Early Eisenhower?

[JollyElm]

From young to old, Ike had 'free' earlobes, not attached ones. The guy in the photo clearly has attached earlobes...plus, he doesn't look anything like him!!!!!!!!!

ikeears.jpg

[smotan_02]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

From young to old, Ike had 'free' earlobes, not attached ones. The guy in the photo clearly has attached earlobes...plus, he doesn't look anything like him!!!!!!!!!

Attachment 281272

Thank you. I simply asked. Your explanation on why not would have been appreciated from the beginning; not snarky dismissiveness.

Considering it was several football items from the estate of Cadet Newgarden who was a member of the Cullum Hall (JV) Football team with Cadet Eisenhower and he had several items featuring Eisenhower's name......it was worthwhile to ask.

[JollyElm]

I am being snarky because it is beyond self-evident that it is not Ike, yet people come on here and readily say it's him. Just like in every other thread where people are trying to identify people in old photographs. 99.9999999999999% of the posters just throw out such ridiculously wrong answers and others chime in, "Yup, you're right." It's like the part of their brain that is able to distinguish the differences in two dissimilar shapes is not present. It gets tiring!!!

[smotan_02]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

I am being snarky because it is beyond self-evident that it is not Ike, yet people come on here and readily say it's him. Just like in every other thread where people are trying to identify people in old photographs. 99.9999999999999% of the posters just throw out such ridiculously wrong answers and others chime in, "Yup, you're right." It's like the part of their brain that is able to distinguish the differences in two dissimilar shapes is not present. It gets tiring!!!

I disagree, it isn't beyond self evident. Yes, it may not be him. But you know what, maybe it is. At least enough to ask the question. Enough that some of the facial features, the supporting documentation, and timeframe lined up. The circumstantial evidence was enough to propose it. Have I shown an overly zealous tendency to make it fit and force it to be him? Not at all. Others simply said, "Yeah, it looks like him", which was my initial thought. You actually presented evidence, which is all I was asking for. However, your holier than thou attitude made it seem silly that I even presented the question in the first place. If everyone had your approach, then this wouldn't be a very conducive place to learning about the hobby.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[ramram]

Originally Posted by smotan_02

I disagree, it isn't beyond self evident. Yes, it may not be him. But you know what, maybe it is. At least enough to ask the question. Enough that some of the facial features, the supporting documentation, and timeframe lined up. The circumstantial evidence was enough to propose it. Have I shown an overly zealous tendency to make it fit and force it to be him? Not at all. Others simply said, "Yeah, it looks like him", which was my initial thought. You actually presented evidence, which is all I was asking for. However, your holier than thou attitude made it seem silly that I even presented the question in the first place. If everyone had your approach, then this wouldn't be a very conducive place to learning about the hobby.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

+1

Rob M

[Fballguy]

Originally Posted by ramram

+1

Rob M

+2