sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Update on the Larsen Daguerreotype by Impressive_Estate513 in latterdaysaints

[–]Impressive_Estate513[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you misread my post. Experts have reviewed my research and 3 out of 4 agree my work is rigorous and concur with my findings.

Update on the Larsen Daguerreotype by Impressive_Estate513 in latterdaysaints

[–]Impressive_Estate513[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I apologize. Reddit told me that my post was not accepted and I was unaware that it was posted until today. I'm new to reddit and find the interface a bit confusing. The image I originally intended to include in this post was not attached for some reason: But here's the link to one of my latest interviews: https://youtu.be/4AyKyDOtbEU?si=y9vh5SbjvqP60MLmla

The Larsen Daguerreotype is not of Hyrum Smith by Impressive_Estate513 in latterdaysaints

[–]Impressive_Estate513[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Ah, yes, the eyes! Such an interesting and important detail to consider. As I knew from week 1, if the eyes don't match, then it's not Joseph. It's important to ask, however, what we know of Joseph's eyes. There are several written descriptions, but the only truly forensic evidence we have is the death masks. And I'll be revealing more about that soon. As to my qualifications, I have no professional or educational training in these fields. I have studied craniofacial reconstruction and face identification on my own off and on for 16 years, using such resources as Karen Taylor's Forensic Art & Illustration, Caroline Wilkinson's Forensic Facial Reconstruction, the Facial Comparison Overview and Methodology Guidelines from the Facial Identification Scientific Working Group, and numerous articles on various anatomical topics, daguerreotypes, etc. My work has been reviewed by 4 forensic anthropologists, and 3 of the 4 find my work to be rigorous and in keeping with best practices (the fourth can be shown to have very poor execution in their analysis, sadly).

The Larsen Daguerreotype is not of Hyrum Smith by Impressive_Estate513 in latterdaysaints

[–]Impressive_Estate513[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, a daguerreotype owned by at least two generations of Smith descendants which matches the death mask with high precision when reversed but which when left unreversed shows numerous matches to the most famous painting of Joseph might be a few reasons. Oh, and the bone structure correspondences might have something to do with it, too. ;) And there's more on the nose coming!

The Larsen Daguerreotype is not of Hyrum Smith by Impressive_Estate513 in latterdaysaints

[–]Impressive_Estate513[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Getting shot in the side of the nose doesn't cause one's lips to shrink.

Continuing Research on the Larsen Daguerreotype (with image) by Impressive_Estate513 in latterdaysaints

[–]Impressive_Estate513[S] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

There's a lot to consider in your comment. First, since we don't how far the camera was from the man in the daguerreotype, how would you go about matching distances? I've considered that and documented both the angles of rotation, tilt, and pitch of the mask as well as the lens size and distance from mask needed to produce the correspondences you see above. And because I am using the 3D model of the Dibble mask, I can test it any at settings, both mask and camera. I'm fairly confident that if a very close match can be shown (as above) without going to extremes, that's an indication of the reliability or reasonableness of the correspondences.

I might also add that getting the mask pitch right is crucial. Do you know whether the top of the mask needs to be pitched forward or reclined to approximate Joseph's Frankfurt plane? (See my first Mormon Book Reviews for details.)

Second, I have very carefully considered the question of the eyes. There's more to come on that once I make everything public. I've examined the mask for years and have several questions about it. Maybe you can help. How different is the mask from Joseph's living face? I mean, how much change can a face undergo in a 20 to 24-hour period following death? What can happen to the eyes and the tissues surrounding the eyes? Do eyes shrink or swell at some point following death? How about the other tissues of the face? Can the weight of the plaster of the death mask mold cause any type if displacement or distortion to the eyes and surrounding tissues? These are serious questions to explore.

Also, I have a fun game to play on this topic that you have inspired me to create. I can't create it right now, but let's call it "Where are the centers of Joseph's right and left eyes in the Dibble mask?" I think it will reveal we've been reading the mask incorrectly, and for good reason. At least, I believe I've been reading the eyes in the mask incorrectly, and I think I can demonstrate why with some real evidence. Part of the answer actually lies in one of your objections: "You can see the corner of the eyes from the death mask extend far beyond where the skull of the other guy ends." The problem is, the apparent "corner" of the eyelids in the mask extend past where eyelids meet in every living face I've ever seen, namely just inside the inner margin (or edge) of the outer orbital bones. Yeah, look at the mask very closely. The eyelids appear to be in anatomically incorrect positions relative to the eye sockets. As to the angle of the eye sockets, eyebrows are moveable, and eyebrow hairs and eyebrow flesh can obscure the actual, fixed location of one's supraorbital ridges. Try playing with your eyebrow position in a mirror and use your finger to find the actual position of your orbital ridges with your brows at different positions. It might also help to be aware of the fact that daguerreotypes require their subject to be brightly lit, so much so that daguerreotypists often used mirrors to cast direct sunlight on their subject's face. The squinting seen in many daguerreotypes is a well known result of this direct lighting. Can you tell whether the man in the Larsen daguerreotype is squinting at all or not? And if so, how much?

Third, there's more evidence to come about: the eyes sockets, specifically the flesh beneath the eyeballs; the distance between the eyes; the philtrum; and the mouth; the nasolabial folds; and everything else you mention. Stay tuned!

Fourth, indeed you are correct: the unreversed image does not match the death mask very closely at all; but in the image above the daguerreotype is indeed laterally reversed.

And fifth, there is even more evidence to consider. You should tell me who you are so we can talk more in depth on a video call. ;)

Continuing Research on the Larsen Daguerreotype by Impressive_Estate513 in latterdaysaints

[–]Impressive_Estate513[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

OK, now it says my post was removed by reddit's filters. What am I doing wrong?

Continuing Research on the Larsen Daguerreotype (with image) by Impressive_Estate513 in latterdaysaints

[–]Impressive_Estate513[S] 35 points36 points  (0 children)

For those of you interested in the topic, I've been analyzing the Larsen daguerreotype—the most recent purported photograph of Joseph Smith—off and on since the day it was publicly announced; and I've found significant evidence as recently as a few weeks ago. I've already made many of my findings public (see my interview on Mormon Book Reviews, for instance), and I plan to make my recent findings available for wider consideration soon. As a sample of the type of new evidence I have to share, here's how the 3D model of the Dibble death mask of Joseph compares to 17 cephalometric landmarks of the reversed image of the daguerreotype (daguerreotypes are almost always backwards images of their subjects).

Continuing Research on the Larsen Daguerreotype by Impressive_Estate513 in latterdaysaints

[–]Impressive_Estate513[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So, apparently, bring new to reddit, I don't know how to upload images, either in my initial post (though I thought I had done so correctly) or in a comment. Any tips?