Knickerbocker Photo (Update)

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

You are a being a clown and completely out of your depth. Your knowledge of this subject is zero and it shows.

David is one of the foremost experts in his field and has literally taught courses about photography. The lack of respect being shown to him is beyond the pale.

Simply put you are terrible at this. There is no need to combat any of the points in this thread put forth by you and Steve because YOU HAVE NO BASIS TO MAKE THE CLAIMS THAT YOU ARE. NONE.

ABOUT THE SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD:
These are literally photographs of completely random men from the 19th Century. The facial structures of these men is not even close. You and Steve they seem close but again neither of you have any idea what the heck you are talking about.

The only things the subjects of these photos have in common with the men you are claiming they are is that they have faces (and some have mustaches)... that is it. Ears are off, facial structures are off, hairlines are way off, ages are off, etc., etc.

The logical problem people like you have about this subject is that you are treating this as if it is a 50:50 chance of the photos being the person that is being claimed. That is not how this works. THERE IS NO CONTEXT FOR THESE PHOTOS TO BE WHO IT IS BEING CLAIMED THAT THEY ARE... NONE!!! The burden of proof to prove that a random photo purchased off ebay is a famous person is on the claimant, and it is a heavy burden of proof. Close doesn't cut it, these aren't close. The odds of Steve being correct is infinitesimally small.


TO SNOWMAN:
I have no idea who you are as you started posting on this forum like 5 minutes ago. Each time in the past few weeks that I have seen you post in a thread it immediately goes down hill. My suggestion would be to sit down and listen for a minute. Making fun of respected people on this forum like David will not get you far.

CONCLUSION:
This discussion is not a serious debate and is not scientific.

The idea that one needs to be an expert in photography or the history of photography or that it is even remotely helpful in a discussion regarding whether or not two people look similar is ridiculous. The fact that people here demand that their "expertise" be somehow respected is the problem here. No one has earned the right to identify facial features better than someone else because they have a dark room at home or because they have a collection of stereoviews.

As far as lending even an iota of respect to David is concerned, I'll gladly pass on that offer. Go back and read his nonsense in this thread. Every post is complete an utter nonsense. Brown is gray, bald is a full head of hair, etc. All he's done is shit on everyone else's arguments with every post while offering nothing of substance despite being asked politely numerous times by the OP to explain his positions. He's just trolling this thread. I don't offer respect to trolls.

Again, at I've said repeatedly. If you want to argue that the photos are not who Steve thinks they are, that's fine. Bring your arguments as to why. But if you're going to sit there and pretend like there's no similarity whatsoever between the purported George Wright photos, then you're clearly just here to be a prick. Go take those photos to 100 random people off the street who aren't vintage cards collectors and at least 90 of them will say, "ya they definitely look similar and might be the same person". The only thing causing people here to see otherwise is their bias.