J.D., let me add my thanks to you for sending the "rebuttal" - I used quotes because it only appears to skim the surface.... I went back to re-read Grove's report, and while I'm not convinced by all of his arguments, I'd still be interested in seeing an in-depth rebuttal....maybe someone's master's thesis in the future.

I agree - what Adelman wrote is very superficial, and mainly only attacks Groves' intentions. I would still like to see someone's point-by-point rebuttal of Groves' theory. To my knowledge no one's done that yet. We have to keep in mind that both Adelman and Smith are 'disciples' of Frassanito. For all of Adelman's investigative and research prowess, it's disappointing that he didn't get detailed in his remarks.
J.D.

Without even seeing the rebuttal yet, I'll bet they criticize Groves using his theory to market his paintings.
Bill N-T

Could we not say that Frassanito used his theory to sell his books and enhance his reputation as an authority on Gettysburg photography? To attack Mr Grove this way would be a cheap shot.

You got it, and Bill - you're exactly right. Adelman's last line is something like "it's a good marketing technique to sell his imaginitive paintings." One thing I haven't heard yet is someone's realistic attempt to refute the evidence that Groves cites. Just the "it doesn't make sense" argument. I've always wondered if the "moved downhill" theory came out first, how much the other would now hold water.
J.D.

• RE: Re:Rebuttal to Groves' Theory...Thanks, J.D.! - Stuart 07/29/2000 19:56:07 EDT (0)