|
Post by Wayne Land on Nov 3, 2023 12:21:11 GMT -5
So you're suggesting Cunningham had no reason for choosing that particular photo to claim it was Catherine? He chose it completely at random and it just happened to be a photo of the same woman who was in the photo being discussed? And whomever the lady is, she just happened to own a pair of earrings exactly like those worn by Miller in the known photo of her. To me, that defies logic. Not having evidence otherwise, other than logic, I'll just leave that one alone.
As for the Rough Rider photos with the names reversed. The six man photo would be left to right, William D. Wood, Alvin Ash, Thomas Darnell, C.T. Owens, Stewart, and the one who looks like Brushy is AC Fletcher. According to military records, Fletcher was 5'8 1/4". Then in the five man photo you would have, left to right, Thomas Darnell, 5'10" (there is no way that little man is 5' 10" unless several of the others are 7' tall or more), William D. Wood (clearly a different person from the one marked as Wood in the other photo, then Moore, then the one that looks like Brushy is labeled "Storms" 5'11 7/8" (funny how he changed is name and grew 3 inches between two photos clearly taken the same day, then Levi Jones is 5'7 2/8" even though he is clearly taller than Storms. Yes, camera angle and distance from subject can make heights appear different but it is obvious here that the camera angle is not responsible for obvious, dramatically, incorrect heights as documented in the military records.
Maybe we aren't looking at the same photos? Because what you're saying just makes zero sense. The names used to identify the men in those two photos are just wrong. I think I'm going to give up on this debate. Not give in, just give up. You seem unwilling to listen to reason.
|
|
|
Post by shootseven on Nov 3, 2023 12:57:49 GMT -5
So you're suggesting Cunningham had no reason for choosing that particular photo to claim it was Catherine? He chose it completely at random and it just happened to be a photo of the same woman who was in the photo being discussed? And whomever the lady is, she just happened to own a pair of earrings exactly like those worn by Miller in the known photo of her. To me, that defies logic. Not having evidence otherwise, other than logic, I'll just leave that one alone. As for the Rough Rider photos with the names reversed. The six man photo would be left to right, William D. Wood, Alvin Ash, Thomas Darnell, C.T. Owens, Stewart, and the one who looks like Brushy is AC Fletcher. According to military records, Fletcher was 5'8 1/4". Then in the five man photo you would have, left to right, Thomas Darnell, 5'10" (there is no way that little man is 5' 10" unless several of the others are 7' tall or more), William D. Wood (clearly a different person from the one marked as Wood in the other photo, then Moore, then the one that looks like Brushy is labeled "Storms" 5'11 7/8" (funny how he changed is name and grew 3 inches between two photos clearly taken the same day, then Levi Jones is 5'7 2/8" even though he is clearly taller than Storms. Yes, camera angle and distance from subject can make heights appear different but it is obvious here that the camera angle is not responsible for obvious, dramatically, incorrect heights as documented in the military records. Maybe we aren't looking at the same photos? Because what you're saying just makes zero sense. The names used to identify the men in those two photos are just wrong. I think I'm going to give up on this debate. Not give in, just give up. You seem unwilling to listen to reason. Oh good grief, putting the names in reverse order (which is the correct way to do it since they were on the glass negative) puts both men as Wood. Photo #1:https://digitalcollections.library.harvard.edu/catalog/G11977_URN-3:FHCL.HOUGH:1432334 Caption in reverse order: probably Levi Jones, probably Morris J. Storms, Roscoe Moore, WILLIAM WOOD, Thomas Darnell (and as your "Brushy" is second from the right, that makes him match up with the WOOD labeling) Photo #2: digitalcollections.library.harvard.edu/catalog/G11977_URN-3:FHCL.HOUGH:1432333 Caption in reverse order ends with WILLIAM D WOOD. AC Fletcher IS THE LAST NAME ON THE LIST SO REVERSING THE ORDER WOULD PUT HIM FIRST, OR THE FIRST MAN ON THE RIGHT I can't tell if you really don't understand how reversing the names works or if you're being intentionally obtuse to mess with me. This isn't that difficult.
