To be or Not to be the Wright Bros. Photo

[Directly]

If you feel I'm arrogant- I am--reason--if I didn't know the photo was right I would be asking for opinion's saying Yes thanks your great, thanks for your opinion its wonderful, thank you may I have another.--this was all brought up by another member not me.

[molenick]

I have no real input on this except to say that here is Comiskey when he was roughly 29 and to my eye he looks younger than that (image from his N173 pose...not my card). I will add that people that are good at the ear matching thing have a nice view of one here.

[robertsmithnocure]

These do not look like the same player to me.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by robertsmithnocure

These do not look like the same player to me.

That is definitely not the same ear. It's a completely different shape.

[Directly]

[QUOTE=robertsmithnocure;2143359]These do not look like the same player to me.[/QUOTEI


Sorry I don't buy your King Experts Bull XXX Ear theories--its looks the like someone tried to alter the ear on the older Comiskey to their advantage--

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Directly

First let me say I'm the expert on this photo--not you or anyone else---years ago a very qualified expert studied this photo and confirmed Comiskey, he has more knowledge in his finger tip than several experts on here put together--so you were there is 1881 to see what Quinn or Comiskey looked like--no offense but you really don't know what your talking about --honestly after reading some of your opinion on another links where you really believe someone is someone without a ounce of documentation and doesn't even remotely look then --then you come on here and try to tell me something like he is too young or some other type of crap- --so you studied the my photo for what one hour, 3 days, one month, a year, five years --I have been studying and researching this photo for 30 years and only recently discovered its dated so PLEASE don't come on here an try to tell me anything--I have a note book full of research including correspondence with Comiskys descendance-- so best stick with the other thread and rant--thanks for your opinion because it doesn't really mean a hill of beans to me and no offense it never will-------you can go to the highest mountain top and tell everyone I said this, including Mr. King Expert--you know why --I really don't give XXXX

My bad. It sounds like you've got this one all sorted out already. Keep up the great work detective!

[Directly]

Originally Posted by Snowman

That is definitely not the same ear. It's a completely different shape.

No problem when you have a 137 year old photo and the ear blend in with the background its impossible to have a accurate 100 comparison with out having in hand --I was going to take the original to Chicago. Had my flight paid, room everything set up to go --then Corvid 19 hit again, I will plan on attending next Chicago National- if you happen to go I would be honored for you to examine the photo in hand--thanks!

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Directly

Nuts!--did i spell that to your satisfaction?

LOL

Yes, thanks, but you have lived up to what you've been doing all along and answered not one single question, nor provided not one single piece of verifiable evidence to prove your claims.

Hey, at least answer my one question, are you ignorant or lazy?

[Directly]

Originally Posted by Snowman

My bad. It sounds like you've got this one all sorted out already. Keep up the great work detective!

Thank you!

[Directly]

Originally Posted by BobC

LOL

Yes, thanks, but you have lived up to what you've been doing all along and answered not one single question, nor provided not one single piece of verifiable evidence to prove your claims.

Hey, at least answer my one question, are you ignorant or lazy?

Both--

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Directly

If you feel I'm arrogate- I am--reason--if I didn't know the photo was right I would be asking for opinion's saying Yes thanks your great, thanks for your opinion its wonderful, thank you may I have another.--this was all brought up by another member not me.

Gee Directly, I would call you arrogant for sure, but what does it mean to be "arrogate"? Does that have something to do with you having a bad smelling personal aroma, or something like that? Never heard that one before.

Oh wait, is this possibly related to the issues I had brought to your attention before where I wondered if people would possibly begin to question your self-appointed expert status when it comes to nineteenth century photography because you can't seem to comprehend simple English grammar and spelling? Not sure because you still have refused to answer my question of whether you do that because you really are ignorant of the correct spelling and grammar used, or that you do know, but are just to lazy to go back and fix/correct what you've done. So once again, or you lazy or ignorant, there are no other options?

[Directly]

Originally Posted by BobC

Gee Directly, I would call you arrogant for sure, but what does it mean to be "arrogate"? Does that have something to do with you having a bad smelling personal aroma, or something like that? Never heard that one before.

Oh wait, is this possibly related to the issues I had brought to your attention before where I wondered if people would possibly begin to question your self-appointed expert status when it comes to nineteenth century photography because you can't seem to comprehend simple English grammar and spelling? Not sure because you still have refused to answer my question of whether you do that because you really are ignorant of the correct spelling and grammar used, or that you do know, but are just to lazy to go back and fix/correct what you've done. So once again, or you lazy or ignorant, there are no other options?

My name is Tom--

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Directly

Both--

WOW, finally an honest answer!

Too bad no one can get a similar honest response from you to any of their questions to you looking for actual, verifiable proof or evidence to prove your claim that you are right and they are wrong. Nor any response to questions seeking information regarding the credentials of yourself as a self-appointed expert, or of any other expert you claimed to have consulted who supposedly agreed with you. Would also be nice to get a name of any so-called colloborating expert to actually prove you aren't just making that up.

[Directly]

Originally Posted by BobC

WOW, finally an honest answer!

Too bad no one can get a similar honest response from you to any of their questions to you looking for actual, verifiable proof or evidence to prove your claim that you are right and they are wrong. Nor any response to questions seeking information regarding the credentials of yourself as a self-appointed expert, or of any other expert you claimed to have consulted who supposedly agreed with you. Would also be nice to get a name of any so-called colloborating expert to actually prove you aren't just making that up.

Why?--I think you spelled Colloborating incorrectly

[OldOriole]

Nevermind.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Directly

Why?--I think you spelled Colloborating incorrectly

Did it intentionally to see if you'd catch it, good for you, you noticed. So now that we've proven you are knowledgable and can pay attention to details, how about some proper, detailed responses defending your identity claims?

Everyone is still waiting for answers to their questionss with factual evidence and provenance, and maybe some enlightenment on who your "experts" are, and why they feel your claims are correct.

[BobC]

You should try to be more like SteveS in the other thread about the alleged Knickerbocker players.

[wolf441]

Originally Posted by robertsmithnocure

These do not look like the same player to me.

[Directly]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99z-H_NEccU