Mark Bampton
https://www.click2houston.com/news/the-mystery-of-robert-johnson_20151123153810191
http://www.pelicanpub.com/proddetail.php?prod=9781455622450#.WiZm1LZl8dU
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Portrait-Phantom-Robert-Johnson%C2%92s-Photograph/dp/1455622451
https://www.amazon.com/Portrait-Phantom-Robert-Johnsons-Photograph/dp/1455622451
In addition to the damaged original photograph there is a restored version, which was produced by the Hulton Archive, a subsidiary of Getty Images. Getty Images also distribute this version. It was Zeke Schein's approach to the Robert Johnson Estate that led to the image's restoration, promotion and sale of both original and restored versions of the photograph by Getty Images.
https://www.popphoto.com/news/2010/09/getty-acquires-restores-third-robert-johnson-image
As my analysis progresses it reveals the photograph's murky history, from its original production, through its restoration to its authentication.
ZEKE SCHEIN'S PHOTOGRAPH OF ROBERT JOHNSON & JOHNNY SHINES
Visually studying the original photograph uncovers some anomalies. There are considerable differences in the lighting on each man, meaning that there must have been a complex lighting setup for the photograph, if it is at all feasible. Johnny Shines was taller than Robert Johnson, but in the photograph the man purported to be Robert Johnson is the taller one.
ROBERT JOHNSON & JOHNNY SHINES
Robert Johnson and Johnny Shines were talented blues musicians. The picture on the right, including some humour, means that there will be no surprises about whether the photograph is authentic or not.
The photograph is described as an "orphan artefact" in the full report, available at the end of this article. This term is used to indicate that the photograph has no provenance, being bought off eBay in 2005 by Zeke Schein. The seller thought that one of the individuals may be BB King, but Zeke thought it looked like Robert Johnson and that the other man looked like Johnny Shines.
The photograph has been controversial, with a large contingent of blues scholars challenging its authenticity. This was led by Dr. Bruce Conforth, recognised as probably the world's foremost authority on Robert Johnson.
This contrasts with an authentication conducted by Lois Gibson, a forensic artist engaged by the Robert Johnson Estate, distribution of the picture by Getty Images and most recently a book titled "Portrait of a Phantom: The Story of Robert Johnson's Lost Photograph" written by Zeke Schein. The book was published in 2017 by Pelican Publishing and widely distributed, for example by Amazon.
The alternative is that the photograph is an amalgamation of individual photographs of each man. A number of questions then arise about how long after the individual photographs were taken was that amalgamation completed. If the amalgamator and the photographer were the same person then why go to the lengths of amalgamating the images? If the amalgamation was completed much later when the musicians had become better known, how did the individual images come into the possession of the amalgamator?
Rather than get drawn into attempting to resolve the numerous challenging possibilities, the analysis can be simplified in the early stages of authentication. The first task is to look for any clear differences between the men in Zeke Schein's photograph with those in authentic photographs. Only one clear difference needs to be found to reject the authenticity of the photograph.
One of the complications that needs to be factored into the analysis is the possibility that the photograph had been reversed. It is clear that the image of the man in the dark hat has been reversed because of the buttons being on the wrong side of his clothing. This means that only the reversed image of the original photograph, taking his buttons back to the correct side, needs to be considered for the man in the dark hat.
In contrast to the man in the dark hat needing to be analysed in only a reversed version of the photograph there is no such indication in the image of the man in the light hat. Reversing the entire photograph would mean that the man in the light hat would then be holding the guitar left handed when Robert Johnson was right handed, although this could have been a requirement from the photographer for the pose.
FORENSIC ANALYSIS OF ROBERT JOHNSON IMAGE
There is a lack of certainty about whether the image of the man in the light hat was reversed or not. Combined with the possibility that the photograph is an amalgamation it is necessary to analyse his image in original and reversed orientations for findings to be fail safe.
Man in Light Hat and Man in Dark Hat
Original Photograph
Man in Light Hat and Man in Dark Hat
Restored Image
The photographs being analysed first need to be arranged to make the head vertical, so that accurate measurements can be taken. This is why some of the photographs are at an angle on the page.
Measurement grids comprising vertical and horizontal lines are used to compare and find similarities and differences of facial features. Starting with one photograph, the size of the other photograph is adjusted in an attempt to get a good match.
