|
Post by MissyS on Jan 30, 2024 23:00:00 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure the only version of this picture we have to look at was taken while the photo was inside a glass case and was taken from a fairly steep angle, making the proportions look different. I'm also pretty sure it's not just the result of the view from a different lens, due to the differences I pointed out earlier. Most importantly, his head is not tilted in this photo and his hat is different. The more I'm looking at the image the more this "angle" is becoming more of curiosity in as far as the lens goes. There are two sizes of heads. The only conclusion is, barring any shenanigans,... The lens has an outter distortion distance around it. If you pose it too close, and from the upper lens you'll have a bigger head..and thusly, the bottom cam is going to make the lower look bigger to smaller going up. Case solved!! These two images are the upper right hand lens, and the newly discovered lower left side lens. The shadow differences are due to the contrasting light and positioning of camera or both. The head actually looks too big in the original, however, there is an equal angular distribution making the heads proportionally look relatively normal. Do you understand? They were taking the image too close when they took it!! Paulita was there when it was taken. And remember hearing about the body being displayed at Beaver Smith's saloon. It's very compelling. The controversy, and the wonderlust of the story has these interesting details that lends itself to the mystique. All in all some of its getting easier to prove. It does sounds plausible that what your saying caused the differences, a different lens or distance from the subject. Why do you think this was done? It’s puzzling as to why the photographer would change the lens and hats in the middle of a pose? Could it be that Billy the Kid may have asked the photographer to make this change, maybe he asked the photographer if he could make his image look larger maybe he was a little bit consciences about his height or his slim frame perhaps? It’s just a guess as to why the change? The photographer then moved the camera closer or changed the lens and had Billy change his hat to a smaller one to either help accentuate the face or for better lighting, and snapped the second photo. I don’t know, maybe the photographer made the change for another reason? I read somewhere that it may have been windy that day? If it was a busy street, the photographer may have had to move out of the way of a passing wagon or carriage, and so moved closer from its path, it’s a mystery and I’m wondering if Billy had that stand behind him that held his head in place, how could he turn his head for the other photo? Maybe the stand may not have been holding his head that tight?
|
|
|
Post by Nosameer6 on Jan 30, 2024 23:55:16 GMT -5
The photo you're looking at is a snapshot of a photo that was lying inside a display case. The person taking the photo was standing with their camera pointed down at a steep angle rather than from directly above. That is clearly obvious and causes the difference in the size of the head, etc. But it "can not" account for the difference in the hat and the angle of the head which make it obvious the two images were not the result of one picture from different lenses, but rather two separate pictures, posed separately. I agree.. It's no problem to keep an open mind about it all. It deserves further analysis.. Looks like a photo of the only other known Billy the Kid image, and is probably a separate pose at Beaver Smith's Saloon. It is a clear and unaltered image resolution, and possibly a photo of that image. His eyes, eye lids, eyebrows, his lips, his individual teeth are all visible. Even his neck, his jaw line.. the proportions are spot on!. All of it matches multiple images we have of him. The way he is wearing the hat in the new one is the way he wore the hat in the one he pose for with the letter in which his face matches this new Beaver Smith saloon image as well. The hat is the same, it's just turned. You can see the dimensions are the same. His face is clear and is a match for the Kansas gun club newspaper photo of him, and other photos as well. Overlay the images, and discover what comes of it. Also, see where it goes. I just found it, and it's actually quite a thrill for me, and I think its ok to speculate, maybe learn something new from the real dedicated researchers, the readers and aficionados like you all. Cudos.
|
|
|
Post by MissyS on Jan 31, 2024 0:04:11 GMT -5
The photo you're looking at is a snapshot of a photo that was lying inside a display case. The person taking the photo was standing with their camera pointed down at a steep angle rather than from directly above. That is clearly obvious and causes the difference in the size of the head, etc. But it "can not" account for the difference in the hat and the angle of the head which make it obvious the two images were not the result of one picture from different lenses, but rather two separate pictures, posed separately. I apologize Wayne, I didn’t see your post when I posted. Your theory of the photo taken of a photo in the display case is a very good theory. If it was two separate pictures posed separately, when do you think it was taken?, right after the other was taken or on a separate time and date? Maybe a different photographer?
