Pseudonymous Posts

Search form

(1) The first thing that you and others touting this photo as depicting Dickinson should do is become familiar with the effects of conformation bias. Confirmation bias changes cognitive perception. It seems to me that this is having a significant effect here. I would refer you to a presentation by facial comparison expert Dr. Tim Valentine, Confirmation Bias in Biometric and Forensic Identification, T. Valentine, Goldsmiths University of London, 2010.

(2) Study the subject of facial comparison analysis. A good starting point is Forensic Art and Illustration, Karen T. Taylor, CRC Press, 2000. In particular see chapters 7, 8 and 9.

(3) Engage a working professional forensic facial comparison analyst. I would suggest Stephen Mancusi (former NYPD), Karen T. Taylor, or Kenneth Linge (based in the U.K.).

Dr. Pepin may have examine thousands of eyes, but you need to use a professional forensic facial comparison analyst who has compared many thousands of faces. Her written analysis is lacking in many respects. I can send you some examples of actual facial comparison analyses if you wish.

What is important here is not the similarities in the eyes found by Dr, Pepin, but the significant facial feature differences she did not address. The differences would be considered significant by a forensic professional. I really think what you are doing here has gone off the tracks.

Note that I am not a professional facial comparison analyst. I am at best a serious amateur having identified at least for few thousand faces in nineteenth century and early twentieth century historical baseball photos for the Society of American Baseball Research, Library of Congress, National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum, and major auction houses. A quickly written “poor man’s” analysis of Dickinson vs. the photo in question can be found at:

http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss259/bmarlowe1/Dickinsoncompariso.jpg

That said, you should hire the right kind of professional.

Lastly, please note that the type of face to face “morphing” in the videos produced by Tom Tamm is not allowed to be presented as evidence in many courts because it is now well-known that these often produce a false sense of similarity in the perception of many viewers.

Folks might not be understanding all of what Dr. Pepin was saying. It is a lot of measurements. But is not explained better, in that the dags of 1847 and 1859 both show that in the right eye, the cornea appears flat from 2 o'clock to 5 o'clock. It does not show a round one. That was the obvious physical evidence, and what Dr. Pepin did after was take the measurements a lot furthther. Her written analysis is not realy lacking at all. She saw the very obvious physical match of a defective shaped cornea (astymatism)., and then did many other measures to aid in confirmation. Emily's eye problem was well documented and many have commented (decades before now) that there was an eye deformity easily seen in the 1847. It matches 1859.

I think you are wrong in stating that the type of "morphing" would not be allowed in court. Because there was no "morph". The forensic people you desire would have fun opinions, but I bet they would diverge widely. We actually spoke with a major forensic researcher, at a major institution in Washington DC. He said he could "morph" anything you want. He thought all the facial features were good, but to take the aging process from 1847 to 1859 would be purely a SUBJECTIVE analysis. It would not be OBJECTIVE. You could take the 1847 image to ten different forensic types and ask to show what they think, of an age progression over 15 years. What woudld she look like. Each one would be different in what they come up with. Because they are aging her up on what they think......subjectively....she would look like 10-15 years hence. However, what was done here was nothing like that. There was no "subjective" guess on the aging process. There was no real "morph" per se. One factual face was laid over another, and slowly an opacity filter faded one photo layer away, down to the next. No guess work. No "morphing. Nothing subjective. We objectively laid one onto another. they match.

It might not have been explained well, but your "control" sample of the 1847 Emily isn't what you think, evidence wise.. You can only take that as a "guideline", not hard FACT, as you do.... because the "fact" is that not a single person in Emily's family said the 1847 dag looked anything like her! That is a fact. Emily was documented as very ill during much of that year. So much so she was removed from school. So, she is sickly, gaunt and pale. Second, if you look at the lighting of the two dags. 1859 is an overhead light, the 1847 is more of a side light. There was no electricity in 1847 or 1859. The effect is in the 1847, is that a side to side lighting will create a shadow right to left and it can make a feature, such as a nose look wider, because of shadows.

Next? In the mid 1840's most daguerreians were using basic lenses. It wasn't until the later 1840's that new lenses, called Petzval, came out. A Petzval lens had several pieces of curved glass, compared to earlier lenses with a single piece. What happens with earlier lenses is that they focus best to one plane, but get outside that focal plane, and they "distort" features. And the features that are most likely to "distort" in these dags are the hands, nose, ears etc.... What happens is they become distended looking or distorted. The 1847 dag shows good evidence of this. Look down at her hands. One hand is very distended, in particular the thumb. The thumb is as long as the index finger. That's your clue that other areas of the image could be distiorted as well. Lke the nose, which is already shadowed. Remember, the whole Dickinson family said the 1847 dag looked nothing like her, features wise... but it is Emily in 1847.

Lastly, you can't take the 1847 dag as "fact".. (only a guideline). In the mid 1970's Amherst College sent the 1847 Emily to the George Eastman House in Rochester NY for preservation. there was a many page report done on her condition. What they found was that in a poor attempt to conserve, many years before, the dag was dipped in harsh chemicals, and then it was wiped. The surface f a dag is so delicate, if you brought a butterfly's wing across it, it would scratch it badly. So when they used harsh, bad, chemicals to remove tarnish, what they did was REMOVE some of the image...and then afer that they WIPED the plate off.. The Eastman house noted all this - as well as other corrosion. So when you look at the lips and say "no", I see a very good match. Because the lips in 1847 aren't right. They aren't normal looking. Besides the fact that the lighting is different and she was ill, gaunt and sicly......a primitive lens may distort...and a harsh chjemical removes some of the image..then the wiping, then the corrosion.