The only two known authentic images of Robert Johnson are the Photo Booth Self Portrait and Hooks Bros. photographs. Their relative sizes are established and used as the basis for the diagram on the left.
Horizontal lines over the Hooks Bros. photograph line up well with the centre of the eyes, bottom of the nose and bottom of the chin of the man in the light hat. The corners of of their mouths do not align well due to Robert Johnson smiling. The corners of the mouth do align well in the comparison with the Photo Booth Self Portrait so no real importance can be attached to this difference with the Hooks Bros. photograph.
Measurements using vertical lines are more limited due to the man in the light having his face turned slightly away from the camera, in contrast to Robert Johnson facing the camera.
The distance between the eyes is the same although due to the foreshortening effect caused by the man in the light hat turning his head away from the camera his eyes should be closer together if he was Robert Johnson. Some basic trigonometry is conducted to calculate how much closer the eyes should be for the man in the light hat to be Robert Johnson.
The man in the light hat's face is estimated to be turned away from the camera by 30 degrees. Vertical red lines are drawn through the eye centres and measuring from the right eye, the centre of the left eye should be where the vertical pink line is, significantly closer to his right eye. Even if an estimate of turning the head only 20 degrees away from the camera the eye centre should be where the vertical green line is, still noticeably closer to his right eye.
Vertical blue lines indicate the thickness of the columella (the soft tissue that separates the nostrils) for Robert Johnson in both authentic photographs. This has been copied over the image of the man in the light hat but is too great a dimension, even making allowances for turning the head away from the camera. The thickness of his columella is indicated by the dotted vertical blue lines and is significantly thinner than Robert Johnson's.
Horizontal lines have been drawn across the tops of the eyebrows. For the man in the light hat this is indicated by the blue line. Robert Johnson's eyebrows are asymmetrical, with the higher red line indicating the top of his right eyebrow and the lower red line indicating the top of his left eyebrow.
Discrepancies between the eyebrows are explored further and expanded to include the whole eye area. Horizontal red lines are drawn through the tops of the eyebrows, tops of the eyelids, tops of the eyes and bottoms of the eyes of the man in the light hat. The considerable asymmetry of Robert Johnson's equivalent features makes it difficult to align the horizontal red lines with his face.
These facial features are traced around in green and pink lines to make the features clearer and when transferred away from the photographs the differences become much clearer.
Not only are Robert Johnson's eyebrows asymmetrical but they are a different shape to the man in the light hat. Robert Johnson's left eye appears partially closed and much smaller than his right eye.
The left eye of the man in the light hat looks slightly smaller than his right eye, which may not be entirely due to perspective.
It is difficult to establish any size for the image of the man in the dark hat so that facial features align with the image of Johnny Shines. The diagram to the right includes the best that can be achieved without extreme misalignment of any particular feature.
Horizontal grid lines align well with the centre of the eyes and bottom of the chin, but there are significant differences almost everywhere else.
Johnny Shines' eyebrows are substantially horizontal while those of the man in the dark hat slant down towards the nose. The peak of the man in the dark hat's left eyebrow is the only point that reaches the same height as Johnny Shines eyebrow, while the peak of his right eyebrow falls noticeably lower.
This particular photograph of Johnny Shines was chosen because his head is turned away from the camera at the same angle as the man in the dark hat. Even so, Johnny Shines ears are significantly flatter against the side of his head than the man in the dark hat.
The bottom of the man in the dark hat's nose joins his face significantly higher up. His mouth is also higher than Johnny Shines, although this could be due to him smiling.
This slight difference in his eye size is the only indication of some slight facial asymmetry although nowhere near the magnitude of Robert Johnson. To repeat this analysis for the reversed image is not necessary because this will not alter the effects of the differences in symmetry. If anything the situation will be worse because the man in the light hat's right eye will be smaller than his left eye, in greater contrast to Robert Johnson.
These findings alone prove that the man in the light hat is definitely not Robert Johnson. Comparison between the hands, in conjunction with how the image was restored, is explored later in this article. Prior to that, the man in the dark hat will be compared with Johnny Shines.
