GDG- Devil's Den Sharpshooter

[Alan D. Brunelle]

Kahan, Heinz wrote:
> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
> 
> 
> I think the most compelling argument Frassanito makes that the Devils Den
> Sharshooter was staged and not the other way around is that it is a much
> better picture. I could see moving a body lying in a non-descript area to
> the sharpshooter spot to get the dramatic picture as Frassanito describes
> it. However the reverse does not hold true. Why would I as a photographer
> take the picture at the superior spot, then move the body to an inferior
> spot and reshoot it? Especially in light of the fact that the wet plate
> process was very cumbersome and labor intensive.
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> -hhk

I'm not so sure that this is such a compelling argument: Consider the 
case if the body were originally up in the "hide out": The body is in 
(relatively) great shape, so one would naturally like to get multiple 
shots. Up in the "hide out", there's not much one can do with it - 
limited angles, so why not take a couple of shots up there, then move 
the body somewhat far away and take a few more?

Likewise, the analysis that goes along with the missing bayonet could be 
reversed too: if the body was originally down the hill, why take off the 
bayonet? (As it was supposedly taken off because of the notion of it 
being used for sharp-shooting.)

I'm with Jim on this: it doesn't really matter where the body was first, 
does it?

Alan