So if you want to ballyhoo things like "evidence in court? First evidence. The Dickinson family agreed the 1847 is Emily, but they stated the features in it looked nothing like her. So how can you "diss" her own family, and you then state that 1847 is Emily's exact feature? Next evidence is lighting difference, then how sickly & gaunt she was documented to be in 1847. Then next evidence is a distorted thumb feaure in 1847 Emily, which is evidence of a primitive lens that distorted other features possibly. Last evidence, for your court, is the Gerge Eastman House report stating that harsh (image removing) chemicals were used. Image particles and clarity are removed permenantly by them. Then the dag was wiped.

So keep a bit more of an open mind. You cannot use 1847 Emily as cold hard fact. Because she isn't. Use 1847 as a guidelne. And use objectives viewing, and not subjective. The comparison of 1847 to 1859 was not "morphed". It is an opacity overlay. And forensic "aging morphs" are a subjective thing that each foprensic person will have a different outcome....or morph. We think the fact of one face fading to another is stronger.

Thanks for the comments :)... Make a lively discussion!

bmarlowe, Your comments are well noted, and perhaps need a bit more information. Sorry if I repeat, but it's an imprtant detail. In the early 1890's, after Emily was published there wasa mad scramble by the Dickinson family to show an image of her. Emily's brother, Austin, wrote in a letter that he thought the 1847 daguerreotype looked nothing like, as she really was. The rest of the family agreed. So they then got an artist to do the known "frou frou" drawing of her. Austin said he didn't think that was Emily either. The image Austin chose to use of Emily was the one from when she was a young girl, in the painting by Bullard, of the three of them. That was Austin's choice. Now, if you look at what Austin saw in that image, you see in all the three siblings...no evidence that Emily had a wide spread, almost ethnic "nose". Nor do you see evidence of the large and "pouted out" lips. You see normal lips and nose. In all of them. Botox for pouty lips wasn't invented then :). It doesn't fit that both Emily's brother and sister, Lavinia, have normal shaped noses and lips, while Emily was totally different (in 1847 image). I think this is why the family so disliked the 1847 image. The "features" just were not her. And in the Bullard painting of Emily, he also captured the slight cleft in her chin, and a slight uptick cowlick of her hairline in her upper left side.

So to continue along the FAMILY comparison. I actually think the most remarkable "opacity overlay" is the one of Emily into her sister Lavinia. The familial resemblance is more that striking. They blend in perfectly as sisters. No widespread nose, no pouted out lips.

As to the forensic notion. As I stated, a top notch one in Washington was consulted. But the issue came up in that the "control" image of 1847 had significant issues, because of the condition. Again, that image has had both bad chemicals and wiping, which removed portions of the image itself..And we believe there was lens distortion (see her thumb). Basically he said that the similarities were there. But a forensic 15 year age progression could be done anyway you like. If a forensic person is "pro" match, he could morph the 15 year age progression to show it. if a person is "con", they too can do a progression aging where it won't work. So who would one believe? The "pro", or the "con"? So if you talk of "courts", I am sure that some will morph "yes", others will morph "no". Who is right? Each forensic person will "age progress", as they THINK she would.. None would know for sure. It is a worthy, but inexact science. So we didn't progress too much further along those lines, because it was obvious that we would get some that say "yeah" and others that say "nay". So what was done was to not take a "subjective" line, but only the "objective" line of the actual faces laid onto one another.

So know that 1847 Emily has significant physical issues. Use that as a guideline only. The family very much disliked that image. And please have another careful view of the video of Emily into her sister Lavinia. It is a dead on... sister, familial match, imo.

Thanks!

These kinds of discussions are exactly what we want to see regarding the new photograph. Our first post about this also announces the Dickinson Electronic Archives 2 :

***This Dickinson Electronic Archives 2 exhibition is a scholarly environment showcasing the possibility of interdisciplinary and collaborative research and exploring the potential of the digital environment to reveal new interpretive material, cultural, historical, and theoretical contexts. In doing so, the DEA2 opens a space of knowledge exchange for a networked world of scholars, students, and readers. Dickinson’s readers can contribute to this exhibition on the new daguerreotype in the discussion forum and are welcome to submit essays to accompany the essays by and reports on the work of the early principal investigators, essays by Dickinson scholars, and by scholars beyond the world of Dickinson.***

As far as identification, the eyes really are the most important point of comparison, and Dr. Pepin's tests and evaluations have been thoroughly vetted and are more reliable than the "facial comparisons" you pose. The experts you recommend have not done such careful analyses on the new daguerreotype, though we would happily vet their input if you could supply that, bmarlowe, and then would post it if appropriate.

What's important here are the questions that prompted this Discussion Forum, but that no one seems to be addressing so far: If this indeed is a new picture of Emily Dickinson, then imagine if this image had presided over her gaining so much in stature that she is a major American poet, and arguably the most widely admired woman poet writing in English. Perhaps she is even the most widely admired American poet (she is certainly one of a handful of those frequently and widely accorded the plaudit "the best"). If we have a new image of the powerful poet, "What might our literary history look like? What difference does it make when the visage of a cultural icon changes so radically?"

