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

[bmarlowe1]

Paul earlier made a nice point about reasonable doubt. So - here is a thought experiment. Assume that sllding into 3rd base is a serious felony, punishible by a lengthy prison sentence, perhaps even death. The witnesses to the event in question have all died or mysteriously vanished. All we have is the image from the card.

JJ is arrested. Should he be convicted based on that image?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

Paul earlier made a nice point about reasonable doubt. So - here is a thought experiment. Assume that sllding into 3rd base is a serious felony, punishible by a lengthy prison sentence, perhaps even death. The witnesses to the event in question have all died or mysteriously vanished. All we have is the image from the card.

JJ is arrested. Should he be convicted based on that image?

SOMEONE slid. You can't prove it ISN'T Jax. So I say convict him.

[Kawika]

At least ban him from baseball.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

Paul earlier made a nice point about reasonable doubt. So - here is a thought experiment. Assume that sllding into 3rd base is a serious felony, punishible by a lengthy prison sentence, perhaps even death. The witnesses to the event in question have all died or mysteriously vanished. All we have is the image from the card.

JJ is arrested. Should he be convicted based on that image?

Single best post on this thread. Sorry, Brett, got to move over. Beyond reasonable doubt, what does that mean? Somebody in an earlier post said 95%. Not sure where that came from but all I can say is if that is our standard of justice, there are one f****** of innocent people behind bars.

[sportscardtheory]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

Single best post on this thread. Sorry, Brett, got to move over. Beyond reasonable doubt, what does that mean? Somebody in an earlier post said 95%. Not sure where that came from but all I can say is if that is our standard of justice, there are one f****** of innocent people behind bars.

This has absolutely nothing to do with law. Majority rules in these situations.

[Peter_Spaeth]

All the folks who are convinced should be scrambling to buy up this card before the price goes through the roof. Are you?

[Abravefan11]

No Peter I wouldn't buy one before and I won't buy one now. With that said here's why I think the two photos are from the same play.



1) The photos as pointed out before were taken from two different angles. The bottom photo was further up the 3rd baseline than the top.

2) Lord's right hand, Lord's head, and Joe's right arm all have moved proportionally from one photo to the next. Joe's right leg, Lord's feet, and Joe's head have all maintained their position. Nothing is out of place from one photo to the next.

3) The angles surrounding the bag including the curvature on the home plate side are identical.

I know this isn't proper photo identification, but it's pretty compelling to me.

[T206DK]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

All the folks who are convinced should be scrambling to buy up this card before the price goes through the roof. Are you?

yeah me and my brother bought of these off Teletrade years ago for between $10-$12 a card. I have two fo these cards. I thought I only had one. My brother now owns 5 of these cards thanks to the hype from this thread. I believe he will be going to the local vintage card shop where he lives tomorrow and will buy the one or two that are for sale there also. I would personally like to thank Brett for making my brother and many others think they are going to be rich men very soon. He bets a PSA 7 or 8 of this card will sell for over $15,000 to the right buyer ! he sold one of his Cobbs last year to somone for about that price.
3 people contacted my brother either from the PSA boards or this one yesterday wanting to buy his cards, so the rush has already started I'm afraid. I thnk now the bet should be what seller or auction house will use Brett's "Joe Jackson" reference in trying to sell this common for a super premium.

[sportscardtheory]

Originally Posted by T206DK

yeah me and my brother bought of these off Teletrade years ago for between $10-$12 a card. I have two fo these cards. I thought I only had one. My brother now owns 5 of these cards thanks to the hype from this thread. I believe he will be going to the local vintage card shop where he lives tomorrow and will buy the one or two that are for sale there also. I would personally like to thank Brett for making my brother and many others think they are going to be rich men very soon. He bets a PSA 7 or 8 of this card will sell for over $15,000 to the right buyer ! he sold one of his Cobbs last year to somone for about that price.
3 people contacted my brother either from the PSA boards or this one yesterday wanting to buy his cards, so the rush has already started I'm afraid. I thnk now the bet should be what seller or auction house will use Brett's "Joe Jackson" reference in trying to sell this common for a super premium.

You are here trashing everyone who has anything positive to say about this situation, and your brother clearly is on board with it being Jackson. Plus you have two yourself. Are you upset that the value could increase because it's Jackson? Doe that suck for you? lol So why are you so angry about all this? Are you angry with your brother as well?

[T206DK]

Originally Posted by sportscardtheory

You are here trashing everyone who has anything positive to say about this situation, and your brother clearly is on board with it being Jackson. Plus you have two yourself. Are you upset that the value could increase because it's Jackson? Doe that suck for you? lol So why are you so angry about all this? Are you angry with your brother as well?

Yeah, Sportscard theory I trash everyone who has anything positive to say. I guess I will go the route of ChicagoT206 then since I have nothing to ad to your Joe Jackson fantasy. damn right I'm angry at my brother. We are polar opposites as far as collecting goes. He is in it for the money , I'm not, and never have been and ahave been pretty diehard about it since the night I saw the local card shop owner open case after case of Topps finest just to get the refractor cards so he could sell them at super inflated prices. You think one kid in town had a chance to buy a pack of those cards from him...NO! him and his greedy employees opened ever pack they could get there hands on. See there are these dealers and speculators out there that tend to make things up about cards in order to jack the value up. threads like this only serve to give them the ammo they need. We have provided them photos and documentation that their lazy asses would never had discovered. frankenstein is born , so to speak. what's positive about that. the only positive thing that happened here is someone named Brett found a card that has a picture of a guy sliding that resembles Shoeless Joe Jackson. It sparked a bunch of us to go to research to prove or disprove Brett's discovery. After 300+ posts Brett thinks he is right and cannot be swayed. He has a certain number of followers in his corner now too that will only see what they want to in these pictures that are posted. There are an equal number who think it's either inconcluisive and foolish to speculate or think it's not Jackson period. So that's about the sum of it for me.
oh, before you talk about not adding anything to the conversation....some of your posts exemplify it ! Why don't you just sit back and read instead of lobbing your insulting and inconsequential remarks at me. Your not going to change my mind , and I highly doubt your going to get a gang of Net54'ers to chase me off the board because you don't seem to like what I say sometimes.

