olds
Interesting, but
Thu Oct 27, 12:00

if even these folks can't get Doc's photo right, perhaps at this point we just need to accept that the Escapule image is the one that the vox populi is bound to associate with him. Not that Escapule wasn't a rakish looking guy and everything, but it's that damn imperial. Is there any proof positive that Doc ever wore one (save in the movies)? Don't believe that there is.

It's especially annoying to those of us who care about such things since the most historically authentic photo of the adult Doc, the one on the cover of Gary's bio as well as on the hard cover edition of "Bucking the Tiger," was taken right there in Prescott (I believe in 1879, but I could be wrong about that).

You can research the facts until you are blue in the face and publish those facts far and wide, but in the end, there's just no fighting pop mythology, is there? Once certain ideas and images take hold and become embedded in the public imagination--and there can be all manner of reasons for that happening--you can forget about convincing "the folks" of the facts of the matter.

Provenance? What's that? And who cares? The experts and aficionados may know better, but everyone else--and everyone else is 99.9% of the world--continues blithely on perfectly content to accept fiction for fact and that what is wrong is right. (Needless to say, this principle can be applied to any number of contemporary concerns and subjects beyond the identification of historical photos.)

Thus endeth the (gratuitously peevish) rant, for which I humbly apologize.

  • Doc Holliday in Prescott ArizonaB.J., Wed Oct 26 14:59
    https://youtu.be/QIvR4MbOFi8
    • Interesting, but — olds, Thu Oct 27 12:00
      • Re: Interesting, butB.J., Fri Oct 28 2:41
        Good observation Olds. It amazes me how pictures can be misidentified. What gets me is that picture of two-moons is now being claimed to be crazy horse. A gullible public buys into that syndrome also.