slightlyrounded, you have raised an excellent point regarding the kerchief, and I appreciate it greatly, as I believe it points out a major error that I made, but also makes my identifications stronger. I thought I had read somewhere awhile back that stereoviews are reversed, like tintypes and dags. After your post, I researched that info and found out that I was incorrect. So the original orientation of my stereoview is proper. I have posted below the comparison photos with that orientation. To my eye, not only do the resemblances now look stronger, but the unique matches I pointed out earlier have not changed. But more importantly, slightlyrounded noticed something that I did not. Of the six men who are depicted in both my stereoview and the 1862 salt print, only one is wearing a kerchief in both pictures. And it's the same man -- Niebuhr. Now of course that is not going to make everybody here drop their jaw and concede the IDs. But the math experts can figure out the odds of that.
As for the Anthony connection, in no way would I ever rely on that nor say that he or his brother or someone in his company took this photograph, as there is no attribution. I am pointing out that the technology to take this type of photograph definitely existed in the 1850s and definitely in the area where the Knickerbockers were located.
drcy, Thank you for recognizing that there are resemblances. While I know that doesn't change your ultimate conclusion, at least you can see that much.
sphere and ash, I respect very much your experience in photography, and I wish you the best in your house sale and many glorious years in your new home. I regret that bets are being discussed with regard to my photographs, as I know that, especially when bet money is on the table, either side can find someone to justify their conclusion, and of course, the other side will not accept it. I worked for a time in a law office, and we had two stacks of solicitations from experts literally up to my knee. One stack was from people who were inclined more favorably to defendants, the other to plaintiffs. I'd like to think that they were testifying honestly, and not just leaning towards who paid them. I also remember seeing a documentary about a photo alleged to be of Amelia Earnhart after her disappearance. They had a parade of experts, including facial-match professionals and former FBI agants, all bragging about their experience in the field and swearing on their reputation that the person pictured was Earnhart. Shortly after the show aired, someone discovered a copy of the exact same picture in a travel pamphlet published before her disappearance and in a place that was confirmed she wasn't present at the time. So as 100% certain as these experts were with their impeccable resumes, they were dead wrong.
I also point to the earlier thread on this forum regarding the 1847 daguerreotype. I respect greatly Mark F.'s knowledge of baseball history and have learned a lot reading things he's written. In that thread, he turned to a professional facial-recognition expert, and the dag owner (C.S.) did as well. Both of these experts, whose credentials were not questioned by anyone, came up with diametrically opposed opinions on the identifications in that photo. Do you think that if there had been side bets anyone would have been satisfied with the result to have paid?
I also point to the experts here who claimed that there's no way on the face of this Earth that the stereoview can be from before the 1870s. One thing about which I'm very confident is that I've proven that it could most definitely have been done in the 1850s. Even you said that the technology existed in 1851. I think someone needs to see it and hold it in person to get a better grasp of its color, thickness, etc. But while I don't wish to question the knowledge or skill of anyone on this board, I tend to discount a conclusion that is based on being so incorrect on a basic thing.
I posted on this board with the full expectation that I would face a ton of skepticism and criticism. I certainly don't mean that in a bad way. My reputation is important to me too, and I don't want to look like a jackass going around saying a photo is something it's not. I am not ignoring a single thing that's been written, and in fact listened to the kerchief clue and found it enormously helpful in providing further proof of my IDs (although I know that wasn't the poster's intention). I am quite certain that I will never convince everybody, just as I am certain that both sides can find experts who will come to opposite conclusions. So if you want to give me specific reasons why you think the stereoview can't be from the 1850s, or you want to post comparisons of specific unique features that are glaring non-matches, I welcome you to do so. I don't think, "I've been doing this for 20 years and it just doesn't look right to me," is convincing. But as I have demonstrated, my mind is open....
|