[tbob]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

Paul earlier made a nice point about reasonable doubt. So - here is a thought experiment. Assume that sllding into 3rd base is a serious felony, punishible by a lengthy prison sentence, perhaps even death. The witnesses to the event in question have all died or mysteriously vanished. All we have is the image from the card.

JJ is arrested. Should he be convicted based on that image?

Mark- Paul's point about reasonable doubt as used in a courtroom proceeding is erroneous so I wouldn't use that as a basis for any argument. In Paul's defense he is not an attorney and admitted he thought he read somewhere about the definition of reasonable doubt, which is incorrect.

[tbob]

Now if the JJ case was a civil case, I think a jury could find the Plaintiff (Brett) has established his case by a preponderance of the evidence.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by tbob

Mark- Paul's point about reasonable doubt as used in a courtroom proceeding is erroneous so I wouldn't use that as a basis for any argument. In Paul's defense he is not an attorney and admitted he thought he read somewhere about the definition of reasonable doubt, which is incorrect.......Now if the JJ case was a civil case, I think a jury could find the Plaintiff (Brett) has established his case by a preponderance of the evidence.

I wasn't using Paul's point at all as the basis for what I said - and I don't think his stated percentage is the criterion for reasonable doubt. I did think his comment was pointed in the right direction. The point I made stands on it's own. If you're on the jury in a criminal case, how do you vote?

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

If you're on the jury, how do you vote?

Mark you know I have the up most respect for you and your methods, but given what I see in comparing the newspaper photo and the T202 image I would find JJ guilty.

[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.

[mark evans]

I concur with Jeff, but really don't see the analogy to legal disputes. Would love to buy the card. Until this thread, it was probably affordable.

[Abravefan11]

Comparing the newspaper photo provided by Greg to the T202 image is not the same process in my opinion as comparing a cabinet photo to a studio photo. In this case we're not comparing facial features such as ears, jaw lines, eye sets, etc. The similar positions of the players bodies without any distinctive deviation leads me to believe we are seeing the same event in both photos.

Edited to add: Could Joe have slid into third and Lord have fielded the ball with Joe sliding in the same pose while Lord assumed the same stance and applied the tag while both maintained concurrent body positions throughout the play....yes. I wouldn't bet against it though.

[perezfan]

I am surprised that more has not been made of the base itself. It is obviously the same exact base in both photos. The shading and shadowing are identical... if I knew how to circle these identical portions in red, I would do it. Perhaps someone with better technical skills can assist?

The base indicates that both photos were taken during the same game. If nobody else was thrown out at third in this particular game, I believe you have your answer. Can that statistic be researched?

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by perezfan

I am surprised that more has not been made of the base itself. It is obviously the same exact base in both photos. The shading and shadowing are identical... if I knew how to circle these identical portions in red, I would do it. Perhaps someone with better technical skills can assist?

The base indicates that both photos were taken during the same game. If nobody else was thrown out at third in this particular game, I believe you have your answer. Can that statistic be researched?

The base was #3 in my post above.

[botn]

Originally Posted by perezfan

I am surprised that more has not been made of the base itself. It is obviously the same exact base in both photos. The shading and shadowing are identical... if I knew how to circle these identical portions in red, I would do it. Perhaps someone with better technical skills can assist?

The base indicates that both photos were taken during the same game. If nobody else was thrown out at third in this particular game, I believe you have your answer. Can that statistic be researched?

I posted this earlier today on post #243. www.botn.com/images/CPD050611.jpg

According to the play by play not many Cleveland players even reached 2nd base in the game. Only 4 hits, 1 BB and 1 throwing error by Chicago resulted in yielding 1 run for Cleveland.

[brett]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

Assume that sllding into 3rd base is a serious felony, punishible by a lengthy prison sentence, perhaps even death. The witnesses to the event in question have all died or mysteriously vanished. All we have is the image from the card.

JJ is arrested. Should he be convicted based on that image?

Based on all the insurmountable evidence that's come out in the past couple days, HELL YES!

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1
Assume that sllding into 3rd base is a serious felony, punishible by a lengthy prison sentence, perhaps even death. The witnesses to the event in question have all died or mysteriously vanished. All we have is the image from the card.

JJ is arrested. Should he be convicted based on that image?

Originally Posted by brett

Based on all the insurmountable evidence that's come out in the past couple days, HELL YES!

The question was put in terms of the card only for a reason. Based on the card plus the Tim/Paul photo newpaper photo analysis, JJ may be in trouble at least in civil court.

As to the newpaper photo, let me try to provide a possible explanation for the socks and shadows (if this has already been done, sorry but I didn't see it). This needs to be justified and it isn't artist overpaint:

From the card and the very small shadow on the back of Lord's right foot we can see that the sun is high above and somewhat to our right. The sock on his back leg is partly shadowed by his own body. In the newpaper photo, he has moved that left foot forward - more under his body - hence it is more shadowed.

As to the slider's high leg - the one we see with the wrap on the card - we do see the wrap a little bit in the newpaper photo - just to our left of Lord's right leg - a thin strip of white - then it goes black perhaps due to the shadow of Lord's body as he slides under him. The extreme black and white is what we get because this is a half-tone image.