|
|
Post by Don Blake on Dec 21, 2004 14:07:37 GMT -6
 Sorry, but had to bring this up. Diligent researchers have claimed it's No Flesh, although I remain unconvinced (partly because the photo of No Flesh taken around this time shows a much heavier individual), but apart from that, surely there was no atelier at Robinson like that at that time? If there was a photo taken of Garnier at the same time, where is it for comparison? Where are the other images? Has anyone seen any photos using the same backdrop? I haven't. Personally, I think the picture looks a lot later than 1877. Look at it ethnographically, if you like. Long bone breastplates became more popular in the 1890s; the hairstyle is more commonly associated in my mind with photos taken of men in the Wild West Shows of the 1890s or studio portraits even later. Of course, I'd like to think it was him, but... Thoughts, anyone?
|
|
|
|
Post by shatonska on Dec 21, 2004 15:02:33 GMT -6
i have mixed sensations , i don't think that photo to be crazy horse , face and nose not so slim and thight , strange hair look compared to that described of him , many complain about the lack oof the scar but if you look well there is something wrong in the left side of the face , there is no simmetry so maybe....
|
|
|
|
Post by Don Blake on Dec 26, 2004 17:39:25 GMT -6
I believe, unfortunately, there's quite a bit of money invested in the photo so it's worth people's while to believe it's him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ephriam Dickson on Dec 26, 2004 18:47:43 GMT -6
A recent article on this tintype appears in the May/June 2004 issue of Whispering Wind (Jack Heriard, editor) volume 34 no. 3 pp. 16-23.
In addition, we know a great deal now about the photographers who were at the Red Cloud Agency in the summer and fall of 1877 and could have photographed Crazy Horse. None of them match in terms of the backdrop.
Ephriam
|
|
|
|
Post by Don Blake on Dec 27, 2004 6:15:13 GMT -6
I don't suppose the article is online?
I've never yet seen that backdrop. It seems a little 'advanced' for an army post at this time. I still think that the way he is presented suggests a later photograph.
|
|
bhist
Full Member
Posts: 221
|
Post by bhist on Jan 2, 2005 1:37:14 GMT -6
Sorry, but had to bring this up. Diligent researchers have claimed it's No Flesh, although I remain unconvinced (partly because the photo of No Flesh taken around this time shows a much heavier individual), but apart from that, surely there was no atelier at Robinson like that at that time? Do you mean, No Neck, instead of No Flesh? Please see this article -- www.friendslittlebighorn.com/crazy-horse-photo.htm -- from the Billings Gazette regarding the history of this photo that I posted with their permission on the Friends of the Little Bighorn's website. The article speaks of a No Neck, but not a No Flesh. The article is from 2003, but it is still timely. |
|
|
|
Post by Don Blake on Jan 3, 2005 3:52:04 GMT -6
Yes, I did. Sorry about that. I've seen the article and I'd like to know when the photo of No Neck was taken. I still think the 'Crazy Horse' photo was taken later than 1877.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Tortorella on Jan 13, 2005 12:21:36 GMT -6
Sorry, but had to bring this up. Diligent researchers have claimed it's No Flesh, although I remain unconvinced (partly because the photo of No Flesh taken around this time shows a much heavier individual), but apart from that, surely there was no atelier at Robinson like that at that time? If there was a photo taken of Garnier at the same time, where is it for comparison? Where are the other images? Has anyone seen any photos using the same backdrop? I haven't. Personally, I think the picture looks a lot later than 1877. Look at it ethnographically, if you like. Long bone breastplates became more popular in the 1890s; the hairstyle is more commonly associated in my mind with photos taken of men in the Wild West Shows of the 1890s or studio portraits even later. Of course, I'd like to think it was him, but... Thoughts, anyone?  The picture of No Neck is not the same person of the alleged Crazy Horse photo. There is a picture of a younger No Neck, about of the same age of Crazy Horse. Forensic experts have already proved that the two photos are indeed two different persons. |
