Knickerbocker Photo (Update)

[drcy]

There are glaring non-matches, and lack of glaring non-matches does not an identification make.

You are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. It's a nice original antique photo of unknown people, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

[SteveS]

Perhaps you can be more specific about what you see as non-matches. And while it definitely does not make it conclusive, a lack of non-matches among six people certainly pushes the argument closer to being matches.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by drcy

There are glaring non-matches, and lack of glaring non-matches does not an identification make.

You are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. It's a nice original antique photo of unknown people, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

I understand all of the criticisms surrounding when the photo was likely taken based on the arches, technology used at the time, when certain types of photography were used, dating of the attire, etc. But you can't honestly look at those photos and compare the facial features of the subjects and pretend like there aren't at least some remarkable similarities between them. Look at the noses and their bridges. Look at shapes and angles of the brows. Look at the eyes. Look at the shapes of the mouths and the angles of the lines from the nose to the mouth. Look at the prominent cheek bones and jaw lines. Look at the hair lines. Not everyone is a dead ringer, and the photos are obviously not as clear as modern photography, but there are certainly numerous remarkable similarities across the group. You don't need facial match software to see it. But there's a reason the algorithms yield ~30% matches for random people with no similarities and ~90% matches for those which Steve and I both agree look similar. He's not just throwing darts at a dartboard here. Several of these people definitely at least have several similar facial features. That's not nothing. I'm not saying it's definitely the Knickerbockers, but I am a bit baffled by those of you who seem to want to pretend that there's no similarities at all between the subjects. That's just being outright dishonest.

[slightlyrounded]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I understand all of the criticisms surrounding when the photo was likely taken based on the arches, technology used at the time, when certain types of photography were used, dating of the attire, etc. But you can't honestly look at those photos and compare the facial features of the subjects and pretend like there aren't at least some remarkable similarities between them. Look at the noses and their bridges. Look at shapes and angles of the brows. Look at the eyes. Look at the shapes of the mouths and the angles of the lines from the nose to the mouth. Look at the prominent cheek bones and jaw lines. Look at the hair lines. Not everyone is a dead ringer, and the photos are obviously not as clear as modern photography, but there are certainly numerous remarkable similarities across the group. You don't need facial match software to see it. But there's a reason the algorithms yield ~30% matches for random people with no similarities and ~90% matches for those which Steve and I both agree look similar. He's not just throwing darts at a dartboard here. Several of these people definitely at least have several similar facial features. That's not nothing. I'm not saying it's definitely the Knickerbockers, but I am a bit baffled by those of you who seem to want to pretend that there's no similarities at all between the subjects. That's just being outright dishonest.

I “honestly” looked at those facial comparisons and thought each was individually a reach.

I’ve no horse in this race, but I think absent any other proof, this is a complete stretch.

[SteveS]

Thank you for your honest opinion, slightlyrounded! I think what frustrates me the most is that I have put forth several areas that are clear matches (and Snowman did an excellent job of that above). But of the people who disagree, none have been able to point out anything that clearly differs between the comparisons that would obviously exclude them as being matches.
drcy, no, you haven't shown any map. You gave your opinion, which is fine, but cited nothing to back it up.