That's what we are very curious about. How might your notions about Emily Dickinson change when the image of her presiding over her stunning body of work is that of a woman rather than of a teenager?

We are looking forward to a forum on clothes and "Emily Dickinson's" dress (thank you Mary Maillard).

All evidence we post needs to have been thoroughly vetted, as has that offered by Dr. Pepin. All serious, thoughtful responses are welcome.

In Possibility,
Martha Nell Smith

Sam – thanks for taking the time for a thoughtful response. One problem I see is that we are talking past each other. I will try to explain things in a way that takes this in the direction of fruitful rational argument.

(A) Facial comparison from images is a subject supported by scholarship. It is taught at universities as well as by the FBI at Quantico, Va. There is a body of knowledge here to be mastered. My impression from what you wrote is that you are not familiar with this subject. Familiarity with the medium on which the image appears is of course also important, be it video, modern photographic processes, or 19thC photographic processes. However, and expert in. say, 19thC photographic processes is not necessarily an expert in facial comparison – in fact that would be uncommon.

(B) Methodology is often divided into two types

1 -Holistic facial comparison – this the simply the subjective impression one gets when comparing two faces, i.e. do they “look alike?” It is primarily a cognitive reaction centered in a particular part of the brain. It is very much prone to the influence of confirmation bias and can be very unreliable. It is not recommended for a serious facial comparison (such as the one in question here).

2- Morphological facial comparison – this is the much more objective (or much less subjective if you prefer) comparison of isolated facial features. This is the preferred method of comparison. We could get into a philosophical argument as to the difference between subjective and objective, but I will address it this way. The presence of a mid-chin mentolabial groove in the Dickinson dag is objective. The lack of this feature in the photo in question is also objective. The same could be said for the nostril spacing difference measurably apparent in the two images. The difference in the shapes of the tip of the nose in the two images could be argued to be a combination of both objectivity and subjectivity as it requires some aptitude in interpreting how a three-dimensional object with some depth (a nose tip)should appear in a two-dimensional photo (though in my view in this case this is also primarily objective).

(C) Age progression

My comments on aging were misunderstood. The facial features I selected for comparison were selected because they were highly unlikely to be affected by aging over the time span of the two photos. In any case, the chin groove would get deeper, not disappear. Nose tips can get more bulbous in old age, not narrower. Hence, differing age progression interpretations by different facial comparison experts would not likely be at play here. While one can never predict what a human being might say, I would expect nearly all forensic facial comparison experts would point out the same differences I pointed out (and probably find more).

(D) You said “they match”

In fact they don’t. If the images are correctly scaled for comparison (as I did in my analysis), the mouth in the photo in question is too high and the nostrils are too close together. If we adjust the images so that the iris (or pupil) to mouth distances match, then the nose lengths don’t match. This is objectively telling us that we have two different people depicted.

(E) Photo distortion

I find your argument here to be quite inconsistent. It is true that one has to be aware of the possibility of lens or perspective distortion in photos (especially in close-ups), and have some aptitude or training on interpreting the effects of lighting in photos. It is also possible that surface damage can change what we see. Yet in spite of your claims that the dag suffers from all this, you argue that Dr. Pepin was somehow able to do precise sub-millimeter measurements of the irises and discern astigmatism in both photos while you maintain that the differences that I pointed out are the result of some type of distortion that only affects them, but not the parts of the face Dr. Pepin addressed.

Furthermore, I cannot imagine how you can overlay the images and say they match while at the same time pointing out how distorted the earlier image is. If the images match and one is so distorted, that means in life they did not match – right?

I maintain that the specific differences I pointed out are not the result of lens or perspective distortion nor of surface damage. If you disagree, I would like to see a detailed specific explanation of how any of those agents are causing what we see. For example, please explain how lens distortion or surface damage caused the appearance of a mentolabial groove in the earlier image; please post a hi-res of her chin to support this.

I have heard this type of argument before and I will further challenge you in this manner. There are many online accessible images of famous 19thC people – both dags and later processes (Lincoln, Grant, Custer, Poe, etc.). Also, that are many dags of the not-so-famous accessible online at the Library of Congress website, and for many there are multiple shots of the same person. So, see if you can find a pair of such images that depict the same person while exhibiting facial feature differences anything like what we see for the photos in question here. I maintain that you won’t find it.

(F) You said, “We actually spoke with a major forensic researcher …. As I stated, a top notch one in Washington was consulted…Basically he said that the similarities were there.”

My guess is you spoke to a photo expert. I very much doubt that this person was a forensic facial comparison expert. Such an expert would write a report at least as detailed as the one I wrote.

(G) Morphing versus opacity adjustment

I actually had to check on this and I am told that for either, some courts will not allow it. The reason is as I stated, it results in a false sense of similarity in the perception of some viewers. This effect is evident here – you were not able to perceive that the mouths and nostrils in fact do not align when you view the video.

(H) As to what the family said, I am not dissing them. Their observations were almost certainly holistic – 1847 Emily did not subjectively “look like” their Emily. This has no bearing on the morphological analysis.

Submitted by sam carlo on Sun, 09/30/2012 - 21:44

Better to just call it a day. Opinions by all seem firm :). But a few points...Dr. Pepin did mention that because of the physical issues in the 1847 image, the measures weren't as exacting as she could wish....in comparison to the better condition 1859. It's why she did so many other measures to see. you did not read her carefully.

