I had asked the question that set Julia off on her research that calls into question whether the original labeling of the photo is correct or not.

The funny thing, it took me several times going back to the photos, and concentrating more not he eyes before I eventually sided with Julia on the debate.

Whether or not Dickeson would have been photographed with west coast tribal chief, I don't know, but his area of work centered around the burial mounds and artifacts in the Ohio Valley.

I told Julia that this reminds me of another little test I made a couple years ago. I am 53 and showed my Kindergarten class picture to several people to guess which kid I was.

8 of the people I asked were women, and 10 men.

They all took a minute or two, and only 1 of the men got it correct. 6 of the 8 women picked correctly!

That is a tremendous difference in results!!

As I wrote to Julia, I would suggest that the male participants try a little experiment, and get their spouses involved!!

Show the photos to their wives, and let them choose.

There might be some surprises....women tend to look deeper, and the eyes play a more significant role.

Of course, this is a generalization, and there will be many exceptions, but short of hiring a facial recognition expert from the FBI, I would love to see the results of the spouse experiment!

The New York Times has the best article I've seen on the dress photo topic. See:
Is That Dress White and Gold or Blue and Black?(http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/02/28/science/white-or-blue-dress.html)

To read the earlier E-Sylum article, see:
QUERY: IS IT REALLY MONTROVILLE DICKESON IN THIS PHOTO?(www.coinbooks.org/esylum_v18n13a10.html)