|
Post by MissyS on Nov 5, 2023 2:16:50 GMT -5
I thought in the video it stated that there was much more technical analysis done after the video call Dan made with Furia, and it resulted in a positive match.
|
|
WhisperingBillyBarlow
Guest
|
Post by WhisperingBillyBarlow on Nov 5, 2023 2:46:26 GMT -5
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 You make a lot of good points, but I do have one minor correction, which is an example of why I'm interested in the truth behind alleged Billy photos (and why I took on critiquing this photo—it was not simply to attack the Brushy claims as someone here accused me of): there is ONE authenticated photo of Billy the Kid. That's it. Since it sold for $2.3 million in 2011, there's been more alleged photos discovered, some that have been news making; but the headlines and glowing reports never matched the claims or what actual historians discovered. Unfortunately, these seem to be throw-away, feel good stories that reporters don't spend much time on, so instead of researching the claims or reaching out to experts, the simply take the word of any "experts" the photos owners puts forward. Unfortunately all this does is cloud history. The only picture in the lifetime of The Kid to be confirmed to be him, yes, is the tintype. But I think the croquet photo and the card playing photo are the only 2 that have been accepted by scholars to be the genuine article. Now, is it possible they can be wrong? Sure. But the provenance was either there or the principles in the photos were identified to such a degree they've been accepted as genuine. I do understand why you hesitate or remain skeptical on the croquet and card playing photos though, because nobody at the time pulled out the pictures and said, "These are also Billy The Kid."
|
|
WhisperingBillyBarlow
Guest
|
Post by WhisperingBillyBarlow on Nov 5, 2023 17:30:17 GMT -5
The only picture in the lifetime of The Kid to be confirmed to be him, yes, is the tintype. But I think the croquet photo and the card playing photo are the only 2 that have been accepted by scholars to be the genuine article. Now, is it possible they can be wrong? Sure. But the provenance was either there or the principles in the photos were identified to such a degree they've been accepted as genuine. I do understand why you hesitate or remain skeptical on the croquet and card playing photos though, because nobody at the time pulled out the pictures and said, "These are also Billy The Kid." That's incorrect; I don't know if an expert in the field who believes the croquet photo shows Billy. Lincoln County War experts such as Nolan, Utley, Gardner, Mills, Gomber, Hutton; old west photo experts such as Boessnecker and McCubbin; auctioneers such as Lebel and Cowan ALL rejected it as showing Billy. You talk about consensus earlier, but what's important to know about the croquet photo is the documentary producer dismissed everyone who didn't tell them what they wanted to hear. The two big pieces of "evidence" for the photo were the location and the facial recognition work done by Kent Gibson. The location was quickly debunked when historian Eddie Lanham found an 1883 survey of the area, so detailed it even showed a tent, that showed no buildings on the site; and other records show the current building wasn't built until the 1930s. Even the documentary's producer now admits they got the location wrong (he blames National Geographic for rushing them). As for Kent Gibson's facial recognition; he's the same man I mentioned about who misidentified two Japanese schooner racers as Amelia Earhart and her navigator Fred Noonan in this photo: www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/amelia-earhart-lost-photograph-discredited-spd In another photo he also claimed to identify Doc Holliday, Morgan Earp, Big Nose Kate, and others in a photo taken near the Prescott Dells; the problem? The photographer who took it didn't arrive in Arizona (from St. Louis) until 1883 which was after Holliday had left for Colorado and after Morgan Earp was dead. For more in the croquet photo see allthatsinteresting.com/historical-photos-misidentified and truewestmagazine.com/article/the-croquet-kid/As for the card playing photograph; the owner CLAIMED provenance when it went up for auction in 2019, but that "provenance" was only his signed 2019 statement about the alleged history of the photo, and when he offered the same tintype for sale on ebay in 2016 he admitted there was no provenance: www.ebay.ie/itm/RARE-TINTYPE-Possible-BILLY-THE-KID-REGULATORS-PLAYING-CARDS-PLEASE-LOOK-/291790931592?fbclid=IwAR1RHlCYh-Swy1PWJNwijucLy2fCaQN4qeRzteibzaxIXY0a3x96e2tm-SE (need to click on "See Full Item Description" for this admission). The only other evidence is again the facial recognition work of Kent Gibson. Well then, I stand corrected. I reckon its correct to assume that the tintype is the only photograph with 100% certainty of being Billy The Kid. If someone wants to include the other 2 photographs, it can only be put into the bracket of "weak" or "potential" evidence. I'm reminded of my own family genealogy. I only have one photograph of my 4th great grandfather, and 2 pictures of my 3rd great grandfather. The likelihood of finding more than one photograph of somebody especially in the old West is probably unlikely. That's why most photographs of famous outlaws usually was when they were dead and used as proof in order to collect reward money.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Nov 5, 2023 19:11:57 GMT -5
This is all very interesting but truth is, we could debate this new photo forever without reaching an agreement. Even if we had 50 out of 50 recognized experts all stating it was Billy, there would still be those who would not accept it. We all know that. And there are those who will defend it just as strongly. I sat in Judge Bob Hefner's living room in Hico, back in '07 and listened to him argue that the Dedrick tintype was not Billy. Why? Because it didn't look like Brushy. Actually, he thought the Jones brothers' photo looked more like Brushy but did not look like the tintype. He therefore concluded the tintype was not really BTK. I showed him my efforts at tracing Billy's face in the tintype and then overlaying over Brushy's face and he acknowledged maybe the tintype was BTK and the Jones' photo was not. But he was disappointed to have to admit that. He was a very nice gentleman though. I had met Jannay Valdez who told Hefner about me which resulted in an invitation to come by and visit.
|
|
WhisperingBillyBarlow
Guest
|
Post by WhisperingBillyBarlow on Nov 5, 2023 19:25:06 GMT -5
This is all very interesting but truth is, we could debate this new photo forever without reaching an agreement. Even if we had 50 out of 50 recognized experts all stating it was Billy, there would still be those who would not accept it. We all know that. And there are those who will defend it just a strongly. I sat in Judge Hefner's living room in Hico, back in '07 and listened to him argue that the Dedrick tintype was not Billy. Why? Because it didn't look like Brushy. That's a bizarre conclusion to have, the opinion of Judge Hefner. I understand that Brushy is something of a local commodity that must be defended at all costs because he generates revenue to Hico, but the tintype is without question Billy The Kid, and arguing its not because it doesn't look like Brushy... well maybe because Brushy wasn't The Kid. As for the assertion, "there would still be those who would not accept it," the same can be said of the pro-Brushy people. If dna showed he was in fact the son of Henry Oliver Roberts, there would be those who would say, "Surely Brushy must've been related or knew The Kid somehow otherwise how did he know so much?," and perhaps maybe he did but do you see my point? But I'm glad you said, "without reaching an agreement," because at best all one could be is agnostic on the Silver City New Mexico photograph, at least on the basis of the Edwards video and Furia's conclusions. It would take far more evidence and critiquing to get it officially declared an authentic photograph. Perhaps the antique shop has a paper trail of who sold or gave the shop the photos to begin with or from what estate it came from. Then you work your way backwards from there. If it did come from a relative of Miller or Keays, then the provenance is fully established. Jesus Christ Almighty God bless you all
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Nov 5, 2023 21:46:13 GMT -5
Well I'm certainly not "the expert" when it comes to photo recognition but based on what I "do" know I think it is not often possible to say for sure if two photos show the same person. Unless they both have some distinguishing feature that matches like a scar or a mole or something. Maybe then. Or if you had the sworn testimony of a person who was there when both photos were taken and can affirm they are the same person.
That said, what we can hope to gain from photos like the new Silver City photo is some level of probability that is meaningful. I am on the side of this particular photo being very meaningful and some believe the opposite. The research will continue. I hope we do get more info that raises the level of probability in most people's minds. We'll see.
