Well I only read all the comments as I was part of the discussion, not sure I could go back and read them all now, a bit different when your involved and read them as they are being posted. This is my post from the discussion.

First view it is obvious that there are far more cannonballs in the ON photo then there are on the OFF photo. After finding the two highest resolution photos of both pictures on the web, I superimposed them on top of one another and made a comparison for the number of balls, the shadows and other land marks, craters, stones and so forth. The problem with the photos posted here is the colour, they are black and white which gives appearances of shadows and other discrepancies in the landscape that are not there in the sepia toned photos.

It would appear that the on photo was the result of a barrage from the Russians. If you look closely at the photo of the ON it is not only more shot but rocks and other landscape changes are present and obvious. With a closer look it seems that some of the shot has hit and impacted, some do not appear to have impacted but depending on various factors some may have been fired at a slightly less angled trajectory and also the density of the ground where the shot hit and caused some shot to roll rather than impact. I would point out all the discrepancies but that would be a very detailed paper rather than a comment.

It is a shame that some past photographers are questioned long after their passing with no firm evidence other than sheer speculation about their intent, character and integrity.