As to this? Well, you show your negative bias by it:

"You said, “We actually spoke with a major forensic researcher …. As I stated, a top notch one in Washington was consulted…Basically he said that the similarities were there...

You reply, "My guess is you spoke to a photo expert. I very much doubt that this person was a forensic facial comparison expert."

I don't lie. We did not talk to a highly qualified forensic expert. He said what he said. They were not . as you say, photo experts....but forensic pathologists. believe what you wish.

I have requested, without success........to have some other things put up that would help, image wise. Maybe later?

and this?? You:

Uhh, I am looking at the painting of Emily and I am also looking at the 1859dag right now.. It is very clear that there is a groove, or slight cleft, in > images! I don't know what you are looking at.

But what the heck..enough. You're welcome to chime in, and welcome aboard!

You said, "It doesn't fit that both Emily's brother and sister, Lavinia, have normal shaped noses and lips, while Emily was totally different (in 1847 image).'

This is of course wrong. It is not uncommon for siblings to have very differing facial features - including lips and noses, and there is no foundation in genetics for your assertion.

You said, "Uhh, I am looking at the painting of Emily and I am also looking at the 1859dag right now.. It is very clear that there is a groove, or slight cleft, in << BOTH >> images! I don't know what you are looking at"

I am not talking about a chin cleft, I am referring to the mentolabial groove in the 1847 dag (photo 2) clearly denoted by the blue arrow in my analysis.

you said, "One hand is very distended, in particular the thumb. The thumb is as long as the index finger. That's your clue that other areas of the image could be distiorted as well."

Your are misinterpreting what you are seeing. The whole index finger is not visible. Only the first section of the index finger can be seen (AKA the proximal phalanx). The two upper sections – the middle phalanx and the distal phalanx cannot be seen. Hence the length of the thumb as it appears in the image is fairly normal.

Hello "bmarlowe" -- while you give us many details, some relevant, most highly speculative, you've given us nothing that we can vet. Are you saying that you had these two daguerreotype images for quite some time? If so, and if you have actually had time to study them thoroughly, could you point to the experts and their (or your) report so that we can vet them/it?

And the questions that prompted these discussions still remain unanswered--If we have a new image of the powerful poet Emily Dickinson, "What might our literary history look like? What difference does it make when the visage of a cultural icon changes so radically?"
--Martha Nell Smith

Thanks for welcoming all viewpoints.

The only thing I have said that I think is speculative is what a professional forensic facial comparison expert (not opthamologists, forensic pathologists, or photo experts) might conclude. Please point me to what else you think I said that is speculative.

I have given you something you can vet - you would need the right kind of professional to do so. In my first post I said, "Engage a working professional forensic facial comparison analyst. I would suggest Stephen Mancusi (former NYPD), Karen T. Taylor, or Kenneth Linge (based in the U.K.)." If you would more detailed contact info, I can let me know and I can email you offline. Note that these people do not work for free.

I ran across this story a few weeks ago. The analysis I provided a link to was based on the best scans I could find online. Hi-res scans would be better. I did the best I could with what I had. I don't think this is a particularly close case.

As to the potential literary implications, I leave that to others. I will stick to what I know.

Just to be clear - photo experts can provide substantial useful information here, but they are not usually facial comparison experts.

Hello bmarlowe,

That you are asserting facial comparisons are "much more objective" that eye comparison, etc, is speculative. Scholarship uses eye comparisons and experts differ on what counts as more or much more objective. Also, that the experts you name are the best ones to be consulted is speculative. If you wish to send me their contact information via email, please do so. We have started an initial vetting of the experts you name, as we have done with everything that appears on this site..

This last comparison of yours regarding photographs of Kate Scott Turner Anthon is very problematic, and in ways that help us make clear how careful Dr. Pepin's study and measurements are. First, you've taken web images from the New York State Historical Association and from Amherst College Special Collections and compared them without accounting for lighting, probable distance from camera, and other important details. The NYSHA image of Kate Scott Turner Anthon is really not focused well enough to make any credible detailed comparison. Also, when you compare the Amherst College Special Collections image of Kate Anthon to the 1859 image, you once again do not try and account for crucial details--that the ASC image is mired in shadow, for one thing.

Dr. Pepin was very careful, working slowly and methodically to produce her valid comparisons, which account for aging, as you know. Within 24 hours, we're adding to our exhibition so that readers might better understand how shadows affect viewing.

The quick conclusions you have drawn are examples of exactly why we have worked very slowly with this new image, and have worked hard to account for myriad variables.

Again, if you have an essay you would like to submit, we are happy to consider it but of course it will go through the regular scholarly vetting process.

Thank you for your interest in the possible new photograph of Emily Dickinson and, we hope, in her wonderful writings and life.
--Martha Nell Smith

Submitted by bmarlowe on Sun, 10/07/2012 - 22:25

Martha - Sorry this is long, but with all due respect my sense of things from your responses is that some education would be helpful here. If this post is too long and you would prefer this be put in essay form with only a link provided in this forum, I would be happy to oblige. I hope you will take the time to read this carefully and feel free to ask questions. I will provide expert contact info to you via email (please email me your email address – you should have mine from the forum registration.)

>> That you are asserting facial comparisons are "much more objective" than eye comparison, etc, is speculative.