|
|
WhisperingBillyBarlow
Guest
|
Post by WhisperingBillyBarlow on Nov 5, 2023 22:53:49 GMT -5
Well I'm certainly not "the expert" when it comes to photo recognition but based on what I "do" know I think it is not often possible to say for sure if two photos show the same person. Unless they both have some distinguishing feature that matches like a scar or a mole or something. Maybe then. Or if you had the sworn testimony of a person who was there when both photos were taken and can affirm they are the same person. That said, what we can hope to gain from photos like the new Silver City photo is some level of probability that is meaningful. I am on the side of this particular photo being very meaningful and some believe the opposite. The research will continue. I hope we do get more info that raises the level of probability in most people's minds. We'll see. Now I will say this.... the Silver City New Mexico photo does look like Billy The Kid, or at least someone similar to The Kid. But I'll be honest, most pictures I've seen of Brushy Bill Roberts as a child or teenager don't look much like Billy The Kid to me. I'm not saying it's not Billy The Kid, but it'll take more evidence to prove the photograph is of Billy The Kid. Jesus Christ Almighty God bless you all
|
|
45colt
20 - 49 Posts
Posts: 33
|
Post by 45colt on Dec 14, 2023 14:59:23 GMT -5
I'm adding the original Youtube link to my video critique of Edwards's "documentary.": www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ed0qxpXszWYIt was temporarily down as Edwards was throwing a fit and trying to have it removed, but it's went through all of the reviews and is back up now, and figured I should correct it since on the same channel I have videos about other alleged Billy, Jesse James, Dave Rudabaugh, and other photos that are not what people claim Corey, in my view you are neither an academic nor a professional. Your characterization of me as a "conspiracy theorist" in your video was lame and shows your bias. Academics don't leave negative reviews on the work of other researchers or for that matter spam people's groups with links to their videos to try to get views. You are fortunate that I didn't bother to download your video before I filed my complaint because that is the only reason I didn't proceed legally. I didn't have "evidence" because I didn't download it. The claim was because you were attempting to harm the commercial value of the copyright before its official PUBLIC release date, which is not fair use, not because I was trying to copyright a vintage photo. You have no idea what you are talking about. Its moot now because the film has been publicly released and the other good news is no one watches your videos so it doesn't matter. I also did not "throw a fit". You emailed me in all caps like a child. You then joined my facebook group and tried to show everyone how smart you are. We aren't your parents and don't care. You were demonstrably proven wrong on the Rough Riders photo and still think the people on this forum don't get it because they aren't as smart as you. We know about the effect of distance on height perception. I'm sorry you never thought to check the heights of the Rough Riders in their files and compare them to the people in the photos but that exercise PROVES there is no way those labels are correct. The archivist wasn't even sure because it says "probably" so and so in front of some of the names and yet you continue to assert that the labels are dead on. What does "probably" mean to you? Your pride won't let you admit you are wrong and that's fine but I think you are insulting these people with your arrogant attitude. I know you will respond because your ego won't allow you not to but I won't be saying anything else about this. The last word is yours.
|
|
|
Post by DanJohno on Dec 18, 2023 8:41:47 GMT -5
I've said cringe worthy and horrendous things on this forum and I'm easily confused by the people who comment obsessively and then disappear for weeks months or years. I hate my own comments but I like Daniel Edwards and I reckon he's a genuine honest good man and I look forward to the rest of his videos. I'm just an Aussie surfer living in Indonesia but I do love this message board. I reckon the Silver City photo is great. Thanks everyone for years of great talk. I'm still here and love the senior members particularly Chivato88, Missy S, Cassandra Jane, Tboor74, Ronback,Devorerd, Wayne Land.
|
|
|
Post by Rufus on Dec 18, 2023 20:22:52 GMT -5
I've said cringe worthy and horrendous things on this forum and I'm easily confused by the people who comment obsessively and then disappear for weeks months or years. I hate my own comments but I like Daniel Edwards and I reckon he's a genuine honest good man and I look forward to the rest of his videos. I'm just an Aussie surfer living in Indonesia but I do love this message board. I reckon the Silver City photo is great. Thanks everyone for years of great talk. I'm still here and love the senior members particularly Chivato88, Missy S, Cassandra Jane, Tboor74, Ronback,Devorerd, Wayne Land. Maybe because we get banned for weeks, months or years @ comment obsessively and disappear. Anyways, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year Jesus Christ Almighty God bless you all
|
|
|
Post by tboor74 on Dec 19, 2023 4:04:01 GMT -5
I love all the chat on here, no matter which side of the fence. I don't like dogmatic or ignorant behavior though, and hope we can all continue into the new Year with a lot civilised discussion.
