Re post #79, your analysis is not valid. The eyes, nostrils and mouth do not line up in your graphic. Thus your relative sizing is wrong. You are shooting from the hip with respect to a complex subject about which you seem to know nothing.

When working on a project a long time ago with an NYPD forensic analyst and a former FBI analyst - they taught me to do what I did above and why it works well even if the heads are at slightly different angles.

BTW - There is no need to rotate the heads here because for both subjects the eyes are level without any rotation.

Poll
 

I think it's time for a poll on this. Other than that, I don't know what else will be accomplished by this thread. The OP is not going to change Mark's mind and if the OP really thinks it's Waner then...great, move on. That being said, my vote would be for two clearly different people for the scientific reasoning being given.

How 'bout a poll?

So the poll would be who believes in science and who dose not?
I have no dog in in this fight but OP Team Photo is NOT Paul Waner. And if OP wanted to offer anything that would sway the science he would ask the relatives to share a picture of PW at the same age, maybe even in the same uniform. But why would the OP post something that would prove himself wrong?

Because poll or no poll it is not Paul Waner.

The sentiment has clearly gone both ways between myself and Mark. The problem with Mark is that he can't admit he's wrong. Also, he misquotes from my posts and then claims I make things up. When given proof of my assertion, he then states he knew of it 15 years ago. I'm no angel here, but Mark? Please.

I assume that he was making a joke.

Somehow I managed to miss that statement by Michael B.

My fault.

>> The problem with Mark is that he can't admit he's wrong. Also, he misquotes from my posts and then claims I make things up. When given proof of my assertion, he then states he knew of it 15 years ago. I'm no angel here, but Mark? Please.

I do not misquote you. When you quote yourself you leave things out.

As to you saying that I did not know ears grow, you can be sure I did know because:
(1) In 2017 in Net54 I posted in response to YOU about this same photo: "The ear growth of which you speak is so small that it would not be noticeable even when comparing a photograph of a teenager to that of a man in his 40's. It rarely becomes apparent until much later, and even then it is usually just some ear lobe droop - not a gross change in shape"
(2) In 2008 in SABR's "The National Pastime' I published an article "Analyzing Grand Old Images" in which I stated, "...ear shape and structure are relatively permanent from about age 8 to age 70." Note that I said "relatively" and "about", meaning ears are not absolutely unchanging like concrete over a full lifetime.

So clearly your statement about what I knew and when I know it was wrong. Can you admit it?

LOL! Thank you. Just ignore the evidence that I gave on this on two different posts.

By the way, feel free to check out Paul Waner's nose on the 1926 exhibit and the 1945 Yankees picture. Clearly appreciable difference in the nose long before the age of 70.

Also, thanks now for the laugh. You have added a 17th year to my life.

No hard feelings.

>> Just ignore the evidence that I gave on this on two different posts.

You continue to blather imprecise nonsense

>> By the way, feel free to check out Paul Waner's nose on the 1926 exhibit and the 1945 Yankees picture. Clearly appreciable difference in the nose long before the age

Really, do you read the posts? Seems not. "Age 70" was tied to ears, not noses, though noses are also fairly stable thru middle age. And in any case I addressed your nose comment back in post 73.

LOL!

Here we go.....again. Thank you for the laughter.

Let's see if we can simplify this for you. 1926 exhibit. No, hook nose. 1945 profound hook nose.

Your answer from post 73:

"The noses in the 1926 exhibit and the Yankee and Pitt photos are consistent. For some people, especially those with large noses, just starting to smile or grimace will case the nose phlange and nostrils to pull up at an angle relative to the tip of the nose. This is evident in the Pitt. and NY images and is exaggerated in the Pitt image because his head is tilted forward. In the 1926 image he is expressionless and the camera is slightly low (his head is tilted slightly back relative to the plane of the camera."

Now, that is blather. The point that you are blathering around is that there is a profound difference in the nose. The distinct difference is because of age not because of a beginning smile or tilt of the head. The evidence is right in front of you in the difference between the 1926 exhibit and the 1945 Yankees picture.

Also, please look at the ear in each photo. Notice a difference? Remember, we're talking about ages 22 to 23 as opposed to 41 or 42. Not 70. Still, that's only an additional difference of over two and approaching three decades beyond the Yankees picture.

Go ahead. Blather.

No hard feelings.

I realize it. Just trying to play along. Sitting on the sidelines for this show can get boring.

True. Oh, so true.

>> Now, that is blather. The point that you are blathering around is that there is a profound difference in the nose. The distinct difference is because of age not because of a beginning smile or tilt of the head.

