involving this form of work including detroying the rail line, culvets and other strutures south of Beersheba as well as the same thing on the Amman raid. But its hard to see the detail around the photo so any informed idea Escapes me at present. S.B Posted by: aley Feb 23 2007, 10:09 PMThanks Kim and Steve for your replies. Steve, Your observation is interesting - my Father says that he was told by my Grandfather that the image was of a mine going off near Gaza.The apparent volume of soil and the way it appears to be 'lifted' gives that impression. Although i have never seen a charge of this size detonated only similar images of charges/mine explosions.I'm a little new to the image attachment process so i apologize for the image quality have a look here at close up. - David Posted by: Bill Woerlee Feb 23 2007, 11:31 PMDave G'day mate Thanks for expanding your pic. In relation to the explosion itself, the comparison to allied HE in France posted below gives the same signature as the explosion in your pic. There are a couple items to observe in the pic taken. 1. The pic was taken between 8-9am. 2. The shell was aimed at the Australian trenches. There are two rows of trenches in this pic - one about 100m in front of the trench where the photographer has taken his pic and the photographer's trench about 10m in front of him. 3. The trenches are filled with Australian light horsemen. It was common for such pix to be traded. I have many such traded pix in my collection as do many others have similar stuations. The better pix were sold off such as the famous light horse charge pic flogged off by Col Scott from the 9th LHR to every willing buyer. Hope this helps. Cheers Bill Posted by: John Hartley Feb 23 2007, 11:38 PM QUOTE(aley @ Feb 23 2007, 11:42 AM) my feeling is the image was not taken by him. What seems to be the shadow of the top half of the photgrapher is at the bottom of the photo. I'd have thought a professionally produced souvenir job might have cropped that out. John Posted by: PPCLI Feb 24 2007, 12:25 AM QUOTE(John Hartley @ Feb 23 2007, 11:38 PM) What seems to be the shadow of the top half of the photgrapher is at the bottom of the photo. Shadows appear to have been de rigueur at 2nd Gaza.... Posted by: aley Feb 24 2007, 01:13 AMThank you all. John, i agree that this image does not appear 'proffessional', i was led to believe by the AWM curator that the term 'souverneir prints' does not neccesarily denote either a photo taken or manipulated by a proffessional, a proffesional standard of reproduction or commercial distribution.The image corresponds to the dimensions of a contact print - that is for one produced from a 6 x 8 cm neg - the quality is not what you would get from that method though. Which suggested to me the probability that a photograph has been taken of a photograph. I was informed that this was not an uncommon practice in the distribution of such images. Bill, thanks again. Question: the second trench line? I take it that this is represented or suggested by a faint 'line' to the left and close to the base of the explosion? Also how can you be sure it's AM and not PM? PPCLI, thats an amazing looking image. Very interested to know who where when and what? - David. Posted by: wroclaw Feb 26 2007, 08:00 PM QUOTE(stevebecker @ Feb 23 2007, 09:12 PM) Mate, I agree its not an artillery shell going off. I am thinking it could be a demo charge/charges either being used or being tested. We (ALH) under took a number of operations involving this form of work including detroying the rail line, culvets and other strutures south of Beersheba as well as the same thing on the Amman raid. But its hard to see the detail around the photo so any informed idea Escapes me at present. S.B SteveI’ve showed this picture to someone I know to be an expert for explosives. His, and his colleagues, conclusion is that most chances this explosion is a result of a shell armed with a Delay Fuse and of a caliber of circa 150mm, exploding. This in relation to their knowledge of the Gaza area morphology and British WWI ammunition (but not the specific ammo used in 2nd Gaza!). Just my 2 cents. Posted by: eric e Feb 26 2007, 09:23 PMHi PPCLI and all, As you say shadows appear to be the de rigueur! My grandfather served in Egypt with the Shropshire Yeomanry and 10th Bn KSLI. Took some pictures and managed to get on a few of them. Cheers,Eric. Posted by: PPCLI Feb 26 2007, 09:35 PM QUOTE(aley @ Feb 24 2007, 01:13 AM) PPCLI, thats an amazing looking image. Very interested to know who where when and what? I agree that it is a tremendous photograph, although I do find it a bit unsettling somehow. Perhaps it is the effect of the shadows - they give a sense of remoteness from the bedlam going on in front of them. Supposedly, it is 'C' Company, 5th King's Own Scottish Borderers advancing during 2nd Gaza on 19th April 1917. The photo is said to be from the Imperial War Museum collection (ref G2184), but if so then I can't find it on the catalogue. I will be pleased to hear of any opinions for or against, including