Jump to content

Brian Shul and the SR-71


Recommended Posts

I wish you lazy nature photog slackers would grow some and break out your easel, paint, and brushes to capture nature imagery such as the true masters exemplified by John James Audubon.

Brian, where are you catching salmon in Colorado (I'm assuming you're not)?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish you lazy nature photog slackers would grow some and break out your easel, paint, and brushes to capture nature imagery such as the true masters exemplified by John James Audubon.

There's only one true Master.

BobRoss.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

...and the salmon thought with his dying breath, and dimming vision; damn the hook.... damn the hook...

as he slipped out of consciousness, he thought he would have liked to visit Montana...

Edited by GEH737
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to step in here, though I do agree his proclaiming himself to be acclaimed is as insincere as if he'd chosen his own callsign. Had he done that, he'd be laughed at and ridiculed, and not allowed a callsign until he learned humility. Same applies somewhat with the photography field....

What I will point out are 2 little details, that the nerd in me MUST exclaim:

Taiden Tomcat: Only wrinkle in your example is he STAGED that flag raising! He STAGED it as a photo op! Memorable, yes... But he wasn't there at the right time and the right place. He totally missed it, and had them do it again, slowly, pausing so he could take the shot. :whistle:

Storm: Don't decry digital by saying that film was a true medium. It wasn't. Film is far more unforgiving, and for the thousands of photos taken, the percentage of getting a GOOD shot were much smaller. Also, if the shot wasn't good, an analog photographer could and DID regularly develop their own film to push or pull the timing on the negative/slide development, and also push/pull the printing process and tweak how much light hit the film paper, and also dodge and burn the photo in various areas to accentuate them, or to apply filters to the printing process light so as to bring out the hues or to increase contrast....

In short, every single thing you could do in photoshop today, they did regularly to analog film. They tweaked the hell out of it to get their "best" shot, just as anybody, ever, has done.

Just saying.... :salute:

/End nerd mode.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of curiosity, just what does it take to be "acclaimed" in the photography field ?

Another professional's praise, a client or customer's adulation, a critic's written approval, what qualifies ?

-Gregg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Boy, this is becoming ridiculous. Please, read what you are saying Scott. Graham's own buddies told him to just drop it but he won't...why is that?Perhaps, because the truth has been diluted. Following are just my personal opinion...I can tell he's (Col. Graham) just is a jealous individual who heard another pilot made negative comment about him in intercom and displeased that others within the unit think the same so I need to make Shul an example. After 20+ years he's still bend out of shape...burning in his own jealousy.

As for Brian hadn't been invited to an forum is telling what? Nothing. In fact, I've been to these so called forums several times and their not half as exciting as his talk.

I think it's just that you feel connected to Graham because he's a former F-4 guy and you were F-4 personal. That's all great but please look at the whole picture before making a judgment call.

As for the comments by Animal...good grief. Please, go find another crow in the parking lot to shot.

Please, let's get back to modeling...the whole reason why this site was here.

Edited by Youngtiger1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I showed Youngtiger1's version to Col Graham yesterday. He was taken aback that I'd posted what he told me,

Imagine his surprise.

saying that after General Halloran's letter to the AFA mag that the back channel communication amongst a number of former Blackbird aircrew was that they ought to just drop it rather than engage in a public battle.

A "public battle" by proxy over the internet in a scale modeling forum no less. You are aware this is making everyone look like petty children right?

Col Graham read Youngtiger's response and while he was reading kept shaking his head, saying under his breath 'That's not true.' When he finished he told me 'there was no C-5 in the pattern that night'

judy-eye-roll.gif

I showed this thread to Judge Judy and she told me to tell you that's hearsay. Then she called me back to bed.

He also said he'd love for Brian to meet with him and the other two officers who were there when they fired him from the SR-71 program and tell them to their faces that they were lying. He said Brian won't do it because he's the one not telling the truth.

This is how my teen sister tells stories. The only difference is the mention of the SR-71, even the names are the same :bandhead2:

Link to post
Share on other sites
I present to you my masterpiece. I call it....Death of a Salmon.

