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

[bmarlowe1]

You don't know what the argument is. You haven't answered as to how you know an invisible earlobe has changed. Why not PM phikappapsi for help?

[Brian Van Horn]

LOL!

You lost a battle of photo comparison to phikappapsi and your photo comparison proved there is noticeable growth in Paul Waner's left ear well before the age of 70.

Oh, Black Knight, I wish I could commend you in battle, but you committed hari kari. All that is left in this part of the argument is your pining for the fjords.

No hard feelings.

[bmarlowe1]

Young & old Waner. Here his left earlobe is visible, and of course it matches the old Waner.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

Young & old Waner. Here his left earlobe is visible, and of course it matches the old Waner.

Thank you. That ear is still longer in the Yankee picture. Thank you for proving the point a third time through photo comparison.

Black Knight, I think it only fair to warn you that you have now voluntarily lopped off three of your limbs. You only have one left. We are beyond the flesh wound stage.

No hard feelings. Oops! With you lopping off three of your limbs maybe that's not appropriate.

Oh, I am so sorry for your loss.

[bmarlowe1]

>> That ear is still longer in the Yankee picture

Barely by an insignificant amount if you measure. You could see that small diffference in 2 photos of the same person taken the same day.

What matters is the ear shapes are clearly the same and they are about the same size. I guess you were wrong about the photo with the invisible earlobe. And of course the ear on your "Waner" does not match any of these.

[Brian Van Horn]

"Barely by an insignificant amount if you measure."="Tis but a flesh wound."

[bmarlowe1]

>> That ear is still longer in the Yankee picture.

Left photo slid down for easy ear size comparison. Like I said, not significant. Game, set, match.