Seasons greetings to all
|
|
45colt
20 - 49 Posts
Posts: 33
|
Post by 45colt on Jan 4, 2024 12:31:21 GMT -5
I continue to find it fascinating how people project their own ethics into how they process information. When the owners of the photo came to me and said we want to know if this could be Billy the Kid because it has his name on the back I didn't instantly think "scam" or "hoax", I thought "these people want to know if this is Billy the Kid or not." Pretty simple. This was 2019. It thought the youngest person looked like Billy and Brushy but told them they would never prove it without provenance. I told them that wasn't Kathrine Antrim and probably wasn't William H. H. Antrim. That was it, I said "good luck" but really didn't care. We don't need a photo to prove that Brushy Bill Roberts was Billy the Kid. The weight of evidence is by far in his favor already and rather than sound arguments to the contrary, the more we research the more we find skullduggery, inconsistencies, and problems with Pat Garrett's story. Regardless, the couple continued digging and brought the photo back to me years later. I was impressed they didn't go public with it and with their research. They could have crowd sourced on the internet and asked everyone's opinion and had a lot of unqualified people weigh in on their opinion but what is the point of that? Still doesn't prove anything. So, I had respect for them that they continued to try and research and were committed to following a credible process to determine yes or no. That said, there was a guy they had trusted who tried to do just that contrary to their wishes but he died and then the owners came back to me. When I agreed to research it I took the photo to multiple experts to provide feedback on both the intrinsics of the photo as well as possible history and facial recognition. Most of that didn't make it into the documentary for timing reasons....but I still have it all. Most people that follow my work know I often hold stuff back precisely because I have stalkers (you don't have to be famous to have stalkers) and they make stuff up, although in this case it was genuinely a time constraint but I still did my full research. The trolls think they are smarter than everyone and that I didn't think to do this or that. Please. How naive can you be? Do they really think someone of the caliber of Mr. Estevez wouldn't want to see supporting documentation and hear from other experts? Of course we did that research. In this case the trolls not knowing everything worked in my favor again. One guy said he was a Kodak film analyst and the woman was added to the photo and that the shadows were all wrong and he could tell it was a fake photo. Haha. What he doesn't know is we had the best in the world look at this photo and its a real vintage photo. Dipstick. There are no ethics with these people. He is no more a photo analyst than I'm a Maytag Repair Man. Anyway, when Detective Furia agreed to look at it and compare it to other subjects I sent him multiple photos and his analysis was that the photo was Maggie Keays and Brushy Bill as I show in the film. I did not lead him. He had already verified Brushy Bill after extensive analysis of the photo. After that I wanted to get him on video before we went any further. Fortunately, he agreed to be on camera which that alone was a miracle. Once on camera and after I had him recorded his opinion it was Roberts and Miller I show him the Kid but he didn't know it was the Kid. Again, people think that everyone knows who Billy the Kid is but they don't. Most people have no idea who the current Secretary of State is or the current Speaker of the House and people that follow that stuff can't believe anyone would not know such basic information...but they don't. Likewise people that aren't into the wild west have no idea who Billy the Kid is even if they have heard the name. Detective Furia is one of those people. So, when I showed him the famous tintype he instantly recognized it as the same person he had already been studying in what I call the Silver City Photo. He said it was so close it could be a twin. I was frankly shocked he was so positive. The idea that my comment of my opinion would influence someone like this is asinine. I already knew he wasn't going to let me influence him because he wouldn't confirm Levi Miller. So, that was that. It was his honest opinion they were the same person. He had absolutely nothing to gain by this and thought it was a genealogy project. So I now had this research and information and had to decide what to do with it. I thought now was the time to put the story out. I showed it to a certain writer/director/producer that is near and dear to the Billy the Kid story and he said "have you shown this to Emilio?". I said no. A few days later a mutual friend asked if I would be willing to talk to Mr. Estevez and I said absolutely. I showed him what I had and he thought it was cool. I asked him if he would narrate it and he said yes. Some guy actually was posting that I probably used AI and that it wasn't really Emilio's voice as if someone could do something like that and use his name and not be sued into oblivion. Again, people project their own ethics into how they process information and there are a lot of VERY dishonest people trying to control the narrative. This was one of the more idiotic comments that were made but there are plenty more self-appointed experts that all had their theories. What you see in the video is exactly what it is, its a potential photo of the Kid with Levi and Maggie Miller. I have a lot more that isn't in the film but so far no serious credible researcher has added any value whatsoever to the discussion and the information we have still allows for the possibility that this