|
Post by devorerd on Oct 25, 2023 11:50:06 GMT -5
If one had an open mind, putting bias's aside, evaluate the photo/video on it's own merit. The SME was unbiased and came to the conclusion that the pictures were the same man, Brushy Bill Roberts. Since we are not SME's on facial recognition, I would ask the "creditability" seekers to hold yourself to the same standard and come to a reasonable person conclusion. In this forum or at least I am, we are intersted in how one comes to conclusions. Cheers..
|
|
|
Post by Moreleeb on Oct 25, 2023 12:55:40 GMT -5
I watched some of the videos off Edwards YouTube channel and I didn't hear where the photo was found. Link me to the precise video in question mentioning exactly where it was found. All I keep hearing from Edwards is that the photo is going to be apart of a documentary he's arranged, which admittedly I don't like because it screams Tunstall all over again. Transparency is supposed to be key here, rather than looking to make profits. You're assuming and taking both men's words that the expert didn't know who Billy The Kid was. I find that alone remarkable because most people over the age of 40 surely would know that picture or the name Billy The Kid. You're assuming or taking Edwards word that the expert actually is an expert. What other crimes or success rate has he had previously? Why did Edwards select him specifically? Why not use experts from multiple sources and departments? The more experts, the more of a consensus can be made. Don't rely on ONE expert, especially under those dubious circumstances. This is why 3rd party investigation should be done not involving Mr Edwards in the least. I'm reminded of the so-called 93% match between Brushy and the tintype, when it came out much later that the two scientists doing the study said that they NEVER said that in the first place, and even if they did the methods then were archaic and would not apply today. Far too many people are jumping on a bandwagon just assuming or trusting Dan Edwards wholeheartedly about anything and everything just because they want to believe that Brushy was The Kid. It's okay to believe he was, but what's not okay is to not question everything that's being put out there. And as I stated before, even if the photo was of Billy The Kid and even if it was in Brushy's trunk it doesn't necessarily mean that he was The Kid. Until Hico allows an exhumation and tests his DNA against Henry Roberts and his wives Caroline Dunn and Sarah Heath, it's always going to be considered not strong enough evidence. Hico isn't going to because a negative result ruins their tourism industry. Ok so Leeb complained about the photo being too clear. Texas Truth Teller completely avoided talking about it and you discredit the information in the video while having not even seen the full video. I'll let someone else take over from here. That picture is far to clean to claim it's age. To me the so called brushy/Billy is far too tall. I can guarantee you 110% that if the picture went to auction tomorrow it wouldn't sell. There is no provenance whatsoever and just comparing yet another nice wildwest photo and hoping that it's the kid just doesn't cut the ice. Why didn't the croquet picture sell?.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Oct 25, 2023 18:51:10 GMT -5
Some very old photos are amazingly clear and well preserved. Many factors affect how much a pic deteriorates. The reason Billy/Brushy appears tall is because the man behind him is standing some distance back which makes him appear much smaller than he really is, thus making Billy look taller than he is. It's all due to varied distances from the camera. I have examined all that in detail because I initially had the same reservation, but after studying it more, I now agree the photo is none other than Billy The Kid. The NYC facial recognition expert interviewed by Dan was asked to compare the photos even though he had no idea who anybody was in the photos. He was absolutely certain the Dedrick tintype, and various photos of Brushy were the same person that's in the new photo. If you want to try question it, then get your own facial recognition expert to compare and give you his/her opinion/results. At this point you have no real argument against the photo's authenticity.