I never said anything like that. In any case, eye comparison is an important component of morphological facial comparison, but is not alone enough to establish identity from an ordinary photograph (discussed below).

>> Scholarship uses eye comparisons and experts differ on what counts as more or much more objective.

If you are saying that scholarship shows that eye comparison from ordinary photographs is sufficient to establish with high likelihood that two images depict the same person, I would say that you are wrong. Please cite references. Let me elaborate and cite references in support of what I am asserting.

Holistic facial comparison (call it HFC) simply means deciding whether two faces subjectively “look alike” or resemble each other. It is well-known that it can produce very unreliable results [1,2,3,4,5]. Neither I nor Dr. Pepin have made a presentation based on HFC, but the problems with subjective resemblance always need to be pointed out. HFC is particularly vulnerable to the influence of confirmation bias[6]. This is very commonly seen with respect to collectors of nineteenth century photos who are hoping for the “great find.”[11]

While experts may differ on what is more or less objective, the preferred method of facial comparison is known as morphological facial comparison[1,7,8,9,10] (we’ll use MFC for short). It is at least less subjective than HFC. MFC is the comparison of individual facial features taken in isolation. Subjective resemblance between the faces being compared is not a factor. MFC includes comparison of eyes, but is also includes a set of other key features and their relative locations. What can be compared of course is of course limited by what can be discerned in the available images, but the non-exclusive list includes[1]:
Face shape
Forehead
Eyes
Ears
Cheek area
Nose
Mouth
Mouth area
Jawline
Chin
Scars and blemishes

The reason for listing all these items is that conclusions that two images likely depict the same person are not reached based on the similarity (objectively measured or otherwise) of a particular feature (such as eyes). While particular similarities may be pointed out in an MFC based analysis of two faces, if there are also significant differences, then the rational conclusion is that the images depict two different persons. The similarities do not trump the significant differences. That is simply because practice tells us that it is common for two different persons to have some very similar features.

>> Also, that the experts you name are the best ones to be consulted is speculative.
What is not speculative is that these are the kind of experts consulted in serious law enforcement and intelligence matters. Has Dr. Pepin ever testified in court or consulted with any law enforcement or intelligence agency as to who is depicted in an image?

In some cases the facial comparison expert may consult with photo and/or medical experts. (I know of one facial comparison expert who is also a photo expert). They can add useful information. However, I haven’t seen a case where a final conclusion of positive identity came from the latter type of expert. Perhaps you can find one.

>> First, you've taken web images … without accounting for lighting, probable distance from camera, and other important details…. The NYSHA image of Kate Scott Turner Anthon is really not focused well enough to make any credible detailed comparison…. that the ASC image is mired in shadow..

The features compared were selected based on what can clearly be seen in all the images. One can clearly see the where the eyes are, where the base of the nose is, where the mouth is, the location of the distinct horizontal (mentolabial) chin groove, and where the bottom the chin is. These are all easily discernable even in the fuzzy NYSHA image. That is why I selected those features for comparison. See:

http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss259/bmarlowe1/turnercomparison2_Pag...

Are you really not able to discern these features?

>> …compared them without accounting for lighting, probable distance from camera, and other important details.

What is remarkable is that for the three photos known to be Kate, as can be seen in the above link, the features I refer to align extremely well. This in spite of the differing lighting and possible differing lens to subject distances you mention. It is only the face in the photo in question that has features that do not align as would be expected if that person was Kate. The difference is large and easily seen. Kate had a much larger more masculine jaw-line and a lower mentolabial groove. See:

http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss259/bmarlowe1/turnercomparison2_Pag...

If you are claiming that perspective distortion is the cause of the misalignment, note that this could in general be a problem with either a very tight close-up or a wide angle lens. We know the photo in question is not a close-up nor does it appear to involve a wide-angle lens. In any case, I don’t see how perspective distortion would allow the eyes, nose and mouth to align while only affecting the chin. If you believe otherwise, please provide a technical explanation.

The other potential problem is lens distortion. Are you asserting barrel distortion? pincushion distortion? or what? In either case, I again don’t see how this would cause the alignment we see in this case. Please explain with particularity if this is what you are asserting.

As for lighting, are you asserting that this has somehow caused the bottom of the chin of the woman in question to appear ½ inch higher than it really was? Exactly how would that happen?

>> The quick conclusions you have drawn are examples of exactly why we have worked very slowly with this new image, and have worked hard to account for myriad variables.

Morphological facial comparison should typically take 2 hours or less [1, page 5], though documentation may take longer. Taking a very long time is not a substitute for knowing how to execute MFC.

Lastly, let me address one more item. There apparently has been some effort at Amherst to match the dress worn by the lady claimed to be Dickinson in the daguerreotype in question to a surviving swatch of cloth attributed to Dickinson. This cloth has a white check pattern over a blue background. In the daguerreotype in question, the dress has a very dark background. See:

https://www.amherst.edu/library/archives/holdings/edickinson/new_daguerr...

It is well known that the emulsions used for daguerreotypes were highly blue sensitive [11]. That means that blue objects appear to be very light (not dark) in daguerreotypes. This is most often seen in dags of people that had deep blue irises. In such a dag the person’s irises appear as very bright white. Hence it seems unlikely that the swatch of cloth matches the dress seen in the dag.

