I'm almost POSITIVE this card features Shoeless Joe...

[Peter_Spaeth]

The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.

[sportscardtheory]

Originally Posted by Kawika

We have a problem here. Lichtman is never wrong and Mark is never wrong. Things fall apart; the center cannot hold. Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.

Brett: Just because you don't like Mark's conclusion doesn't mean you need to play the smarty-pants elitist card. That's just being obnoxious. He hasn't said you're wrong, he hasn't said you're right, he has said, in essence, close but no cigar, yet anyway. Mark is no amateur in the field of photo identification, and his methodology is more rigorous than yours. Believe me, if a smoking gun turns up and Mark confirms what you are opining you will be glad to have his endorsement. He has earned my respect; he deserves yours.

Disclaimer: I believe it is Jackson but my opinion is solely based on wishful thinking.

The thing I don't like about this, is that "Mark" isn't saying anything at all. He's saying he doesn't know, which is the same thing as saying nothing. The only evidence he can possibly use to disprove that it is JJ is to prove that it's another player, which he could never do. ALL the circumstantial evidence points to Jackson, so now it's in doubters hands to prove who it is, because if they can't, it's Jackson, based on the evidence at hand.

[Kawika]

And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards third to be tagged out by Lord?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kawika

And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards third to be tagged out by Lord?

Is it Jackson moving his slow thighs?

[Kawika]

Originally Posted by sportscardtheory

The thing I don't like about this, is that "Mark" isn't saying anything at all. He's saying he doesn't know, which is the same thing as saying nothing. The only evidence he can possibly use to disprove that it is JJ is to prove that it's another player, which he could never do. ALL the circumstantial evidence points to Jackson, so now it's in doubters hands to prove who it is, because if they can't, it's Jackson, based on the evidence at hand.

I am a land surveyor, not a logician, but the above statement is so riddled with illogicism that my head is spinning.

[brett]

Originally Posted by botn

Geno has made several valid observations. It does appear in the T202 that the SS, Tannehill, is facing away from the play at 3rd (seems he is facing 2nd base) so while the image from the newspaper is close I don't think it is the play which was memorialized in the T202.

If it was the same play it's obvious that the newspaper pic was snapped just after the T202 pic. One thing to keep in mind is that Tannehill also played several games at 2nd base that year. You can see that the shortstop on the T202 card looks lik he's running to cover 2nd base and is almost out of the picture... so maybe that's why he's not in the newspaper shot (not to mention that the newpaper shot is more of a closeup). The back of the T202 makes no mention of who was involved in the play besides Lord, but the pictures and scenario are eerily similar.

[sportscardtheory]

Originally Posted by brett

If it was the same play it's obvious that the newspaper pic was snapped just after the T202 pic. One thing to keep in mind is that Tannehill also played several games at 2nd base that year. You can see that the shortstop on the T202 card looks lik he's running to cover 2nd base and is almost out of the picture... so maybe that's why he's not in the newspaper shot (not to mention that the newpaper shot is more of a closeup). The back of the T202 makes no mention of who was involved in the play besides Lord, but the pictures and scenario are eerily similar.

That is the same slide! Look at the poles in the backround, with the house and look to the left at the smoke stack to the left of the double-poles, it lines up exactly the same, just to the left, lower and cropped! THAT'S JOE JACKSON.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Is the right arm of Jax in the newspaper pic not much higher up than the arm in the t202? Or am I not seeing it right. Also Lord's left foot appears to be in a different position relative to the bag.

[sportscardtheory]

Originally Posted by Kawika

I am a land surveyor, not a logician, but the above statement is so riddled with illogicism that my head is spinning.

I'm sorry that you can't understand it, it's about burden of proof. Everyone has done an exceptional job proving that it is Jackson, while some people are wasting everyone's time saying that they don't know, when they should be proving that's it's not.

[brett]

Originally Posted by Kawika

Mark is no amateur in the field of photo identification, and his methodology is more rigorous than yours.

Disclaimer: I believe it is Jackson but my opinion is solely based on wishful thinking.

