Conversation

I don't think that's possible. Photography was still *very* young in 1858, and there would have been no way to capture something so dim with such detail. Sure you have the date right?
1
I wouldn't know. I saw it listed as such but it was long ago. I believe you (I can't believe I'm saying this) so it might be wrong but I'm not about to check.
1
Replying to
What? No. I'm saying that tiny blot, above, is in fact the first photo taken of a comet -- not the elaborate cinematic image you provided. And the tiny blot hardly counts as a "picture" at all. (I said "with such detail"). I'm always right, Rabih. And you're always wrong.