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.

Did a Photograph Come Before the Painting? A 1962 BYU Thesis Examines Joseph Smith’s Portrait

In 1962, William B. McCarl examined a question that remains central to the discussion of Joseph Smith’s likeness: was the familiar front-facing photograph copied from a painting, or was the painting created from a photograph?

His master’s thesis, The Visual Image of Joseph Smith, submitted to Brigham Young University’s Department of Art, supported the latter explanation. After examining portraits, historical accounts, photographic copyright records, and family testimony, McCarl concluded:

“It appears the front view oil painting was copied from a daguerreotype.”

Page 68

His research did not recover the original daguerreotype. It did, however, assemble evidence supporting a photographic source for the painting, including a direct statement from Joseph Smith’s son.

Joseph Smith III’s Letter: What He Actually Said

On March 10, 1910, Joseph Smith III wrote to the Salt Lake Tribune in response to a portrait of his father painted by a Utah artist. His letter appeared in the newspaper on March 20, 1910, and McCarl reproduced it on pages 29–30 of his thesis.

Joseph III objected to the suggestion that no authentic picture of his father existed. He described an oil painting in his son Frederick’s possession, then stated:

“It fortunately happens to us that this portrait, painted in 1843, is sustained in its characteristic likeness to my father by the daguerreotype in our possession, taken the same year, I think, by an artist by the name of Lucian Foster.”

The relationship he describes is significant. The daguerreotype sustains, or corroborates, the painting’s likeness to his father.

Joseph III expressly calls the family’s photographic image a daguerreotype. His qualification, “I think,” accompanies the attribution to Lucian Foster. He does not describe the daguerreotype as a photograph of the oil painting.

At the end of the letter, he identifies a different photographic item:

“I am enclosing a photograph taken from the oil painting referred to.”

He therefore distinguishes the oil painting, the daguerreotype that corroborates its likeness, and the photograph of the painting enclosed with his letter.

A photograph made from a painting reproduces the artist’s work. By itself, it cannot independently establish that the painting accurately depicts its subject. Joseph III’s use of the daguerreotype as corroboration is therefore meaningful: he presents it as supporting evidence for the painting’s likeness.

That is evidence of how Joseph III understood the images. His letter does not explicitly describe the painter working from the daguerreotype, but it supports taking that possibility seriously.

Clarifying Joseph Smith III’s Testimony

On page 49, McCarl lists among his unresolved questions whether Joseph III possessed an original daguerreotype or merely a photograph of one.

The distinction concerns what Joseph III actually testified to. His letter explicitly identifies the family’s possession as a daguerreotype. The photographic copy he explicitly mentions is the enclosed photograph of the oil painting.

McCarl’s inability to inspect the family’s daguerreotype was a limitation of his investigation. It should not be confused with uncertainty expressed by Joseph III about whether the object was a daguerreotype. Joseph III’s own wording is direct.

The accurate distinction is this: Joseph III stated that the family possessed a daguerreotype; McCarl could not independently verify the object.

Source: Joseph Smith III to the Salt Lake Tribune, March 10, 1910, published March 20, 1910, p. 13; reproduced in McCarl’s thesis, pp. 29–30.

The Photographs and Their Copyright Records

McCarl also investigated photographs associated with Charles W. Carter and W. B. Carson through correspondence with the Library of Congress.

On pages 40–41, he describes Carter’s photograph copyrighted on September 25, 1885. Its caption stated:

“Copied from the original daguerreotype taken at the City of Nauvoo, 1843.”

Carter copyrighted another version on December 26 of the same year. McCarl reports that the second version omitted the caption and showed considerably more retouching.

An earlier photograph, deposited by W. B. Carson of Peoria, Illinois, on July 25, 1879, was copyrighted in Joseph Smith III’s name. McCarl’s sources included letters from Library of Congress reference librarian Virginia Daiker and Copyright Office official Richard S. MacCarteney.

For McCarl, the copyright in Joseph III’s name suggested a connection between Carson’s photograph and the photographic image held by the Smith family.

The Carson photograph was copyrighted in Joseph Smith III’s name decades before his 1910 letter. That documented connection further supports his identification of his father’s likeness and should be considered alongside his explicit statement that the family possessed a daguerreotype.

