Its as Plain as the Nose on your Face-the Ear Thing isn't Gospel

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by Directly

Here he goes again--the loose cannon who doesn't have a clue what he's talking about, you would think he owns the photo?-- OK Sir; Why don't you think the photo isn't from Dubuque?

Second I see nine players in a baseball uniform, so I guess you see a couple football or may be tennis players--does this guy know what a baseball team looks like?

Third--another expert told me the contrary--I sure wouldn't want your opinion one whom doesn't seem know what a baseball team looks like?--

If the entire hobby world is watching. about time--I have been asking for this 25 years.---What if I'm right?

Wow.
I don't know what I'm talking about! Really?
Let's get this straight, it is your responsibility to prove your facts to be true, not the other way around.

First, there is nothing in the photo that says Dubuque. There is no name of any city in the photo, so you stating the photo is from Dubuque is wishful thinking, not fact. Where is your proof that it is from Dubuque?

Second, I never said they aren't baseball players. I said that there is no proof that they are all part of one team. Perhaps you are unaware that baseball players on the same team wear the same uniform. I see players wearing at least 3 different uniforms. This would suggest to most people who are both familiar with sports and who have the ability to think that these players are on different teams. So to refer to Dave Grob's information on contextual probability, if they aren't all on the same team, as you believe, then it isn't the Dubuque Rabbits. If it isn't the Dubuque Rabbits then why would Comiskey be in it? The answer is that it is very unlikely.

Third. I stated that it was not only my opinion, but it was proven by the foremost expert in facial recognition in our area of interest. He is not just some random guy off the street. I formed my opinion based upon the FACTS he presented. We have asked previously who your "expert" is. You have yet to tell us, so for all we know he or she doesn't exist.

Now, If you combine the low contextual probably with the lack of facial similarity, it becomes obvious that it isn't him. This really shouldn't be that hard for you to follow.

What if I am right? Did you really just ask that?
You obviously need to work on your reading comprehension. It is true that a good amount of the most involved and passionate baseball history hobbyists will very likely read the article. It should also be quite obvious, if you had been paying attention, that the article will be written by Mark(Bmarlowe1), you know, the expert to whom I keep referring. Considering that he has been the person who has presented the facts, in this and the other thread, that that have proven the player's facial characteristics don't match Comiskey, I think I am pretty safe saying that you will be proven wrong.