Where Is the Evidence? Why the Researchers Behind Brother Joseph Again Must Dismiss the Unedited Photo to Sell Their Narrative

 For the Larsen Daguerreotype to gain acceptance as an image of Joseph Smith, its proponents must first address its strongest contender. The proposed contender is the Unedited Photo of Joseph Smith, also known as the Marshall Photo.

Why? Because if they can convince people that this image is not a likeness of Joseph derived from a daguerreotype, they open the field to the possibility that the Larsen daguerreotype is.

As I see it, their dismissal follows two steps:

1. They rely on the old, established narrative that the Library of Congress image of Joseph came from a painting, despite evidence presented by multiple groups of researchers challenging that conclusion.
2. In 2009, the game changed, but they stuck to the first belief. Although the Unedited Photo of Joseph introduced new insights to the discussion, their response seems to dismiss this evidence with a variety of theories, hoping it will take root.

But where is the evidence supporting these theories?

And by the way, rejecting a competing image doesn't prove the man in the Larsen daguerreotype is Joseph Smith. It does, however, lower the bar.

Their Arguments, as I Understand Them

1. The image is too similar to the painting; therefore, it must be a photographic copy of it.

My response: It is not as similar as one might think. There are numerous differences. Even the lines and contours differ, and the photograph includes small details not seen in Joseph's Mansion painting. There is a long list of variations that need to be addressed.

Resemblance alone does not establish that the painting came first.

2. The differences were introduced afterward by altering the photographic copy.

What evidence, beyond the differences themselves, supports this explanation? And what would such a process require?

I have broken down the work that I believe this theory asks us to accept.

First, the size and the fine details.

The artist would have needed to work at a size that allowed for minute additions, including what appears to be an “S” on the cravat and the fine diagonal weave of the jacket fabric, cut perfectly on the bias.

Would an 8-by-10-inch print have been sufficient? Or would the image have needed substantial enlargement before those details could be introduced and then reduced into the photograph we see today?

If the explanation depends on a solar enlargement, how much detail would that process have preserved, and how much would have required retouching, as the images are low quality? Could the proposed method account for the fine details visible in this image?

That needs to be demonstrated rather than assumed.

Second, the marks left by the artist.

A fine brush can leave variations in a stroke, deposits of pigment, or pooling. A pencil can leave lines and surface texture. This is how we know the Library of Congress Version was altered. If you magnify this image, you can see where the paintbrush slipped. See the soft shading on the nose, but then the harsh line under the lip. No one questions whether this was retouched.

What technique would account for these additions without leaving recognizable evidence of the artist’s work in the Unedited Photo?

I am not talking about a light wash of color blended over an existing feature. I am talking about introducing new elements so faint that they require an increase in contrast to make them more visible to the human eye.

If those elements were drawn or painted in, that explanation needs to account for their appearance.

Third, the changes from dark to light.

Areas that are dark in the painting appear lighter in the photograph, while other values appear much the same. How were those selective changes achieved?

If the proposed explanation is that an artist painted directly over a photographic print, how were the darker areas lightened while retaining or introducing fine detail? Look at the irises.

Painting over a dark surface is not the same as adding a dark line to a light one. Think of painting a black wall pale gray: the covering material must sufficiently obscure what lies beneath.

What evidence of that process can be identified here? If another photographic or retouching method is proposed, that method should be specified and demonstrated.

Fourth, the reflections in the eyes.

Consider the catchlights, the small reflections of light visible in the eyes. They appear smaller and more precise in the Unedited Photo than in the painting. This is indicative of a high noonday sun. And don't get started on how a skilled artist would never paint a portrait outdoors, since the sun is constantly shifting.

Their shape and the surrounding tonal transitions deserve close examination. 

Fifth, the blur.

Why would an artist alter a copy of the painting to introduce features that appear more photographic?

In the Unedited Photo, the blur around the shoulders, hair, and hand differs notably from the painting. If those effects were deliberately added, what evidence supports that conclusion?

Sixth, the proportions.

The artist would also have needed to alter the proportions, including apparently shortening Joseph’s neck and changing the ratios.

Taken together, these are substantial changes. Look at how the hairlines and the top of the cuff line up. Even with the Unedited Photo stretched, they still do not match. Look at the eyes, chin, and the bottom V of his shirt.

This would not simply be a small undertaking with a brush on photo paper. It would require an artist to almost entirely recreate the image. 

The explanation cannot stop at “someone altered it.” Which process was used? What physical or documentary evidence supports it? And can that process account for the specific details we see?

That is the question I keep returning to: Where is the evidence?

Someone made a lifelike model of Joseph and photographed it.

I have also heard it proposed that someone might have made a lifelike model of Joseph and photographed it. I admit, I laughed. To me, this seems like a considerable stretch. But let’s give it consideration nonetheless.