The source claim attached to Carter’s photograph also matters. The assertion that the image originated in a Nauvoo daguerreotype was already being made in the nineteenth century.

Retouching Complicates the Surviving Images

McCarl’s discussion also makes clear that the photographic versions were not all untouched or identical.

He reports increased retouching in Carter’s second version and extensive touching up of the hair and clothing in Carson’s version.

This matters when evaluating whether an image looks photographic or painted. McCarl was examining reproductions whose appearance had been altered. Those alterations complicated efforts to determine the nature of their original source.

The Unedited Photo of Joseph, which came to light in 2009, adds another piece of evidence. My research identifies it as an earlier version of the image, preserving details altered or obscured in the retouched copies. Comparing these versions allows those changes to be examined directly and helps explain why the later reproductions took on a more painted appearance.

McCarl consulted Beaumont Newhall, director of George Eastman House, who said the heavy retouching prevented a determination that Carter’s photograph came from a daguerreotype. Newhall nevertheless added:

“I can only say there is no reason for believing that the picture is not copied from the original Daguerreotype.”

Quoted on page 43

Newhall’s statement was qualified. It left the daguerreotype origin possible without claiming to have authenticated it.

I think it is fair to say that an opinion had formed before 2009 that many have since refused to reexamine, regardless of the new information The Unedited Photo brought to the table. Instead, they continue repeating the same tired line.

The Ring and the Reversed Image

McCarl also points out that Joseph III’s letter states that his father wore his ring on his left hand. He observes that the front-facing oil painting shows the ring on the right.

On pages 46–48, he proposes that the artist copied a laterally reversed daguerreotype, preserving the reversal in the painting.

The argument is an inference, but it connects a specific visual detail with Joseph III’s recollection of his father.

I personally don’t believe it was flipped. However, I think it is equally plausible that the artist added a ring to the incomplete hand that is visible in the Unedited Photo of Joseph.

Who Painted the Portrait?

McCarl also challenges the attribution of the front-facing painting to David Rogers.

Through historical descriptions and comparisons with published engravings, he argues that Rogers painted the profile portraits of Joseph and Hyrum. He then identifies differences between those profiles and the front-facing painting in brushwork, surface appearance, backgrounds, and the handling of light and shadow.

McCarl considers William Warner Major a possible artist for the front-facing portrait, although he does not establish its authorship.

According to the obituary he cites, Major arrived in Nauvoo in August 1844, after Joseph Smith’s death. If Major painted the portrait, he could not have painted Joseph from a living sitting. A daguerreotype would have provided a possible source.

This introduces another disagreement with Joseph III’s letter, which dates the painting to 1843 and attributes it to the artist who painted Hyrum. McCarl’s proposed attribution to Major would require revising that chronology. It remains McCarl’s hypothesis, not something Joseph III’s letter confirms.

Through my research, I believe it is more plausible that Selah Van Sickle was responsible for this unsigned work. My understanding is that he, too, arrived in Nauvoo after Joseph’s death. That proposed attribution would therefore raise the same question about the painting’s date.

What the Thesis Supports

McCarl brought together several reasons for believing a photograph preceded the front-facing painting: the early photographers’ source claims, the family connection in the copyright records, Joseph III’s testimony, the ring’s placement, and the visual relationship between the images.

His conclusion was that the painting appeared to have been copied from a daguerreotype. Although he acknowledged that he could not prove Carter or Carson had copied an original plate, he argued that buyers familiar with Joseph and Nauvoo would have challenged a deception. He reported finding no contemporary objection of that kind.

Joseph III’s letter supplies a particularly important piece of testimony. He identifies a daguerreotype in the family’s possession and presents it as corroborating the painting’s likeness to his father. He separately identifies the photograph of the painting that he enclosed.

The 1879 copyright adds a documented connection between Joseph III and the Carson image. My research into the Unedited Photo adds a visual comparison through which the alterations in later versions can be examined.

Those distinctions deserve to remain intact when the evidence is discussed. McCarl’s thesis documents an argument made as early as 1962 that a photograph preceded the painting, while Joseph III’s own words explain the corroborating role he assigned to the family’s daguerreotype.

