Quote:
Originally Posted by drcy
As far as the "George Wright" photo goes, it should also be pointed out that their heads aren't even the same shape.
|
And neither do all the heads on the Wright photos that are confirmed as him all look to be the same exact shape either. There are differences in angles, lighting, shadows, age, amount of hair, how it is or isn't combed, clarity of the image itself, and so on that can effect how a photo image is perceived by someone. The one common trait that all the George Wright photos do have (besides him being a man) is that you were told these were all confirmed Wright photos, which normally adds a bias to anyone's opinion, whether they will honestly admit it or not.
Quite frankly, I am not at all familiar with what George Wright really looked like before following this thread, and I honestly couldn't tell you whether all these supposedly confirmed photos of him are actually him or not. I'm relying solely on the word of the people posting them, but know absolutely zilch about the evidence and provenance that proves each of these so-called, confirmed Wright photos is actually him. For all I know, one or more of these Wright photos could be deemed him simply because someone very early on said it looked like other pictures of him, and therefore it was him. And with no other evidence or provenance than that and the passage of time, such a photo may have been accepted and regarded as a true George Wright photo today. I'm not saying that is the case, but it is possible, isn't it? Otherwise, can you tell me the evidence and provenance of each and every one of these supposed real Wright photos that you are comparing Steve's photo to in this thread?
And that is another thing, back when pictures of individuals like Wright weren't necessarily considered as valuable, would it be possible that the effort to prove the authenticity of such a photo wasn't as difficult and people more readily accepted such a photo as real merely due to the resemblance? Nowadays, a new real photo of Wright being discovered would prove quite valuable, agreed? And for that reason alone, if one suddenly did appear out of nowhere, like Steve's photo, the initial thinking by many would be that this is too good to be true, if this is real it would have been found long before now, or that the person claiming it as real is just trying to cash in, and so on. And because of that inherent thinking, there is an immediate added bias that will likely kick in with many so-called "experts" that will have them only accepting such a photo as real if there is an extraordinary amount of virtually irrefutable evidence and provenance to go along with it. Just human nature.