As usual you are wrong, my assessment was correct. Below we have a young PW, smiling a bit and what do you know, his nose tip points distinctly downward. Can you see that Mr. Van Horn?

Bwahaha!

Let's see. Look at your picture and the 1945 Yankees picture. Notice a huge difference in the nose and, no, it is not due to angle or smile.

Also, you didn't answer my request which I will again post:

"Also, please look at the ear in each photo. Notice a difference? Remember, we're talking about ages 22 to 23 as opposed to 41 or 42. Not 70. Still, that's only an additional difference of over two and approaching three decades beyond the Yankees picture."

You have a wonderful dichotomy of blathering (incorrectly) on one subject while avoiding another.

No hard feelings.

>> Let's see. Look at your picture and the 1945 Yankees picture. Notice a huge difference in the nose and, no, it is not due to angle or smile.

Looks about the same as the young PW smiling photo

>> Also, please look at the ear in each photo. Notice a difference? Remember, we're talking about ages 22 to 23 as opposed to 41 or 42. Not 70.

There is absolutely no visible difference in the ear.

Oh, my goodness. LOL!

Would you agree the pictures are about the same size and distance from Paul Waner in both photos?

Just asking. Again, just asking.

>> Would you agree the pictures are about the same size and distance from Paul Waner in both photos?

Again, in English please

It is in English! LOL!

Let's try this again. Would you agree since you literally lined up these photos they are just about the same size and that the pictures were taken from about the same distance away?

>> Would you agree since you literally lined up these photos they are just about the same size and that the pictures were taken from about the same distance away?

I don't know how far away the cameras were from the faces depicted, except to say they were far enough away to avoid what is called "perspective distortion" that occurs in extreme close-ups. That is all that is important here.

I don't know the size of the original photos or negatives which is not relevant to anything here.

Pretty sure the point Brian is about to make is that, even in the two photos you used, that compare waner vs waner and are known. There's a dramatic difference in the earlobe. Which you've said all along disqualifies.

Do you not understand that in the younger full frontal photo (at left) the earlobe is not visible? You can see it in the semi-profile (at right) but not in the full-frontal image. That is often the case. I know that because I have done literally thousands of these, you haven't.

Well, here you go.

Take the 1945 Yankees photo of Paul Waner and move it up just slightly so it matches the slight bit of ear just above your top right line in the 1926 exhibit. That way, there is an alignment of the heads in both pictures.

Aren't you going to thank me for doing your due diligence in this matter?

Now, overlap your red lines again. That's a boy. You're making progress.

Now, look at that flap of ear hanging down on the ear on the right side of the 1945 photo. Now, you can try to make the argument these might not be the same distance away in the photographs, but we just lined up the ears and there's that hanging bottom ear lobe. Bad, naughty ear lobe. You aged 28 or 29 years before you should have and there is that more pronounced inner ridge of the ear lobe. OK. Slightly different angle of the photos. Still, the ear is longer and more pronounced. To boot, your red lines back this up. Guess what? He's not 70 in the picture.

Oh, but I'm just making this up.....with backup from the pictures and your red lines.

No hard feelings.

My two cents: That ain't Paul Waner. Some resemblance, maybe even a Waner family member, but no Poison.

I would give modest at most credence to a family member's identification. I've personally seen my family members quibble over who is pictured in various old family photos, even when the two people arguing are themselves both in the picture and dispute the identity of another! Both were obviously present and would have recollection and still they can disagree. I would venture that this is not all that unusual. So absent more corroboration, as suggested, I would discount whatever was offered as an ID in this case, unless there's much more that isn't being shared with us.

Todd,

I thank you for your input. I just respectfully disagree.

OK - so here is young PW turned a bit so you can see his earlobe. I admit we are comparing right ear to left ear - not quite kosher - but 99% of the time it is OK. Anyway now you can see a full ear in both photos and there is nothing here to indicate a mismatch.

>> Now, look at that flap of ear hanging down on the ear on the right side of the 1945 photo. Now, you can try to make the argument these might not be the same distance away in the photographs, but we just lined up the ears and there's that hanging bottom ear lobe.

Already answered, full-frontal (earlobe hidden) vs. semi-profile (earlobe visible). I know you don't understand this, but most will. I bet phikappapsi does.

Yeah, that is a bit(much) more convincing for sure.

The point is this using your statement in post 11:

"Even beyond age 70 - what you usually see is drooping earlobes (due to years of gravity pull) and the top of the ear may curl over a bit, but the basic ear shape stays the same and if one is careful you can compare an old man's ears to that of a teenager."

