US Civil War

Gettysburg Message Forum

[ Back to the listing ] [ Post Reply ] [ Help ] [ Search ]
[ List All Forums ]

Posted By: on: 07/31/2000 14:55:22 EDT
Subject: RE: Re:Rebuttal to Groves' Theory...Thanks, J.D.!

Message Detail:
Thanks, J.D., for sending out the rebutall to Groves' theory on the Devil's Den sharpshooter. I haven't had the opportunity to read it yet, but can't wait! I've saved it to my hard drive.
Barb

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.


I've taken time to print out and read Adelman's rebuttal....I was a little disappointed. I first came across Jim Groves report in the Fall of 1998, through the now defunct other chat board. I took time to read it all, after printing all the pages. He's taken a great deal time and effort, IMHO, to do that report.
I may not totally agree with each and every statement Mr. Groves reports on, but I think it should be considered. It is a shame his report is being brushed off...... His theory is as good as the other one, if not better.
Thanks, Barb


I'm also disappointed in the rebuttal, Adelman picks on a few minor points (such as the tree stump - he says anyone could have cut down the tree) and uses them to discredit the whole theory. He (actually "they") say that Groves formed his conclusion, then found the evidence to prove it. Didn't Frassanito do pretty much the same thing? Actually the "moved uphill" theorists haven't spent much time analysing the photos at all. Frassanito and company even discredit the account of an 1863 eyewitness (Capt. Augustus P. Martin, Commander of the V Corps Artillery on LRT) who was on LRT July 3. Why? Because it doesn't agree with the "moved uphill" theory! Martin says that on July 3 they fired a round at a position where a sniper was harassing the artillery on LRT, and after that they received no more fire from that position. He says that on July 4 they went to that location and saw the body behind the rocks. The "moved uphill" theorists say his story (which was written in 1899) sounds too much like it was influenced by the photograph and the photographer's stories; They say his story can't be true because the body wasn't there because the photographers moved it there after July 4! Hold it! Martin was there wasn't he? The "body moved uphill" is only a theory, yet here we have an eyewitness being discredited because his account doesn't agree with A THEORY formed over 100 years AFTER the battle. Keep in mind that the "body moved uphill" theory is based primarily on the logic that the photographers MUST have moved the body uphill to take advantage of the superior photographic composition afforded by the large boulders with the wall in between ("Why would they waste time moving the body AWAY from such a prime location?")

Barb, Ya got me started on one of my favorite arguments....I could ramble all day.
Bill N-T



This is getting to be one of my favorite subjects also. If we allow modern day experts to discredit first hand accounts of the battle (Martin)then we run the risk that future generations will read these modern accounts of events and take them as gospel. Although not 100% sold on the Grove theory I believe it has more merit than the Frassanito version. Myself I dont see the Grove theory as a threat or slight to to Frassanito. I wonder if Bill Frassanito has ever read the Grove report and wonders if he did make a mistake? The thing that causes me the most doubt is the indentation in the soldiers lower left ankle area. In the downhill photo this indentation is clearly visable. The photo in the den shows a rock perfectly fitted,almost molded to this indentation. How could anyone believe that the photographers would take time to find a rock to match so perfectly? One last point, in the photo den the soldier looks as though he lay down and slowly passed away. His hair looks almost combed,his jacket appears to be smooth and not rumpled. The photo down the hill shows a rumpled uniform and the hair on the body is definetly not the combed look of the body in the den. Could the condition of the downhill photo be from being carried in on a blanket. As Jim TNO would say Hmmmmmmmmmmm


That's OK, Bill, I was pleased to read everyone's thoughts on this controversial subject. I agree, Martin's eyewithness account should stand for something. I had previoiusly read them before reading Grove's report. If the real truth can be uncovered, why not consider Grove's extensive theory...certainly more indepth than any other, in my opinion.

Does anyone have a copy of the sharpshooter photo from the National Archives? I have a notion to send for a copy myself, to get a really 'good' look at it!
Barb

View Parent Message

Post a follow up message
NAME:
EMAIL:
SUBJECT:
Type your Reply here:

NOTIFY ME: Yes No
This posting is a:
Comment
Question
Idea

Don't Agree
Challenge
Heads-Up!

Need Feedback
Meeting Request
LINK URL:
LINK TITLE:
IMAGE URL:



Message Search
Search ALL Forums
Filter Messages
Show messages for past days.
Name Search
Type in a full or partial name
Keyword Search
Enter keyword(s) you want to search for seperated by a space.

Match Case?
Match ALL Keywords
Match ANY Keyword