What's new

Question about a 1908 photo that might be a fake

I neither know nor care if it IS fake. I'm just clearing up some misconceptions about the state of the at in 1908. Making a very very good technical fake would have been completely straightforward to one skilled in art at that time.

As has been noted, there is a lot more to this than simply examining the plate.
 
I neither know nor care if it IS fake. I'm just clearing up some misconceptions about the state of the at in 1908. Making a very very good technical fake would have been completely straightforward to one skilled in art at that time.

As has been noted, there is a lot more to this than simply examining the plate.

Well, haven't seen a single sample from that time frame yet that you couldn't pretty much take a good look at the print and within minutes spot a dozen or so signs that it was faked, at least when it comes to taking two or more seperate images and compositing them together as was suggested. If you have a sample perhaps to present, that might be interesting.
 
Then you haven't looked very hard. You're objectively wrong on this. Henry peach Robinson is probably a good search term to start with. But there were lots of people very good at this.

If the Smithsonian says they think it's authentic, that means they've examined the paste and the surrounding evidence, and determined that in their expert opinion it's much more likely this is authentic than otherwise.
 
Then you haven't looked very hard. You're objectively wrong on this. Henry peach Robinson is probably a good search term to start with. But there were lots of people very good at this.

Hmm.. lets see.. "Henry Peach Robinson was an English pictorialist photographer best known for his pioneering combination printing - joining multiple negatives "

"The Smithsonian has the original PLATES".

Do you see a difficulty here at all, or are we just going to keep ignoring the single most important point?
 
I did in fact address that point earlier and now that I see you also cannot be bothered to read what I write, i'm done here.
 
Kittens-KittensLookingSadEvenKitten.jpg
 
And when does the voice of reason ever convince someone to drop their conspiracy theories? ;)

I can't remember where, but I saw a comment recently from someone who studies conspiracy theorists that said they usually have no trouble believing in two contradictory theories at once.
 
Did somebody just write the words conspiracy and theories (plural!) in a direct sequence? That is the hidden trigger for a link to an old movie clip that the government banned back in the early 2000's...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Did somebody just write the words conspiracy and theories (plural!) in a direct sequence? That is the hidden trigger for a link to an old movie clip that the government banned back in the early 2000's...

Some of us (well, me, anyway) know the difference between real conspiracy and some BS Hollywood movie. I'm glad I've never seen that one. The so-called cop shows are full of it too.
 
The chair is against the wall.

John has a long mustache.
Is that from the Patrick Swayze movie where he plays a redneck trying to defend his brother against the evil russians, or the one where he plays a redneck trying to defend his brother from the evil mafia?

Or maybe the one where he plays a bouncer trying to defend a guy who is like a brother to him from the evil rednecks?

Hmmm... starting to sense a pattern here... lol

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk
 
The chair is against the wall.

John has a long mustache.
Is that from the Patrick Swayze movie where he plays a redneck trying to defend his brother against the evil russians, or the one where he plays a redneck trying to defend his brother from the evil mafia?

Or maybe the one where he plays a bouncer trying to defend a guy who is like a brother to him from the evil rednecks?

Hmmm... starting to sense a pattern here... lol

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk

Those movies were a conspiracy attempting to create a theory.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom