An update: I present to you.....

[Brian Van Horn]

The cheekbones and the relative trump the ears.

No hard feelings.

[bmarlowe1]

So sharing some portion of DNA gives one some enhanced ability to ID a kid in a 110 year old photo. That's as illogical as everything else you have said on this subject.


And, the cheekbones do not match. In any case, any apparent particlular feature "match" would not trump an ear mis-match, at least according to the scientific literature and practice by any major law-enforcement agency. So you can go with that, or you can go with Mr. Van Horn.

[Brian Van Horn]

No hard feelings. Enjoy looking at Paul Waner.

[Jim65]

The #1 rule of photomatching game worn jerseys, is to look for differences not similarities. Differences always overrule similarities.

I would think that rule applies to photomatching almost anything, including people.

[bmarlowe1]

yes

[Brian Van Horn]

I hate telling you this, but the jerseys could be explained simply by the part of the country. Old jerseys, yes, but could they still be worn years after other parts of the country changed? Yes.

Enjoy Paul Waner

P.S.

The ear argument is weak. Anybody who studies ears or noses understands that they change and actually grow as you get older. Also, in my case, that applies to feet. I graduated with size nine feet. They are now ten and a half.

[bmarlowe1]

> old jerseys

Here you are refering to the original thread where I argued that based on Waner's DOB, it would be unlikely that as a teenager he would be on a team wearing collared jerseys. I said that alone made it "unlikely" that Waner was in the photo - I never said that was conclusive.

> The ear argument is weak. Anybody who studies ears or noses understands that they change and actually grow as you get older. Also, in my case, that applies to feet..

Yes your feet spread out because you stand on them for thousands of hours during your life - do you stand on your ears? Ears change little from young adolesence (or earlier) to about age 60 or 70 on average. This is in the scientific literature (I can email you some recent papers if you like) and has really been well-established for over a century. The ear growth that does occur (small fractions of a mm) is not perceptible in a photo and does not change the ear shape. This is especially applicable to humans of ball-playing age.The ear argument is THE argument that is accepted by forensic practitioners, auction houses, law-enforcement, museums, etc.

Even beyond age 70 - what you usually see is drooping earlobes (due to years of gravity pull) and the top of the ear may curl over a bit, but the basic ear shape stays the same and if one is careful you can compare an old man's ears to that of a teenager.

You have a habit of making things up out of thin air.

[Brian Van Horn]

Mark,

Argue all you want. It is Paul Waner. The identity has been confirmed by a relative. By the way, because of the jersey, I asked the person in the title of the e-mail if the person in the photo was Paul Waner or his father Ora Lee Waner. The response:

It is Paul Waner.

This person volunteered in a phone conversation with me as well that the family has numerous photos of the brothers prior to submitting the e-mail with an attachment of the photo in question. These other photos would cover all ages. Let's review.

There are only two gentlemen this could have been in the photo.

1.) Paul Waner
2.) Ora Lee Waner who was good enough as an amateur pitcher to be offered a contract by the Chicago White Sox. He declined the offer.

Who is the gentleman in the photo?

The answer:

Paul Waner.

[Tao_Moko]

As long as Brian owns it then it is Waner. Pretty certain it's that simple from what I read. So, nice Waner Brian. The jury is only important if it sold as Waner definitively.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by Tao_Moko

As long as Brian owns it then it is Waner. Pretty certain it's that simple from what I read. So, nice Waner Brian. The jury is only important if it sold as Waner definitively.

Tongue-in-cheek. Thank you.

[Brian Van Horn]

Finally got around to this amusing, but false statement:

"You have a habit of making things up out of thin air."

You have a record of flat out being wrong.

No hard feelings.

[Bram99]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

Yes your feet spread out because you stand on them for thousands of hours during your life - do you stand on your ears? Ears change little from young adolesence (or earlier) to about age 60 or 70 on average. This is in the scientific literature (I can email you some recent papers if you like) and has really been well-established for over a century. The ear growth that does occur (small fractions of a mm) is not perceptible in a photo and does not change the ear shape. This is especially applicable to humans of ball-playing age.The ear argument is THE argument that is accepted by forensic practitioners, auction houses, law-enforcement, museums, etc.

Even beyond age 70 - what you usually see is drooping earlobes (due to years of gravity pull) and the top of the ear may curl over a bit, but the basic ear shape stays the same and if one is careful you can compare an old man's ears to that ...

Tell that to poor Don Mossi.