|
|
|
Post by shootseven on Nov 3, 2023 13:14:12 GMT -5
So you're suggesting Cunningham had no reason for choosing that particular photo to claim it was Catherine? He chose it completely at random and it just happened to be a photo of the same woman who was in the photo being discussed? And whomever the lady is, she just happened to own a pair of earrings exactly like those worn by Miller in the known photo of her. To me, that defies logic. Not having evidence otherwise, other than logic, I'll just leave that one alone. As for the Rough Rider photos with the names reversed. The six man photo would be left to right, William D. Wood, Alvin Ash, Thomas Darnell, C.T. Owens, Stewart, and the one who looks like Brushy is AC Fletcher. According to military records, Fletcher was 5'8 1/4". Then in the five man photo you would have, left to right, Thomas Darnell, 5'10" (there is no way that little man is 5' 10" unless several of the others are 7' tall or more), William D. Wood (clearly a different person from the one marked as Wood in the other photo, then Moore, then the one that looks like Brushy is labeled "Storms" 5'11 7/8" (funny how he changed is name and grew 3 inches between two photos clearly taken the same day, then Levi Jones is 5'7 2/8" even though he is clearly taller than Storms. Yes, camera angle and distance from subject can make heights appear different but it is obvious here that the camera angle is not responsible for obvious, dramatically, incorrect heights as documented in the military records. Maybe we aren't looking at the same photos? Because what you're saying just makes zero sense. The names used to identify the men in those two photos are just wrong. I think I'm going to give up on this debate. Not give in, just give up. You seem unwilling to listen to reason. Or to make this easier for you to understand I found the images other places online where I can post the image here. Image #1: Captain from the original negative has the men as Darnell, Wood, Moore, Storms, Jones, so reversing that puts Wood SECOND FROM RIGHT. Image #2: Caption on the original negative lists Wood first, so reversing the order puts him at the FAR RIGHT.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Nov 3, 2023 17:19:34 GMT -5
OK. Making some progress here at getting on the same page. In the unlikely event that the names were written down on the negative in reverse order, that would make the guy who looks like Brushy, actually the one named Wood. But there are still several discrepancies in the recorded height of the other men listed that would make the photo not match up with the names. For example, the only other name that appears in both photos is that of Darnell. He would be on the far right in the group of 5 men and 4th from the left in the group of 6. I have zoomed in and compared those two faces and they do not match. Plus, I'm told the two photos were made the same day, and he's wearing different clothes, even a different hat, in the two photos. I still believe the names listed are in error and none of them can be trusted to be correct.
|
|
|
Post by shootseven on Nov 3, 2023 17:43:50 GMT -5
OK. Making some progress here at getting on the same page. In the unlikely event that the names were written down on the negative in reverse order, that would make the guy who looks like Brushy, actually the one named Wood. But there are still several discrepancies in the recorded height of the other men listed that would make the photo not match up with the names. For example, the only other name that appears in both photos is that of Darnell. He would be on the far right in the group of 5 men and 4th from the left in the group of 6. I have zoomed in and compared those two faces and they do not match. Plus, I'm told the two photos were made the same day, and he's wearing different clothes, even a different hat, in the two photos. I still believe the names listed are in error and none of them can be trusted to be correct. Most of that is opinion so I'm not going to argue, but I will say there's nothing in the record suggestion they were made on the same day. Whoever said that was simply speculating. There's no specific dates for the photos in the collection.
|
|
|
Post by RonBk on Nov 3, 2023 18:31:08 GMT -5
You say it's just an opinion, but anyone can see that "Darnell" is clearly two different persons on the separate photos. If you can't admit that Wayne is correct about that, either you are being dishonest or you are simply not capable of discerning the obvious differences between two completely dissimilar faces. Which is it?