|
|
|
Post by John Tortorella on Jan 13, 2005 12:31:48 GMT -6
i have mixed sensations , i don't think that photo to be crazy horse , face and nose not so slim and thight , strange hair look compared to that described of him , many complain about the lack oof the scar but if you look well there is something wrong in the left side of the face , there is no simmetry so maybe.... If you research a little harder, you will come across Crazy Horse hair description from Lakotas who rode with Crazy Horse. The hair in the alleged picture of Crazy Horse is exactly like the hair that the great Oglala used to wear. not more not less. |
|
|
|
Post by Don Blake on Jan 13, 2005 13:41:08 GMT -6
Well, I remain unconvinced for all the reasons I've stated, although I don't think it's No Neck either. Surely someone somewhere must have seen other photos taken with this backdrop?  |
|
|
|
Post by john tortorella on Jan 14, 2005 15:14:45 GMT -6
Well, I remain unconvinced for all the reasons I've stated, although I don't think it's No Neck either. Surely someone somewhere must have seen other photos taken with this backdrop? The picture is No Neck for sure. I have seen few pictures of No Neck, about for or five. Two of them were authenticated by the Denver Public Library. Regarding the picture of Crazy Horse, I' m not trying to convince any one. Even though the man in the picture fits all the descriptions provided by the Indians who rode with him, including the wound, deformation on the left side, thanks to No Water. |
|
|
|
Post by Don Blake on Jan 15, 2005 4:57:14 GMT -6
Hang on... you're saying the picture that is allegedly Crazy Horse IS No Neck?
|
|
|
|
Post by shatonska on Jan 15, 2005 8:59:27 GMT -6
Hang on... you're saying the picture that is allegedly Crazy Horse IS No Neck? no , he says it can be the photo of crazy horse , surely he isn't no neck ! i don't know if it's the photo of crazy horse , but you can easily recognize that there is something wrong in the left ( or right , depending on the perspective ) side of the face , it is no easy to find lakota with all those charachteristics and even an assimetry in the face ! |
|
|
|
Post by john tortorella on Jan 15, 2005 10:29:14 GMT -6
no , he says it can be the photo of crazy horse , surely he isn't no neck ! i don't know if it's the photo of crazy horse , but you can easily recognize that there is something wrong in the left ( or right , depending on the perspective ) side of the face , it is no easy to find lakota with all those charachteristics and even an assimetry in the face ! Shatonska is right. The picture claimed to be No Neck, is definatly No Neck. I have seen five of those pictures from the Denver Public library. The No Neck picture has nothing to do with the alleged photo of the great Lakota Crazy Horse. Two different people. All this has been proved by a forensic specialist. John Doerner, from the LBH battlefield and the folks carving the statue of Crazy Horse at the black hills were the ones that claimed that the alleged photo of Crazy Horse is No Neck. Well this has been proved wrong by a forensic specialist. John Doerner is an expert on Custer and the LBH battle, but with comments like that ( NO Neck being the alleged photo of Crazy Horse ) it does not makes him an expert on Crazy Horse for sure. Unfurtunately, people have the tendency to believe him on every thing he says because he is a government employee which makes them believe he is a so called "historical expert". But it is not the case on Crazy Horse. His lack of knolowdge on Crazy Horse has been proved by several weak comments given to news papers and news people. All this is very sad. |
|
|
|
Post by Don Blake on Jan 16, 2005 3:17:48 GMT -6
Well, I didn't think it was No Neck either, but I'm far from convinced it's Crazy Horse for the reasons I gave above.
|
|
Sorry, but had to bring this up. Diligent researchers have claimed it's No Flesh, although I remain unconvinced (partly because the photo of No Flesh taken around this time shows a much heavier individual), but apart from that, surely there was no atelier at Robinson like that at that time? If there was a photo taken of Garnier at the same time, where is it for comparison? Where are the other images? Has anyone seen any photos using the same backdrop? I haven't.