References

[1] Guidelines for Facial Comparison Methods, Draft, Facial Identification Scientific Working Group , May 5, 2011
[2] Verification of Face Identities from Images Captured on Video, V. Bruce, Z Henderson, K. Greenwood. P Hancock, R. Kemp, A. Burton, P. Miller, J. Exp. Psychology: Appl. 5, 339-360, 1999
[3] Limitations in Facial Identification: The Evidence, R. Jenkins, A. Burton, Dept. of Psychology, Univ. of Glasgow, U.K. 2008
[4] When Seeing Should Not Be Believing: Photographs, Credit 360 Cards and Fraud , R. Kemp, N. Towel, G. Pike, Appl. Cognitive Phsychology 11, 211-222, 1997.
[5] Are Facial Image Analysis Experts Any Better Than the General Public at Identifying Individuals from CCTV Images?, C. Wilkinson, R. Evans, Forensic Science Society, Elsevier, 2008
[6] Confirmation Bias in Biometric and Forensic Identification, T. Valentine, Goldsmiths University of London, 2010
[7] Training Guidelines - Recommendations, Facial Identification Scientific Working Group , Nov. 18, 2010
[8] Forensic Face Recognition – A Survey, T. Ali, R. Veldhuis, L. Spreeuwers , Signals and Systems Group, FEMCS, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
[9] Forensic Art and Illustration, Karen T. Taylor, CRC Press, 2000
[10] Forensic Art Essentials - A Manual for Law Enforcement, Lois Gibson, Academic Press, 2007
[11] For this I cite expensive personal experience consulting for collectors of 19thC photos
[12] The Daguerreotype – Nineteenth Century Technology and Modern Science, M Barger, W. White, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991, pp. 30, 58, 84, 110

above, "It is well known that the emulsions used for daguerreotypes were highly blue sensitive [11]"

should read

It is well known that the emulsions used for daguerreotypes were highly blue sensitive [12]

bmarlowe -- I've read your comment carefully and checked out some of your sources. While I appreciate you offering citations, simply adding footnotes does not necessarily indicate objectivity. In brief, I am not persuaded by your disputations. But as I said, if you wish to submit an essay, we would be happy to consider it for publication. As I wrote before, and as an opening paragraph of this exhibition declares, "the DEA2 opens a space of knowledge exchange for a networked world of scholars, students, and readers. Dickinson’s readers can contribute to this exhibition on the new daguerreotype in the discussion forum and are welcome to submit essays to accompany the essays by and reports on the work of the early principal investigators, essays by Dickinson scholars, and by scholars beyond the world of Dickinson."

You claim to have done in a few weeks more careful examinations of images and clothing types than have those who have worked with these materials for years. How in the world could you get the kind of measurements Dr. Pepin did with just the scans available to you? Her measurements were exacting, done in a very particular way, and depended on her expertise as an ophthalmologist. It's clear that the scans with which you are working are not clear enough for you to make the assertions that you do about the dress. So there's no way they are clear enough for you to make as precise measurements of the eyes as did Dr. Pepin.

So I am not persuaded by your supposed fault-finding. That said, you are welcome to voice your attitude about the new image here in the discussion forum.
--Martha Nell Smith

I have no doubt that you are a brilliant and respected English professor, but I have to say with all due respect that your response was inapposite. It seems to me that you did not understand nor, for the most part, respond to what was presented.

Your comment about the dress does not make sense. The available scan clearly shows light outlined squares over a dark background. The dark background tells us that the dress was not likely blue (ask an expert on 19thC photographic processes). Are you saying that in higher resolution the background is not dark? I can assure you that it is dark.

In any case, I may submit an essay, but you would be far better served if you employ a forensic facial comparison expert.

bmarlowe -- I've spent quite a bit of time researching this image, and I will state again that the resolutions of the images on which you are doing your comparisons, etc, are not high enough for you to assert some of the things that you do. I hope you are comfortable with differences of opinion or will become so. What I'm most interested in is how the mere suggestion that this image of a woman, rather than the well known one of a teenager, might be Emily Dickinson influences perceptions, readings, and so forth. But I've said this already in the essay I'm developing on this site.
--Martha Nell Smith

>> I've spent quite a bit of time researching this image, and I will state again that the resolutions of the images on which you are doing your comparisons, etc, are not high enough for you to assert some of the things that you do

You have no background nor experience nor any references that you can cite to support that statement. I'll end my participation here by providing links to four professional forensic facial comparison reports (click on the link, then when you get there hit the download button just above the top right of the document image):

https://www.box.com/s/r71sa62xyzzphtmalfqy

https://www.box.com/s/al0i45vggnvwez3ylb0f

https://www.box.com/s/3317jakisnccs56zlg98

https://www.box.com/s/oc9sxy36b8f7v0k9g82o

Note that some of the images used are of inferior quality and lesser resolution than the scans I used in my comparisons, yet significant features could still be reliably discerned and compared. These reports could fairly be described as written in an "instant" compared to the years apparently spent obsessing over the "Dickinson" image by people who don't know what they don't know. Bye.

bmarlowe, I'm not really certain why you are feeling the way that you are and going ad hominem (well, I guess in this case it's ad feminam), but with all due respect, you really don't know what my background regarding this new image and study of it is, with whom I've consulted, and what I've discovered about forensic facial comparison.
--Martha Nell Smith

My remarks were never intended to be personal ( nor sexist as is evident in that women were included in both the list of forensic professionals I supplied and were among the authors of the forensic reports for which I provided links) Lack of expertise is a fair subject for debate.