photo is from Aug 1877, possibly taken in New Mexico in the area around Silver City. It could have been taken many places, it could have been taken a few years later, and it could have even been taken in the early 1880s, especially if Roberts was the Kid but we were honest about the information we had and explained why. One example I can give you is that the modification to the monitor shown in the photo was patented I believe in May of 1886. I'm referring to the deflector with handle that steers the water cannon. Could that minor modification be commercialized, produced, and implemented in one year and 3 months? It certainly could. Its a metal plate with a stick on the end of it. Not a major modification. Would it be more common years later? Yes, but again, it allows for an August 1877 date. If that one item would have been patented AFTER 1877 it would have definitely proved that the photo was later...but it wasn't patented then. It was patented in May of 1886 (it was April or May, I can check but same outcome.) Point being we may not be dead on with every detail but we have a solid starting point for more research. So far, we have only had a bunch of arm chair historians try to disprove the photo rather than genuinely explore the merits. But, when the people doing the commenting are saying things like "Brushy Bill Roberts Conspiracy theorist" and "that's not really Emilio , its AI" you can be sure you are dealing with non-credible people. These are the people that want me to give every last source in detail, which I'll do in my time, not theirs. The reason I don't do it up front is that they will harass them. Like I said these are trolls and stalkers. One guy even pulled Detective Furia's service record (which is impeccable) and tried to discredit him online. This is totally illegitimate behavior and not behavior used by real academics and searchers for the truth. When I list a source, they contact the source and try to get them to change their mind. When the source affirms the position just as I said they never share that. Don't be fooled by these people. This conversation has been public for more than 70 years. There have been some people that have supported Brushy's claim that have made up a couple things and I'm against that but it has been no where near the level of fake information the Pat Garrett crowd has tried to sell to the public. It all needs to be exposed and the truth told once and for all IMO.
|
|
|
Post by cassandra jane on Jan 4, 2024 14:31:53 GMT -5
I continue to find it fascinating how people project their own ethics into how they process information. When the owners of the photo came to me and said we want to know if this could be Billy the Kid because it has his name on the back I didn't instantly think "scam" or "hoax", I thought "these people want to know if this is Billy the Kid or not." Pretty simple. This was 2019. It thought the youngest person looked like Billy and Brushy but told them they would never prove it without provenance. I told that them wasn't Kathrine Antrim and probably wasn't William H. H. Antrim. That was it, I said "good luck" but really didn't care. We don't need a photo to prove that Brushy Bill Roberts was Billy the Kid. The weight of evidence is by far in his favor already and rather than sound arguments to the contrary, the more we research the more we find skullduggery, inconsistencies, and problems with Pat Garrett's story. Regardless, the couple continued digging and brought the photo back to me years later. I was impressed they didn't go public with it and with their research. They could have crowd sourced on the internet and asked everyone's opinion and had a lot of unqualified people weigh in on their opinion but what is the point of that? Still doesn't prove anything. So, I had respect for them that they continued to try and research and were committed to following a credible process to determine yes or no. That said, there was a guy they had trusted who tried to do just that contrary to their wishes but he died and then the owners came back to me. When I agreed to research it I took the photo to multiple experts to provide feedback on both the intrinsics of the photo as well as possible history and facial recognition. Most of that didn't make it into the documentary for timing reasons....but I still have it all. Most people that follow my work know I often hold stuff back precisely because I have stalkers (you don't have to be famous to have stalkers) and they make stuff up, although in this case it was genuinely a time constraint but I still did my full research. The trolls think they are smarter than everyone and that I didn't think to do this or that. Please. How naive can you be? Do they really think someone of the caliber of Mr. Estevez wouldn't want to see supporting documentation and hear from other experts? Of course we did that research. In this case the trolls not knowing everything worked in my favor again. One guy said he was a Kodak film analyst and the woman was added to the photo and that the shadows were all wrong and he could tell it was a fake photo. Haha. What he doesn't know is we had the best in the world look at this photo and its a real vintage photo. Dipstick. There are no ethics with these people. He is no more a photo analyst than I'm a Maytag Repair Man. Anyway, when Detective Furia agreed to look at it and compare it to other subjects I sent him multiple photos and his analysis was that the photo was Maggie Keays and Brushy Bill as I show in the film. I did not lead him. He had already verified Brushy Bill after extensive analysis of the photo. After that I wanted to get him on video before we went any further. Fortunately, he agreed to be on camera which that alone was a miracle. Once on camera and after I had him