|
|
Post by shatonska on Oct 17, 2005 6:24:53 GMT -6
please , does anybody knows who this man is ? a lakota chief ? his name ? it is not crazy horse but who could he be ? ![]() |
|
|
|
Post by Grahame Wood on Oct 17, 2005 11:04:36 GMT -6
Crazy in the Lodge, a 'head soldier' under Spotted Tail. Photo by Morrow, or it was the last I heard.
|
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Oct 17, 2005 11:06:43 GMT -6
I've seen the photo several times and it has been proven that it is Crazy in the Lodge, per what Grahame stated.
I still go by the tin-type of what supposedly is Crazy Horse, standing (posing) for a photo with a porcupine breast plate. A highly-distinguished looking Indian that most agree if there is a known photo that would be it, but still unproven.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grahame Wood on Oct 17, 2005 11:10:46 GMT -6
We'll have to agree to differ on that one.  |
|
|
|
Post by Grahame Wood on Oct 17, 2005 11:25:25 GMT -6
There was quite a debate about the Crazy Horse photo at the Custer Museum earlier in the year and it's still there on the Custeriana section; perhaps if you're reading this, Diane, you could transfer it to the Northern Plains Indian section. Looking at it a few moments ago, I noticed a post from John Tortorella stating that by the end of 2005, he'll be able to offer proof that it is indeed a photo of the man himself. Not long to go now.
"Don, nothing personal. I can not disclose all the evidence we have now. But by the end of this year' 2005' is going to go public. Just some think I think you should know about the backdrop. If you look at the original tintype you will be able to see that the backdrop is a portable one. It could have traveled any where in any wagon. In 1870s it is known and proved that backdrops like that were already out west. Crazy in the Lodge scar or disfiguration is nothing like the one of the real Crazy Horse, big difference. If you look close at Crazy Horse, you could see that one cheek bone has collapsed in comparison of the other. Again I do not want to go on details but this one is in the bank. Two different forensic specialists have already stated and guaranteed us that one of the cheek bones has collapsed because of a projectile entering from the front of the individual and exiting from the back. That is not the case of Crazy in the Lodge. " - John Tortorella, Jan 24th, 2005.
|
|
|
|
Post by shatonska on Oct 17, 2005 12:24:05 GMT -6
thanks
for the other photo , i 'm sure the man is really crazy horse, the scar the body the look match perfectly , you can see the white of the scar and non simmetry between the 2 sides of the face , mouth too
|
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Oct 17, 2005 13:06:36 GMT -6
<We'll have to agree to differ on that one>
I was agreeing that the photo is Crazy in the Lodge and NOT Crazy Horse. The photo that supposedly is of CH has him standing in very fine clothing, holding I believe eagle feathers cradled in one arm and in front of a background. It is a tin-type photo that supposedly had been in one Sioux family's possesion since the photo was taken.
Still, if any photo of Crazy Horse was ever taken one would think the photographer would have made a big deal out of it, not only for the monetary value, but the person who "captured" Crazy Horse.
|
|
|
|
Post by shatonska on Oct 17, 2005 13:52:40 GMT -6
<We'll have to agree to differ on that one> I was agreeing that the photo is Crazy in the Lodge and NOT Crazy Horse. The photo that supposedly is of CH has him standing in very fine clothing, holding I believe eagle feathers cradled in one arm and in front of a background. It is a tin-type photo that supposedly had been in one Sioux family's possesion since the photo was taken. Still, if any photo of Crazy Horse was ever taken one would think the photographer would have made a big deal out of it, not only for the monetary value, but the person who "captured" Crazy Horse. garnier promised to keep the photo secret , the tintype was hidden by him , photografer promised to keep the secret and he had not the tintype to show to have made the photo , proving it's true it'is difficult but i believe it is , that lakota is different and so similar to the described tashunka |
|
|
|
Post by Grahame Wood on Oct 17, 2005 15:56:15 GMT -6
If you locate the other thread I mentioned, there's a fair case made by several people that the tintype picture is more than likely not him - from the clothing, hairstyle and backdrop and from the lack of evidence that there was a photographer at the post at this time. It's a good read. I think it's on page one of the Custeriana section.
|
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Oct 17, 2005 21:35:40 GMT -6
The "Crazy Horse photo at the Custer Museum" thread has been moved to this board.
|
|
