Providing providence to any elderly photo is a difficult task. History seems to destroy its self. Information is lost or left behind.
I have a 4" x 6 " paper photo that was mounted on a tin backing. Not a tin type .....of a young man wearing scarfs, large ears, gnarly teeth, eyes and eye brows that appears to look like Billy the Kid. Crown height of the black hat is unknown. I have had the picture for 15-20 years and I don't recall where I bought the picture. The picture would have been included in a box of other items. I would have paid less than $ 5.00 for the box of " stuff " I am sure.
I had the photo inspected by a professional ( due to an agreement I am unable to disclose the name of the Company, please don't ask.thanks. ) and a overlay was performed . Results returned... quote " it is Billy the Kid " .
BUT due to this profession being so jaded and disgusted and weary of con artists, counterfeits and fraud the possibility of a legit picture is tossed aside due to the fact that I did not shoot, drink whiskey and ride with Billy or his friends. Now the picture has no value. Money or for a historical artifact.
I am legit, honest and sincere and spent a 24 year career as a Deputy Sheriff. I will take questions and I would allow a review of the photo and the progressive overlay ( my term- a series of photos ) upon request.
Hey Gary! I agree, providing providence is an extremely difficult task. And, while I'm sure there are other photos of Billy the Kid out there - somewhere - without providence there's just no way we can say definitively that it's him.
While I think the technology will someday get to the point to where we can take an old grainy tintype of the Kid and compare it conclusively with other images, I just don't believe we're there yet. I'm afraid that anybody who tells you otherwise is, sadly, more interested in your money than the truth.
I don't doubt your honesty at all but there still needs to be some type of provenance. I'm just now finishing up a series on John Wesley Hardin, the gunfighter. There are five verified photos of Hardin - that I'm aware of - and none of them look even remotely the same. If you didn't know any better and if there was no direct provenance, then there's no way you'd believe these photos were all of the same man. Or, I guess I should say I wouldn't believe it. Likewise, I think if there are any other photos of Billy out there, there's a good chance he wouldn't even look like the person featured in the famous tintype.
I'm hoping one day we'll have the technology to find these answers. Thanks for the comment!
Thank you for writing this. So many people on the internet seem to take for granted that this photo is authentic, which is just ridiculous. As you capably point out, it is far from being authenticated. And I agree, I doubt they can even meaningfully connect this photo to one of Charlie bowdre’s relatives. The producer of that nat geo show challenges people to step forward and prove the photo is not billy the kid. But that’s an old conspiracy theory trick. He has to prove it is billy the kid. And he hasn’t come close.
Extremely logical and concise. I would rather hear you speak it than me reading it. Never the less a wonderful synopsis of the facts. I listen to your show at work and don't have much time to read. I couldnt get the "Listen" option to work. Ever get any information on the articles of Billy's possesions? The Winchester, his side arm, anything like that? Have you ever thrown a few back with Bob Bose Bell?
Good article Josh , just yesterday I was thinking about Union Cavalry in the Civil War which somehow took me to Fort Stanton , Col . Dudley and the fight in Lincoln . I then wondered if there was any new updates on the Croquet photo and here it is . Thanks for the upload !
The best way to prove it's not Billy and friends in the photo is to prove who it is. A photo with that many people and playing croquet must be kind of rare at that time?
Provenance is very important, but it is NOT paramount. That kind of mindset would have argued that eye-witness accounts of a crime are the most reliable - but there are probably thousands of people imprisoned by airtight eye-witness testimony who were cleared 100% by DNA evidence. Yes, sometimes the old processes need to get a re-look to see if they are still the big man on campus with regard to the reliability of the results they produce. There is a so-called "Billy" expert in this article saying that "facial recognition" software on 2-dimensional historical objects doesn't work. What is HIS measuring stick, if not his own personal mental "facial recognition". I have two apparently dissimilar photos that look very different - but are authentically of the same woman at different periods of her life. All that computer software does is measure distances and compares proportions. Things like the distance between the eyes, the proportional shapes of ears, distances between nose and lips, etc. While the Billy the Kid tintype is not as clear as one might like, when comparing the facial measurements and proportions to each other, if the software says it matches, it is part of the evidence to consider. The history of the alleged site, the geographical references in the background, the period clothing, the croquet game, etc. are all evidence and should be taken into consideration. I have heard and read of so many dismissals of the believability to the evidence, but I literally have NEVER heard any of it refuted objectively. The trees without leaves in August/September 1878? There was a drought during the late 1870s that arborists could argue caused the trees to drop leaves earlier than normal. How many people from this period that are known to have photos still in existence are seen wearing sweaters in outdoor western regalia OTHER than BTK? I wanna know why this CANNOT possibly be BTK....not why people simply BELIEVE it's not. Without provenance, what really makes these so-called experts...experts....How expert is it to identify a photo already identified?
