You are basically claiming that the difference in behaviour that was reported between the initial population and later generations was exaggerated because there seems to be a photo from 1922 showing a tame individual. I hope you see how claiming any level of tameness based on a few photos cannot be considered good evidence. Photos can be highly misleading, it's easy to see something that's not there. From what I understand, all sources reporting from this experiment and other similar ones claim huge differences in behaviour not only betweeen the initial generation and the selected ones, but also between control groups of animals which were kept in very similar conditions, except they were not submitted to "tameness selection". This difference of course over a large amount of animals, not over just a few. So, maybe the animals in the photo were indeed fairly tame (which as I said before, cannot be concluded from old photos), but even then, that does not mean that they were nearly as common as in the "evolved" animals from the study, where the rate of highly tamed individuals reached above 80% already. Which means that pointing out a counter-example is like claiming global warming is fake because it's been cold in the Midwest.