Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveS
I see as much similarity as I do in these pictures of them (both from the 1862 salt print).
Unfortunately, this thread is now getting ridiculous. If I had relied on the facial-match program I would have put the result images in my initial post. Yet no matter how many times I say that they are for fun and not really indicative of anything, some people keep insisting on focusing on that rather than what's relevant. I believe that I have addressed every concern that has been raised. Whether I convinced anybody or moved people into the "maybe" category, I'll probably never know. A lot of people are reluctant to comment in a social media post if they know they'll be jumped on. I will most definitely continue to research the stereoview, and absolutely will take your questions and concerns to heart. When you questioned the date, I reached out to experts in the field. I will try to find people educated and experienced in facial matching to get over the next hurdle. Anybody is free to post in here. But I believe I have provided all the information I have thus far, and I don't like going in circles or having to explain a hand on a shoulder. And that's where we seem to be right now. So this is my last post in this thread. if you have any questions that haven't been addressed in here, hit me up in a PM. If I get any major revelations in the future, I'll start a new thread for that. Until then, I'll see you in other threads and maybe at shows. Card collectors are the best people, and share a special bond. But it's not like I'm gonna put my hand on your shoulder or anything....
|
Steve,
I apologize for offending you, I did not realize I was. I was not asking for you to run the program as some kind of proof - it was just for fun as you had used it. Nothing more, nothing less... Proves nothing.
I did feel like I was being very polite and thought my questions for more information from the experts was on the up and up? Looks like we will not get to learn anything from the experts. Be well Steve