Irish Military Online is in no way affiliated with the Irish Defence Forces. It is in no way sponsored or endorsed by the Irish Defence Forces or the Irish Government. Opinions expressed by the authors and contributors of this site are not necessarily those of the Defence Forces. If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Irish Officers for the Congo, Press photo from 1960
They are from left to right, Captain Donald Sweeney, Commandant Joseph Adams, Lieutenant Colonel Mortimer Buckley (officer commanding), Commandant J. P. Laffan and Captain P. J. Liddy.
A wire photo of a group of Irish soldiers captured by Katanganese forces while serving with the United Nations in the Congo.
A wire photo of a Katanga paratrooper and four captured Irish United Nations Soldiers outside a house near Elisabethville(now Lubumbashi ), The Congo.
Irish Officers for the Congo, Press photo from 1960
They are from left to right, Captain Donald Sweeney, Commandant Joseph Adams, Lieutenant Colonel Mortimer Buckley (officer commanding), Commandant J. P. Laffan and Captain P. J. Liddy.
A wire photo of a group of Irish soldiers captured by Katanganese forces while serving with the United Nations in the Congo.
A wire photo of a Katanga paratrooper and four captured Irish United Nations Soldiers outside a house near Elisabethville(now Lubumbashi ), The Congo.
That second photo looks "dodgy" whats the source??
Paddy, could you expand on what you mean by 'dodgy'?
OK Before we get into this I'm not accusing anyone of knowingly posting a picture that may or may not be accurate but there is something bugging me about the image, particulary the figure standing on the right hand side of the image.
Now I know this is a "wired image" and far from perfect but take some time out to look at it after I point out a few things. Firstly the problem I'm having is with the standing figure on the right hand side of the photo. He's quite a big lad in comparrison to the guys against the wall, one of which he's standing directly infront of.
OK he's taller you might say but look at his his head its huge! The pockets, buckle, watch, beret & boots, they are pretty big too which makes me think the guy is actually smaller than he should be appearing here. The entire head and right arm including the fingers just dont look natural to begin with either. I understand there may be shadows of braches etc on the hand but still it just doesnt look right..
The Dark shadowing of the standing figure is particulary "dark" compared to the rest of the image and the soldiers right leg is placed in an area that seems to be half shadow & half natural light, perhaps from the sun shining over the roof of the building on the left of the image. Yet the shadowing on this leg seems uneffected by this devide, infact there is some bright lighting around the front of his right shin when its clearly in a shadowed area of the photo.
The position of the tree behind the figure doesn't seem to fit in with the envoirnment so close to the building and seems to just grow perfectly from the ground with no vegitation or disruption to the soil.
Becoming even fussier the whole photo just doesn't look natural to me, the standing soldier is paying no attention to the men against the wall and vice versa, this cameraman would of been pretty close to all parties in the photo yet nobody is paying attention to the photographer?
I couldn't even fathom as guess as to why the photo would be touched up or the merits of doing this but if I had to guess then perhaps the photographer wanted to "spice up" a photo for dramatic purposes by adding the standing figure, but then of course this is a fantastically wild guess with no basis to begin with!!
..or I could be wrong about the entire thing and be loosing my marbles!
That second photo looks "dodgy" whats the source??
The last 2 photos are original Associated Press photos, both are stamped on the back Sep 20 1961. It looks to me like the second photo was probably touched up although it could possibly be a result of being transmitted by "wire", a pretty primitive means of sending photos compared with whats available today.
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Tweet
Comment