That's fine. At this point all I want is for people to realize that we just discovered a new Joe Jackson card together. I've been pretty sure about it for a while and I recently decided to share it with everybody here. If I were doing it for selfish reasons I would have scooped up the 3 that I saw on ebay first.

Besides, anybody who has a picture of Lajoie (my all-time favorite player) on their avatar is a friend of mine.

Correct. Anybody who accepts the fact that it's Joe Jackson is smarter than someone who doesn't because it's now known to be true. In regards to the arrogance, I already tried to do it the other way and it didn't work. If people don't respect my findings and don't respect the work of SEVERAL others on this board who busted their asses to uncover the truth then they're the arrogant ones and I'll show them no respect in return.

As Andy Warhol once famously said...
 

Hey Brett. That has been a very long 15 minutes, but I think your time is about up.

Certainly enjoyed it though.

Jimmy

Maybe so, but at least I'm an asshole who just contributed something pretty big to the hobby. I can't tell you how many private messages I've gotten from people who told me not to worry about all the doubters who are just jealous that a first time poster came on here and added something much greater than you probably ever will.

Move over Jefferson Burdick :)

At this point, yes.

Actually, I think this link is more appropriate...what a thread!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7CBKT0PWFA

According to Lee Behrens you're not the first person to think this was Jackson...and seriously there have been very few (if any?) on this thread who don't believe that it could be Jackson...you have to realize that absent the ACTUAL PHOTO FROM THE TIME PERIOD there are going to be some doubts. I may believe that it is Jackson (and I do), and I might bet my life savings on it....but I wouldn't bet my life on it.

I would suggest that if you do want to stick around here after this thread dies down and contribute further (and I hope you will) that you tone down the MB3 imitation.

I think it was crystal clear to everybody except perhaps you that the image I was referring to was the IDENTICAL image to that on the T202 middle panel. Greg's research, while terrific, generated a DIFFERENT image.

Now that's not very nice. I think a simple "thank you" would be more in order. In fact, I think you should be encouraging me to stick around here longer... you might learn something else interesting from me.

Good call Rick...as usual. ;)

If anyone is still interested in discussing the photo I would like to repeat a question that Paul asked earlier.

"Forget for a minute the identity of the player sliding into 3rd base. I think the pertinent question now is:
Were these two photos taken a split second apart? If the evidence indicates they are photos from the same play at third, then we know the baserunner is the same in both photos."

For those that sill aren't sure if the photo is Joe, do you doubt that these two photos were taken during the same play on the same day?

Don't worry I won't call you an idiot if you disagree with me. :)

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_UrSHvogCrmM/S_...0Updated25.jpg

Barkman could give this dickhead lessons in civility. Pathetic.

when I first looked at the newspapper photo i thought now way was this the same play.. the more I look at it the more it looks like it is from teh same play...

is this a case of my mind seeing what it wants to see.???? :cool:

It seems highly likely, almost certain, that it is the same. I still am somewhat surprised Joe's arm could have moved that much in the microinstant between the two photos, but the chances that there was another play at third base with so many similarities seems remote.

Marty IMO no, given the observations made by Paul, Mark, and myself.

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.

In addition -
4) The dark pattern on the side of 3rd base matches in both photos.
5) Lord's right knee is bending forward in the second photo compared to the first. This is consistent with the 2nd photo being taken a split second after the first as Lord bends down closer to tag the runner.

Mark's comments:
As to the newpaper photo, let me try to provide a possible explanation for the socks and shadows (if this has already been done, sorry but I didn't see it). This needs to be justified and it isn't artist overpaint:

From the card and the very small shadow on the back of Lord's right foot we can see that the sun is high above and somewhat to our right. The sock on his back leg is partly shadowed by his own body. In the newpaper photo, he has moved that left foot forward - more under his body - hence it is more shadowed.

As to the slider's high leg - the one we see with the wrap on the card - we do see the wrap a little bit in the newpaper photo - just to our left of Lord's right leg - a thin strip of white - then it goes black perhaps due to the shadow of Lord's body as he slides under him. The extreme black and white is what we get because this is a half-tone image.

Is there a Pulitzer Prize for the hobby ? This is the most amazing discovery since sliced bread !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuWD7VrHquU

This has been a great thread, is there anyway to turn this back into a fun thing? :o

Peter at first glance Joe's arm stands out but when you look at Lord's right hand and his head you will see that they have moved a similar distance between the two photos.

Yet other things pointed out stay at consistent angles and positions.

What's missing to me is anything drastically out of place or shape. Given the few number of games played in Cleveland between these two teams I think the odds that there was another play at third that would so closely mirror the other is a real real long shot.

What if the newspaper image was snapped at the time which Joe's body was no longer moving in his slide? You are assuming the movement of the body sliding coincides with the movement of the arm. The movement of the slide is pure momentum where as the movement of the arm is kinetic. We don't know if it was a fraction of a second or a full second between shots. Don't know about you but it does not take me more than a second to life my arm from my that distance. The arm is in the same position in both images.

Wouldn't he have slid hard enough that his momentum sould have carried him at least into the bag? Seems unlikely the second image was snapped when he was just lying there short of the bag. But who knows.

