Tom,
The reason you have been described in that way is because you are either unwilling or unable to see the facts that have been laid before you. What is happening here is that you have been informed by every single person who responded to your post, that it isn't Comiskey. In multiple posts, we have presented unrefutable evidence that this isn't Comiskey. Still you refuse to believe, and have hung onto the idea that the kid may slightly resemble Comiskey combined with a whole bunch of circumstances that aren't even known to be factually true. I'm sorry guy, but that isn't evidence.
One more time let me help you understand the correct way to analyze this information...
It doesn't matter that you think they have a couple features in common.
It doesn't matter that Comiskey was in Dubuque in 1879 and possibly knew the photographer.
It doesn't matter that the pic came from St Louis and some players on the Dubuque team wound up in St Louis. This is your wild assumption and not in any way a provable fact.
Even if all your assumptions were shown to be true, it still wouldn't matter.
WHY?
None of the above matters because the ears don't match.
Why is this important?
The ears are a facial feature that don't change as we age. Therefore, if they are clearly visible, ear shape comparison can be used with virtually 100% accuracy to match photos of people. In your picture, the ears of the kid in question don't match the ears of Charles Comiskey in pictures that we know for sure are him.
The reality is that you could have a thousand other pieces of circumstance that you feel somehow ties Comiskey to this picture, but the kid's ears still won't match. FACT: If the ears don't match it isn't him.
Why am I frustrated? I am ticked because you come on here asking for help. You get answers you don't like and then either ignore them or attempt to invalidate them. You go from "experts aren't always right" to then suggesting that we, as a group, are somehow attempting to purposefully deny the photo's significance. When someone tells me that I don't know what I am doing or that I am lying, I do tend to take it a little personally.
Pretty much, all of the people who responded to you have many years of hobby experience. Many with photograph expertise. BMarlowe1, Mark, is one of, if not "THE" foremost picture identification expert in the entire hobby. If you had read previous threads on this forum, you will see that we are very supportive of individuals who make great "finds." No one here has any desire to disprove something that is real. Can an expert be incorrect? Sure. Being you like to quote about odds so much...What are the odds that when they all agree, they are all wrong together? Astronomical.
You obviously want this picture to be Comiskey, for financial and perhaps other reasons. No matter how hard you try it isn't and won't ever be him.
One last thing.
This is America.
This is not a public forum. It is a private forum. You had to apply to join. Neither you nor I have the "right" to post on this forum. We have the privilege to post our opinions on this forum. (To the Owners/Mods TYVM, BTW). The owners of this forum get to decide what is acceptable and what isn't.
Mark,
Your analysis hit the nail on the head. I asked Dan/Leon to close it so hopefully someone sometime wouldn't do exactly what you stated. We see his responses and assume he can't be this dense, so he must be attempting to defraud. I think policing the hobby is something most serious collectors are concerned about.
Dan,
I understand. I know locking threads is something you guys hate to do. This entire discussion just frustrates me.