EXACTLY!!! In many cases the untrained eye is more acurate than a so-called expert's because they over-analyze things instead of just seeing what's right beneath their nose!

[sportscardtheory]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Is the right arm in the newspaper pic not much higher up than the arm in the t202? Or am I not seeing it right.

Clearly the newspaper photo is later into the slide and he is moving in the downward motion to apply the tag. The smoke-stack to the left of the double polls is the giveaway to me. There is no longer a doubt in my mind that this is Shoeless Joe Jackson. Even the BASE has the same markings!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by sportscardtheory

Clearly the newspaper photo is later into the slide and he is moving in the downward motion to apply the tag. The smoke-stack to the left of the double polls is the giveaway to me. There is no longer a doubt in my mind that this is Shoeless Joe Jackson.

\

I mean Jax's right arm.

[botn]

Following Geno's theory about the positioning of Tannehill... It is conceivable that Tannehill, after making the throw to Lord, focused his attention back to the live runner, Lajoie who had hit the ball. To me it appears that he is looking towards 2nd base or in that direction more than towards the plate. Hard to tell exactly where he is in relation to 2nd base. Anyway this is speculation. Again it is troubling the white wrap or sock is not seen in the newspaper image.

[Kawika]

What is beneath our noses is a blurry photo.
The newspaper photo maybe establishes that it is the same outfield fence.
There is no doubt in my mind that it might be Joe Jackson.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Kawika

We have a problem here. Lichtman is never wrong and Mark is never wrong. Things fall apart; the center cannot hold. Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.

My army of sarcastic follower(s) is taking shape. Jeepers!

[brett]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Is the right arm of Jax in the newspaper pic not much higher up than the arm in the t202? Or am I not seeing it right. Also Lord's left foot appears to be in a different position relative to the bag.

I just think he's falling further back into his slide, and Lord's feet look exactly the same relative to the bag to me (maybe just taken by a photographer who was standing a little more to the right which could also explain why the shortstop was cut out of the frame).

[dstudeba]

Originally Posted by botn

Again it is troubling the white wrap or sock is not seen in the newspaper image.

If you look at the third baseman's left leg it is dark also so maybe it is shadowing.

[Tcards-Please]

I was looking at the box score that Greg provided of the game in question and I can't make out what position Tannehill was playing? Does that say SS or 3B? It sort of looks like it has 3B, which is the same position as Lord. If that is the case, who was playing short?

The newspaper photo and the T202 photo appear to be of the same play, just not the same exact time. A split second later.

[sportscardtheory]

Originally Posted by Kawika

What is beneath our noses is a blurry photo.
The newspaper photo maybe establishes that it is the same outfield fence.
There is no doubt in my mind that it might be Joe Jackson.

So you agree that it's the same base? Does anyone know how many base-runners were thrown out stealing on that base during that game?

[sportscardtheory]

Originally Posted by dstudeba

If you look at the third baseman's left leg it is dark also so maybe it is shadowing.

Good point. That would explain the darkness on Jackson's shin/foot area.

[Kawika]

Originally Posted by calvindog

My army of sarcastic follower(s) is taking shape. Jeepers!

Don't forget clueless, O Almighty One.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by brett

I just think he's falling further back into his slide, and Lord's feet look exactly the same relative to the bag to me (maybe just taken by a photographer who was standing a little more to the right which could also explain why the shortstop was cut out of the frame).

I am no expert, but if it's literally only a split second would Jax's arm really have moved that much? Lord's foot looks to me like it's partially behind the bag in one pic and more firmly on it in the other. Maybe it's the angle.

[botn]

It is the angle of the photo and not sure it takes that long to raise your arm up to your face. In the image from the newspaper Joe is almost completely reclined. Look at Lord's head compared to the dark part of the fence in the background.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by sportscardtheory
The thing I don't like about this, is that "Mark" isn't saying anything at all. He's saying he doesn't know, which is the same thing as saying nothing. The only evidence he can possibly use to disprove that it is JJ is to prove that it's another player, which he could never do. ALL the circumstantial evidence points to Jackson, so now it's in doubters hands to prove who it is, because if they can't, it's Jackson, based on the evidence at hand.