the white cross-straps worn by all the prone soldiers. Thanks, Stuart Posted by: aley Feb 27 2007, 12:45 PMCrackers, thanks for your reply. But i'm a little confused - both yourself and Bill seem very certain that it is AM but i don't understand how you can determine that - i would be interested to know.In regards to Frank Hurley as the photographer my understanding is that he did not arrive in Palestine until October of 1917. I've searched the AWM online image catalogue and have not found this image or one like it – I mean as far as Gaza is concerned. I'm not saying your wrong but would appreciate it if you could direct me to, or cite the source of your information. Stuart, it is a little difficult to determine from the quality of your image - the more i look at it the more i wonder if it is not a composite? Just a thought. - David. Posted by: Bill Woerlee Feb 28 2007, 01:06 AMDavid G'day mate Mate I have no intention of dignifying anything that Pat Gavan aka the man of a thousand identities says. I have only mentioned him because of your confusion. If I don't respond to posts that have this person's style attached - take no offence. This is the last I will mention it. David, the evidence of the pix lay in front of your eyes - you only need to find the signs. The length of the shadowing is the first indicator as to time. It is a simple trigometric exercise - length of the shadow and the height of the man as opposed to the angle of the sun - now the geometry - similar triangles with a ratio between the sides. That establishes the sun's position at that point of the day. We know the timing of the sun rise and set by use of British Intel tables in the 1917 Palestine Almanac supplied to the invading troops. So having established a possible arc as to either am or pm, we see the nature of the shadowing in the distance. There is none - this indicates a rising sun rather than a setting sun. Check that out for yourself on photographs. As to the trench lines, again, the shadowning gives this away. On the larger pic received from your good self, you will see in conjunction with the line clearly marked in the distance, that they go together. The shadowing can be only be made from a hole or some excavation which would be strong enough to cast a shadow upon an essentially shadowless plain. Then there are the human factors. At Gaza 2 where the LHRs were, the Turks had the ground thoroughly measured with marker pegs and cairns all over the battle field. If they were going to toss over some HE, they did not have to guess the range. They knew it to the metre. So why toss a shell over a 100m away in the distance? It makes no sense unless they were tossing it at an established point - vis a vis, an occupied trench. Now you see the HE exploding within metres of a trench which makes sense. Finally, as to the nationality of the photographer and the men in the trenches. By use of enhancement techniques with a good photo suite, it is simple to pick out men and their uniforms in the first trench. Two are wearing slouch hats as is the person taking the pic. Kiwi's or Ozzies? One hat brim is pegged to side, something the Kiwi's did not do with their lemon squeezers. So they are from Oz. Could only be LH as no Oz infantry were at Gaza.But this is available to any who view such a pic objectively. Cheers Bill Posted by: stevebecker Feb 28 2007, 06:10 AMBill, I still have my doughts about the time of day and the idea that they are aussie soldiers in a front line postion.I say that because to me the photographers shadow falls to his front which would have the sun behind him and possibly around midday, Because if in the morning (AM) then the sun would cast a shadow to the left of the soldier and if PM then the shadow would go to the right. Because the sun raises in the east and sets in the West as per the two other photos by PPCI and Eric which casts the shadows to the left not right giving an AM time frame. As to the soldiers in the trench I can see why they could be aussies but what worries me in the lack of any trench disiplin shown by the men. If a mine or shell these men are not taking cover or geting ready to use the weapon that has just gone off. In fact a soldier in up out of the trench and taking a photo which would seem very dangous if Johnny Turk was so close?Added to the fact our trenches at Gaza were along the Wadi and not up close to the Turks as the British Infantry had them along the coast. And the Turks had there positions on the higher elevations not along the open areas unless they were covered with fire from suporting postions. That it is most likely a mine is my guess because as stated the mount of dirt being throw up is more then any artillery shell I've ever seen or seen a photo of. But is it on the front lines or at a secondry postion as a test or Another reason is unknown to me. S.B Posted by: aley Feb 28 2007, 08:39 AMHi Bill and Steve, "Pat Garvan" ( said in the tone of Seinfelds retort - "Newman") Thanks for your replies. They are vey timely as last night i spent some time