See below.

http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/s...psb7864075.png

Considering blurry photo, slight scale differences and 5-10 year time leap. Pretty close. Look at (his) left eye and how it comes to point vs. right eye. Can you chart that?

Actually I think that scale might have done more to convince me it is Clarke than otherwise but it is really hard to tell.

Considering it is my photo that started it all I am just wondering if whether or not it is Clarke makes the photo any more valuable?

On the lower (viewer's) right it's off by more than 1-1.5 inches when scaled up to life size - that's near the limit of human variability for an adult. You aren't likely to find a larger discrepancy between two different adult male humans. Can you imagine your jaw being an inch wider on one side? What it tells you is that they can't possibly be the same person.

10 Years for an adult can't account for that - jaw size is set by late teens. I can do the same comparison with later exemplars of Clarke and it comes out the same.

As for the eyes I have no idea what you are talking about.

I can do this with one Clarke frontal view after another - they will come up dead on. Why is your guy so far off? Here's Clarke in 1910 on the left.

http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/s...ps85ba2384.png

Is it possible the photo quality could be playing a role? The shape of what I guess are called the eye sockets look very similar.

Maybe it is Charles Comiskey

Sent from my SM-G730V using Tapatalk

Oh you are a bad bad boy.
No soup for you!

The jaw boundary can reasonably be discerned. The lower right black arrows (overlayed on the face in question) are clearly well beyond the boundary of the jaw line and are far into neck territory.

One major discrepancy is enough to disprove the Clarke ID. Other similarities do not matter. In any case your photo is not clear enough to discern the shape of the eyes (try to draw that).

I should add that Clark had large nostrils on the sides of the tip of his nose with wide flaring nostril flanges (the flesh around the nostril). Look at the Clarke exemplars I posted. I know your photo is blurry, but we see absolutely no evidence of this in your photo. In spite of the blur we should probably see some hint of this. The noses seem to be very different.

I noticed a few other things that to me say it isn't Clarke.
1) The ears on the guy in question don't stick out anywhere close to the way Clarke's do. Granted, you don't get a super clear view of the ears on the unknown guy, but considering how much Clarke's ears stick out, I would expect them to be a little more prominent.

2) Clarke has a pretty significant hook at the tip of his nose. The unknown guy doesn't appear to have any sort of bulge in either photo.

3) Clarke's nose seems to start more narrow and become significantly wider in the middle. The unknown guy's nose appears pretty even from top to bottom.

All that aside, the one thing main point that I learned about facial recognition by watching Mark go through his facial analysis is this. It doesn't matter how many parts of the face do match, if one, and it needs to be only one, part doesn't match, it's not the same person. The exceptions are differences that can be explained by age, illness/surgery/injury, or weight gain.

In this case, the heavier man (unknown person), whom some believe is the off season Clarke, has the narrower jaw line. How could gaining 10-20lbs make his jaw more narrow? It should make it bigger. No?

I don't know who it is, but it isn't Clarke.

Edit: Mark, We were posting at the same time. You beat me to the punch about only needing one difference. Thanks for the education. Mark

Mark V. (Lordstan) - I guess previous "teaching moments" have had some effect.

The following might sound like common sense, but what the heck, we'll see if that sort of thing flies around here:

When someone states that a photo is of a specific person, I first ask myself: "Does it look like him?" If the answer is "no way in hell", then I'm done. If it sort of looks like him, and there is other documentation to indicate that it is him, then I might start looking more closely at features.

edited to add: if you get bored, you can always use google images to locate loads of photos of Fred Clarke, and you will find that, amazingly...they all actually look like the same guy (Fred Clarke). You won't find any 'old, fat' Clarke photos, or 'fuzzy, obscured features' Fred Clarke photos that do not look like him.

This photo fails the "Is it [person x]?" test resoundingly. Didn't even need Mark's teachings, although I have plenty of times in the past.