With all due respect, those are some fine ocean Kings there. However, if we're going with a Masterpiece titled "Death of Salmon," there's only 2 categories of competition...

Size:

King_zpsef37852d.jpg

Or quantity:

Reds2_zps7db6ab49.jpg

But seriously, those are some really, really nice Kings. I wish we weren't having such dismal returns on the King runs up here the past few years.

Meanwhile, here's my entry into the ARC Nature Photos thread:

P6160237_zpsedc93aac.jpg

Now if you'll excuse me, they're having a very interesting discussion over at naturephotographers.net about the YF-12 program.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I will point out are 2 little details, that the nerd in me MUST exclaim:

Taiden Tomcat: Only wrinkle in your example is he STAGED that flag raising! He STAGED it as a photo op! Memorable, yes... But he wasn't there at the right time and the right place. He totally missed it, and had them do it again, slowly, pausing so he could take the shot. :whistle:/>/>/>/>/>

Far be it for me to dispute a "professional" but I am a history buff. I would direct you to this article, and most specifically the section "Publication and staging confusion".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_the_Flag_on_Iwo_Jima

Or from Rosenthal's NYT obituary:

"But almost from the day the photograph was emblazoned on the front pages of Sunday newspapers as a symbol of embattled patriotism, Mr. Rosenthal faced suspicions that he staged the shot, posing the Marines. He always insisted that he recorded a genuine event, and others on the scene corroborated his account.

“The picture was not posed,” Louis Burmeister, a former Marine combat photographer who was among four military photographers alongside Mr. Rosenthal as the flag went up, said in a 1993 interview for “Shadow of Suribachi,” by Parker Bishop Albee Jr. and Keller Cushing Freeman.

“If it was posed, we would have probably had their faces toward us,” Mr. Burmeister said. “You notice, in the picture, nobody’s facing us.” "

Or another article:

http://skepticalhumanities.com/2011/06/18/was-the-flag-raising-at-iwo-jima-staged/

There is bunch of references clarifying the dispute, one has to only look.

So to re-iterate:

Staged

l721flag_zpsf93e80e7.gif

Not staged

FlagRaisingIWOcc_zpsaf5948b8.jpg

No need to thank me, truth is its own reward.

Edited by junkman3353
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to step in here, though I do agree his proclaiming himself to be acclaimed is as insincere as if he'd chosen his own callsign. Had he done that, he'd be laughed at and ridiculed, and not allowed a callsign until he learned humility. Same applies somewhat with the photography field....

What I will point out are 2 little details, that the nerd in me MUST exclaim:

Taiden Tomcat: Only wrinkle in your example is he STAGED that flag raising! He STAGED it as a photo op! Memorable, yes... But he wasn't there at the right time and the right place. He totally missed it, and had them do it again, slowly, pausing so he could take the shot. :whistle:/>

Storm: Don't decry digital by saying that film was a true medium. It wasn't. Film is far more unforgiving, and for the thousands of photos taken, the percentage of getting a GOOD shot were much smaller. Also, if the shot wasn't good, an analog photographer could and DID regularly develop their own film to push or pull the timing on the negative/slide development, and also push/pull the printing process and tweak how much light hit the film paper, and also dodge and burn the photo in various areas to accentuate them, or to apply filters to the printing process light so as to bring out the hues or to increase contrast....

In short, every single thing you could do in photoshop today, they did regularly to analog film. They tweaked the hell out of it to get their "best" shot, just as anybody, ever, has done.

Just saying.... :salute:/>

/End nerd mode.

I agree with your post, but also disagree with it!

I've used everything from a $10K + Canon down to a $150 Fuji, and a lot of stuff between the top and bottom. What I've discovered is that few cameras can do black & whites. 97% operate off a grey scale in one form or another. Yet there area small handful that do true B&W. I also use 35mm, 120 and 220 roll film in in several cameras. The medium format camera still kills digital as we know it in just about every normal way, but it's also not for everyone of us for sure. They're also kinda big and heavy. I can't think of a single frame out of 120 or 220 film that's been photoshopped in my collection. (probably is) I rarely shoot in RAW anymore as it's too much trouble, but other guys I know do all the time. If it works for you, then so be it!