recorded his opinion it was Roberts and Miller I show him the Kid but he didn't know it was the Kid. Again, people think that everyone knows who Billy the Kid is but they don't. Most people have no idea who the current Secretary of State is or the current Speaker of the House and people that follow that stuff can't believe anyone would not know such basic information...but they don't. Likewise people that aren't into the wild west have no idea who Billy the Kid is even if they have heard the name. Detective Furia is one of those people. So, when I showed him the famous tintype he instantly recognized it as the same person he had already been studying in what I call the Silver City Photo. He said it was so close it could be a twin. I was frankly shocked he was so positive. The idea that my comment of my opinion would influence someone like this is asinine. I already knew he wasn't going to let me influence him because he wouldn't confirm Levi Miller. So, that was that. It was his honest opinion they were the same person. He had absolutely nothing to gain by this and thought it was a genealogy project. So I now had this research and information and had to decide what to do with it. I thought now was the time to put the story out. I showed it to a certain writer/director/producer that is near and dear to the Billy the Kid story and he said "have you shown this to Emilio?". I said no. A few days later a mutual friend asked if I would be willing to talk to Mr. Estevez and I said absolutely. I showed him what I had and he thought it was cool. I asked him if he would narrate it and he said yes. Some guy actually was posting that I probably used AI and that it wasn't really Emilio's voice as if someone could do something like that and use his name and not be sued into oblivion. Again, people project their own ethics into how they process information and there are a lot of VERY dishonest people trying to control the narrative. This was one of the more idiotic comments that were made but there are plenty more self-appointed experts that all had their theories. What you see in the video is exactly what it is, its a potential photo of the Kid with Levi and Maggie Miller. I have a lot more that isn't in the film but so far no serious credible researcher has added any value whatsoever to the discussion and the information we have still allows for the possibility that this photo is from Aug 1877, possibly taken in New Mexico in the area around Silver City. It could have been taken many places, it could have been taken a few years later, and it could have even been taken in the early 1880s, especially if Roberts was the Kid but we were honest about the information we had and explained why. One example I can give you is that the modification to the monitor shown in the photo was patented I believe in May of 1886. I'm referring to the deflector with handle that steers the water cannon. Could that minor modification be commercialized, produced, and implemented in one year and 3 months? It certainly could. Its a metal plate with a stick on the end of it. Not a major modification. Would it be more common years later? Yes, but again, it allows for an August 1877 date. If that one item would have been patented AFTER 1877 it would have definitely proved that the photo was later...but it wasn't patented then. It was patented in May of 1886 (it was April or May, I can check but same outcome.) Point being we may not be dead on with every detail but we have a solid starting point for more research. So far, we have only had a bunch of arm chair historians try to disprove the photo rather than genuinely explore the merits. But, when the people doing the commenting are saying things like "Brushy Bill Roberts Conspiracy theorist" and "that's not really Emilio , its AI" you can be sure you are dealing with non-credible people. These are the people that want me to give every last source in detail, which I'll do in my time, not theirs. The reason I don't do it up front is that they will harass them. Like I said these are trolls and stalkers. One guy even pulled Detective Furia's service record (which is impeccable) and tried to discredit him online. This is totally illegitimate behavior and not behavior used by real academics and searchers for the truth. When I list a source, they contact the source and try to get them to change their mind. When the source affirms the position just as I said they never share that. Don't be fooled by these people. This conversation has been public for more than 70 years. There have been some people that have supported Brushy's claim that have made up a couple things and I'm against that but it has been no where near the level of fake information the Pat Garrett crowd has tried to sell to the public. It all needs to be exposed and the truth told once and for all IMO. I looked into Furia if you’re referring to me, not in order to “discredit” him but in order to see what other facial recognition he’d been involved in out of curiosity to see what other work he’d done. What I found (if it was the right detective) was a list of complaints against him which does not read as impeccable service to me, and I said so, but I had no intention of discrediting anybody. I was just saying what I read. I don’t think that’s a fair assessment from you if you’re talking about me and I’m not terribly impressed if that is the case, because the information I found on the Furia that I read about (right man or wrong man) was not impeccable at all if those complaints were actually true. To be clear I’m not saying they are or aren’t; some of the complaints seem a bit petty on surface value and I have doubts about the complainant(s) in those. All I know is those complaints were made. I have no vested interest one way or another.