FORENSIC ANALYSIS OF JOHNNY SHINES IMAGE
When looking at the vertical grid lines there is not much similarity. The centres of Johnny Shines eyes are significantly closer together than the man in the dark hat and how the ears join the head is significantly different. Johnny Shines' right ear joins the side of his head vertically, but the for the man in the dark hat it is more angled, with the lobe joining the face further forward.
There is very little similarity between Johnny Shines and the man in the dark hat and certainly no possibility that they are the same person.
ROBERT JOHNSON'S HANDS ARE DIFFERENT
With hands visible in the photographs it would be negligent not to consider these to see if there are any measurable differences. For Robert Johnson it is the thumb that is the clearest, without the effects of foreshortening.
Lines are drawn on the photograph of Robert Johnson in green, blue and orange to indicate the lengths of the bones, and then copied onto the original photograph of the man in the light hat. This is based on the same relative sizes of the photographs used to optimise facial similarity.
A continuous red line has been drawn across the knuckles of the fingers where they join the back of the hand. This curved line can be continued smoothly across the equivalent joint of the thumb, which is unusual. This joint is typically much nearer the wrist than the equivalent finger joints.
A dotted red line has been drawn on the photograph of Robert Johnson parallel to the continuous red line where the thumb visually joins the back of the hand and these two red lines are used later in this analysis.
While the blue lines demonstrate that those thumb bones are similar, the orange lines indicate that they are significantly different. The thumb end bone is approximately one third longer than that of Robert Johnson.
Assessing this by comparing the thumb profiles is used as a secondary check by tracing a white line round the thumb of the man in the light hat and copying it onto the photograph to the right, changed to a black line for clarity. The end of Robert Johnson's thumb falls significantly short of the black line representing the thumb tip of the man in the light hat.
Visual inspection of the restored image of the hand of the man in the light hat triggers some concerns. One issue is the shadow alongside the little finger extending across the back of the hand, making the finger look longer.
Another feature is the mark on the back of the hand in the original photograph which has not been rectified by the image restorer. This also gives some visually misleading appearance of longer fingers, due to the viewer being unable to distinguish exactly where the shadow ends between the middle two fingers of the hand. It is surprising that the image restorer didn't rectify this black mark.
Two yellow lines are added to the restored image of the hand, indicating where the joint should be anatomically. These yellow lines have been checked with the original version of the photograph and the profile of the hand is exactly the same. The continuous and dotted red lines are added. They are aligned with the continuous red line where the knuckle of the little finger should be and the dotted red line where the thumb visually joins the hand.
Lois Gibson sketches for the Houston Police Department and surrounding areas (point 6 in the affidavit) and teaches at Northwestern University (point 4 in the affidavit).
http://www.houstontx.gov/police/
http://sps.northwestern.edu/program-areas/public-safety/
Lois Gibson describes herself in point 2 as "The World's Most Successful Forensic Artist" although this general phrase doesn't really give much idea of what her actual achievement is. She has one formal Guinness World Record dated 31 May 2016 where the website describes it.
"Most criminals positively identified due to the composites of one artist. Between June 1982 and May 2016, 751 criminals have been positively identified and brought to justice in Texas, USA, thanks to the detailed composites drawn by forensic artist Lois Gibson (USA)."
This is much more specific and measureable, making it clear what her commendable achievement is, although the much higher figure of 1,062 in point 6 must relate to a different measure, not to be confused with her Guinness World Record figure of 751.
Attempting to gain clarity from Guinness World Records website itself has been unsuccessful. The "International Women's Day" article on their site says the following, suggesting that 1000 convictions is part of the formal record, which it is not.
“Lois has helped to positively identify 751 criminals and secure over 1,000 convictions - making her the record holder for the most criminals positively identified due to the composites of one artist“
"International Women's Day: Five incredible female record holders to admire" by Kristen Stephenson, published 8 March 2017.
The following article makes similar statements and would more accurately be described “hundreds” rather than “thousands” in the title.
"The world's most successful forensic artist: How Lois Gibson's incredible sketches have helped solve thousands of crimes" by Kristen Stephenson, published 18 January 2017.
http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/news/2017/1/lois-gibson-facing-crime-with-world-records-458852
A video titled “Forensic artist helps catch over 1000 criminals - Meet the Record Breakers” appears in all three locations mentioned on the Guinness World Records website, most incongruously on the same page as the formal record for 751. In the video Lois Gibson says that she has helped catch over 1266.