Do I need a $9.9K camera body like Dave's? NO I don't! Right now I'd be perfectly happy with the Fuji X100Pro range finder camera, and the two DSLR's I own. I'd love to have a digital medium format camera, but also know that I could pay for most of a new Corvette with that kinda money! What I like about digital cameras is that I'm no longer tied down to a film lab that does so so work! But if you find a good one then you can also do some nice work.

gary

Link to post
Share on other sites
Taiden Tomcat: Only wrinkle in your example is he STAGED that flag raising! He STAGED it as a photo op! Memorable, yes... But he wasn't there at the right time and the right place. He totally missed it, and had them do it again, slowly, pausing so he could take the shot. :whistle:/>/>/>/>

...

/End nerd mode.

Guessing the docent at the museum told you that? Tell your docent to read Flags Of Our Fathers, it's really good to explain why the second flag was raised and what eventually happened to it. The movie is a great companion to the book, but you gotta tell him to read the book. While you're at it, you might enjoy reading it, too.

Edit:

Had to add this...

judy-eye-roll.gif

Edited by ReiShikiSenGuy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Far be it for me to dispute a "professional" but I am a history buff. I would direct you to this article, and most specifically the section "Publication and staging confusion".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_the_Flag_on_Iwo_Jima

...

So to re-iterate:

Staged

l721flag_zpsf93e80e7.gif

Not staged

FlagRaisingIWOcc_zpsaf5948b8.jpg

No need to thank me, truth is its own reward.

I do thank you for bringing up a good point. What is "staged"? The people decrying the comment seem to think it's 100% totally fabricated, from the ground up. That's not what I'm talking about. The first flag was put up, taken down, and another flag was being put up. It doesn't take 5 men to raise a simple water pipe with a flag tied to it. Surely it's possible a photographer with an eye on the prize would say "get a couple more guys in there," and "slow and steady boys," and offering guidance. Guiding the shot, rather than silently snapping a discrete photo as it happened.

I had to remind myself of the finer details via Wikipedia, though I did watch Flags of Our Fathers a while back as well. I don't know how I feel about the "snapped it while turning around" part -- sounds a little propoganda-ish. A little too good to be true. Not outside the realm of possibility, I admit, but dubious I remain. There are 2 types of photographers: Those that just "capture the moment" and those that help the moment along to "capture the perfect picture" -- and the former seems to crop up later in our culture, into the '70s and '80s more. There were both around from the start of the use of photography, but the balance really tilted much later after WW2.

Let's not forget the famous line from Apocalypse Now, "Don't look at the camera!"

Just wanted to clarify what I meant about staging, as you brought up a valid issue where I didn't want to be lumped into the extreme category.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Boy, this is becoming ridiculous. Please, read what you are saying Scott. Graham's own buddies told him to just drop it but he won't...why is that?Perhaps, because the truth has been diluted. Following are just my personal opinion...I can tell he's (Col. Graham) just is a jealous individual who heard another pilot made negative comment about him in intercom and displeased that others within the unit think the same so I need to make Shul an example. After 20+ years he's still bend out of shape...burning in his own jealousy.

As for Brian hadn't been invited to an forum is telling what? Nothing. In fact, I've been to these so called forums several times and their not half as exciting as his talk.

I think it's just that you feel connected to Graham because he's a former F-4 guy and you were F-4 personal. That's all great but please look at the whole picture before making a judgment call.

As for the comments by Animal...good grief. Please, go find another crow in the parking lot to shot.

Please, let's get back to modeling...the whole reason why this site was here.

I don't profess to know who is telling the truth. I've met and talked to Rich Graham, and he is not at all as you are making him out to be. Yes, I tend to believe what he said as he comes across as quite reasonable. I'm sure that knowing Shul and Watson, you tend to believe them as well. I'm sure their portrayal of the story sounds reasonable to you.

