>> The relative's ID of Paul Waner flatly carries more weight than your argument.
It's not my argument, it's 100 years of forensic science for which you have yet to provide a response.
We all have access to many Waner photos. Why don't you request scans of the young Paul Waner photos upon which the relative based his opinion for us all to see? Would not it have been prudent to do that even before you started this thread so we all could see? or is it just easier for you to assume a relative can't be wrong because it suits your purpose? Is this relative any good at facial recognition - how can we know?
|