|
|
|
Post by shootseven on Nov 3, 2023 19:32:13 GMT -5
You say it's just an opinion, but anyone can see that "Darnell" is clearly two different persons on the separate photos. If you can't admit that Wayne is correct about that, either you are being dishonest or you are simply not capable of discerning the obvious differences between two completely dissimilar faces. Which is it? I was not just referring to Darnell, but also speculating by height (see my example above of two 6'1" QBs who don't at all look the same height due to positioning of the camera. As for Darnell, I always hate speculating on appearance alone because two different people can look similar or the same person can look different from one photo to another; which is why it's always best to have identifications from people who knew the subjects. I will say the Darnells don't look that much alike, however, in one photo there's facial hair, there other there's not, in one photo his head is turned (and we can see a very prominent nose); in the other he's looking straight at the camera, so I wouldn't venture a guess as to whether the photographer mislabeled it or he just looks a bit different due to the facial hair angle. There's a third photo of Darnell, but his face is obscured: digitalcollections.library.harvard.edu/catalog/W384971_URN-3:FHCL.HOUGH:1432335 Though he does have a white bandana like the "Darnell" in the first photo, the one Roosevelt used in his book. Incidentally, Roosevelt does write about the Bronco busters in his book, praises both Darnell and Wood multiple times, including in the page opposite the photo in question. So the photographer labeled the negative identifying the man as Wood in both images, Roosevelt uses one of those images in the same section of his book where he praises Wood's skills; but it's not really Wood but Billy the Kid in the photo because you (or Dan) thinks there's some physical similarity? Go with that if you want.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Nov 3, 2023 21:04:09 GMT -5
Dan's theory (if I might surmise) is that whoever was identifying the men in the photo didn't really know them that well and was basically guessing at it. He says he will be investigating Wood further. I will reserve judgement on whether that's actually Wood in the photos until more information is available. Dan does fantastic research but he is human just like the rest of us, including Luria who identified the man in the photos as being the same as Brushy. I'll wait for more information to be uncovered before assuming anything.
|
|
|
Post by tboor74 on Nov 4, 2023 16:14:09 GMT -5
As always, I'm loving the debate here, hopefully it won't get too dogmatic or heated.
As a reference, a lad joined our local rugby club, lovely lad, great player, and we had history with his hometown club. A year after he left we played his old club, at their place, and they have historic pictures on the wall of years gone by. Independently, about half a dozen of us saw a picture with our pal in, when he was 21, and we all took a quick snap and sent it off to him laughing about his youthful appearance etc. HE SWEARS it's not him. He named a lad who looked like him and says that's who it is. No names on the pic unfortunately. However, we all got replies, and in the confusion asked a few of the people at said club, they all thought it was our pal bar 2 who said they vaguely remember this other lad and it 'might' be him. Debate still rages, and this is pics in the 1990s with people who know the subject. It's a tricky business.
Another, very off topic, reference but if anyone is a rock fan you'll be familiar with the Motley Crue / Matthew Trippe case from the 1980s, and if you're not, look it up, A modern doppelganger. Plainy a fantasy...I think. Some of the pics show how height, weight, and angle can make things tricky. Together with detailed accounts that are too close to home to be fabricated, but can't stand up... even the sanest of modern legal brains struggled. I'm a huge fan of Motley and even now, when I look back I think....just maybe?
No wonder we can't agree on minutae from a pic in the 1890s!
|
|
|
Post by shootseven on Nov 4, 2023 17:34:12 GMT -5
As always, I'm loving the debate here, hopefully it won't get too dogmatic or heated. As a reference, a lad joined our local rugby club, lovely lad, great player, and we had history with his hometown club. A year after he left we played his old club, at their place, and they have historic pictures on the wall of years gone by. Independently, about half a dozen of us saw a picture with our pal in, when he was 21, and we all took a quick snap and sent it off to him laughing about his youthful appearance etc. HE SWEARS it's not him. He named a lad who looked like him and says that's who it is. No names on the pic unfortunately. However, we all got replies, and in the confusion asked a few of the people at said club, they all thought it was our pal bar 2 who said they vaguely remember this other lad and it 'might' be him. Debate still rages, and this is pics in the 1990s with people who know the subject. It's a tricky business. Another, very off topic, reference but if anyone is a rock fan you'll be familiar with the Motley Crue / Matthew Trippe case from the 1980s, and if you're not, look it up, A modern doppelganger. Plainy a fantasy...I think. Some of the pics show how height, weight, and angle can make things tricky. Together with detailed accounts that are too close to home to be fabricated, but can't stand up... even the sanest of modern legal brains struggled. I'm a huge fan of Motley and even now, when I look back I think....just maybe? No wonder we can't agree on minutae from a pic in the 1890s! Good post, and just another example of why resemblance alone should NEVER be used to authenticate a photograph. As for facial recognition, even the creators of the various softwares do not claim a match guarantees it's the same person. John Boessnecker (former police officer, lawyer, collector, historian, and New York Times Bestselling author), who knows more about this than Edwards or any of us posting here, warns against this all the time and wrote about it for Wild West Magazine: www.historynet.com/truth-facial-recognition-technology/ Law enforcement uses facial recognition to narrow down possible photos to a manageable level; then it's turned over to humans. Even if Furia didn't disqualify himself by using the debunked Catherine Antrim photo (that has no connection to Silver City) and the William Wood photo, the matches still wouldn't be evidence of much, as other such experts have proven how faulty this can be when other comparisons of historical photos blew up in their faces, like this one by Kent Gibson: www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/amelia-earhart-lost-photograph-discredited-spdIt's too bad Edwards didn't consult experts like Boessnecker. He could have saved his money on the film; because when all you have is facial recognition matches as your evidence you have nothing. Provenance and contemporary identification by someone who knew the subjects is always the best way to tell who is in a photo—and the photo in question has neither.