|
|
WhisperingBillyBarlow
Guest
|
Post by WhisperingBillyBarlow on Oct 26, 2023 2:41:33 GMT -5
I watched some of the videos off Edwards YouTube channel and I didn't hear where the photo was found. Link me to the precise video in question mentioning exactly where it was found. All I keep hearing from Edwards is that the photo is going to be apart of a documentary he's arranged, which admittedly I don't like because it screams Tunstall all over again. Transparency is supposed to be key here, rather than looking to make profits. You're assuming and taking both men's words that the expert didn't know who Billy The Kid was. I find that alone remarkable because most people over the age of 40 surely would know that picture or the name Billy The Kid. You're assuming or taking Edwards word that the expert actually is an expert. What other crimes or success rate has he had previously? Why did Edwards select him specifically? Why not use experts from multiple sources and departments? The more experts, the more of a consensus can be made. Don't rely on ONE expert, especially under those dubious circumstances. This is why 3rd party investigation should be done not involving Mr Edwards in the least. I'm reminded of the so-called 93% match between Brushy and the tintype, when it came out much later that the two scientists doing the study said that they NEVER said that in the first place, and even if they did the methods then were archaic and would not apply today. Far too many people are jumping on a bandwagon just assuming or trusting Dan Edwards wholeheartedly about anything and everything just because they want to believe that Brushy was The Kid. It's okay to believe he was, but what's not okay is to not question everything that's being put out there. And as I stated before, even if the photo was of Billy The Kid and even if it was in Brushy's trunk it doesn't necessarily mean that he was The Kid. Until Hico allows an exhumation and tests his DNA against Henry Roberts and his wives Caroline Dunn and Sarah Heath, it's always going to be considered not strong enough evidence. Hico isn't going to because a negative result ruins their tourism industry. Ok so Leeb complained about the photo being too clear. Texas Truth Teller completely avoided talking about it and you discredit the information in the video while having not even seen the full video. I'll let someone else take over from here. You also didn't link me to the video saying precisely where the photo was found, etc. All I have seen is Edwards saying that the information is on some documentary he's financially benefiting from. I never ONCE said that the photograph wasn't The Kid. I'm merely pointing out that doesn't mean Brushy was The Kid, and in a court of law the prosecution could bring in their own expert saying that Brushy wasn't a match, etc. I'm merely asking WHY did Edwards choose this specific man? Why did Edwards only have one expert to weigh in on anything? What success rate does this expert Edwards selected have? The comment from Wayne (no offense, I mean this in total respect but find it flawed) that if someone disagrees hire their own expert doesn't quite wash any and all criticism... if I had the funds like Edwards, courtesy of his book and other forms of income, I would have brought in multiple (and random) experts to examine the photograph in comparison with known pictures of Brushy Bill Roberts. It seems or appears Edwards found one person, who somehow against all odds never saw one of the best known photographs in American history and never heard of one of the most famous names in American history, and he gave Edwards the result that he wanted. Does that not sound the slightest bit suspicious? It does to me. I'm kind of shocked it doesn't seem remotely suspicious to anyone else. Everything ought to be questionable. If a panel of experts came back with similar conclusions then it'd be great. But the opinion of one man hardly be construed as evidence. That's why in science they have independent universities or laboratories run their own tests to see if they get the same result. Now if some skeptical expert reviewer analyzed and came back "inconclusive" or "we have a match," then it would be meaningful. After that point, you have an accredited university or department (the more the better) do the same analysis and if they come back neutral or positive in Brushy's favor then you can call it strong evidence. Jesus Christ Almighty God bless you all
|
|
|
Post by DanJohno on Oct 26, 2023 3:30:39 GMT -5
Ok so Leeb complained about the photo being too clear. Texas Truth Teller completely avoided talking about it and you discredit the information in the video while having not even seen the full video. I'll let someone else take over from here. You also didn't link me to the video saying precisely where the photo was found, etc. All I have seen is Edwards saying that the information is on some documentary he's financially benefiting from. I never ONCE said that the photograph wasn't The Kid. I'm merely pointing out that doesn't mean Brushy was The Kid, and in a court of law the prosecution could bring in their own expert saying that Brushy wasn't a match, etc. I'm merely asking WHY did Edwards choose this specific man? Why did Edwards only have one expert to weigh in on anything? What success rate does this expert Edwards selected have? The comment from Wayne (no offense, I mean this in total respect but find it flawed) that if someone disagrees hire their own expert doesn't quite wash any and all criticism... if I had the funds like Edwards, courtesy of his book and other forms of income, I would have brought in multiple (and random) experts to examine the photograph in comparison with known pictures of Brushy Bill Roberts. It seems or appears Edwards found one person, who somehow against all odds never saw one of the best known photographs in American history and never heard of one of the most famous names in American history, and he gave Edwards the result that he wanted. Does that not sound the slightest bit suspicious? It does to me. I'm kind of shocked it doesn't seem remotely suspicious to anyone else. Everything ought to be questionable. If a panel of experts came back with similar conclusions then it'd be great. But the opinion of one man hardly be construed as evidence. That's why in science they have independent universities or laboratories run their own tests to see if they get the same result. Now if some skeptical expert reviewer analyzed and came back "inconclusive" or "we have a match," then it would be meaningful. After that point, you have an accredited university or department (the more the better) do the same analysis and if they come back neutral or positive in Brushy's favor then you can call it strong evidence. Jesus Christ Almighty God bless you all It's impossible to not be able to find the video. Just pay the 5 bucks to subscribe to his channel. How is that so hard?
|
|
|
Post by RonBk on Oct 26, 2023 4:33:12 GMT -5
My guess is there is no small amount of cash you have to put up to get a real expert from the facial recognition unit of the police department. Hopefully and probably there will be more experts weighing in on the Silver City photo down the road. For now, we should all be thankful to Mr Edwards for bringing forth the photo, paying for the investigation and getting Emilio Estevez on board as well. Thank you Colt45!
|
|
|
Post by MissyS on Oct 26, 2023 10:36:09 GMT -5
My guess is there is no small amount of cash you have to put up to get a real expert from the facial recognition unit of the police department. Hopefully and probably there will be more experts weighing in on the Silver City photo down the road. For now, we should all be thankful to Mr Edwards for bringing forth the photo, paying for the investigation and getting Emilio Estevez on board as well. Thank you Colt45! I agree. Thank You Dan, You did an Amazing job! I appreciate the work your doing.
|
|
|
Post by Moreleeb on Oct 26, 2023 14:07:03 GMT -5
Some very old photos are amazingly clear and well preserved. Many factors affect how much a pic deteriorates. The reason Billy/Brushy appears tall is because the man behind him is standing some distance back which makes him appear much smaller than he really is, thus making Billy look taller than he is. It's all due to varied distances from the camera. I have examined all that in detail because I initially had the same reservation, but after studying it more, I now agree the photo is none other than Billy The Kid. The NYC facial recognition expert interviewed by Dan was asked to compare the photos even though he had no idea who anybody was in the photos. He was absolutely certain the Dedrick tintype, and various photos of Brushy were the same person that's in the new photo. If you want to try question it, then get your own facial recognition expert to compare and give you his/her opinion/results. At this point you have no real argument against the photo's authenticity. Wayne, if you had the opportunity to buy this picture for 10k would you purchase it??.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Oct 26, 2023 15:22:03 GMT -5
Are you kidding me? I wouldn't pay $10,000 for any photo including the original Dedrick tintype. But that has nothing to do with whether I believe it is authentic.
|
|
WhisperingBillyBarlow
Guest
|
Post by WhisperingBillyBarlow on Oct 27, 2023 0:35:07 GMT -5
You also didn't link me to the video saying precisely where the photo was found, etc. All I have seen is Edwards saying that the information is on some documentary he's financially benefiting from. I never ONCE said that the photograph wasn't The Kid. I'm merely pointing out that doesn't mean Brushy was The Kid, and in a court of law the prosecution could bring in their own expert saying that Brushy wasn't a match, etc. I'm merely asking WHY did Edwards choose this specific man? Why did Edwards only have one expert to weigh in on anything? What success rate does this expert Edwards selected have? The comment from Wayne (no offense, I mean this in total respect but find it flawed) that if someone disagrees hire their own expert doesn't quite wash any and all criticism... if I had the funds like Edwards, courtesy of his book and other forms of income, I would have brought in multiple (and random) experts to examine the photograph in comparison with known pictures of Brushy Bill Roberts. It seems or appears Edwards found one person, who somehow against all odds never saw one of the best known photographs in American history and never heard of one of the most famous names in American history, and he gave Edwards the result that he wanted. Does that not sound the slightest bit suspicious? It does to me. I'm kind of shocked it doesn't seem remotely suspicious to anyone else. Everything ought to be questionable. If a panel of experts came back with similar conclusions then it'd be great. But the opinion of one man hardly be construed as evidence. That's why in science they have independent universities or laboratories run their own tests to see if they get the same result. Now if some skeptical expert reviewer analyzed and came back "inconclusive" or "we have a match," then it would be meaningful. After that point, you have an accredited university or department (the more the better) do the same analysis and if they come back neutral or positive in Brushy's favor then you can call it strong evidence. Jesus Christ Almighty God bless you all It's impossible to not be able to find the video. Just pay the 5 bucks to subscribe to his channel. How is that so hard? Ahhhh... pay to play. You know I always thought what separated us willing to investigate, be open minded, etc from the "scholars" who refused to budge was the fact we were all out in the open, transparent and free information. I guess Mr Edwards isn't in the business of free information. And before someone says, "But it's only $5 surely he's not a conman!," my whole point is it could've been 1 cent and it would still go against the principle of honest investigation and free information. I won't pay to get information. Everything I do is free and in the open. Most of us put out information free and in the open. Anytime money is involved, no matter how small the price, it gives the impression of an old circus sideshow: "Ten cents