Let's face it. Your post 74 lined up the exhibit and the 1945 Yankees picture to make a point. Oops! Now you knew these pictures had to be at the same distance for your line comparison. The only problem is that the head shot in the 1926 exhibit was just a smidge higher than the 1945 Yankees photo. So, move up the Yankees photo for a proper alignment. Gee, that hanging earlobe just won't cooperate.

As for the other ear, please stop running away from the point.

The point being that the ear changed noticeably in size and the alignment of the 1926 exhibit and the 1945 Yankees photo prove it along with your line markings prove it.

Still I really must apologize.

Sorry, Mark. Checkmate. You lose on this point.

No hard feelings.

While I’ve seen enough to draw my own conclusion, I’ve got to believe there are better pics available, than just these three. I’m not invested enough to put the time into researching it. But aren’t there loads of accessible Paul Waner photos that would make it easier for both sides to make their respective cases?

Not that it would help much to sway either side, haha.

>> Now, look at that flap of ear hanging down on the ear on the right side of the 1945 photo. Now, you can try to make the argument these might not be the same distance away in the photographs, but we just lined up the ears and there's that hanging bottom ear lobe.

I already said distance has nothing to do with this- in all likelihood the distance from camera to subject in the various photos was different. That does not matter. Again - you do not seem to be reading the posts.

>> The only problem is that the head shot in the 1926 exhibit was just a smidge higher than the 1945 Yankees photo. So, move up the Yankees photo for a proper alignment.

Then the rest of the photo would be misaligned, do you not undesrtand that? The alignment as shown is based on correct forensic practice. If you don't like it take the time to create your own graphic for all of us to see.

It is clear from your comments that you don't comprehend any of this.You have a lot of trouble interpreting what you are seeing in images. Perhaps another N54 member can do a better job of explaining it all to you.

LOL!

The constant of the thread is that the childhood photo of Paul Waner, the 1926 exhibit of Paul Waner and the 1945 Yankees photo of Paul Waner all show his left ear.

Your own alignment of the 1926 exhibit and the 1945 Yankees have done you in on the point of aging and its effect, well before 70, on the left earlobe. Face it. You sank your own argument with picture evidence.

Still, I thank you.

No hard feelings.

So.... is it Paul Waner? :p

Wow! You lined up a second picture to reinforce your first comparison. The earlobe is still lower with age and in the latter picture, Paul Waner is still nowhere close to 70.

Thank you. You're so kind.

No hard feelings.

Still, keep making my argument for me with photographic evidence to boot. You're doing a wonderful job.

So far, Mark is sinking his own argument with photographic evidence to boot. There's still hope for him.

>> You lined up a second picture to reinforce your first comparison.

No.

>> The earlobe is still lower with age and in the latter picture, Paul Waner is still nowhere close to 70.

Small difference in head tilt will cause small difference in alignment, however it will not affect comparison of overall ear shape which is the same. That's all we are trying to do.

In my original side-by side of your photo with the real PW, the ear shapes are grossly different, fine precise alignment is not needed.

With these low quality images we are not trying to measure fractions of a millimeter, but we are able to expose gross differences. I already explained this, but either you did not read it or you did not understand it.

Other evidence???
 

Mark/Brian, does anything else droop post 65 years old? Perhaps we could evaluate another body part for another data point????

I know and like both if you. I hope for the best for Brian’s postcard.
:D:D:D

Now, this is a classic!

:D

Let's face facts. You lined up the exhibit and the Yankees picture to make a point. The point unfortunately was that your lining up of the two proved the earlobe ages noticeably before 70. For that I thank you and your red lines for exposing the "gross differences".

No hard feelings.

Here’s a pretty clear screenshot of a rookie Paul Waner at age 23. Looks like the honker was already pretty substantial, with a somewhat bulbous hook. And no cleft in the chin at all, FWIW.

Mark,

Please forgive me, but here is a picture of a Pittsburgh Pirate in a 1926 uniform (Paul's rookie year). The picture you have is of Paul Waner in the 1930s.

Since the eaarlobe in question is not visible in the photo you are referencing, how do you know it has changed? Please crreate a graphic that explains that. If you don't know how, find someone that agrees with you to help.

LOL!

You lined up the photos to make a point. The point you made through the photo alignment scuttled your argument. Now, after how many posts (?), you are arguing it is hidden in the 1926 exhibit. Face it. You're grasping. The earlobe grew over the 19 years and Paul Waner was nowhere near 70 in the Yankees photo.

Checkmate on this argument. Sorry, but you lost this point.

No hard feelings.

>> You lined up the photos to make a point. The point you made through the photo alignment scuttled your argument. Now, after how many posts (?), you are arguing it is hidden in the 1926 exhibit. Face it. You're grasping.

