I did not miss that fact (it is in the stuff I read 15 years ago). What you missed is that the growth is not enough to affect ear comparison in photos of men of ball-player age. If I am doing this wrong, so is the FBI.
What you made up was asserting that the relatively microscopic yearly growth in ear cartilage is anything close to what can happen to your feet.
Your either not reading what I post or you can't understand it. So why can't we see a few of the young Waner photos your relative used? Are you afraid the comparison won't look so good?
Last edited by bmarlowe1; 05-28-2020 at 09:27 PM.
|