|
|
45colt
20 - 49 Posts
Posts: 33
|
Post by 45colt on Jan 4, 2024 15:00:20 GMT -5
I looked into Furia if you’re referring to me, not in order to “discredit” him but in order to see what other facial recognition he’d been involved in out of curiosity to see what other work he’d done. What I found (if it was the right detective) was a list of complaints against him which does not read as impeccable service to me, and I said so, but I had no intention of discrediting anybody. I was just saying what I read. I don’t think that’s a fair assessment from you if you’re talking about me and I’m not terribly impressed if that is the case, because the information I found on the Furia that I read about (right man or wrong man) was not impeccable at all if those complaints were actually true. To be clear I’m not saying they are or aren’t; some of the complaints seem a bit petty on surface value and I have doubts about the complainant(s) in those. All I know is those complaints were made. I have no vested interest one way or another. If it was you I didn't register it was you. No offense but I don't know who you are. I recognize "Cassandra Jane" from here but don't remember who posted what I'm talking about. The past year or so I have gotten a lot of comments from trolls. The reality of Detective Furia's record is that the two complaints from when he was an officer on the street were 1. a juvenile that said his cuffs were too tight and 2. a woman that claimed he called her the "B" word. Neither claim was substantiated and no action was taken against him and he was promoted later to Detective. This person also said he was involved in a facial recognition "scandal" in NYC. The "scandal" had nothing to do with him. He was quoted as giving his opinion on the software but he wasn't a decision maker on the policy that NYC implemented. Totally inaccurate and misleading to say he was involved in a "scandal". I have his records and we checked him out. He has been up for promotion multiple times and there is nothing in his record that is anything other than impeccable and exemplary. If you are the person trying to dox him by pulling up his employment record shame on you #1 for doing that and #2 for misrepresenting it. But again, I didn't know it was you (and still don't) unless you say it is. Did I block you from my group or page? If so it probably was you.
|
|
|
Post by cassandra jane on Jan 4, 2024 15:20:05 GMT -5
I looked into Furia if you’re referring to me, not in order to “discredit” him but in order to see what other facial recognition he’d been involved in out of curiosity to see what other work he’d done. What I found (if it was the right detective) was a list of complaints against him which does not read as impeccable service to me, and I said so, but I had no intention of discrediting anybody. I was just saying what I read. I don’t think that’s a fair assessment from you if you’re talking about me and I’m not terribly impressed if that is the case, because the information I found on the Furia that I read about (right man or wrong man) was not impeccable at all if those complaints were actually true. To be clear I’m not saying they are or aren’t; some of the complaints seem a bit petty on surface value and I have doubts about the complainant(s) in those. All I know is those complaints were made. I have no vested interest one way or another. If it was you I didn't register it was you. No offense but I don't know who you are. I recognize "Cassandra Jane" from here but don't remember who posted what I'm talking about. The past year or so I have gotten a lot of comments from trolls. The reality of Detective Furia's record is that the two complaints from when he was an officer on the street were 1. a juvenile that said his cuffs were too tight and 2. a woman that claimed he called her the "B" word. Neither claim was substantiated and no action was taken against him and he was promoted later to Detective. This person also said he was involved in a facial recognition "scandal" in NYC. The "scandal" had nothing to do with him. He was quoted as giving his opinion on the software but he wasn't a decision maker on the policy that NYC implemented. Totally inaccurate and misleading to say he was involved in a "scandal". I have his records and we checked him out. He has been up for promotion multiple times and there is nothing in his record that is anything other than impeccable and exemplary. If you are the person trying to dox him by pulling up his employment record shame on you #1 for doing that and #2 for misrepresenting it. But again, I didn't know it was you (and still don't) unless you say it is. Did I block you from my group or page? If so it probably was you. Wow. I wasn’t blocked from your group but I will be leaving it after that and cancelling my membership to your YouTube. I was not doxing anyone especially considering it’s a quick Google search, and literally available on the first page. I did not go looking for for it for any reason let alone negative ones, and I won’t stand for being spoken to like this just for sharing information that I found without giving any real specifics on said officer like badge number or address or birth information that I don’t have access to nor know. Goodbye.
|
|