The Lighthorsemen

[stephen]

Isn't that name just SO cool? I think I'll say it again. "THE LIGHTHORSEMEN." Ooooh. Gives me chills.

Anyway. In the movie of the same name, there is a German airplane bombing the charging LIGHTHORSEMEN (Ooooh!) just before they reach the Turkish trenches. ("Turks"... has no ring to it whatsoever). I thought that the airplane bombing actually occured AFTER the charge itself, during the pursuit later that evening? Am I wrong?

Also, hit the Lighthorse Association's site for something WAY cool...

http://www.lighthorse.org.au/default.htm

They have apparently verified the authenticity of the only existing photograph of the charge itself, taken by a surprised Aussie range officer who found himself in No Man's Land about to be run over by his own troops. The whole story is there, and you can click on part of the photo and it will be isolated and blown up for better study. Its a truly amazing photograph and anyone who's ever seen The Lighthorsemen won't want to miss it.

And anyone who's never seen The Lighthorsemen is truly deprived. SEE THIS FILM.

Yeah Stephen, both movie and website are really good, I recommend them both. Next time anyone says to you horsemen were obsolete in WWI, just point em towards the movie.

As for the photo though, things aren't so simple. After it was apparently confirmed as real, the Australian War Memorial did a study of it and decided it was actually the re-enactment.

They took the arguments of the author of that extract and basically disproved them. If anyone's interested I guess I could post or email their findings.

So it's still not really proved one way or the other. The debate continues I guess.

Regards,

Simon

[stephen]

I sure would appreciate your posting the Memorial's findings here. I'd love to read them. I've only read one side of the arguement, but found the case for the photograph's authenticity quite compelling.

Also, has anyone found the movie films of the re-enactment? That would certainly shed a lot of light on the situation, by comparing frames of the movie film of the re-enactment to the still photo. Also, we need a motive for Elliot (I think that was his name) lying about the photo. He apparently made no money off of it, and it certainly hasn't made him famous. he's gone to great lengths to concoct a story for no apparent reason, risking being labeled a liar for life. Hmmm.

By all means, please post whatever you have.

Thanks again.

It would really be great if the photograph could be proven to be of the charge, just looking at it stirs the blood I think.

I don't accept the memorial's findings blindly, but I do believe there is at least as much evidence against it as for it.

The argument for its authenticity was mainly made by Ian Jones in 1983, after it had been accepted as staged for 55 years. His main points are summarised on the Light Horse site.

The article I read said that Elliott made a statutory declaration that he took a photograph of the charge. Jones accepted that this photo was Elliott's. They are not necessarily the same. As far as I am aware, Elliott did not claim in his declaration or elsewhere that photograph A02684 was the one he took. I have no information on movie footage taken during the re-enactment.


It then goes onto say:

"Jones' case is strong, but can be attacked on a number of counts.

The most puzzling feature of the photograph is the lack of dust. Jones argues that the dust was not visible because the sun was setting behind the photographer. But in his statutory declaration Elliott stated that he first became aware of the charge when he "saw dust rising, indicating there was some movement taking place". Elliott's statement indicates that he was about 3 km from the point where the charge began. If dust was apparent early on, it should have been visible in a photograph, irrespective of the sun's position.

<There is another authentic photograph of the charge, taken from behind by a staff officer, and sure enough, it show little more than a cloud of dust. This photograph was shown in the article. -Simon>

..."Although the charge of Beersheba was downhill, the photograph shows the horsemen galloping uphill. Jones explained this inconsistency by suggesting that the camera was tilted, but there is no evidence to support this idea. It is not clear that 'restoring true verticals', as Jones proposed, would be enough to correct the problem.

Cont'd...

"A technical examination of the photograph casts further doubts on its authenticity. The photographic film available in 1917-18 had a film speed less than 10-12 ASA, very slow by today's standards. This means that it could not take clear shots of moving objects in dim light. Yet when the photograph is examined it is clear that:

1) The bayonets being brandished are seen clearly; no movement or blurring is visible, and the movement of the horses' hooves has been stopped, indicating that a short shutter speed was used.

2) The depth of field extends from a few metres in front of the photographer through to the horizon, which indicates that a small lens aperture was used.

It would be possible for these features to be the result of using a small aperture and short shutter speed, but not in the dim light of the evening when the charge occurred, using the film available in 1917. To take a photograph just before sunset it would have been necessary to use a small aperture and a long shutter speed, which would produce the extended depth of field seen in the photograph, but produce blurred horsemen; or use a large aperture with a short shutter speed, which would stop the motion but give a narrow depth of field.