Guinness World Records has confirmed that an individual can be held accountable for a number of convictions. However, the 1000 figure is inconsistently used on the website to describe either the number of criminals or the number of convictions when the record is for 751 criminals.
Guinness World Records rightly say that they cannot control what external media report although their own website is not controlled effectively. They must be responsible for some confusion if the media depends on reference to their website.
After their own investigations into the anomalies on their website, Guinness World Records can only verify the record of “751 criminals”. They were unable to explain the other numbers and terms and have not addressed these anomalies. This leaves no option other than to ignore any other numbers and related terms on their website.
Details of Lois Gibson's Guinness World Record describe a more exclusively artistic capability. The rest of the affidavit also describes artistic credentials and experience. There is no indication of any scientific or other technical capabilities that would suggest an ability to complete a scientific analysis, for comparing facial features in different photographs for authentication purposes.
To satisfy the need to know whether the photograph was authentic or not, John Kitchens, attorney for the Robert Johnson Estate, employed Lois Gibson to determine that. He indicates an understanding that this was a more scientific task when he said "we hired the world's leading expert to do a scientifically-backed analysis" (Johnson Estate comment April 21, 2015, "Your Picture Has Faded - That Third Robert Johnson Photo")
https://robertjohnsonphoto.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/the-third-robert-johnson-photo/#comments
It does seem a little surprising that John Kitchens employed a forensic artist rather than a forensic scientist.
There is no discernible similarity between Johnny Shines and the man in the dark hat. Although the facial likeness between Robert Johnson and the man in the light hat is closer there are still several significant differences. There are also significant differences in the hands between the two men. There is no possibility that Zeke Schein's photograph includes Robert Johnson or Johnny Shines.
Authenticity of the photograph is rejected at an early stage due to differences in faces and hands, irrespective of the anomalies introduced by the image restorer. This early conclusion that the photograph is inauthentic means that questions about the pose, lighting and possibilities about the photograph being an amalgamation need not be explored further.
For the image purported to be Robert Johnson, Lois Gibson's authentication is invalid and my analysis proves that it is not Robert Johnson. For the image of Johnny Shines there is no known formal authentication, and my analysis proves that it is definitely not Johnny Shines. It is difficult to see how promotion of the photograph as being Robert Johnson & Johnny Shines can be justified.
The photograph continues to be distributed by Getty Images since 2011 and is described in the following manner.
"Legendary American blues singer-songwriter and guitarist Robert Johnson (1911-1938), left, with fellow blues musician Johnny Shines (1915-1992), circa 1935. This image is one of only three known photographs of Johnson."
The photograph has also been used for over a year in a display in the Musical Crossroads exhibition at the National Museum of African American History and Culture, part of the Smithsonian Institution. Although according to Dwandalyn Reece, Curator of Music and Performing Arts, "This matter is already on a list of necessary exhibition updates that will be addressed in the near future".
The photograph is on the cover of Zeke Schein's book "Portrait of a Phantom: The Story of Robert Johnson's Lost Photograph", published by Pelican Publishing. It is reasonable for potential purchasers to expect the book to be about a photograph of Robert Johnson.
An anonymous x-ray image has been used to show the same bend of the little finger relative to the hand as in the photograph. Yellow lines indicate where the side of the hand and the side of the finger are and the beginning of the same continuous red line is copied onto the x-ray. The x-ray more clearly shows the knuckle of the little finger due to the bone structure underneath. Continuous green and blue lines have been superimposed to provide simplified indications of finger bones.
A green dot is placed on the restored image to indicate the knuckle, relative to where the restored shadows appear either side of the little finger. This is significantly closer to wrist than where it should be, on the red line. The green dot has been transferred from the restored image to the x-ray, the same distance from the continuous red line. This necessitates modification to the green and blue lines as shown by dotted lines and shows how anatomically inaccurate image restoration has been completed in this area, making the fingers look longer than they should be.
If the whole of the continuous red line was extended across the x-ray it would successively lose alignment with the other knuckles. To address this a new red line is drawn across the knuckles of the x-ray.
A smoothly curved continuous line cannot be drawn through all of the knuckles including the thumb like it can in Robert Johnson's Hooks Bros. photograph because the thumb knuckle is much closer to the wrist than the finger knuckles.
