I wonder about Oedipus The King

I understand that we live in a world of real-time information access and we have many ways to access it, including pictures, video, email, television, etc. However, as limited as the Greek’s information and access to images was in 425 BCE compared to now, I am sure that people had access to busts and other portrayals of images. Why then, did nobody, specially the people of Thebes (including Jocasta) notice the very possible resemblance between the late King Laius and Oedipus?

Furthermore, why did Oedipus refuse so stubbornly to see that he was king Laius’ murderer and son?  A man had already stated he was not King Polybus’ son, and Phoebus also tells him of the incest and patricide.  It seems like it took him long enough, even after he was revealed many details that could not be coincidences, such as Tiresias’ forewarning and statements: “ I say you are the murderer you seek.” line 367. He even chose to not believe after Jocasta described Laius (he must have known he fit the description of the man he killed) and described the location where he was killed. I mean really? Can there really be that maybe coincidences? Jocasta even described the group or entourage. You would have thought that all that information was enough to (excuse the pun) open Oedipus’ eyes. The messenger confirms he is adopted, and it is not through hearsay, as he himself delivered him as a child to King Polybus. Oedipus keeps asking for more and more proof, as if waiting for one piece of information to topple down the endless list of accusatory evidence.  Even when the shepherd is forced to tell of how he took King Laius’ son to the mountainside and gave him to a man (the messenger), Oedipus stills refuses to believe he is who/what Tiresias said. Can someone, even in fiction, be so renuent to see what is in front of his eyes? I wonder if the audience in 430 BCE really thought Oedipus did not see the truth until the end, or if they just took it for what it was worth in order to enjoy the play?

Another issue that nags me a little bit is that of how easy it was for Oedipus to attack and annihilate a King and his entourage. Where the men not armed? Did kings back then travel without any security components in place?

I personally feel that there are a few “loose” ends in the play, maybe because nowadays this situation would not be so easily duplicated, or maybe because the veracity of the plot or events was not as important as the themes themselves.