trying to find info which would answer the question as to where the sun rose or set in relation to the British and Australian positions.Re. the head gear and nationality - sometimes i think i can make out a sun helmet or maybe the curve of a pugaree suggestive of a slouch hat - if i was to bet though i'd put my money on a predominance of round flat top service caps - Bill, i don't have the technology to which you refer. Steve you are voicing things that have been going through my mind. A lucky shot if an incoming HE. But what? He just happened to be making his way along and pulled out his Kodak just in case? Or he actually got out of the trench and waited for a good one? Or he knew it was coming, what- where -when -how and set himself up accordingly.The images in his album which are of similar quality and similar handwriting are all, now i come to think of it - like trophy shots -e.g. the downed german Alabatross (D636 i think), the mosque at Beersheba ( i don't believe he was there - as far as his service record is concerned)... In regards to Stuarts (PPCLI) image i would be intereted to know the cause of the rolling plumes of smoke or is it dust debris? Could these images be related or connected? - David. Posted by: Bill Woerlee Yesterday, 08:02 AMSteve and David G'day mates Sorry to take so long to reply but I had my hands full with some RL problems. The points you raise are good and deserve some answers. 1. The time of day. I accept what you say about the theory of time of day. If it were in Brisbane, your comment would be accurate and I would revise the figure to about 11am. However, we are dealing with a time zone problem here where the sun was well and truly up by 4.30 am explaining why Stand to Arms was so early in the morning. By the same token, it was already dark by 4.30pm so the midday sun you talk about would occur around the 10-11am. So on that basis, using the shadow analysis that you have provided which I agree with, we need to advance our times forward and hence the times given by me. 2. Lack of trench discipline is well and truly established by this pic. I can only conclude that the fellow taking the pic is an officer who probably got a wigging later on in the day. 3. The actual barrage is on the trenches in the front of the trench where the photographer is taking the pic. He would have little fear from a sniper as the distance between any sniping outpost and the fellow taking the pic would have been considerable - anything up to a km - making a shot extremely difficult. 4. The barrage itself would have alerted the fellow wh took the pic. The noise is a dead give away. Since they are using HE, the chances are the shots are coming from a howitzer. The noise from the incoming shell would have been loud enough to alert the photographer that the money shot was about to occur. I hope that gives some idea as to why I reached the conclusions I have posted. Cheers Bill Posted by: Chris Henschke Yesterday, 01:32 PM QUOTE(crackers @ Feb 27 2007, 04:29 PM) David.We may rest assured that it AM. The picture was taken by Capt Hurley of Antarctic Fame, and the records of the subjects were maintained by Dr C E W Bean, the Official War correspondent & later Historian of the Australian Government.Thanks to the meticulous care of both those stalwarts, students such as Bill and yourself can identify even the minutest detail and still gain the overall understanding of events throughout the Great War Can you explain why you say this is a Hurley photograph? Chris Henschke Posted by: Mr Bush Today, 12:42 AMBill,A number of statements have been made about the Gaza photo and quite a few interesting facts as well. I am certainly impressed by your ability to judge the time and I bow to your experience on that matter. I would like to make comment however on your statement regarding the accuracy of the Turkish artillery "If they were going to toss over some HE, they did not have to guess the range. They knew it to the metre. So why toss a shell over a 100m away in the distance? It makes no sense unless they were tossing it at an established point - vis a vis, an occupied trench. Now you see the HE exploding within metres of a trench which makes sense" This might very well be the case however with any indirect fire weapon there is a beaten zone and rounds can fall anywhere within that zone and still be considered on target. It would be pure luck even knowing the range for a single shell to be aimed at a trench and it land on that trench. Without seeing the surrounding area and therefore knowing if there are other rounds landing in the vicinty I don't know if this is a lucky single shot or one of many. It strikes me however that if there were other rounds landing, the group of soldiers sunning themselves on the dirt mound and the officer (soon to receive a wigging) wouldn't be there. As an example a few years ago we had an artillery target (a car) idenified with a 10 figure GPS grid which was provided to the battery and inputed into their targetting computers. Over 140 rounds of 105mm later the