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

[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 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.

Now, this is a classic!

[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.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn

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.

Since the eaarlobe in question is not visible in the photo you are referencing, how do you know it has changed? Please crreate a graphic that explains that. If you don't know how, find someone that agrees with you to help.

[Brian Van Horn]

LOL!

You lined up the photos to make a point. The point you made through the photo alignment scuttled your argument. Now, after how many posts (?), you are arguing it is hidden in the 1926 exhibit. Face it. You're grasping. The earlobe grew over the 19 years and Paul Waner was nowhere near 70 in the Yankees photo.

Checkmate on this argument. Sorry, but you lost this point.

No hard feelings.

[bmarlowe1]

>> You lined up the photos to make a point. The point you made through the photo alignment scuttled your argument. Now, after how many posts (?), you are arguing it is hidden in the 1926 exhibit. Face it. You're grasping.

The argument was made in post 101, which either you did not read or did not comprehend.

You do not comprehend the points I have made, thus your counter-arguments are incoherent.

[brianp-beme]

I nose it is none of my business, but here are Paul Waner baseball cards, as seen through the ears.

Brian (none of these cards are mine...I wouldn't be able to foot the bill)

[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.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by 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.

Mark,

Please forgive me, but here is a picture of a Pittsburgh Pirate in a 1926 uniform (Paul's rookie year). The picture you have is of Paul Waner in the 1930s.