How convincing would that model have needed to be? The eyes would have needed to reproduce the appearance and reflections of human eyes. Not just polished glass marbles. The skin would have needed to respond to light in a way that resembled flesh, including its gradual tonal transitions as light softly bounces off it. The eyebrows and eyelashes would have required fine detail and applied tiny hairs, and any painted surface would have needed to avoid visible signs of brushwork in the resulting photograph.

Who supposedly made this model? With what materials, at what expense, and for what purpose? Where is the evidence that it ever existed?

Please provide a more reasonable and logical theory than a Madame Tussauds–like sculpture. Those figures involve molds, extensive measurements, and painstaking work to reproduce a person’s appearance. Who supposedly undertook that work for this image, and where is the evidence that such a figure ever existed? And why wouldn’t they put such a piece of work on display? Charge tickets to see it?

This seems like an elaborate and expensive explanation. Wouldn’t it have been easier to dress a real person as Joseph and photograph him? Of course, that person would also have needed to resemble the established artwork. Either suggestion requires evidence.

The Questions That Remain to Be Answered

Why does the Unedited Photo exhibit qualities consistent with light falling on a three-dimensional subject? Please provide an explanation supported by evidence, rather than asking us to imagine a large doll without documentation of its creation.

Consider the areas that appear to have “blown highlights.” This happens when a photograph records a bright area as plain white, losing the detail within it. Imagine photographing a white shirt in strong sunlight. You might see its folds, seams, and fabric texture with your eyes, but in the photograph, those details disappear into a blurry-edged patch of white. That is what I mean by a blown highlight.

Why do those areas appear as they do in the Unedited Photo?

An artist painting that same shirt would often use grays, creams, or other tinted whites to show its folds and texture, reserving pure white for the brightest highlights. Those details would be represented in paint.

If the Unedited Photo is a photographic copy of the Joseph Smith Mansion painting, how did those painted details disappear in these particular areas? In a painting, the folds and shadows are represented by different shades of paint on a flat surface. Show me a photograph of that painting with the same whites blown out in the same places, and explain how the effect was produced.

Then address the varying sharpness I described earlier. In the Unedited Photo, the shoulders, hair, and top of the hand appear blurred, while the face remains in sharper focus. The painting does not show that same pattern of blur. What accounts for this difference?

One possible explanation is depth of field: the face is in focus, while parts of the subject closer to or farther from the camera fall out of focus. If you propose instead that the blur resulted from retouching, copying, or another process, explain how that process blurred those particular areas while leaving the face sharp.

And please, don’t make people buy your book or pay for a ticket to find out how you answer these objections. Answer the questions directly, with comparisons and evidence that people can examine.

Joseph Smith III and the 1879 Image

Next, explain the history of the image Joseph Smith III had copied and placed in the Library of Congress in 1879.

If the Larsen daguerreotype was the likeness of his father that he possessed, why did he not use it as the source? Or, if you contend that he did, how do you account for the differences between that image and the Library of Congress likeness?

I will also reference Joseph Smith III’s 1910 statement about having that daguerreotype in his possession, as well as the photographer Carter and his confirmed reference to it.

Which image do those accounts describe, and what evidence connects it specifically to the Larsen daguerreotype and not the Library of Congress image of Joseph?

Perhaps the reason you do not want to address this is that those likenesses resemble the Unedited Photo rather than the man in the Larsen daguerreotype. You promote the Larsen image as resembling the death mask, yet when discrepancies are raised, the mask is supposedly too distorted to serve as a reliable comparison.

Where is the evidence for that explanation? You suggest that localized swelling altered particular features. Are you attributing those changes to general postmortem bloating or to specific injuries? Those are different explanations. Given how quickly Joseph died, I think it’s reasonable to question whether the injuries you are referring to occurred before or after his circulation stopped. If they occurred afterward, what process would have caused the localized swelling you propose? Simply invoking “swelling” is a weak argument unless you can demonstrate how it accounts for the differences in the same areas on both sides of the face.

And if the death mask was so distorted, how do you account for how closely it aligns with the Unedited Photo? You cannot reasonably treat the mask as reliable when it supports your identification, then dismiss its accuracy when it challenges it, without explaining the distinction.

Without evidence addressing those questions, these claims remain conjecture. A possible explanation is not the same as a demonstrated one supported by evidence and sound reasoning.

I ask you again, where is the evidence that the Unedited Photo is not Joseph Smith Jr.?

It has a solid link in provenance and measurable photographic qualities.

At the time of making this video, no request for a high-resolution scan of the image has been sent to the researchers at Brother Joseph Again. Nor have the researchers behind it asked to see the photo in person. All of their research was done with low-quality pictures at best.