The argument was made in post 101, which either you did not read or did not comprehend.

You do not comprehend the points I have made, thus your counter-arguments are incoherent.

LOL!

You scuttled your own argument with photographic evidence.

That is a coherent statement.

Simple enough?

No hard feelings.

You don't know what the argument is. You haven't answered as to how you know an invisible earlobe has changed. Why not PM phikappapsi for help?

LOL!

You lost a battle of photo comparison to phikappapsi and your photo comparison proved there is noticeable growth in Paul Waner's left ear well before the age of 70.

Oh, Black Knight, I wish I could commend you in battle, but you committed hari kari. All that is left in this part of the argument is your pining for the fjords.

No hard feelings.

Young & old Waner. Here his left earlobe is visible, and of course it matches the old Waner.

Thank you. That ear is still longer in the Yankee picture. Thank you for proving the point a third time through photo comparison.

Black Knight, I think it only fair to warn you that you have now voluntarily lopped off three of your limbs. You only have one left. We are beyond the flesh wound stage.

No hard feelings. Oops! With you lopping off three of your limbs maybe that's not appropriate.

Oh, I am so sorry for your loss.

I nose it is none of my business, but here are Paul Waner baseball cards, as seen through the ears.

Brian (none of these cards are mine...I wouldn't be able to foot the bill)

Brian,

Deeply appreciated.

>> That ear is still longer in the Yankee picture

Barely by an insignificant amount if you measure. You could see that small diffference in 2 photos of the same person taken the same day.

What matters is the ear shapes are clearly the same and they are about the same size. I guess you were wrong about the photo with the invisible earlobe. And of course the ear on your "Waner" does not match any of these.

"Barely by an insignificant amount if you measure."="Tis but a flesh wound."

>> That ear is still longer in the Yankee picture.

Left photo slid down for easy ear size comparison. Like I said, not significant. Game, set, match.

The crux of the OP's argument is that there was a family member that positively identified the item as being Paul Warner and a lot of this is verified through family photos. It seems like the family member was more than happy to take the time to talk to Brian and provide some insight. It seems to me that the relative would be more than happy to share some of these photos.

Has the OP asked to see the photos?
Has the OP asked if they can post the photos?

Otherwise this is a circular argument that will go nowhere.

I contend that Tom Brady filled in for Craig Biggio on his 1989 Topps card.

Worst. Thread. Ever.

Mark, thank you for your reasoned responses throughout this thread. I appreciate your insight and analysis of this and other photos that have been presented through the years. I have unfortunately allowed my SABR membership to lapse, but if you have a short list of any resources or in print or online that are readily-accessible or easily-purchased for someone interested in learning and correctly-applying the basic techniques you describe, could you give a good "Recommended Reading" list for beginners? Thanks!

Thank you.

LOL! You're right. I have won game set and match. If you get the head sizes aligned correctly (1945 is much smaller), the ear in the 1945 Yankees photo is much bigger. Did it not occur to you when you put in the lines across the two pictures this flaw would be obvious? The eyes and the lips which were lined in up in previous photo comparisons are no where near lined up. As King Arthur said to the Black Knight in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail," "You make me sad". I am sad you resulted to compromising science to this point.

To paraphrase from "Hamlet":

Hoisted upon your own petar.

By the way, your latest hari kari attempt cost you your final limb, Black Knight.

No, we will not call it a draw.

No hard feelings. :D

+1
 

Maybe it’s time to stop agreeing to disagree and just stop.

>> If you get the head sizes aligned correctly (1945 is much smaller), the ear in the 1945 Yankees photo is much bigger.

The heads and the ears the same same size in both posts 127 and 133. Try a ruler.

Thx to all who emailed me about the OP having episodes of high irrationality when challenged. Some where back there he said something about this all making him feel younger. Perhaps that explains his posts reading like those of a petulant 12 year old. No hard feelings.

At some point I will respond to Cats Pajama's request.

Thanks Mark. Please feel free to do so in a new thread. I suspect those who would enjoy and benefit most from the resources are not so likely to navigate to the end of this one.

LOL! Ah, irrationality. Try your red lines. The red lines which sunk your argument. The red lines in post 133 which you lined up with Paul Waner's eyebrows in one picture and the middle of his eyes in the 1945 Yankees picture to try to convince us the ears were the same. Ah, my irrationality. Thank you.

Apparently the e-mails missed.

No hard feelings.

I agree.

I completely disagree, my ear lobes are tight, come at be bro! This has been a personal checkpoint as to the state of the union - and I mean that in a good way. If we (some of us?) are arguing about bulbous noses and ear lobes online in a subection of a baseball memorabilia site, then as a society we're very weird, but also ain't doing too bad in the grand scheme of things.