I have a photo of billy the kid with pat Garret,Jesse w. James,Robert Ford ,butch Cassidy,and wild bill Hickock all together in a studio photo from the late 1800's in original frame and pretty clear view of them all...
The picture has hung in my workshop for years so I think I will return it to it's original spot. LOL.
Let me send what I have to You just for the fun of it and you look it over. If I have ask to much due to your schedule, please forgive me. Again Josh, Thanks.
Thing is, though, that the woman in the photo definitely appears to be Sallie Chisum, the man pointing at Billy has been identified as Tom O'Folliard, another as Charlie Bowdre, and what are the chances of all these people being together in one photo, all known as friends, and the photo is not real? Looking at the person who is supposedly the Kid, he even has Billy's sloped shoulders, all this cannot just be a giant coincidence. I believe it is a photo of them relaxing and having fun, and it's not as if the photo was just found in a trash dump, it was in storage. Someone was hanging onto that photo. I find it hard to believe that there is zero interest, it has definite possibilities. Even the rolling hills in the background are very similar.
The thing is, the man pointing hasn't been identified as Tom Folliard, though. And we don't know that it's Sallie Chisum. If we knew that these were all of Billy's friends just hanging out together then yeah, I'd agree completely, but unfortunately none of that has been proven. Some think that the rolling hills in the back ground look more like California. I don't know, though, I've never been to New Mexico or California.
WWJ :
Providing providence to any elderly photo is a difficult task. History seems to destroy its self. Information is lost or left behind.
I have a 4" x 6 " paper photo that was mounted on a tin backing. Not a tin type .....of a young man wearing scarfs, large ears, gnarly teeth, eyes and eye brows that appears to look like Billy the Kid. Crown height of the black hat is unknown. I have had the picture for 15-20 years and I don't recall where I bought the picture. The picture would have been included in a box of other items. I would have paid less than $ 5.00 for the box of " stuff " I am sure.
I had the photo inspected by a professional ( due to an agreement I am unable to disclose the name of the Company, please don't ask.thanks. ) and a overlay was performed . Results returned... quote " it is Billy the Kid " .
BUT due to this profession being so jaded and disgusted and weary of con artists, counterfeits and fraud the possibility of a legit picture is tossed aside due to the fact that I did not shoot, drink whiskey and ride with Billy or his friends. Now the picture has no value. Money or for a historical artifact.
I am legit, honest and sincere and spent a 24 year career as a Deputy Sheriff. I will take questions and I would allow a review of the photo and the progressive overlay ( my term- a series of photos ) upon request.
Thanks for listening.
Enjoyed your articles Josh.
Respectfully,
Gary
Hey Gary! I agree, providing providence is an extremely difficult task. And, while I'm sure there are other photos of Billy the Kid out there - somewhere - without providence there's just no way we can say definitively that it's him.
While I think the technology will someday get to the point to where we can take an old grainy tintype of the Kid and compare it conclusively with other images, I just don't believe we're there yet. I'm afraid that anybody who tells you otherwise is, sadly, more interested in your money than the truth.
I don't doubt your honesty at all but there still needs to be some type of provenance. I'm just now finishing up a series on John Wesley Hardin, the gunfighter. There are five verified photos of Hardin - that I'm aware of - and none of them look even remotely the same. If you didn't know any better and if there was no direct provenance, then there's no way you'd believe these photos were all of the same man. Or, I guess I should say I wouldn't believe it. Likewise, I think if there are any other photos of Billy out there, there's a good chance he wouldn't even look like the person featured in the famous tintype.
I'm hoping one day we'll have the technology to find these answers. Thanks for the comment!