car was surrounded by craters but damaged by shrapnel only with no round landing within 10 metres. The beaten zone for the battery was well in excess of 100m. The location and the time of the photograph and even the photographer may be correct but this appears to be to be a deliberate, timed explosion, probably a mine, rather than an extremely lucky, one off shell from a turkish battery, that happened to coincide with someone having his camera ready. Cheers Jonathan Posted by: Bill Woerlee Today, 02:49 AMJonathan G'day mate You might be correct in your comments. After all, we are guessing here and using our experience to intuit an answer. However, to establish that it is a mine, it might pay you to post a pic of the signature from a mine being exploded. To illustrate my point, I posted a pic of the HE shell explosion - this is a GW shot from the Western Front. It is a very clear shot - a lucky pic none the less since it was taken during a barrage. I chose it specifically to illustrate the probabiliy of taking such a shot was good. In examining all the pix of mine explosions, the signature appeared different. However, I am happy to see your pix that illustrate a similar signature. When we have that, then we can carry on further a examination, both in possession of equal information. Cheers Bill Posted by: Chris Henschke Today, 05:39 AMWell now I’m confused. At first, Bill makes some unequivocal statements; “1. The pic was taken between 8-9 am. 2. The shell was aimed at the Australian trenches. There are two rows of trenches in this pic…” And later, as justification; “…we see the nature of the shadowing in the distance,. There is none – this indicates a rising sun rather than a setting sun. Check that out for yourself on photographs.” And; “So why toss a shell over 100m away in the distance? It makes no sense unless they were tossing it at an established point…” So are we to believe that a shadow cast by the sun in the late afternoon does not appear in photographs? The Turkish Artillery (if it is a shell being fired at a position) have pinpoint accuracy and do not allocate targets based on the beaten zone of a Battery? I’m confused because after such unconditional remarks, we are told; “You might be correct in your comments. After all, we are guessing here and using our experience to intuit an answer” As to the conclusion that we now know even the rank and nationality of the photographer and that he has heard the incoming artillery and rushed out to take the photograph – We can only defer to Bill’s “experience”. My experience tells me to be in the closest hole. Mr Bush, welcome to the forum. The car can think itself lucky it was not used as a target for Turkish Artillery. Posted by: ditchley Today, 05:45 AMG’day Bill. Over that problem with the R sou Ls yet Cobber.There’s a lot if it going round. I was tipping that you were going to EXPOSE the Gaza Pic as a Hurley composite. Hence the crackers suggestion that it was a Hurley / Bean beat up.That would have been a real feather in your cap, me ole china. Now remember the “Bean, wing and prayer” discussion on the ALH?. You tried to convince us that Bean was so stupid that he didn’t know the difference between 4.30 am and 4.30 pm. You claimed he had reported that the Nek charge ‘was halted at 4.30 by NIGHTFALL.Now Bean was sick, but he was still [ after 3 months] on Gallipoli. I bet he knew just when daylight and dark would arrive. What did everyone do at 4.30pm anyway?. Say “OK that’s it fer today Johnnie, getting a bit dark, see you at 8am termorrer” I don’t read all the krap you post, cobber, but did notice a 4.30 am bit in your recent dissitation, so that would have been a co-incidence. My impression is that Bean would have a much greater ability to tell the time [ of any pictured event] than you would. So I was wrong on one count, you don’t have proof [pun intended] that it was a Hurley Fraud. Should you just happen to now find another pic, which conveniently has All the details to prove the “observations” you have shared with us, well… some others may doubt your powers of reasoning too. You know the old modus operandi rules. With the Idriess Diary.?Work back from the fact that you have seen his diaries.Take a few extracts from “The Desert Column”.Suggest some inconsistencies.“Deduce” that DC is not based on diaries.“Happen” to get access to the Diaries, and BingoPat yourself on back QED to your thesis. With the ice skating in Cairo?Pretty detailed analysis of the ice-making plant there.Only problem was, the Medical History identifies it as a ROLLER skating rink. The rink is a precedent for this Gaza pic, isn’t it cobber.You wait to see if anyone HAS the answer, ok time’s up.You print this gobbeldy gook in quasi –teko terms,Get called away for a few days [ to other forums perhaps]Google like mad.If no-one finds answer or shoots down gobbeldy gook.Wrap things up and“Hope that helps you understand”, [that I am right again.] Goodonyer Cobber, admire your perseverance.But remember that bit about some of the punters some of the time?