|
|
|
Post by MissyS on Nov 4, 2023 20:16:20 GMT -5
The History net link above states Humans are three dimensional and photos are two, that may be true, but the Silver City photo is not being compared to a human, it’s being compared to another two dimensional photo. Provenance is an important factor for help in identification especially if it’s to be auctioned off, however when you have a photo with a group of people and more than one have a match to known persons that are related to the subject in the photo which also has a match then it helps give the photo credibility. If a photo that has a person in it that matches a famous person and also have other persons in the photo that have matches to known associates with the famous person in the photo such as members of that person’s family or friends or gang, plus it has the right dating for the photo and maybe background looks familiar to that group, but because it’s not known who owned it, does that mean it should be tossed out? Photos change hands people die, people move, photos get shuffled around in 150 years. If a photo is relying on Provenance to identify it then millions will be unconsidered, and thats a shame, because only maybe a small few photos would have a chain of ownership. That’s just my personal feelings about provenance. However I believe the Silver City photo did have some provenance, and it had other persons in the photo that have matches to persons that Billy the Kid knew. It was examined by someone whose expertise shouldn’t be disrespected. If he does this for a living or knows the process of examining photos then he should be qualified.
|
|
|
Post by DanJohno on Nov 4, 2023 20:39:20 GMT -5
As always, I'm loving the debate here, hopefully it won't get too dogmatic or heated. As a reference, a lad joined our local rugby club, lovely lad, great player, and we had history with his hometown club. A year after he left we played his old club, at their place, and they have historic pictures on the wall of years gone by. Independently, about half a dozen of us saw a picture with our pal in, when he was 21, and we all took a quick snap and sent it off to him laughing about his youthful appearance etc. HE SWEARS it's not him. He named a lad who looked like him and says that's who it is. No names on the pic unfortunately. However, we all got replies, and in the confusion asked a few of the people at said club, they all thought it was our pal bar 2 who said they vaguely remember this other lad and it 'might' be him. Debate still rages, and this is pics in the 1990s with people who know the subject. It's a tricky business. Another, very off topic, reference but if anyone is a rock fan you'll be familiar with the Motley Crue / Matthew Trippe case from the 1980s, and if you're not, look it up, A modern doppelganger. Plainy a fantasy...I think. Some of the pics show how height, weight, and angle can make things tricky. Together with detailed accounts that are too close to home to be fabricated, but can't stand up... even the sanest of modern legal brains struggled. I'm a huge fan of Motley and even now, when I look back I think....just maybe? No wonder we can't agree on minutae from a pic in the 1890s! Good post, and just another example of why resemblance alone should NEVER be used to authenticate a photograph. As for facial recognition, even the creators of the various softwares do not claim a match guarantees it's the same person. John Boessnecker (former police officer, lawyer, collector, historian, and New York Times Bestselling author), who knows more about this than Edwards or any of us posting here, warns against this all the time and wrote about it for Wild West Magazine: www.historynet.com/truth-facial-recognition-technology/ Law enforcement uses facial recognition to narrow down possible photos to a manageable level; then it's turned over to humans. Even if Furia didn't disqualify himself by using the debunked Catherine Antrim photo (that has no connection to Silver City) and the William Wood photo, the matches still wouldn't be evidence of much, as other such experts have proven how faulty this can be when other comparisons of historical photos blew up in their faces, like this one by Kent Gibson: www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/amelia-earhart-lost-photograph-discredited-spdIt's too bad Edwards didn't consult experts like Boessnecker. He could have saved his money on the film; because when all you have is facial recognition matches as your evidence you have nothing. Provenance and contemporary identification by someone who knew the subjects is always the best way to tell who is in a photo—and the photo in question has neither. Leaving your long list of facts and reasons aside. Do you personally think the Siver City photo looks like Brushy?
