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

[botn]

I am firmly with TD206DK on this. There were a few interesting posts on this thread - but many of them were simply irrationally ludicrous and symptomatic of the problems that plague the hobby. You can find more than a few excellent recent threads on photo ident. - this is not one of them.

And like anyone you are entitled to your opinion but a thread getting as many posts and views as this one has, would say otherwise. Not sure how you can categorize this thread as irrational and ludicrous when we are simply tossing about ideas about a photo. I certainly do not agree that this process is adding to what plagues the hobby. Maybe just a bit less drama from you, no?

[teetwoohsix]

I have not seen many posts in this thread pointing out why it is NOT Jackson-just curious to hear why it is not him? To me, I can see the similarities in those stacked photos-and I am as lousy as it gets in identifying mystery players............

Clayton

And no,,I am not one of the one's who ran out and bought this card

[bmarlowe1]

[quote=teetwoohsix;811132]I have not seen many posts in this thread pointing out why it is NOT Jackson-just curious to hear why it is not him? To me, I can see the similarities

Clayton

Clayton - you have things in reverse. You have to tell us why one should conclude that extremely blurry photo is Jackson. How is anyone supposed to show you that it's not Jackson when all we have is the vaguest impression of a face. We just can't know. No one has said this isn't Jackson.

What we do know is that the facial recogntion part of the brain is easily fooled. It doesn't matter if it "resembles" Jackson.

[teetwoohsix]

Hi Mark-

Well, I know this is your area of expertise, so I'm not going to begin to try to tell you why it's Jackson

But, I do have to admit, this is a convincing one to me.......at the very least, a great topic !!!

Clayton