|
|
|
Post by Nosameer6 on Jan 31, 2024 0:54:17 GMT -5
The more I'm looking at the image the more this "angle" is becoming more of curiosity in as far as the lens goes. There are two sizes of heads. The only conclusion is, barring any shenanigans,... The lens has an outter distortion distance around it. If you pose it too close, and from the upper lens you'll have a bigger head..and thusly, the bottom cam is going to make the lower look bigger to smaller going up. Case solved!! These two images are the upper right hand lens, and the newly discovered lower left side lens. The shadow differences are due to the contrasting light and positioning of camera or both. The head actually looks too big in the original, however, there is an equal angular distribution making the heads proportionally look relatively normal. Do you understand? They were taking the image too close when they took it!! Paulita was there when it was taken. And remember hearing about the body being displayed at Beaver Smith's saloon. It's very compelling. The controversy, and the wonderlust of the story has these interesting details that lends itself to the mystique. All in all some of its getting easier to prove. It does sounds plausible that what your saying caused the differences, a different lens or distance from the subject. Why do you think this was done? It’s puzzling as to why the photographer would change the lens and hats in the middle of a pose? Could it be that Billy the Kid may have asked the photographer to make this change, maybe he asked the photographer if he could make his image look larger maybe he was a little bit consciences about his height or his slim frame perhaps? It’s just a guess as to why the change? The photographer then moved the camera closer or changed the lens and had Billy change his hat to a smaller one to either help accentuate the face or for better lighting, and snapped the second photo. I don’t know, maybe the photographer made the change for another reason? I read somewhere that it may have been windy that day? If it was a busy street, the photographer may have had to move out of the way of a passing wagon or carriage, and so moved closer from its path, it’s a mystery and I’m wondering if Billy had that stand behind him that held his head in place, how could he turn his head for the other photo? Maybe the stand may not have been holding his head that tight? Basic adjustments that come with the standard operation of the equipment, the customer wants the best picture and the richest girl in Fort Sumner was accompanying the notorious outlaw at a Fort her father owns and runs. They had time. She mentioned multiple people being there so I think he could have one where he goofs around, or one maybe with his sweetheart. There were shenanigans or messages sent within this medium. This refers to trolling or iconographic symbology. There's an example of this with the one foot out the grave photo of Wayne Brazel. The rabbit hole of directions the narrative can take especially in Fort Sumner are complex. I'm hoping to give my insight to ascertain any missing links and the ones that have overlapped on the basis of this New Beaver Smith Saloon image.
|
|
|
Post by Nosameer6 on Jan 31, 2024 1:20:27 GMT -5
The photo you're looking at is a snapshot of a photo that was lying inside a display case. The person taking the photo was standing with their camera pointed down at a steep angle rather than from directly above. That is clearly obvious and causes the difference in the size of the head, etc. But it "can not" account for the difference in the hat and the angle of the head which make it obvious the two images were not the result of one picture from different lenses, but rather two separate pictures, posed separately. I apologize Wayne, I didn’t see your post when I posted. Your theory of the photo taken of a photo in the display case is a very good theory. If it was two separate pictures posed separately, when do you think it was taken?, right after the other was taken or on a separate time and date? Maybe a different photographer? Missy, The display case is not a theory.. It's a retort of Waynes. He is essentially just stating the newly discovered Billy the Kid image at Beaver Smiths saloon is a photo of a photo inside a display case of said new image, and he's saying the hat is a different hat. No theory, he's only stating why it doesn't look like the other altered versions everyone has been told is the only photo/tin tin type. The historian for the museum is Brett Hall. This isn't a fake picture. It's real, and someone may have taken an image of the original that is itself different from the other original. You have two images from Beaver Smith Saloon that tell two stories.
|
|
|
Post by MissyS on Jan 31, 2024 1:38:44 GMT -5
I didn’t know Paulita was there when the Kid got his picture taken, that’s quite interesting. I have seen some supposed Billy the Kid photos with a shorter chin and I dismissed them in my mind because Billy’s famous pose that we compare with has a somewhat long chin. I thought the Kansas Gun Club photo looked like a teenage Brushy, I do see similarities now with this photo and that one with the Gun Club .Maybe the museum has more information about that interesting photo? I haven’t looked for messages or symbolism before in the photos but I will look for that now.
|
|
|
Post by Nosameer6 on Jan 31, 2024 2:45:49 GMT -5
I didn’t know Paulita was there when the Kid got his picture taken, that’s quite interesting. I have seen some supposed Billy the Kid photos with a shorter chin and I dismissed them in my mind because Billy’s famous pose that we compare with has a somewhat long chin. I thought the Kansas Gun Club photo looked like a teenage Brushy, I do see similarities now with this photo and that one with the Gun Club .Maybe the museum has more information about that interesting photo? I haven’t looked for messages or symbolism before in the photos but I will look for that now. The museum should have more information on their second image of Billy the Kid ever. Turns out he is Flexing his masseter muscles which pulls the jaw to one side. This is distinct in the photo. His bottom teeth are to the side of the upper teeth. He's literally shifted his jaw to the side..
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Jan 31, 2024 14:20:04 GMT -5
I'm not saying it is a different hat. Some hats were soft enough material they could be reshaped easily. I'm guessing the shot we've all seen for so long, was taken first and someone, possibly the photographer noticed the crown of his hat was pushed in on one side only. So, for the second shot the hat was reshaped to look more symmetrical. If that is true, it means the the two images came from separate camera shots. And I'm saying his head was tilted to the side in the first shot, and in the second one it is held straight up. Also, my statement that the photo was taken of the museum's photo while it was laying inside a glass case is not just a theory. It is fact. And that is why the proportions look different.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Jan 31, 2024 14:28:58 GMT -5
Here's the view showing the photo is inside a glass case. The other shots of it are just cropped images of this same picture.
|
|
|
Post by RonBk on Jan 31, 2024 15:59:23 GMT -5
Here's the view showing the photo is inside a glass case. The other shots of it are just cropped images of this same picture. View AttachmentI believe that is another photo of that photo. The angle is different in my opinion. Also the lighting is not the same, there are some reflections from the glass visible next to his hand.
|
|
|
Post by Nosameer6 on Jan 31, 2024 16:24:55 GMT -5
Here's the view showing the photo is inside a glass case. The other shots of it are just cropped images of this same picture. View AttachmentWayne, fact..I don't believe we disagree on anything with how it got shown or presented, my whole point is there's another legit photo of one of the original tin types of Billy the Kid at Beaver Smith Saloon. It will be interesting to discover any further productive analysis about the source and provenance the museum has on it, or what others may know about it.
|
|