Thank you for writing this. So many people on the internet seem to take for granted that this photo is authentic, which is just ridiculous. As you capably point out, it is far from being authenticated. And I agree, I doubt they can even meaningfully connect this photo to one of Charlie bowdre’s relatives. The producer of that nat geo show challenges people to step forward and prove the photo is not billy the kid. But that’s an old conspiracy theory trick. He has to prove it is billy the kid. And he hasn’t come close.
Extremely logical and concise. I would rather hear you speak it than me reading it. Never the less a wonderful synopsis of the facts. I listen to your show at work and don't have much time to read. I couldnt get the "Listen" option to work. Ever get any information on the articles of Billy's possesions? The Winchester, his side arm, anything like that? Have you ever thrown a few back with Bob Bose Bell?
Thank you, sir. And no, I've never met Bob but I am a fan of his work.
Good article Josh , just yesterday I was thinking about Union Cavalry in the Civil War which somehow took me to Fort Stanton , Col . Dudley and the fight in Lincoln . I then wondered if there was any new updates on the Croquet photo and here it is . Thanks for the upload !
I read your mind!!! Haha
The best way to prove it's not Billy and friends in the photo is to prove who it is. A photo with that many people and playing croquet must be kind of rare at that time?
It actually is authentic.
Provenance is very important, but it is NOT paramount. That kind of mindset would have argued that eye-witness accounts of a crime are the most reliable - but there are probably thousands of people imprisoned by airtight eye-witness testimony who were cleared 100% by DNA evidence. Yes, sometimes the old processes need to get a re-look to see if they are still the big man on campus with regard to the reliability of the results they produce. There is a so-called "Billy" expert in this article saying that "facial recognition" software on 2-dimensional historical objects doesn't work. What is HIS measuring stick, if not his own personal mental "facial recognition". I have two apparently dissimilar photos that look very different - but are authentically of the same woman at different periods of her life. All that computer software does is measure distances and compares proportions. Things like the distance between the eyes, the proportional shapes of ears, distances between nose and lips, etc. While the Billy the Kid tintype is not as clear as one might like, when comparing the facial measurements and proportions to each other, if the software says it matches, it is part of the evidence to consider. The history of the alleged site, the geographical references in the background, the period clothing, the croquet game, etc. are all evidence and should be taken into consideration. I have heard and read of so many dismissals of the believability to the evidence, but I literally have NEVER heard any of it refuted objectively. The trees without leaves in August/September 1878? There was a drought during the late 1870s that arborists could argue caused the trees to drop leaves earlier than normal. How many people from this period that are known to have photos still in existence are seen wearing sweaters in outdoor western regalia OTHER than BTK? I wanna know why this CANNOT possibly be BTK....not why people simply BELIEVE it's not. Without provenance, what really makes these so-called experts...experts....How expert is it to identify a photo already identified?
I have a photo of billy the kid with pat Garret,Jesse w. James,Robert Ford ,butch Cassidy,and wild bill Hickock all together in a studio photo from the late 1800's in original frame and pretty clear view of them all...
Dang how old is Butch? 10?
Josh thanks for the response. I appreciate it.
The picture has hung in my workshop for years so I think I will return it to it's original spot. LOL.
Let me send what I have to You just for the fun of it and you look it over. If I have ask to much due to your schedule, please forgive me. Again Josh, Thanks.
Gary May
Thing is, though, that the woman in the photo definitely appears to be Sallie Chisum, the man pointing at Billy has been identified as Tom O'Folliard, another as Charlie Bowdre, and what are the chances of all these people being together in one photo, all known as friends, and the photo is not real? Looking at the person who is supposedly the Kid, he even has Billy's sloped shoulders, all this cannot just be a giant coincidence. I believe it is a photo of them relaxing and having fun, and it's not as if the photo was just found in a trash dump, it was in storage. Someone was hanging onto that photo. I find it hard to believe that there is zero interest, it has definite possibilities. Even the rolling hills in the background are very similar.
The thing is, the man pointing hasn't been identified as Tom Folliard, though. And we don't know that it's Sallie Chisum. If we knew that these were all of Billy's friends just hanging out together then yeah, I'd agree completely, but unfortunately none of that has been proven. Some think that the rolling hills in the back ground look more like California. I don't know, though, I've never been to New Mexico or California.