|
|
WhisperingBillyBarlow
Guest
|
Post by WhisperingBillyBarlow on Nov 4, 2023 21:00:48 GMT -5
Dan's theory (if I might surmise) is that whoever was identifying the men in the photo didn't really know them that well and was basically guessing at it. He says he will be investigating Wood further. I will reserve judgement on whether that's actually Wood in the photos until more information is available. Dan does fantastic research but he is human just like the rest of us, including Luria who identified the man in the photos as being the same as Brushy. I'll wait for more information to be uncovered before assuming anything. Personally, after viewing the documentary, I felt Dan Edwards overplayed his hand. By telling Furia the 2 Rough Rider pictures were "the same man" as Brushy Bill Roberts, when that has NEVER been proven, and is just a hypothesis that Edwards has had FOLLOWING his admission that "William S Murphy" wasn't Brushy.... it basically tainted the authentication process of the actual Silver City New Mexico photograph. This Canadian couple came to Edwards personally to help authenticate the photo as being Billy The Kid. Not prove the photo was Brushy Bill Roberts or Wood or Fletcher or anyone else labeled on the Rough Riders picture. He should've just went to Furia with the known pictures of Levi Miller and Maggie Keays, along with the 3 known Billy The Kid photos and seen if that was a match. Then he could've gave them that, and told them to take that expert opinion to a university history department in their own country to relay the provenance, etc to have more 2nd or 3rd opinions to get it officially declared authentic. Far as I know there's no proof that the photos thought to be Katherine Antrim are actually Maggie Keays, that's yet another hypothesis not proven by scholars. So why they were used to further identify the photograph is yet another piece that taints the results. It could have been better handled all the way around. Edwards could have done a separate investigation with Furia asking to see if Roberts matched the Rough Riders picture or the tintype, etc or better yet found another independent forensic expert to do that. Multiple opinions giving similar conclusions is better than one. Science is by consensus not outlier opinions. And as stated by another poster, forensic analysis of photographs even today are not concrete. Most AI systems in the 2020s are between 30%-60% accurate in determining the identity of an individual. You need an accumulation of evidence along with the forensics in order to get a verdict one way or another. A photo comparison alone would get someone laughed out of a courtroom. Jesus Christ Almighty God bless you all
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Nov 4, 2023 21:21:47 GMT -5
You make some good and valid points here, but I don't agree with the overall premise that Luria was influenced by Dan to provide an opinion he was hoping for. I think Dan went out of his way to avoid having that happen. I believe Luria when he says he was not familiar with the tintype. Amongst old west enthusiasts it is a very, very famous photo. But not everyone has interest in the old west and I guarantee you I have a number of friends who would have no idea who that Dedrick tintype photo was. I need to watch the video again but I think you are wrong on one point. I don't think Dan identified the rough rider photos and Brushy as being the same person. He showed Luria the photos and asked "him" if they were the same person. I do agree with your suggestion the Silver City photo should be studied by more than one expert and see if there is a consensus it is really BTK. I wouldn't be surprised if that additional analysis happened at some point.
|
|
|
Post by shootseven on Nov 4, 2023 21:27:23 GMT -5
The History net link above states Humans are three dimensional and photos are two, that may be true, but the Silver City photo is not being compared to a human, it’s being compared to another two dimensional photo. Provenance is an important factor for help in identification especially if it’s to be auctioned off, however when you have a photo with a group of people and more than one have a match to known persons that are related to the subject in the photo which also has a match then it helps give the photo credibility. If a photo that has a person in it that matches a famous person and also have other persons in the photo that have matches to known associates with the famous person in the photo such as members of that person’s family or friends or gang, plus it has the right dating for the photo and maybe background looks familiar to that group, but because it’s not known who owned it, does that mean it should be tossed out? Photos change hands people die, people move, photos get shuffled around in 150 years. If a photo is relying on Provenance to identify it then millions will be unconsidered, and thats a shame, because only maybe a small few photos would have a chain of ownership. That’s just my personal feelings about provenance. However I believe the Silver City photo did have some provenance, and it had other persons in the photo that have matches to persons that Billy the Kid knew. It was examined by someone whose expertise shouldn’t be disrespected. If he does this for a living or knows the process of examining photos then he should be qualified. To make one factual correction there: the "Silver City photo" does not have provenance. Edwards claimed provenance by the simple fact that it was found in Canada (not a specific city, just Canada), and Miller, who he thinks is in the photo, is from Canada. That is most definitely not provenance.
|
|