Sources

William B. McCarl, The Visual Image of Joseph Smith (1962), master’s thesis, Brigham Young University. Relevant passages: pp. 29–30, 40–49, and 65–76.

Read McCarl’s thesis at BYU ScholarsArchive

Joseph Smith III, letter dated March 10, 1910, published in the Salt Lake Tribune, March 20, 1910, p. 13. Letter reproduced in McCarl’s thesis, pp. 29–30.

 

Unveiling the Enigma: Analyzing the new "Larsen Daguerreotype" and Exploring the Authenticity of Joseph Smith Jr.'s Photograph

 The discovery of a recently found daguerreotype purported to depict Joseph Smith Jr has ignited intrigue and hopeful anticipation among many individuals. As enthusiasts ardently endeavor to align the daguerreotype with the established image of Joseph, it becomes imperative to delve into crucial factors that shed light on this captivating subject.

Fact #1: Joseph Smith III only acknowledged one daguerreotype, and the newly found "Smith Photo" was not that image.

Shortly after Emma's death, Joseph Smith III penned a letter to John A. Robinson, husband of Mrs. Robinson, a reputable photographer, dated June 27, 1879.

Do you remember the question about father’s picture?  If so, are you and Sr J.A. still desirous of going into it?  I have intended all along to come down, but can’t see the way clear just yet.  If and so have determined to send the pictures to you for a trial, if desired….  My. step father Mr Bidamon wants to sell the pictures and with this exception and what we might sell here at the office.  You can have sole sale of them; and the exclusive manufacture of them, if we can agree as to terms, after we see whether they will copy well.  It is the only picture (real) of father in existence.  Not so many of mother’s would be wanted.  I think there is a good bit of money in it for someone; and Sr Robinson and you may as well get it as anyone.

Joseph's statement, "It is the only picture (real) of father in existence," provides compelling evidence. This remark rules out the possibility of referring to a painted portrayal since Joseph was well aware of his father sitting for multiple paintings and drawings. Instead, it strongly suggests the existence of a unique and singular image. Furthermore, Joseph's mention of the challenges involved in copying the picture aligns with the difficulties inherent in reproducing the mirrored surface of a daguerreotype.

Less than a month later, Joseph Smith III submitted an edited albumen photograph print of his father to the Library of Congress, clearly labeled as "Joseph Smith (Mormon)." This act demonstrates Joseph's unwavering determination to preserve his father's image and legacy. With a deep understanding of his father's appearance, Joseph patiently waited until after his mother's passing to reveal the image to the world, underscoring the significance he placed on sharing his father's true likeness.

One significant reason to doubt the authenticity of the newly found "Larsen Daguerreotype" as Joseph Smith Jr. is that his own son, Joseph Smith III, never acknowledged it or had it reproduced. In a letter to The Salt Lake Tribune in 1910, Joseph III mentioned a painted portrait from 1843 that closely resembled his father's daguerreotype taken around the same time by Lucian Foster.

In 1885, photographer CW Carter announced that he possessed the "only correct photograph" of Joseph Smith. This photograph was a copy of the original daguerreotype taken in 1843 and was loaned to him by Joseph Smith Jr. This supports the notion that there was only one daguerreotype of Joseph Smith and confirms their knowledge of its appearance.

Fact #2: The newly found photo looks nothing like any of Joseph's images.

 

Allow me to present some of my observations regarding the "Smith Daguerreotype." Firstly, it is evident that the depicted man in the daguerreotype has dark brown hair, which contrasts with the consensus from various accounts and a hair sample indicating that Joseph Smith likely had dark blond hair. As an artist, I often work with values, and it is interesting to note that the value of a color is often easier to discern in black and white.

Upon closer examination of the daguerreotype, it becomes apparent that the subject appears thin and lean, lacking noticeable facial fat. This is in contrast to common depictions of Joseph Smith, who was often portrayed with additional weight, particularly in the chin area. Sutcliffe Maudsley's profile drawings serve as a valuable reference in this context. Furthermore, the man in the daguerreotype displays characteristics such as a wide mouth, wide nose bridge, small deep-set eyes, tan weathered skin, and strong creases (nasolabial folds) Again this is not consistent with any depiction of Joseph. Based on these observations, it is conceivable to entertain the possibility that the individual in the daguerreotype could be Hyrum Smith, Joseph's brother, as reports suggest the existence of an undiscovered daguerreotype of Hyrum and do fit his description closer.