Originally Posted by Kawika

I am a land surveyor, not a logician, but the above statement is so riddled with illogicism that my head is spinning.

David - don't even try to figure out what he is saying.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by botn

It is the angle of the photo and not sure it takes that long to raise your arm up to your face. In the image from the newspaper Joe is almost completely reclined. Look at Lord's head compared to the dark part of the fence in the background.

I don't think it's just the angle, and my guess is in the instant it takes to have slid an extra couple of inches the arm position would not change THAT much. But I am just speculating. I think the absence of the wrap is tougher to explain, at least in terms of whether this is the same play with the same runner.

[brett]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I am no expert, but if it's literally only a split second would Jax's arm really have moved that much? Lord's foot looks to me like it's partially behind the bag in one pic and more firmly on it in the other. Maybe it's the angle.

At the speed he was moving it wouldn't take a tenth of a second for his arm to move up that far... FURTHERMORE, if somebody can zoom in on where Joe's leg crosses Lord's you can see where the white of the wrap shows just behind Lord's calf and the rest is either in a shadow or was touched up by the photographer so the readers could see it over the lighter background! I think we've got it now!!!

[bmarlowe1]

Paul earlier made a nice point about reasonable doubt. So - here is a thought experiment. Assume that sllding into 3rd base is a serious felony, punishible by a lengthy prison sentence, perhaps even death. The witnesses to the event in question have all died or mysteriously vanished. All we have is the image from the card.

JJ is arrested. Should he be convicted based on that image?

[HercDriver]

I don't buy the argument that the houses haven't moved with respect to the fence. I'm pretty sure if you took the picture from the same photographers' area of League Park in the dead of winter, the houses would still line up with the fence - they'd just have snow on them.

Cheers,
Geno

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

Paul earlier made a nice point about reasonable doubt. So - here is a thought experiment. Assume that sllding into 3rd base is a serious felony, punishible by a lengthy prison sentence, perhaps even death. The witnesses to the event in question have all died or mysteriously vanished. All we have is the image from the card.

JJ is arrested. Should he be convicted based on that image?

SOMEONE slid. You can't prove it ISN'T Jax. So I say convict him.

[Kawika]

At least ban him from baseball.

[brett]

After zooming in on the newspaper pic I'm even more convinced now that the shadow from Lord's body or leg is what is darkening Joe's right lower leg. You can even see another shadow on Joe's right knee from Lord's right arm.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by brett

At the speed he was moving it wouldn't take a tenth of a second for his arm to move up that far... FURTHERMORE, if somebody can zoom in on where Joe's leg crosses Lord's you can see where the white of the wrap shows just behind Lord's calf and the rest is either in a shadow or was touched up by the photographer so the readers could see it over the lighter background! I think we've got it now!!!

Let's do some math. Say it takes him 4 seconds to go from second to third. That's 22 feet per second, 264 inches per second. So let's generously say the pics are 5 inches apart -- that is 1/50 of a second. Can the arm move that much?

[brett]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Let's do some math. Say it takes him 4 seconds to go from second to third. That's 22 feet per second, 264 inches per second. So let's generously say the pics are 5 inches apart -- that is 1/50 of a second. Can the arm move that much?

That's a silly notion. You have no idea how long it takes him to get between bases but I can assure you that as he was throwing himself into the slide that momentum was moving his body backwards extremely fast... Sort of like getting rear-ended in a car accident.

[bmarlowe1]

never mind for now

[Abravefan11]

I've tried to remain impartial throughout this thread but I must admit after closely comparing the newspaper photo with the T202 image I'm on the "It's Joe" team now.

With that said I'm perplexed by the fact that they would use an image of Joe and not mention him on the card. Other players that aren't included on the end panels are mentioned in the description of center panel images.

[Tcards-Please]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

With that said I'm perplexed by the fact that they would use an image of Joe and not mention him on the card. Other players that aren't included on the end panels are mentioned in the description of center panel images.