to get into the tent!," and inside is a specialty attraction that costs another five cents to see. Everybody can be nickeled and dimed all they want, but not me. You want to be taken seriously? Put it out there in the open, and challenge the skeptics to prove you wrong. Don't put a price tag on something and then challenge the skeptics. I find Wayne to be credible because at least he puts up his own money to keep the site going, allow differing opinions, and he isn't making anything off of anything. If any of us found a missing piece of the puzzle, it'd be public information on this board. Maybe Edwards started out that way, but how it's turned out is no different than Tunstall trying to make a profit and that's not a good look. My last word on the subject. We merely agree to disagree on how Mr Edwards presents things. Because I'm telling you all the people who don't believe, when they see "$5 to View", they chuckle to themselves and say, "Just like J. Frank Dalton would do." That we're all out for money on things we can't prove one way or another. Jesus Christ Almighty God bless you all
|
|
|
Post by DanJohno on Oct 27, 2023 1:39:03 GMT -5
It's impossible to not be able to find the video. Just pay the 5 bucks to subscribe to his channel. How is that so hard? Ahhhh... pay to play. You know I always thought what separated us willing to investigate, be open minded, etc from the "scholars" who refused to budge was the fact we were all out in the open, transparent and free information. I guess Mr Edwards isn't in the business of free information. And before someone says, "But it's only $5 surely he's not a conman!," my whole point is it could've been 1 cent and it would still go against the principle of honest investigation and free information. I won't pay to get information. Everything I do is free and in the open. Most of us put out information free and in the open. Anytime money is involved, no matter how small the price, it gives the impression of an old circus sideshow: "Ten cents to get into the tent!," and inside is a specialty attraction that costs another five cents to see. Everybody can be nickeled and dimed all they want, but not me. You want to be taken seriously? Put it out there in the open, and challenge the skeptics to prove you wrong. Don't put a price tag on something and then challenge the skeptics. I find Wayne to be credible because at least he puts up his own money to keep the site going, allow differing opinions, and he isn't making anything off of anything. If any of us found a missing piece of the puzzle, it'd be public information on this board. Maybe Edwards started out that way, but how it's turned out is no different than Tunstall trying to make a profit and that's not a good look. My last word on the subject. We merely agree to disagree on how Mr Edwards presents things. Because I'm telling you all the people who don't believe, when they see "$5 to View", they chuckle to themselves and say, "Just like J. Frank Dalton would do." That we're all out for money on things we can't prove one way or another. Jesus Christ Almighty God bless you all The video has been out for months and everyone knows you need to pay and subscribe to watch it. Why are you pretending to act surprised as if I'm the one who just broke the news to you that you have to pay. I'm guessing you must have been barred from Daniel's Billy the kid Facebook group and that's why you've returned here.
|
|
WhisperingBillyBarlow
Guest
|
Post by WhisperingBillyBarlow on Oct 27, 2023 2:04:39 GMT -5
Ahhhh... pay to play. You know I always thought what separated us willing to investigate, be open minded, etc from the "scholars" who refused to budge was the fact we were all out in the open, transparent and free information. I guess Mr Edwards isn't in the business of free information. And before someone says, "But it's only $5 surely he's not a conman!," my whole point is it could've been 1 cent and it would still go against the principle of honest investigation and free information. I won't pay to get information. Everything I do is free and in the open. Most of us put out information free and in the open. Anytime money is involved, no matter how small the price, it gives the impression of an old circus sideshow: "Ten cents to get into the tent!," and inside is a specialty attraction that costs another five cents to see. Everybody can be nickeled and dimed all they want, but not me. You want to be taken seriously? Put it out there in the open, and challenge the skeptics to prove you wrong. Don't put a price tag on something and then challenge the skeptics. I find Wayne to be credible because at least he puts up his own money to keep the site going, allow differing opinions, and he isn't making anything off of anything. If any of us found a missing piece of the puzzle, it'd be public information on this board. Maybe Edwards started out that way, but how it's turned out is no different than Tunstall trying to make a profit and that's not a good look. My last word on the subject. We merely agree to disagree on how Mr Edwards presents things. Because I'm telling you all the people who don't believe, when they see "$5 to View", they chuckle to themselves and say, "Just like J. Frank Dalton would do." That we're all out for money on things we can't prove one way or another. Jesus Christ Almighty God bless you all The video has been out for