The object is to slide hard enough to make it to the bag. Does that happen all the time?

Not sure it is reasonable to expect a photographer to be able to coordinate with their subject matter that closely. This was not a posed image.

Joe hadn't completed the slide as the point of the newspaper photo given it's description was to show that Lord tagged Joe before he touched the bag.

Time to find you a hobby.

I collect 58 Mantles. Got one?

Haven't seen one in a while.

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/calvindog/2918386347/" title="1958 Topps by calvindog65, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3247/2918386347_ee2ebed13c_o.jpg" width="450" height="766" alt="1958 Topps" /></a>

Your findings? - you found nothing. Greg found the newspaper photo that provides the only real evidence.

As to your contribution, it pales in comparison to the identifications made in the past by many of the posters who have not agreed with your approach and the certitude of your unsupported initial conclusion.

You see, what you have done here does not take any particular skill or insight. A blurry image that resembles a particular player to almost everyone is probably that player - we all know that. But that won't be and shouldn't be accepted as fact without further evidence, which you did not nor did you know how to provide.

I think Joe was on the grassy knoll in Dallas in '63.

Now I'm a dickhead... What's pathetic is guys like you who talk tough while hiding behind your keyboard.:D Loser.

My god you're such an authority I'd give anything to have your approval. You've been exposed on this board as nothing but a fraud and now you're attacking the messanger. The only thing that's blurry is obviously your vision. Just admit that you and a few of your buddies here have been proven wrong by a first-time poster and let it go.

This is a crude paint job, but it shows why I believe it's the same play. That's a very defined wrinkle and it would be nearly impossible that it happened twice the exact same way.

Rick- Great comment. This is the movie that in my youth made me want to be a lawyer. Henry Fonda is unbelievable.

Keep trying buddy. And don't worry, your pal Mark will never leave your side. I don't care how long you've been here or if it's me against the entire board, you've shown me no respect and you'll get none in return. Keep making personal attacks like "asshole" and "dickhead" and you'll only expose yourself as another internet tough-guy. Besides, aren't there rules here against using those types of insults?

You had requested this image yesterday and I was just working on it for you. It's a little rough but hopefully shows your point that the fold of the pants at the knee shown by the piping is very similar.

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_UrSHvogCrmM/S_...g%20Stripe.jpg

Quote:
Originally Posted by brett
I think you'll see a kinder, gentler, more playful version of me. It's just that I'm very passionate ....

This sounds like it belongs in Playboy's Playmate Data Sheet.

Jeff- :D My smile of the week.

[Our posts overlapped - but my response was to sportscardtheory before TIm's last post just above.]

Actually that's a nice job. If you magnify the images more you can run the comparison farther up and they do match.

Save it. You've already been exposed as a fraud.

Is the curve of his sock (where the pants end) much more pronounced in the newspaper photo though?

Thanks Mark. SCT brought up the fold in the pants in a post yesterday and asked if it could be outlined and I just got around to it while he was posting. Great observation on his part.

It's the angle Peter. Remember the photos were taken from two different angles as well as his right knee moved forward when Lord was reaching to make the tag.

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_UrSHvogCrmM/S_...0Updated27.jpg

At least when I get defensive, it's usually in retort to something I find questionable. Why attack him when he's just having casual discussion.

Brett,

I thoroughly enjoyed this thread when it started. You had many of the board members contributing and joining in to help you identify and support your theory. Others needed more than what was initially a speculation based on your initial post and picture. They weren't wrong, nor a fraud, they just needed more than what had been given up to that point.

Just because Mark didn't suddenly jump on the Jax wagon at the beginning didn't mean he was against your theory, he just needed more info. I think that people are coming around a little at a time based on the updated information. No need to slam people and make personal jabs because they didn't agree with you at the beginning.

Let it go, hold your head high knowing that you were right and move on.

Great job to all involved as I enjoyed reading and seeing this all unfold. Could have done without all the personal jabs though.

I do think it is Joe.

r/
Frank

yes there are and.....
 

Brett- what you don't know is that Peter S and I have already exchanged emails about the language used. He has been on the board for years and years and yes, that does buy a lot of slack, unlike you. If I see any more inappropriate language, from anyone in this thread, I will edit it and give a warning. Even though this was a great first thread you posted, you are quickly losing any respect you might have garnered with your observation. Chill out and the others will too. regards

Well said Frank.

I apologize. Brett's a "great guy." :D:D

Leon- since sportscardtheory has made some less than flattering personal comments, shouldn't he not be allowed to remain anonymous? Technically Brett is anonymous too, since we only have a first name.

fascinating thread. too bad no one back then had the foresight to keep jax's head cryogenically frozen...we would've gotten a definite answer in 50 yrs.

You got it Leon. I understand that this is your house and I'm just a guest. I'm sorry that things have deteriorated into what they have and I apologize to anybody who I've offended. Things started to get out of control a while back once the battle lines were drawn and I'm as guilty as anybody. I don't remember who started it and it's not important. I only intended to make a contribution here and I hope I have.
Brett