[stormboy]

Kim

The above 'gobbldegook' is in response to your assertion that the Australian Light Horse Association is a curator of the heritage.

On reading throug their site I have formed the opinionion that they have allowed themselves to be taken over by one individual.

By way of the google I found a previous discussion whic has remarkable similarities to this topic. Mr Woerlee is unequivocal in his identification of "THE TIME & THE PLACE" of the Gaza explosion, using rather tenuous factors as absolute PROOF.

Gaza [inc Beersheba] and Hurley, who he dismisses as a fraud and charlatan, are common factors.

Interestingly there appears to be no problem with the Canadian Film "Paschaendaele" using the Hurley shot of the Australian PLatoon at Broodseinde as it logo.

keep well

Sb

[Guest Bill Woerlee]

Ceebee

G'day mate

Thanks for your thoughts. Much appreciated.

I haven't come across any evidence that the picture was taken by Hurley per se. I suspect it was taken by one of his crew or this was a private commission and taken by Hurley as a private photographer rather than Hurley as the Official Photographer. Added to this I have circumstantial evidence that is quite compelling that the person who commissioned the picture was Colonel Scott of the 9th LHR. Very shortly afterwards, in March, he was flogging this pic to all and sundry. In all these things, follow the money trail and you find the evidence. Scott made the money. The rest all falls into place.

Cheers

Bill

[ceebee]

Bill

Thanks for your response.

I have the opportunity to speak to some people who specialise in Hurley's photos and will see what they think.

Chris

[Guest Bill Woerlee]

Chris

G'day mate

An examination of the photographic composition tells us much about the nature of the camera as it does of the camera man. The signature of the craft is as indelible as finger prints. Just the sheer quality of the picture and magnificent composition indicates that the photographer had plenty of experience in getting just the right shot. I think you will find that Hurley took this pic but in conjunction with Scott, whose regiment was used, decided to make a few quid on the side. The success of the pic demonstrates the quality of the photography.

Additional to that, the fellow whose name is in my signature line and whose photograph forms my avatar, Bert Schramm, indicated to the day he died that the photograph was of the 9th LHR on manoeuvres. Other compelling independent circumstantial evidence appears to support this notion. One thing about Bert was that he spoke only once of an issue and no one could ever contradict his words.

