Post by pietroabiuso on Apr 13, 2012 10:40:35 GMT -5
For Ephriam Dickson My name is Pietro Abiuso, we have communicate a couple times. I have lost your email and phone number. I went back to Italy for a few years. Can you get in touch with me. I have been reading your post the one you said that according to Hunton, Little Bat was not at Fort ( Camp) Robinson in August, so CH picture could have not been taken. If that is the case, I agree with you as I also agree that Little Bat did not go north with Frank Grouard to persuade CH to surrender. The only problem I have with Hunton diary is that he is also inaccurate when in his diary he states that Baptiste occupation: Scout in Dakota Terr., Mar 1876> " In March 1876 he was( a guide ) with the Crook expedition against the Sioux and was in the fight with Crazy Horse's band of Indians. That is also incorrect because as we know, Little Bat enlisted as a scout May 12, 1876 and discharged October 24, 1876. This leads me to believe that Hunton diary should be taken also as a grain of salt, especially when he tells of the whereabouts of Little Bat during the summer of 1877. If one date is incorrect and is wrong by two months, I found very hard to believe that the dates of Little Bat whereabouts were also correct. Best regards. Peter Abiuso
Post by quincannon on Apr 16, 2012 18:35:11 GMT -5
Don't feel bad Pietro. I have been trying to register at Britmodeler for the last week, and can't seem to read the stupid little six letter/number code at the bottom. They say that I am obviously not human, which may have a ring of truth in some quarters.
Last Edit: Apr 16, 2012 18:35:33 GMT -5 by quincannon
I am far away from beeing a specialist in photographing, but i worked for many years now in researching photos...lets say this is a hobby. The good on original photos is that the are actually never lying but most time we are unable to see the truth because we are not giving too much attention to the details.
Not that i want to offer here a new theory cause i have not enough to back it up so far. I just like to share some observations i made on the photo of Tashunka Witko(if it is he) and would love to hear opinions.
No idea why a great warior like Tashunka Witko would accept(if he had ever changed his mind vs portraiture) a freaking background like this. By studying the pic we can notice that everything on that man is very well arranged(like on a moveless dummy). There is no reason for that kind of table or what it is to his right. That piece of furniture is disturbing the scene.
When i read this thread yesterday the appearence of the photo reminds me a bit of post mortem photography.
If you click the link you will find more examples of post mortem photos. It is noticeable that a special post have to be used for photos like that. You see it behind every photographed dead person there. Often there were used also pieces of furniture to hold the positions of arms.
One of my observation was that in the wide version of the indian pic is possible a foot of a post visible.
At least it looks quite similar.
On the other side by looking now on the photo arrangemet again it is possible that a post like this should be covered by the blanket. The blanket is very close positioned to the legs and looks not like it would naturely falling, but arrangend as it should block any sight to the back. From that view of the scene the piece of furniture on his side made sense cause it held his arm in position.
From all what i have read about the appearence of Tashunka Witko i would say it possible shows him. If this photo is indead a post mortem then it would solve two problems:
1. Tashunka Witko never want to be photographed in his life time.
2. The big scar on his face is not visible.
Well, the photo is of poor quality but there seems no scar visible.
The reason could be that the photographer spend some time to overwork the face with make up for a better photo result. From the view of a photograph artist a scar is nothing what he have to bring in the foreground but to hide.
The eyes of the man did not look living to me.
A last observation i made is about what he hold in his right hand. In a close up it looks to me like it could be possibly the eagle bone wizzle wich Tashunka Witko allways had with him.
Post by Diane Merkel on May 14, 2012 12:54:50 GMT -5
I have never heard of post mortem photography before, so I find this very interesting. I do not believe the photo is of Crazy Horse for a variety of reasons, but it could be a post mortem photo. I appreciate your post!
Post by Diane Merkel on May 15, 2012 22:59:58 GMT -5
I showed that German website to my husband Chuck, and he does not believe those are post-mortem photos. He said he thinks the posts behind the men were to give them something to lean on while waiting for the photo to be taken. He reminded me that photos took a long time to produce in those days, and the people had to stay very still for many minutes. That makes sense.
Chuck said he has seen post-mortem photos from the Victorian era, but the photos were of people in caskets or children in cribs, obviously dead and not standing up.
If you have more information to support those photos being post-mortem, I'd love to read it. Unfortunately, my German is not good enough to understand all that was on the website.
Well, it is not a theme i like to dive deep into it, but it seems it was a well known technic for photographers at the earlier days.
If you scroll down on that link i gave above then you find more examples and also a scretch from the post wich were used. Also there is a post mortem pic of a firefighter who´s eyes are obvisionly not painted over for the photo. It btw was a common pratice to made post mortem photos of firefighters. You can find a lot of them.
Here is another link to a site with many post mortem photos. Look about woman and man pics and you will find those special posts behind them. The post is not visible behind women with long dresses of course.
My wife has a family photo from the late 1800's of a couple with the father holding their young daughter (around 2 years old or so) upright on his lap. Her eyes are closed and she appears dead. The couple have a rather stoic and sad look on their faces. She must have died young and they wanted a pic to remember her buy.
The subject is cross-eyed, one of many reasons this is not Crazy Horse. He's not dead, either, and there was no way known to 19th century frontier photographers to get a corpse to stand that convincingly before bloating and stench.
If there were a motivation to photograph a dead Indian, it would be to prove him dead, since the photo would be evidence of insult to the man's family and be for white consumption. I cannot think of why using a dead Indian is better than a live one.
".. all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed...." T.Jefferson, Declaration of Independence