Virtually everything you said in this forum with respect to facial comparison in images is contrary to published literature on this subject. Hence my statements with respect to your expertise are well supported.

The subject line says it all, bmarlowe. You have a particular bias, which is fine. And you have gotten personal several times in this thread--about Amherst scholars, for example. I want this discussion board to be civil and open and not one where false (out of ignorance) accusations are hurled. There are different perspectives, you know, different principled, informed perspectives about forensic facial comparisons. Different views are more than welcome (and by all of us), but scorn and lack of openness won't get us very far.
--Martha Nell Smith

Several smart people have figure out how to contact me by email. I appreciate their comments on this issue and in case there is anyone else you can use:

bmarlowe@comcast.net

In order to maintain the integrity of our discussions, we are asking everyone to post using his or her actual name. And yes, bmarlowe, a couple of weeks ago we found numerous references to Mark Fimoff, bmarlowe@comcast.net. A simple search pulls that up--'tis not at all difficult. 'twd be great if you would use your real name in future posts (if it's not Mark Fimoff, then whatever it is).

Also, I do wish you would have read our exhibition statement a bit more carefully. For this exhibition, we are featuring a collector's find and have created forums in which the hypothesis that this photograph might be Emily Dickinson can be tested, discussed, reflected upon. We appreciate your skepticism but not some of the personally indelicate remarks about Amherst researchers.

As I have said repeatedly, my primary interest is in what difference it might make if the icon Emily Dickinson is imagined not as a teenager, but as a woman. If you know my work, you know that I've been interested in this biography-reception-textual reproduction question for more than 20 years--questions about biography and the dynamic relations with reading, interpretation, editorial judgments have been featured in my work since my first book (really since my dissertation). Over the past three years of study, I've learned once again that highly principled researchers, some of whom are using almost identical methods, can come to very different conclusions looking at the same evidence and using similar evaluative tools. There is more debate than you acknowledge about professional forensic facial comparison, and confirmation biases cut many ways. This is as true in editing Dickinson's manuscripts as it is in evaluating this new picture. Confirmation bias has led critics to ignore or discount Emily Dickinson's most prolific correspondence according to the current record (with Susan Dickinson) and write articles and books about a supposed romance with Judge Otis P. Lord or some mysterious "Master," though the evidence is very weak, and it's not even clear just what the "Lord letters" are (the most recent book published about these was by John Evangelist Walsh, Rutgers UP 2011). In our next exhibition Ravished Slates, Marta Werner explores the evidence and issues, extending her critical observations in Emily Dickinson's Open Folios: Scenes of Reading, Surfaces of Writing (Michigan 1995).

So with Dickinson these matters are endlessly interesting and can teach us much about reading, interpretation, what in the words of Cathy Davidson we can see or not see because of attention blindness (Now You See It>, Viking 2011; Penquin pbk 2012; http://www.cathydavidson.com/).

Here's to building more knowledge about Emily Dickinson. There's so much more to be learned.
--Martha Nell

So - do we get to see the real name of Sam Carlo. I'll be happy to post my actual real name when he does the same. I presume he is not really ED's dog.

My comments were not personal. I do not think that the work done so far by Amherst and yourself on this photo is good and I gave very specific reasons why. The folks at Amherst are free to respond. Calling me biased is not personal?

>>"There is more debate than you acknowledge about professional forensic facial comparison...

I never said that there was no debate - the word forensics implies debate. However, this dag is not even a close call. It's also true that some (not all) forensic professionals will provide an opinion that pleases their paying client. My position is that a prominent neutral forensic professional in this field will not give you the opinion you desire - and it won't take very long.

>>"confirmation biases cut many ways"

I have no dog (named Carlo or otherwise) in this fight. If the analysis showed that this person could be ED - I would be happy to say so. I do believe that you (and probably the people at Amherst) are too heavily invested in this identification as evidenced by the nature of your responses.

>> "I've read much more than you think"

So, what exactly have you read about facial comparison analysis?

I'm happy to see that you are slowly self destructing:

"So - do we get to see the real name of Sam Carlo. I'll be happy to post my actual real name when he does the same. I presume he is not really ED's dog."

I was told that there would be a website change, in the discussion forum, to segregate those who will put their name on what they say and those that refuse. I had no problem with that. But it seems you do. For 17 years now I've worked on this. I've spoken to a forensic expert. Like I said, I can get you 10 that will say ":yes" and 10 that will say "no". I've also worked closely with Amherst and several other scholars. I have been and continue to be, in no rush. My intent has ALWAYS been that the image should go to it's home....and that is with Amherst and the 1847 Emily. Many people that wish such things have sound reason to remain "anon". I saw what happened with the earlier image with the Gura cabinet card. He went thru hell. he was getting nasty calls and emails. Why? On the other hand? You claim to have all kinds of supposed expertise, but your are unwilliung to put your name where your mouth is? If you are so confiident in your appraisal...so darned sure...then what is the big deal? Shoudl be none..except you smack of a hit and run type of person. If it comes down to it...maybe we'll get what you so demand. I have names of folks. But it possibly won't be pretty. So how would that effect you? Right now, you can post anon, with NO risk. But if you put your name down, that you are SO certain...and I prove otherwise with other respectd opinion...then you may have some egg on your face. Or maybe whever you do this stuff as a career?? I do not know who, or what you are. Nor do I really care.