Let AI (Artificial Intelligence) help us measure faces using the death masks of Joseph & Hyrum.

Thanks to the remarkable advancements in AI technology, we now have the ability to replicate images with remarkable accuracy. Using an AI face tool, I embarked on a fascinating comparison. I started with a semi-generic image as the host and uploaded three images for analysis: a copy of the original daguerreotype of Joseph, Joseph's death mask, and the "Larsen Daguerreotype." I arranged them in a side-by-side comparison.

It is important to note that while the death mask can be a useful tool for facial measurements, it was created posthumously, while Joseph lay on a table or the ground. When a person passes away, blood no longer circulates, and the muscles responsible for facial structure relax. As many of you may have witnessed with a deceased loved one, this can significantly alter their appearance. Additionally, reports indicate that both Joseph and Hyrum had cotton placed in their noses to maintain shape. I conducted a similar experiment on my (live) husband and observed that it can dramatically change the width and profile of the nose. Therefore, our focus lies in comparing the bone structure, particularly the bridge and top of the nose, where thin skin allows us a glimpse of the underlying skull.

In this comparison, I present three images: the first image is derived from my Joseph Smith photo, the second image is sourced from the death mask, and the third image showcases the Larsen Daguerreotype. It is crucial to note that when replicating the death mask, the AI must make assumptions about the appearance of the eyes since it lacks information about their natural openness, the thickness of the lid, or the size of the iris. However, the AI accurately positions the eyes by triangulating landmarks on Joseph Smith's face, allowing for a comprehensive analysis of the facial features.

For a more detailed examination, I conducted a comparison between the Larsen Daguerreotype and the Death Mask, focusing on the width of the bridge of the nose and the proximity of the eyes to the bridge. By closely observing these features, it becomes evident that they do not belong to the same individual. The Larsen Daguerreotype has a bridge that is almost the width of his deep-set eyes. The Death Mask Shows a more narrow bridge, with space for large more prominent eyes.

For comparison purposes, I uploaded my photo of Joseph, and to my delight, it aligns perfectly with the subject in question. The spacing and proportions are spot-on, providing strong evidence of a match. Upon closer examination, it is evident that Joseph had larger irises and a noticeable inward turn of the right eye due to esotropia. Although the AI's attempt at replicating these details is commendable, there are slight differences. Nonetheless, the overall result is impressive considering the AI's estimation.

If the Larsen Daguerreotype isn't Joseph, could it be Hyrum Smith?

Although I remain cautious in drawing definitive conclusions, it is worth noting that the Larsen Daguerreotype bears a stronger resemblance to Hyrum Smith compared to Joseph Smith. To explore this further, I employed the death mask of Hyrum to generate an AI image, following the same process as before.

It is crucial to consider that Hyrum's face may have been affected by the gunshot wound next to his nose, potentially leading to adjustments made during the creation of the death mask.

Despite lingering uncertainties, the Larsen Daguerreotype demonstrates a remarkable resemblance to Hyrum Smith rather than Joseph. The shared characteristics of eye shape, size, placement deep under the brow, and overall spacing provide a stronger alignment with Hyrum. However, it is important to continue scrutinizing the bridge of the nose for any potential inconsistencies that may warrant further investigation and analysis.

My final thoughts.

After conducting a thorough analysis using AI comparison and examining various factors, I am personally convinced that the photograph I received from my grandmother many years ago is indeed a contact print from the original daguerreotype of Joseph Smith Jr. The alignment and precision in measurements when compared to his death mask provide compelling evidence. On the other hand, the Larsen Daguerreotype bears striking dissimilarities and lacks the resemblance necessary to identify it as Joseph Smith Jr. I honestly believe it wouldn't pass a police lineup. Given these findings, it is imperative to pursue further research and investigation to unveil the true identity of the person captured in the Larsen Daguerreotype. The quest for historical accuracy continues, and it is through rigorous examination and analysis that we can separate fact from speculation.

Check back soon, I'll be back with more. Also, check my previous posts to catch up!