months and everyone knows you need to pay and subscribe to watch it. Why are you pretending to act surprised as if I'm the one who just broke the news to you that you have to pay. I'm guessing you must have been barred from Daniel's Billy the kid Facebook group and that's why you've returned here. I don't believe I ever was in his group. I had and still do have my own Brushy Bill Roberts page, albeit I don't keep up with it as I should. Mr Edwards did message me at one point saying I was using some copyrighted image of his, and to take it down, but I told him I wasn't aware of that fact because it was an image I randomly found on Google but because he said so I took it down. I'll admit after the arguments here a year or so ago where I was banned and some hardworking posts (the only copy of research I had) was deleted from the forum I felt pretty demoralized and upset that I didn't bother with Brushy/Billy research for quite some time. Not to get into personal details of my life, but a lot of family tragedies also occurred and for the passed year I've largely concentrated on going to work and see to family concerns. Every once in a great while, though, out of curiosity I would look at this website and post something but didn't really keep up to date on everything. All I can say is if Mr Edwards has everything set up to where only members of his group were privy to how and where to get access to the documentary, you must concede me the benefit of the doubt that since I never was a member of his group (as far as I can remember) that I wouldn't have known how and where--- especially when you figure I'm not a subscriber to Mr Edwards YouTube channel, so it may be that it doesn't show the documentary being available unless you clicked "subscribe." I'd just suggest that for greater outreach purposes Mr Edwards ought to make it available for everyone to see its available without having to be a subscriber. Because from my perspective it didn't seem to be there when looking at it as an unsubscriber.
|
|
|
Post by RonBk on Oct 27, 2023 2:04:58 GMT -5
Free information is a good basic principle, however everything is not for free. Dont you understand it costs a lot of money to produce documentaries and pay the people involved? You ever paid money to get a book? Do you only go to the library? There is nothing wrong with libraries of course, but writers should still be allowed to sell their books right? Im all for libraries and free information but im not a communist. Writers and researchers deserve to have an income. Never paid to watch a movie?
|
|
|
Post by MissyS on Oct 27, 2023 2:11:40 GMT -5
I guess you can call me a Dan fan. I don’t believe he’s dishonest. I like the work he’s doing.
|
|
WhisperingBillyBarlow
Guest
|
Post by WhisperingBillyBarlow on Oct 27, 2023 2:34:27 GMT -5
Free information is a good basic principle, however everything is not for free. Dont you understand it costs a lot of money to produce documentaries and pay the people involved? You ever paid money to get a book? Do you only go to the library? There is nothing wrong with libraries of course, but writers should still be allowed to sell their books right? Im all for libraries and free information but im not a communist. Writers and researchers deserve to have an income. Never paid to watch a movie? I could understand it IF the cost of viewership was apart of a contractual agreement between Mr Edwards and Emilio Estevez for using his voice to narrate the documentary for royalty purposes. I'm not a socialist or communist either. However, considering that any/all research into Brushy Bill Roberts has been (to say the least) mocked and dismissed by most accredited scholars and historians I think that in order to "save face" new evidence must be presented freely and openly and the photograph get the expert opinion of those scholars and historians to confirm/deny the photograph. If I had a new previously unknown photo or letter or census record, etc of Billy The Kid I would be reaching out to people like Gale Cooper, one of the more respected historians whose specific interest is in Billy The Kid and who has wrote books against Brushy Bill Roberts and John Miller, to see if she would agree that was new evidence of Billy The Kid or not. Perhaps she would know of accredited experts in various fields to confirm or deny the new evidence. When you have potentially new evidence, you need to take it to individuals that universities and departments take seriously. To the proper channels. Now, you might say, "Hey I have this picture and had a police forensic analyst compare it to Billy the Kid, what do you think Mrs Cooper?", but ultimately you need to show that potential evidence to accredited experts that the majority accepts as credible scholars capable of accepting or dismissing the evidence. I don't think putting a price tag on that evidence is just a good look. It'd be like me finding bigfoot and saying, "I want a billion dollars," without having anthropologists and biologists from an accredited university studying the body first. Price is something you talk about AFTER the fact that it has been proven to be the genuine article. It makes the whole thing look like something off of WEEKLY WORLD NEWS instead of FORBES when somebody puts a price on evidence. I don't think promoting or proving the evidence was thought out properly when it came to this picture.
|
|