I just wish for the image to rest at Amherst, with no media type focus on who found it and all that comes with that nonsense - in this age of reality TV...Antiques Roadshow etc... That is not the story I want. The story is Emily and Kate.

I have no issue posting "anon" from now on. Rules is rules. But you, as such a vociferious a dissenter should have nothing to hide...if you really believed in what you say. After all, you claim expertise, but hide it. Why do you chafe at that?

Ah, the dog barks again. Among other things, you are in dire need of an editor. Do you actually read your stuff before you post?

>>"I've spoken to a forensic expert.

That's nice. Please post your expert's report.

>>"Like I said, I can get you 10 that will say ":yes" and 10 that will say "no". "

On close cases that may be true. This is not a close case.

>>"But you, as such a vociferious a dissenter should have nothing to hide.."

And you , as such a vociferous proponent should have nothing to hide. Your name is....?

Boy, you're really losing any credibilty of which you crave . I spent several hours in Washington DC with a top PHD forensic scientist. I have no reason to lie. Martha Nell can attest I was meeting him, because I was with her over the same time I was there. I don't know how much I can drill it into you.... but the control photo is good on some features and not on others. Luckily, the eye/cornea comparison is visual and good. Lips, mouth and chin are probematic in control image 1847.. It's a good guideline, buit it is not gospel....to what Emily looked like. Her whole family said it was not a good likeness of her - and they refused to publish it. Sorry, just a fact.

I gave you logical reasons why I, as a finder, and hopeful of it resting at Amherst , wishes to be anon. That happpens ALL the time.. But others at Amherst, Martha Nell...even other scholars you have no idea of...and Dr. Pepin at Dartmouth, are willing to state their opinion - with name.. Dr. Pepin had no issue putting her name on her report. So?? if you are such an objective, balanced and thorough fellow at forensics...why do you refuse to state who you are..what qualifications you have..and who employs you to do so. Again, Dr. Pepin had no issue doing so, and I have a darn good hunch her medical background will blow your CV out of the water. .... Do I really have to show you hers? So what are you afraid of? I post not as a scientist. But if I had science, I would put my name on it. I only post what I have done for 17 years.

You, on the other hand, have reached a point of..well.....a weird fixation...lurkin...So it comes now down to this. You refuse to put your name or qualification down. You claim expertise........ you drag shots off internet. You have NOT any original scans from Amherst....not do you have a 4800 DPI scan of the 59' image. So you're not flying on the best available data.

If you post any general opinion? Fine, stay anon..great. If you are going to become a mental case and attempt to take over this whole website, as a science fellow? Then "man up" and state who you are and where you are and what you are.

You are flying by the seat of your pants with not the best scans or data or historical background.

>>"I spent several hours in Washington DC with a top PHD forensic scientist. "

Let's see his report, and your name.

Martha said, "...and confirmation biases cut many ways."

Confirmation bias is considered to be an evolutionary driven response that is essentially a single edged sword associated with false positives, not false negatives.

People are much more likely to believe an incorrect claim that something is true than they are to believe an incorrect claim that something is not true. This direction of bias in judgment is tied to the relative historical costs of both types of errors.

For example, if two people are walking in the woods and they hear some rustling of nearby leaves, one runs away and the other does not. If the rustling was caused by a saber toothed tiger, for the person who did not run, the cost of his false negative is high. If the rustling was caused by the wind, for the person who did run away, the cost of the false positive is low. He just expended a small amount of energy. Thus evolution has favored brains wired to favor false positives.

[1] Why do We Believe in God?, parts 1 and 2, Psychology Today, S. Kanazawa, March 23 and March 28, 2008
[2] Confirmation Bias – A Ubiquitous Phenomenon In Many Guises, R. S. Nickerson, Tufts University, Review of General Psychology, 1998
[3] Dissinformation: Is There a Way to Stop Popular Falsehoods from Morphing into "Facts"?, Scientific American, C. Arnold, Oct. 4, 2012
[4] Encyclopedia of Social Psychology, Error Management Theory, R. Baumeister, K.Vohs (eds.)
[5] The Evolution of Cognitive Bias, M. Haselton, M.G., Nettle, D. & Andrews, P.W. (2005). Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, (pp. 724–746). Hoboken: Wiley

>>>My intent has ALWAYS been that the image should go to its home....and that is with Amherst

If you are so hot to donate your dag to Amherst Archives, why don't you just do it? Then we can all go there and look at it. What are you (whomever you are) afraid of?

>>>I'm happy to see that you are slowly self destructing….Boy, you're really losing any credibilty of which you crave”

Judging by my email, that seems not to be the case.

>>>If you are going to become a mental case and attempt to take over this whole website….

I’m not preventing anyone else from posting. It’s not surprising that you would interpret rational argument as a mental deficiency.

I very much appreciate that you have worked closely with Dickinson institutions and scholars as well as with outside experts to develop credible evidence for the new photograph. I admire your patience and your decision to maintain anonymity. Thank you. Jonnie Guerra

Just so people know, Jonnie is president of Emily Dickinson International Society and Martha is vice president. I think that connection should be disclosed here.

Since Jonnie admires Sam Carlo's anonymity, I can only presume she equally admires mine. Thank you, Jonnie.