I'm almost POSITIVE this card features Shoeless Joe...

[sportscardtheory]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

Your comment shows a complete lack of comprehension of, not just disgreement with, everything that I and others of like mind have said. I don't know how to put it more simply - there is not enough detail visible on the card to determine who it is with certainty. What don't you understand about that viewpoint?

Nope. It's your lack of comprehension that sucks. I was only asking who you think the player is, and apparently you don't have an answer. Many have shown that it certainly could be him, (and the wrinkle on the left side of his face now proves to me that it is) yet you haven't brought anyone else into the equation. If it's not SJJ, then who may I ask, is it, oh knowledgeable one?

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by sportscardtheory
I know it's not your job to do so, but who is the player then, if it's not Joe Jackson? Who was it before it "became" Jackson?

Originally Posted by sportscardtheory

nope. It's your lack of comprehension that sucks. I was only asking who you think the player is, and apparently you don't have an answer. Many have shown that it certainly could be him, (and the wrinkle on the left side of his face now proves to me that it is) yet you haven't brought anyone else into the equation. If it's not sjj, then who may i ask, is it, oh knowledgeable one?

QED
I know what you asked, and if you understood my point of view you would understand that I haven't said anything that requires an answer your question, nor I have I expressed an ability to answer it. In fact I have claimed the opposite. I'll try again: "too blurry to be sure".

[sportscardtheory]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

Originally Posted by sportscardtheory
I know it's not your job to do so, but who is the player then, if it's not Joe Jackson? Who was it before it "became" Jackson?



QED
I know what you asked, and if you understood my point of view you would understand that I haven't said anything that requires an answer your question, nor I have I expressed an ability to answer it. In fact I have claimed the opposite. I'll try again: "too blurry to be sure".

That's a cop-out. It HAS to be someone, and if you say it's not Joe Jackson, then who is it? IT HAS TO BE SOMEONE.

[sportscardtheory]

This is how I see it. The photo contains visual evidence of the player being Shoeless Joe Jackson. If no one can show the same, if not better, evidence that it's another player, then isn't it now Jackson until someone can DISPROVE that it is. If the player has been a "mystery" since 1912, then the mystery is now solved. If it's not Joe Jackson, then who is it and what is the evidence showing that it is said player. More evidence points to it being Jackson than any other player, so even if it's questionable, it's now up to someone to prove that it's NOT him.

[botn]

I think it is Jackson but I want to be able to get more proof before I would feel comfortable saying so. Mark is only saying that the image is too blurry to know who it is based on the process he uses to do photo id. Yeah I am defending Mark now...Actually I have been neutral from the beginning and just don't see the need for people to be attacking one another over this. That said I do regret having sold a couple of the PSA 7s and PSA 6s which I had in inventory. At the same time I am not sure what kind of premium, if any, I would be willing to place on the next one I acquire. I am not done researching this.

By the way, folks from Blackbestsy wrote to me again and reaffirmed their feeling that it is Jackson depicted on the T202 though did not offer a reason why the white wrap or sox was not present in the newspaper photo.

[brett]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

I know what you asked, and if you understood my point of view you would understand that I haven't said anything that requires an answer your question, nor I have I expressed an ability to answer it. In fact I have claimed the opposite. I'll try again: "too blurry to be sure".

Why is it too blurry for you but not for several other people here who don't claim to be photo ID experts? Just look at all the pictures and overwhelming circumstancial evidence and stop trying to outsmart yourself.

[Kawika]

We have a problem here. Lichtman is never wrong and Mark is never wrong. Things fall apart; the center cannot hold. Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.

Brett: Just because you don't like Mark's conclusion doesn't mean you need to play the smarty-pants elitist card. That's just being obnoxious. He hasn't said you're wrong, he hasn't said you're right, he has said, in essence, close but no cigar, yet anyway. Mark is no amateur in the field of photo identification, and his methodology is more rigorous than yours. Believe me, if a smoking gun turns up and Mark confirms what you are opining you will be glad to have his endorsement. He has earned my respect; he deserves yours.

Disclaimer: I believe it is Jackson but my opinion is solely based on wishful thinking.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.

[Kawika]

And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards third to be tagged out by Lord?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kawika

And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards third to be tagged out by Lord?

Is it Jackson moving his slow thighs?

[sportscardtheory]

Originally Posted by Kawika

We have a problem here. Lichtman is never wrong and Mark is never wrong. Things fall apart; the center cannot hold. Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.