The curved red lines across the knuckles in the restored image would need to be rotated clockwise several degrees about the point that they meet the yellow lines to more closely align with where all the finger knuckles should be. This would mean that the curved red lines would not lead to the thumb knuckle in the same way that they do with Robert Johnson, but would be more like the x-ray.
The hand of the man in the light hat is more like the hand in the x-ray, making it significantly different to Robert Johnson, and with shorter fingers if image restoration had been completed correctly.
Mark Bampton 24 November 2017 Full Report PDF
Copyright © 2017 Mark David Bampton All Rights Reserved
For both original and reversed images of the man in the light hat there are significant differences to the eyes, eyebrows and hands, making it impossible for him to be Robert Johnson.
LOIS GIBSON'S AUTHENTICATION OF ROBERT JOHNSON IMAGES
John Kitchens, the attorney for the Robert Johnson Estate, identified and hired Lois Gibson to analyse Zeke Schein's photograph to find out if it was Robert Johnson. She is a forensic artist who works for the Houston Police Department, Texas, USA. My knowledge of her authentication report, which reported the conclusion that Zeke Schein's photograph is Robert Johnson, is limited to excerpts contained in the following article.
"A Disputed Robert Johnson Photo Gets the C.S.I. Treatment" by Frank Digiacomo, published by Vanity Fair, 27 October 2008.
https://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2008/10/a-disputed-robert-johnson-photo-gets-the-csi-treatment
Figure B from Lois Gibson's report in the Vanity Fair article raises some concerns. She compares the restored image with the Robert Johnson Photo Booth Self Portrait. I have included the original photograph alongside for comparison.
I adhered to analysing the unrestored image of the man in the light hat to avoid being incorrectly influenced by potentially inaccurate image restoration. The only intention I have in analysing the restored image is to assess the veracity of the restoration.
While Lois Gibson has rotated the picture of the proposed Robert Johnson to the same angle as I have she has done this insufficiently for the image of Robert Johnson. This is most clearly seen by the bottom of his right eye iris being slightly lower than the bottom of his left eye iris relative to the blue line. This has the effect of under-reporting the asymmetry of Robert Johnson's eyebrows and is the reason that the top of his right eyebrow falls below the red horizontal line when compared with my version of his photograph. Lois Gibson observes asymmetry as a significant issue when she describes eyebrows in the analysis of Donald Roark's photograph.
"Both men in 1 and 2 have an eye brow which occurs significantly higher up from their right eye than the eyebrow above the left eye"
While this asymmetry applies to Robert Johnson her statement is untrue for the proposed Robert Johnson. There may be some barely discernible asymmetry relating to the eyebrows of the proposed Robert Johnson but they are basically the same distance above the eyes, certainly not exhibiting the same significant asymmetry present in Robert Johnson.
Lois Gibson clearly has considerable experience and success as a forensic artist, so her powers of observation must be well honed. It is surprising to see that she appears not to notice the marked difference in the eyebrows between the two men. She certainly recognises the importance of looking for the differences. In "The REAL Jesse James and his killer Robert Ford: Photograph owned by family who kept outlaw safe in 1870s verified by experts", Mail Online, By Ollie Gillman for Dailymail.com, Published 1 October 2015, Lois Gibson's authentication method was explained.
"Ms Gibson explained her technique for identifying who is in a photograph, saying she tries to prove the person in question is not in the picture, rather than vice versa.
'I do my best to prove that who I'm looking at isn't the same person as who committed the crime or did and awful thing,' she said.
'I'll look at each detail on their face, like the gap between their lips and their nose. I apply this at work all the time. I try to eliminate them until I can't any longer."
In this case Lois Gibson's authentication process was found to be flawed and the photograph proven to be not authentic in my paper "Jesse James, Robert Ford and the Tintype", published 20 February 2017.
https://www.academia.edu/31594807/Jesse_James_Robert_Ford_and_the_Tintype_MDB200217
Lois Gibson highlights some questionable "similarities" promoting authentication. Her descriptions of some of these so-called "similarities" are untrue, inconsistent or inaccurate.
In contrast Lois Gibson says the following about the restored image and Robert Johnson in figure B when comparing what she calls square bony eminences that she has marked with three black lines.