Further evidence is provided by Frank Hurley, who wrote in his diary on 7 February 1918 that he '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".

The unit diary of the 11th Light Horse Regiment recorded that at 7 am A and B squadrons moved out to Gaza from their camp at Belah to perform for a photograph to be taken by an official photographer. The party had returned by 6 pm the same day. A photograph of the re-enactment would thus have been taken during the day, when there would have been plenty of light. This would also be consistent with the length and direction of the shadows in our photograph.

This day trip would help solve another puzzle, the fact that the men and the horses in the photograph appear to be equipped for no more than a day's ride. No grain bags, overcoats, saddle-bags, haversacks or bandoliers can be seen, yet these items were standard equipment and were carried in the charge.

One final telling factor is the absence of either shell-bursts or casualties in the photograph. The Official History states that the Turkish artillery opened fire as soon as the charge began, and eye-witnesses confirm that shell fire began early in the charge, certainly well before the horsemen reached the point from which Elliott took his photograph, 3 km from the start point.

Our conclusion is disappointing, but inescapable: the photograph is not an authentic record of the charge at Beersheba, but a carefully prepared image on a re-enactment of the charge staged for Frank Hurley on 7 Feb 1918."

The End

OK it's me again... I have to say that while I was writing that up, I managed to pick up on some points which could be used to attack their argument - it's certainly not faultless, I am pleased to say. But it's almost 1am here, and I think I'll save it for later.

What do you think, Stephen?

Regards,

Simon

[Barrett]

It's a tad off-topic, but I recently saw a rerun of the Indiana Jones TV mini-series (the lad certainly got around.) He was present at Beersheba, thanks to obvious out-takes from "The Light Horsemen" movie, though I think it just possible that the same actor played the regimental CO, Col. Boucher???
I believe the Indy series is now on video. His other WW I exploits included the Belgian army, spying on MvR and a fictional Riesen (giant bomber) factory. Aircraft and other personalities include Albatrii, Sop Strutter, Nungesser & Fokker...and then there was that sultry belly dancer...
But I still like Sigrid Thornton.

[stephen]

Oooooh! Aaaaah! Good stuff. Makes one's mind percolate. Thanks, Simon. What do I think? Well...

1) their arguements are nearly as persuasive as those in favor of the photograph... but...

2) The charge took place in Oct, the re-enactment in Feb. If cameras in Oct were incapable of taking that sort of shot, did cameras make an incredible leap in technology over the next 100 days so as to make such a photo possible by the following February? That arguement is not valid.

3) Dim light? What dim light? How do you get dim light in a desert at 230 in the afternoon? The fighting went on til dark, but unless I'm misinformed, there was plenty of light during the charge for such a photo.

4) there appears to be a casualty in the photograph as one of the horses has no rider.

5) cannot explain the absence of shellfire. Good question.

6) dust visible to the eye may not be visible to a camera depending on angle and light. Certainly a strike against the authenticity arguement, but not a fatal one.

7) As I understand the Elliot statement on the Lighthorse site, he did indeed specifically state that this photograph was his.

Would love to see the other photo taken from the rear... would make a nice comparison. And movie film from the re-enactment is still a must for final observations.

There is always another possibility as well... Elliot may have mistaken this photograph for his own. He may have truly taken a similar photo as he said, but that authentic photo may have been lost forever... instead, after several years time had passed, he may have mistaken this photo for the one he took. An interesting thought, anyway. Please post the rest of your information when possible. Thanks again.

Just quickly,

Maybe I didn't explain it properly, but they weren't trying to claim the photographic quality increased between charge and re-enactment.

Just that the re-enactment took place around mid-day, while the charge took place late afternoon. This was because it was a last desperate attempt after the rest of the battle didn't quite go to plan.

So they were claiming such a photograph could be taken in strong light, but not in dim. You'd need like... a photographic historian to confirm that. Don't suppose there's too many of them around

As for the dust, I dunno... I will try and see if i can get the other photo scanned but I don't usually have access to a scanner. But believe me, the dust cloud is pretty overwhelming. We'll see.

Barrett,

Sigrid Thornton is still going strong, she's been in the media here a bit lately, starring in a really good series called "Sea Change." I doubt it will ever get to US TV but if it did, you would have all the Sigrid you could ever want :P

Regards,

Simon

From the long shadows and apparent highlights on the section at the left of the picture, the sun is low and to the right as we view it.