In addition I do have a picture taken by a trooper at the same time Hurley took the much vaunted picture of 3rd LHMGS in action in the Juedaean Hills. You can see a discussion on this with links to the Hurley Diary:

Fleas on fleas -The results from careless work - a case study

http://alh-research.tripod.com/Light_Horse...fleas-on-fleas/

After Hurley took his picture, a trooper who was escorting Hurley also took a picture of these men from a similar angle. The comparison between the photographic quality is quite stark, both in terms of the technical and composition work. This will be detailed in my next chapter in this story when it is published on the blog.

Cheers

Bill

[dekenai]

Mates

I would like to thank everyone for their excellent contributions and raising all the points that each one of has. Some are good, others are retelling of old and familiar tales which bear little relevance to the thesis presented but it is always good to have them retold.

The thing I keep telling everyone when dealing with an issue such as this is to follow the money trail. See who stands to gain by maintaining the myth.

Well without keeping anyone in suspense any longer, I will give an idea as to two organisations that stand to gain financially by peddling this myth.

1. The RSL

2. Whatever historical company [read - marketing company] that chooses to come up with some legend to flog items at over inflated prices.

Evidence.

For a hundred dollars, you too can be the owner of:

Apart from no VC's being won there, and this fact should have been known by the RSL, this piece of dross is no more than a sick joke made at the expense of the brave men who were at Beersheba on that day.

Folks need to get their heads around the concept that when you endorse the Jones thesis, which has been proved conclusively to be wrong by his own evidence, regardless of all the other circumstantial arguments floating around, then you endorse the exploitation of these brave men in this fashion. These ordinary men become mythologised into cartoon, cardboard cut out characters by this dross. It demeans and dishonours their sacrifice.

Cheers

Bill

Bill,

l'm shocked--and totally agree---

that is ie, totally--agree

cheers

RDC

[stevenbecker]

Bill,

Of cause another way is to check other photos taken by Elloitt during the war with his small camera.

If they show the same quality then he may be correct.

But since I am scepital about him purhaps not.

S.B

[Guest Bill Woerlee]

RDC

I am equally shocked by your comment.

Steve

Mate, if he had a catalogue of pix equal to the quality of the alleged charge pic, Jones would have trotted them out to prove the technical aspect of the thesis and shove it up Matthew Woodhead and and Jacqui Lobach for their article in Wartime, Issue 1 (November 1997) called "The Australian Charge at Beersheba, 1917: Is the Photograph Genuine or Staged". Their technical analysis of the photograph was never addressed by Jones. In view of the lack of photographic evidence to demonstrate the skills of Elliott as a photographer, I would be certain to ascertain that it does not exist. Possibly his pix might have counted against him had they been used as evidence. Best leave these things alone if they undermine your case - a good defence lawyers line. It is also dishonest. But hey, what would the punters ever know?

Cheers

Bill

[1st AIF]

Excuse my ignorance on the charge, my passion is the infantry. But has the photo been examined for shadows to determine the time of day and direction of the charge? If the "charge" was for a great distance could this have been taken near the forming up place, where some men with half an excuse could still be meandering around, and the rear lines not yet on the trot?

Len

P.S. It mystifies me that of all the action in WW1 and so many men with cameras that there are so few unambiguous battle shots. No-one is going to pull out a camera instead of their gun when they are being shot at but the lack of such shots is tantalizingly frustrating for us modern day wonderers.

[JohnNR]

P.S. It mystifies me that of all the action in WW1 and so many men with cameras that there are so few unambiguous battle shots. No-one is going to pull out a camera instead of their gun when they are being shot at but the lack of such shots is tantalizingly frustrating for us modern day wonderers.

Len,

You have answered your own question here. And remember, there were very few, if any, accredited photographers around then - most photos were taken by the soldiers themselves using relatively slow film. My father took a large number of photos in Egypt at the time, but none showed troops in action.

Best wishes,

Nick