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

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

>> Now, look at that flap of ear hanging down on the ear on the right side of the 1945 photo. Now, you can try to make the argument these might not be the same distance away in the photographs, but we just lined up the ears and there's that hanging bottom ear lobe.

Already answered, full-frontal (earlobe hidden) vs. semi-profile (earlobe visible). I know you don't understand this, but most will. I bet phikappapsi does.

The point is this using your statement in post 11:

"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."

Let's face it. Your post 74 lined up the exhibit and the 1945 Yankees picture to make a point. Oops! Now you knew these pictures had to be at the same distance for your line comparison. The only problem is that the head shot in the 1926 exhibit was just a smidge higher than the 1945 Yankees photo. So, move up the Yankees photo for a proper alignment. Gee, that hanging earlobe just won't cooperate.

As for the other ear, please stop running away from the point.

The point being that the ear changed noticeably in size and the alignment of the 1926 exhibit and the 1945 Yankees photo prove it along with your line markings prove it.

Still I really must apologize.

Sorry, Mark. Checkmate. You lose on this point.

No hard feelings.

[bmarlowe1]

>> Now, look at that flap of ear hanging down on the ear on the right side of the 1945 photo. Now, you can try to make the argument these might not be the same distance away in the photographs, but we just lined up the ears and there's that hanging bottom ear lobe.

I already said distance has nothing to do with this- in all likelihood the distance from camera to subject in the various photos was different. That does not matter. Again - you do not seem to be reading the posts.

>> The only problem is that the head shot in the 1926 exhibit was just a smidge higher than the 1945 Yankees photo. So, move up the Yankees photo for a proper alignment.

Then the rest of the photo would be misaligned, do you not undesrtand that? The alignment as shown is based on correct forensic practice. If you don't like it take the time to create your own graphic for all of us to see.

It is clear from your comments that you don't comprehend any of this.You have a lot of trouble interpreting what you are seeing in images. Perhaps another N54 member can do a better job of explaining it all to you.

[Brian Van Horn]

LOL!

The constant of the thread is that the childhood photo of Paul Waner, the 1926 exhibit of Paul Waner and the 1945 Yankees photo of Paul Waner all show his left ear.

Your own alignment of the 1926 exhibit and the 1945 Yankees have done you in on the point of aging and its effect, well before 70, on the left earlobe. Face it. You sank your own argument with picture evidence.

Still, I thank you.

No hard feelings.

[Fred]

So.... is it Paul Waner?

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by Fred

So.... is it Paul Waner?

So far, Mark is sinking his own argument with photographic evidence to boot. There's still hope for him.

[bmarlowe1]

>> You lined up a second picture to reinforce your first comparison.

No.

>> The earlobe is still lower with age and in the latter picture, Paul Waner is still nowhere close to 70.

Small difference in head tilt will cause small difference in alignment, however it will not affect comparison of overall ear shape which is the same. That's all we are trying to do.

In my original side-by side of your photo with the real PW, the ear shapes are grossly different, fine precise alignment is not needed.

With these low quality images we are not trying to measure fractions of a millimeter, but we are able to expose gross differences. I already explained this, but either you did not read it or you did not understand it.

[bigfish]

Mark/Brian, does anything else droop post 65 years old? Perhaps we could evaluate another body part for another data point????

I know and like both if you. I hope for the best for Brian’s postcard.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

>> You lined up a second picture to reinforce your first comparison.

No.

>> The earlobe is still lower with age and in the latter picture, Paul Waner is still nowhere close to 70.

Small difference in head tilt will cause small difference in alignment, however it will not affect comparison of overall ear shape which is the same. That's all we are trying to do.

In my original side-by side of your photo with the real PW, the ear shapes are grossly different, fine precise alignment is not needed.

With these low quality images we are not trying to measure fractions of a millimeter, but we are able to expose gross differences. I already explained this, but either you did not read it or you did not understand it.

Let's face facts. You lined up the exhibit and the Yankees picture to make a point. The point unfortunately was that your lining up of the two proved the earlobe ages noticeably before 70. For that I thank you and your red lines for exposing the "gross differences".

No hard feelings.

[perezfan]

Here’s a pretty clear screenshot of a rookie Paul Waner at age 23. Looks like the honker was already pretty substantial, with a somewhat bulbous hook. And no cleft in the chin at all, FWIW.