|
|
Post by montanas on Dec 24, 2015 12:16:05 GMT -5
The only thing, and I mean only, that causes me to have a smidgen of doubt that Brushy was Billy, has to do with the ears. Not their sticking out but their shape. More specifically the ear lobes. Clearly Brushy's are attached and yet the BTK photo shows that they are unattached. I have yet to read any explanation anywhere as to how to explain this.
|
|
|
|
Post by clydec on Dec 26, 2015 10:57:26 GMT -5
Yea, I agree with you that there appears to be a difference in the ears. Not sure if that is noticeable in the original untouched tintype, but you can notice it on the retouched tintype.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Dec 29, 2015 21:01:06 GMT -5
I've noticed that as well. And I have studied them very closely. Interestingly enough, in some Brushy photos, in particular the one I used as the background on this board, you can see a more detached earlobe on the right ear. Beware some Brushy photos are flipped horizontally as was the original tintype and some are not. I am pretty certain that Billy's left earlobe is attached, but that is hard to really see in the Dedrick tintype. It is a fact that when that tintype was made, there was a brace behind Billy designed to hold his head in a steady position. In spite of that, Billy leaned his head toward his right. If that brace was then pressing against that right ear, it could very well cause his earlobe to push forward and more away from his head. Then there is one other factor. Many versions of the Billy tintype that you see online have been edited to try to clean up the image and there is distortion in the area of the earlobe that I believe is often edited incorrectly, causing the earlobe to appear more detached.
Now, all that said, go take a close up look at the new tintype of Billy playing croquet. Voila! the earlobes do appear more attached than in the tintype. Look at all that and let me know what you think.
|
|
|
|
Post by clydec on Dec 30, 2015 7:34:13 GMT -5
I said the same thing Wayne. In the new photo of him playing croquet it looks like the ears are attached. Also, I think that when they retouched that original billy tintype they changed not just the ears, but the general shape of the face. In the original untouched tintype it appears to me that billy's jawline is more square like Brushy's, but in the retouched version it looks longer and more pointed. Maybe I'm wrong, but that is what it looks like to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Dec 31, 2015 16:46:46 GMT -5
That is quite possible but I think any differences in the shape of his chin and jawline are due to the shadowing. Lighting can make a huge difference. Notice the bridge of his nose in the photo on the background of this page. His left side appears curved like the tintype, yet in other photos of Brushy it does not.
|
|
|
|
Post by clydec on Jan 1, 2016 13:31:36 GMT -5
 OK, I see what you mean! I have the original tintype picture downloaded and saved and when you blow it up a little bit you can see that there is a distortion right on the bottom of the earlobe making it look detached, but actually it is not. I think when they retouched that picture they were not sure if it was a distortion or not and left it detached. You can see that it is attached when you look closely at it! |
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Jan 1, 2016 21:37:43 GMT -5
Yes, I've always thought that spot that separates the earlobe from the face is just one of the many black spots that are all over the tintype. It it is not, then the earlobe may be distorted by the head brace pushing it out from the rear. Either way, it is certainly inconclusive and I don't think that "apparent" difference in the earlobe rules out Brushy's claim.
|
|