"I cannot remember seeing anyone, alive or from a skull, where they had square eminences like this in that area of their skull"
She describes these corresponding raised areas as extraordinary because in her opinion they appear identical, and because she thinks they are fairly unusual facial characteristics.
Lois Gibson is basing this conclusion on the work of the image restorer, specifically where this is bounded by the horizontal black line for an area obscured by damage in the original photograph. As a forensic artist Lois Gibson must have good anatomical knowledge, so it is surprising that she has not identified the anatomical anomalies created by the image restorer, particularly for the hands. She should then have avoided drawing any conclusions based on the restored image. Instead there is a bizarre decision to confirm what she says is a unique forehead shape similarity.
This is joined by other surprising inconsistencies a few years later when Lois Gibson claims to have authenticated another photograph, to the right. This one is owned by Donald Roark and is purported to include the four people named at the bottom of the photograph.
My knowledge of her authentication report, which came to the conclusion that it is Robert Johnson, is contained in the following article.
"Blues legend Photo Discovery: Is this Robert Johnson, Robert Lockwood, Jr., Calletta Craft and Estella (Reese) Coleman?" by Donald A. Roark, published 2015.
http://inweekly.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Blues-Legend-Photo-Discovery-2.pdf
Lois Gibson's inconsistent descriptions of facial features involving Zeke Schein's and Donald Roark's photographs continues with the eyebrows.
I have placed my versions of Robert Johnson and the proposed Robert Johnson with grid lines alongside Lois Gibson's comparison, extending the grid lines over her pictures. Green and pink lines have been traced around facial features in the eye area to highlight their positions. Red horizontal lines are drawn across the tops of the proposed Robert Johnson's eyebrows and the bottom of Robert Johnson's chin. The top blue line goes through the centre of the eyes and the bottom blue line touches the bottom of the iris.
Lois Gibson notices and declares the significant difference in height of Robert Johnson's eyebrows in her analysis of Donald Roark's photograph. By drawing attention to the contrast with the proposed Robert Johnson's eyebrows being the same height she also unintentionally draws attention to a clear difference. This eliminates the possibility that the proposed Robert Johnson is actually Robert Johnson. As a consequence she automatically invalidates her authentication of Donald Roark's photograph as including Robert Johnson.
Lois Gibson also used the Photo Booth Self Portrait in her analysis of Zeke Schein's photograph so she must have been aware of the significant asymmetry relating to Robert Johnson's eyebrows then. The same discrepancy as that in Donald Roark's photograph arises in my comparison in the diagram to the right used earlier in this article. The man in the light hat's eyebrows are the same height.
The picture from her authentication report to the right includes the proposed Robert Johnson. Lois Gibson again uses the Photo Booth Self Portrait in this comparison.
Her analysis includes their foreheads again, but there is no mention of the extraordinary and unique bony eminences she highlighted previously. This time she describes the foreheads very differently.
"The forehead of 1 appears to be identical in contour to 2. The frontal bone makes a smooth, horizontally rounded surface the same in both individuals"
It is essential to consider the reversed image of the man in the light hat's hands. The end of Robert Johnson's right thumb would then need to be significantly longer than his left thumb to make it comparable with the man in the light hat. All of the other finger bones not affected by foreshortening have been compared. There is little or no difference in the equivalent bones of the opposite hand giving no indication of significant asymmetry between Robert Johnson's hands.
The reversed image of the man in the light hat now makes his left hand comparable with that in the Photo Booth Self Portrait, after checking for the influences of a different perspective. Superimposing the green and blue finger lines on the hand of the man in the light hat means that the knuckle where the little finger joins the hand coincidentally lines up with the green dot, which is the consequence of the work of the image restorer. This is significantly nearer the wrist than where it should be on the continuous red line, to be anatomically correct as indicated by the intersection of the yellow lines.
In the same way as for Donald Roark's photograph, Lois Gibson eliminates the possibility that the man in the light hat is Robert Johnson. As a consequence she also automatically invalidates her authentication of Zeke Schein's photograph.
FORENSIC ARTIST LOIS GIBSON
Below is a copy of Lois Gibson's affidavit dated 14 April 2011 relating to the purported photograph of Robert Johnson and Johnny Shines and comes from the Robert Johnson Blues Foundation website.
http://www.robertjohnsonbluesfoundation.org/news/affidavit-authenticity-robert-johnson-photo/