Tim,

Up to 1911, Joe had only played in 30 total games, so he wasn't as well known until later that year. That is just a hypothetical guess though, without any absolute proof.

r/
Frank

[Abravefan11]

Frank I understand your point, but considering a photo was used in the set from the 1911 World Series, Joe was well established by the time the write ups were done.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

Paul earlier made a nice point about reasonable doubt. So - here is a thought experiment. Assume that sllding into 3rd base is a serious felony, punishible by a lengthy prison sentence, perhaps even death. The witnesses to the event in question have all died or mysteriously vanished. All we have is the image from the card.

JJ is arrested. Should he be convicted based on that image?

Single best post on this thread. Sorry, Brett, got to move over. Beyond reasonable doubt, what does that mean? Somebody in an earlier post said 95%. Not sure where that came from but all I can say is if that is our standard of justice, there are one f****** of innocent people behind bars.

[sportscardtheory]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

Single best post on this thread. Sorry, Brett, got to move over. Beyond reasonable doubt, what does that mean? Somebody in an earlier post said 95%. Not sure where that came from but all I can say is if that is our standard of justice, there are one f****** of innocent people behind bars.

This has absolutely nothing to do with law. Majority rules in these situations.

[Peter_Spaeth]

All the folks who are convinced should be scrambling to buy up this card before the price goes through the roof. Are you?

[T206DK]

Originally Posted by T's please

Tim,

Up to 1911, Joe had only played in 30 total games, so he wasn't as well known until later that year. That is just a hypothetical guess though, without any absolute proof.

r/
Frank

The folks in Cleveland were eagerly awaiting Joes arrival to their team, so even though he had not played that much he was not "unknown". I believe he hit.354 and the Pelicans won the Southern Association title that year. Cleveland Papers ( which you can check) were writing stories about his arrival and his prowess at New Orleans. According to my buddy in New Orleans, there are articles in other southern papers from 1910-11 also hyping Jackson as a masterful batter and such , so I think people knew who he was and that he was a good player. he impressed the Cleveland fans in his first 20 or so games by batting a cool .388 with 4 stolen bases. To not name in on the card is kind of bizarre if it is him. he had already been used on advertising pieces for other products besides tobacco before the T202 set also which makes it even stranger that he would not be named on the card or that a mistake would be made using his picture and another players name. If it is him on the card then why no panel with Jackson, or T205.

[botn]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Let's do some math. Say it takes him 4 seconds to go from second to third. That's 22 feet per second, 264 inches per second. So let's generously say the pics are 5 inches apart -- that is 1/50 of a second. Can the arm move that much?

That is just great. Peter is now practicing physics!

Dr. Spaeth you have failed to factor in the drag from sliding AND I doubt Joe ran 90 feet in 4 seconds.

Psst...I will give you a VG example of the T202 if you just stop picking apart my newspaper image!

[Peter_Spaeth]

werent these made in 1912, which would have been after jax hit .408

[Abravefan11]

No Peter I wouldn't buy one before and I won't buy one now. With that said here's why I think the two photos are from the same play.



1) The photos as pointed out before were taken from two different angles. The bottom photo was further up the 3rd baseline than the top.

2) Lord's right hand, Lord's head, and Joe's right arm all have moved proportionally from one photo to the next. Joe's right leg, Lord's feet, and Joe's head have all maintained their position. Nothing is out of place from one photo to the next.

3) The angles surrounding the bag including the curvature on the home plate side are identical.

I know this isn't proper photo identification, but it's pretty compelling to me.

[Abravefan11]

Delete

[T206DK]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

All the folks who are convinced should be scrambling to buy up this card before the price goes through the roof. Are you?

yeah me and my brother bought of these off Teletrade years ago for between $10-$12 a card. I have two fo these cards. I thought I only had one. My brother now owns 5 of these cards thanks to the hype from this thread. I believe he will be going to the local vintage card shop where he lives tomorrow and will buy the one or two that are for sale there also. I would personally like to thank Brett for making my brother and many others think they are going to be rich men very soon. He bets a PSA 7 or 8 of this card will sell for over $15,000 to the right buyer ! he sold one of his Cobbs last year to somone for about that price.
3 people contacted my brother either from the PSA boards or this one yesterday wanting to buy his cards, so the rush has already started I'm afraid. I thnk now the bet should be what seller or auction house will use Brett's "Joe Jackson" reference in trying to sell this common for a super premium.