Brett: Just because you don't like Mark's conclusion doesn't mean you need to play the smarty-pants elitist card. That's just being obnoxious. He hasn't said you're wrong, he hasn't said you're right, he has said, in essence, close but no cigar, yet anyway. Mark is no amateur in the field of photo identification, and his methodology is more rigorous than yours. Believe me, if a smoking gun turns up and Mark confirms what you are opining you will be glad to have his endorsement. He has earned my respect; he deserves yours.

Disclaimer: I believe it is Jackson but my opinion is solely based on wishful thinking.

The thing I don't like about this, is that "Mark" isn't saying anything at all. He's saying he doesn't know, which is the same thing as saying nothing. The only evidence he can possibly use to disprove that it is JJ is to prove that it's another player, which he could never do. ALL the circumstantial evidence points to Jackson, so now it's in doubters hands to prove who it is, because if they can't, it's Jackson, based on the evidence at hand.

[Kawika]

Originally Posted by sportscardtheory

The thing I don't like about this, is that "Mark" isn't saying anything at all. He's saying he doesn't know, which is the same thing as saying nothing. The only evidence he can possibly use to disprove that it is JJ is to prove that it's another player, which he could never do. ALL the circumstantial evidence points to Jackson, so now it's in doubters hands to prove who it is, because if they can't, it's Jackson, based on the evidence at hand.

I am a land surveyor, not a logician, but the above statement is so riddled with illogicism that my head is spinning.

[sportscardtheory]

Originally Posted by Kawika

I am a land surveyor, not a logician, but the above statement is so riddled with illogicism that my head is spinning.

I'm sorry that you can't understand it, it's about burden of proof. Everyone has done an exceptional job proving that it is Jackson, while some people are wasting everyone's time saying that they don't know, when they should be proving that's it's not.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by sportscardtheory
The thing I don't like about this, is that "Mark" isn't saying anything at all. He's saying he doesn't know, which is the same thing as saying nothing. The only evidence he can possibly use to disprove that it is JJ is to prove that it's another player, which he could never do. ALL the circumstantial evidence points to Jackson, so now it's in doubters hands to prove who it is, because if they can't, it's Jackson, based on the evidence at hand.

Originally Posted by Kawika

I am a land surveyor, not a logician, but the above statement is so riddled with illogicism that my head is spinning.

David - don't even try to figure out what he is saying.

[brett]

Originally Posted by Kawika

Mark is no amateur in the field of photo identification, and his methodology is more rigorous than yours.

Disclaimer: I believe it is Jackson but my opinion is solely based on wishful thinking.

EXACTLY!!! In many cases the untrained eye is more acurate than a so-called expert's because they over-analyze things instead of just seeing what's right beneath their nose!

[Kawika]

What is beneath our noses is a blurry photo.
The newspaper photo maybe establishes that it is the same outfield fence.
There is no doubt in my mind that it might be Joe Jackson.

[sportscardtheory]

Originally Posted by Kawika

What is beneath our noses is a blurry photo.
The newspaper photo maybe establishes that it is the same outfield fence.
There is no doubt in my mind that it might be Joe Jackson.

So you agree that it's the same base? Does anyone know how many base-runners were thrown out stealing on that base during that game?

[brett]

Originally Posted by Kawika

What is beneath our noses is a blurry photo.
The newspaper photo maybe establishes that it is the same outfield fence.
There is no doubt in my mind that it might be Joe Jackson.

Riiiiiight... and there's no doubt in my mind that the sun might come up this morning.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by brett

EXACTLY!!! In many cases the untrained eye is more acurate than a so-called expert's because they over-analyze things instead of just seeing what's right beneath their nose!

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Kawika

We have a problem here. Lichtman is never wrong and Mark is never wrong. Things fall apart; the center cannot hold. Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.

My army of sarcastic follower(s) is taking shape. Jeepers!

[Kawika]

Originally Posted by calvindog

My army of sarcastic follower(s) is taking shape. Jeepers!

Don't forget clueless, O Almighty One.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by Kawika:
We have a problem here. Lichtman is never wrong and Mark is never wrong. Things fall apart; the center cannot hold. Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.

Originally Posted by calvindog

I think what Bob is asking is whether the jury is watching a civil or criminal trial. If it were me, I'd vote on a civil case that it is Jackson; on a criminal case I'd vote no, that the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt has not been met.

Never fear David, I see nothing wrong with Lichtman's comment (if you include Tim's analysis of the fielder in the newspaper photo).