[bmarlowe1]

>>>There's that tone thing again.

The Cumbaya season is over.

I never said you lacked common sense. You may be better than me at any numbers of things - picking stocks, hitting a curve ball, other major life decisions, whatever. I did say you were not applying it here.

>>>I was merely stating that looking at a few photos of an ear shot from different angles would not lead me to believe that this is not Radbourn.

The problem with "merely stating...." is that this is a serious subject, and one that has caused a substantial amount of fraud. There has been a lot of effort in recent decades to find methods for correctly identifying people in photos. (This is critically important in natl security/intelligence fields as well as criminal investigation.) There is some accessable literature on the subject. "A few photos (even just one) of an ear shot from slightly different angles" is exactly enough to tell you it's not Radbourne.

If you don't buy any of this, then your challange is to find 2 photos of any famous individual you like (try Cobb, J Jackson, Jackie Robinson - anybody), taken at very slightly different angles like the ones discussed here, in which the ears look different.

You can also consider why H&S pulled the item from the auction and why SGC is "un-authenticating" the photo - just to make my Holiday Season brighter? (there's some tone for ya).

Happy New Year