I'm being sympathetic to Graham because he flew F-4s? You know, you make an awful lot of assumptions about people's motivations. First, he told me he flew Wild Weasels. Never mentioned the F-4. I presumed he meant the F-105G until as I was writing one of the above pieces I looked up his bio online and saw it was F-4s. Whether he flew the F-4 or not is irrelevant to me anywayas far as this story is concerned. You also assumed he had Gen Halloran write the letter to AFA. Graham told me the first time I asked him about this situation that when he read Halloran's letter, he immediately started writing his own letter to back up Halloran. It was then that he received a phone call from another Blackbird pilot who was also offended that Shul was listed in the AFA bit as a notable flyer, but who felt it was best to let it drop rather than rehash it. According to Graham there was some other back channel communication from other former Blackbird flyers who felt the same way. Now ask yourself, if you were the General and Graham called you and asked you to write an assassination piece, how would you react? I'd tell him to write his own letter! Your assertion is just not plausible. Graham said he agreed with the other crewmembers that dropping it was best, and never sent in his letter. I don't see Graham as being jealous and again, you seem to think you are psychic or something knowing everyone's motivations. So tell me this. From all I've ever seen, read and heard, the Blackbird community is close-knit and supportive of each other with the exception of Shul. Long before Brian wrote his book that Graham is supposedly jealous of, Shul had the ops officer try to get him in trouble by pulling the mission tape and letting Graham listen to it? Why would he do that? Why did he listen to the tape in the first place? And Graham was determined to ground Shul so Brian voluntarily resigned as an SR-71 driver to fly T-38s? So why did both Graham and the ops officer supposedly have it in for Shul anyway? Sounds more like Shul screwed up, got caught and is blaming everyone else for being out to get him. It's just not plausible to me that someone would resign as a Blackbird pilot because the command staff was out to get him. Seems to me most people who p-o'ed their boss would work to make amends, not quit so easily. Especially someone who had worked to make it to such an elite position. I know I'd do whatever it took to smooth the boss' feathers than give up flying such an incredible machine.

Another thing that has always bothered me, Shul's story about the slowest he ever flew an SR-71. Long before I ever talked to Graham, that one bothered me. He was called on the radio and asked for an impromptu flyby, not briefed, not pre-planned? That struck me when I first read it before I ever talked to Graham as very dangerous and pretty stupid, completely contrary to what I know about flight safety. What if there had been a nearby tower hidden in the haze? Granted I wasn't there, but even in my F-4 days I know the aircrews wouldn't be allowed to make a flyby like that without prior planning, arranging permissions, and prebriefing it so as to make it safe,not tick off the locals, etc., and would be in a whole lot of trouble had they done something like that. To me that story alone gives Graham's position a lot more credibility in my opinion.

Let's just you and I agree to disagree, and call it a day. Based on what I know and my conversations with Graham, I feel he is being truthful, not acting out of malice. He also is not going around slandering Shul, but is also not afraid to tell his version of the story when asked about it. Shul's stories on the other hand seem to me a bit suspect. You think the opposite, I respect that, and I agree to disagree agreeably with you.

Scott Wilson

Edited by Scott R Wilson
Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, since this thread seems to be smoldering a bit now, lemme throw somethin else in the fire to take us even further from the OT.

Something didn't seem right with that gif of the two guys blowing up their boat, like the part where it looks like one guy's head is blown off. Anyway, I decided to search on it and see about it's authenticity and I found the following article.

source: http://offthebench.nbcsports.com

Viral 'grenade fishing' accident video apparently a movie stunt (video)

Rick Chandler

Jul 31, 2012, 4:15 PM EDT

Comments Off

grenadefishin1.jpg?w=320It happened somewhere in Russia, and the video hit LiveLeak and is approaching 150,000 views, with a few thousand more on YouTube. The premise seems to be two dumb guys fishing with grenades, who almost blow up their own boat. But according to commenters, it was a really stunt for a movie — which makes sense, since you can hear someone shouting directions to the men through a bullhorn.

Also, if you're really fishing with explosives, one would think you'd throw them further from the boat.

So see, if enough of us comment about something, it has to be true! rolleyes.gif

We now return you to your regularly schedule program...whatever that may be.

Edited by blunce
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...