Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowman
I don't understand this one. You say that the photo is dated 1881. Do you know that date is 100% accurate? If so, how? Assuming it is though, you mention that "Comiskey" would have been 22 and "Quinn" would have been 19. But the boys in that photo are no where near those ages. The boy identified as "Quinn" is extremely young. He's probably between 10-12 years old here. The boy identified as "Comiskey" is a few years older, but still probably only 13-15 years old. A 22 year old is a young man, fully grown. The subjects in this photo are boys, not young men. They are young teenagers at most. Either your date is wrong or the identities are wrong.
|
First let me say I'm the expert on this photo--not you or anyone else---years ago a very qualified expert studied this photo and confirmed Comiskey, he has more knowledge in his finger tip than several experts on here put together--so you were there is 1881 to see what Quinn or Comiskey looked like--no offense but you really don't know what your talking about --honestly after reading some of your opinion on another links where you really believe someone is someone without a ounce of documentation and doesn't even remotely look then --then you come on here and try to tell me something like he is too young or some other type of crap- --so you studied the my photo for what one hour, 3 days, one month, a year, five years --I have been studying and researching this photo for 30 years and only recently discovered its dated so PLEASE don't come on here an try to tell me anything--I have a note book full of research including correspondence with Comiskys descendance-- so best stick with the other thread and rant--thanks for your opinion because it doesn't really mean a hill of beans to me and no offense it never will-------you can go to the highest mountain top and tell everyone I said this, including Mr. King Expert--you know why --I really don't give XXXX