A good weekend to all...and I'm with Brian, it is Waner, noses and other things droop - fight me!

Andy

Sorry, gotta tell ya. It's Shoeless Joe Jackson. His descendant Reggie, or was it Jesse?, told me so. Q.E.D.

>> The red lines in post 133 which you lined up with Paul Waner's eyebrows in one picture and the middle of his eyes in the 1945 Yankees picture to try to convince us the ears were the same.

You would have to be rational to be convinced. Like I said, just measure the ears top to bottom with a ruler. You will be dumbfounded by what you see.

Ignoring advice from many to start ignoring the OP, I'll add one more graphic he won't understand, but most will. In the spirit of catspajama's suggestion for education:

First the images are size-matched according to correct forensic procedures (red dotted lines). The idea is that if you align easy-to-see landmarks (here eyes, nostrils, mouth) and both images depict the same person, the relative sizes of other features should match, like for instance ears.

Note that the blue lines are parallel (to the uninitiated, that means the space between them is constant across both images). It allows you to compare the sizes of objects (here the ears) between the lines even though they are not horizontal. The difference in ear size is stark.

No 40-year-olds in these images, and I am certain there are way too many levels of logic for the OP to comprehend. I am happy to respond to any sensible commentary.

This has been one of the best threads on this site in a LONG time! Keep it going, I laugh hard every post.

God help me for getting into this, but the two faces in post 146 seem to be different sizes. If you resize the photo on the right s.t. the distance from the middle of the eyes to the bottom of the chin is the same as in the photo at the left, how do the ear sizes then compare?

I think if you resize one of the photos, the eyes/nose/mouth won't line up, which (if I understand Mark correctly) will prove its not the same person.

Jay - I was hopping someone would ask that question. Two things:
1) It is often hard to find "the bottom of the chin." On the right it is lost in shadow, on the left the skin of his neck seems to hang down somewhat below his chin. This is common and it makes it hard to discern where the chin ends and the neck skin begins. So I try to avoid that as a landmark. However analysts do sometimes use it.
2) I could probably estimate accurately enough where the chin bottoms are. If I then resized as you requested the nostrils and mouth would no longer align. This would be considered as proof that these are 2 different persons regardless of ear size.


Just noticed - Rob (Tiger8mush) already had the right answer!

Why are there no hard feelings? it is high time we had some!

I think the new saying for this thread should be "Soft Feelings Only", because I believe hard ones are not allowed.

Brian

Funny a boxing fan saying that. Keep in mind that I used it only once to mock the OP. I wasn't intending to be nice.

This thread gets better and better, or worse and worse. I can't really tell

So, is it Paul Waner? :p

I'm pretty sure its actually Lloyd Waner :) ! I met Lloyd in 1971, and it looks like his ear.

Good luck on your quest!
 

Curious how did you obtain the photo? (from a family member?)

1)How was the photo's date established, if so how?

2) is there definitive proof where the photo was taken?

3) Does the family know whom took the team photo--(a family member, etc?)

Good luck on your quest!

Thanks Mark, that makes sense

My two cents (but I'd like to bet more)
 

I have no dogs in this fight.

There are material differences in the features of these individuals. So much so that it is beyond conclusive they are not the same person (including, but not limited to, ear shape and features, nose shape and features, cheekbone structure, head shape -- materially rounder in one, various relative length/width ratios between features that become apparent from horizontal line additions). I wish this could be settled by giving this to an outside party who focuses on facial recognition for a living. I would bet dollars to donuts that they would determine they are two different people. Please let me know if I can ever make that bet! Seriously though, why not agree to have an outside expert look at it agreed upon by both parties and the loser will pay for that expert's cost and whatever you want to bet outside of that?

What's most interesting to me is how strong confirmation bias can be and how belief is more important than reality in shaping views. If one wonders how society can become so polarized in a biased position in the face of objective data look no further than this thread. It is next to impossible to change an entrenched position in many cases so this is largely a waste of time at this point (I've already suggested a possible resolution) but continue on if you wish.

For what it's worth - I'm not an expert in facial recognition or anything related to photo identifying people. However, I guessed without much hesitation who I thought was Paul Waner from the photo. The only thing that seemed "off" (if you could call it "off") is the size of the person that looks like (not saying it isn't him) Paul Waner. The person in the picture looks to be "big" in comparison to the others, however that could be due to things like where the camera was when the picture was taken.

IMO it looks like Paul Waner, but that doesn't mean much.

It's been a fun thread to read and at least it isn't a train wreck.