[sportscardtheory]

Originally Posted by T206DK

yeah me and my brother bought of these off Teletrade years ago for between $10-$12 a card. I have two fo these cards. I thought I only had one. My brother now owns 5 of these cards thanks to the hype from this thread. I believe he will be going to the local vintage card shop where he lives tomorrow and will buy the one or two that are for sale there also. I would personally like to thank Brett for making my brother and many others think they are going to be rich men very soon. He bets a PSA 7 or 8 of this card will sell for over $15,000 to the right buyer ! he sold one of his Cobbs last year to somone for about that price.
3 people contacted my brother either from the PSA boards or this one yesterday wanting to buy his cards, so the rush has already started I'm afraid. I thnk now the bet should be what seller or auction house will use Brett's "Joe Jackson" reference in trying to sell this common for a super premium.

You are here trashing everyone who has anything positive to say about this situation, and your brother clearly is on board with it being Jackson. Plus you have two yourself. Are you upset that the value could increase because it's Jackson? Doe that suck for you? lol So why are you so angry about all this? Are you angry with your brother as well?

[tbob]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

Paul earlier made a nice point about reasonable doubt. So - here is a thought experiment. Assume that sllding into 3rd base is a serious felony, punishible by a lengthy prison sentence, perhaps even death. The witnesses to the event in question have all died or mysteriously vanished. All we have is the image from the card.

JJ is arrested. Should he be convicted based on that image?

Mark- Paul's point about reasonable doubt as used in a courtroom proceeding is erroneous so I wouldn't use that as a basis for any argument. In Paul's defense he is not an attorney and admitted he thought he read somewhere about the definition of reasonable doubt, which is incorrect.

[tbob]

Now if the JJ case was a civil case, I think a jury could find the Plaintiff (Brett) has established his case by a preponderance of the evidence.

[T206DK]

Originally Posted by sportscardtheory

You are here trashing everyone who has anything positive to say about this situation, and your brother clearly is on board with it being Jackson. Plus you have two yourself. Are you upset that the value could increase because it's Jackson? Doe that suck for you? lol So why are you so angry about all this? Are you angry with your brother as well?

Yeah, Sportscard theory I trash everyone who has anything positive to say. I guess I will go the route of ChicagoT206 then since I have nothing to ad to your Joe Jackson fantasy. damn right I'm angry at my brother. We are polar opposites as far as collecting goes. He is in it for the money , I'm not, and never have been and ahave been pretty diehard about it since the night I saw the local card shop owner open case after case of Topps finest just to get the refractor cards so he could sell them at super inflated prices. You think one kid in town had a chance to buy a pack of those cards from him...NO! him and his greedy employees opened ever pack they could get there hands on. See there are these dealers and speculators out there that tend to make things up about cards in order to jack the value up. threads like this only serve to give them the ammo they need. We have provided them photos and documentation that their lazy asses would never had discovered. frankenstein is born , so to speak. what's positive about that. the only positive thing that happened here is someone named Brett found a card that has a picture of a guy sliding that resembles Shoeless Joe Jackson. It sparked a bunch of us to go to research to prove or disprove Brett's discovery. After 300+ posts Brett thinks he is right and cannot be swayed. He has a certain number of followers in his corner now too that will only see what they want to in these pictures that are posted. There are an equal number who think it's either inconcluisive and foolish to speculate or think it's not Jackson period. So that's about the sum of it for me.
oh, before you talk about not adding anything to the conversation....some of your posts exemplify it ! Why don't you just sit back and read instead of lobbing your insulting and inconsequential remarks at me. Your not going to change my mind , and I highly doubt your going to get a gang of Net54'ers to chase me off the board because you don't seem to like what I say sometimes.