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

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by phikappapsi

Pretty sure the point Brian is about to make is that, even in the two photos you used, that compare waner vs waner and are known. There's a dramatic difference in the earlobe. Which you've said all along disqualifies.

Do you not understand that in the younger full frontal photo (at left) the earlobe is not visible? You can see it in the semi-profile (at right) but not in the full-frontal image. That is often the case. I know that because I have done literally thousands of these, you haven't.

[Brian Van Horn]

Well, here you go.

Take the 1945 Yankees photo of Paul Waner and move it up just slightly so it matches the slight bit of ear just above your top right line in the 1926 exhibit. That way, there is an alignment of the heads in both pictures.

Aren't you going to thank me for doing your due diligence in this matter?

Now, overlap your red lines again. That's a boy. You're making progress.

Now, look at that flap of ear hanging down on the ear on the right side of the 1945 photo. Now, you can try to make the argument these might not be the same distance away in the photographs, but we just lined up the ears and there's that hanging bottom ear lobe. Bad, naughty ear lobe. You aged 28 or 29 years before you should have and there is that more pronounced inner ridge of the ear lobe. OK. Slightly different angle of the photos. Still, the ear is longer and more pronounced. To boot, your red lines back this up. Guess what? He's not 70 in the picture.

Oh, but I'm just making this up.....with backup from the pictures and your red lines.

No hard feelings.

[nolemmings]

My two cents: That ain't Paul Waner. Some resemblance, maybe even a Waner family member, but no Poison.

I would give modest at most credence to a family member's identification. I've personally seen my family members quibble over who is pictured in various old family photos, even when the two people arguing are themselves both in the picture and dispute the identity of another! Both were obviously present and would have recollection and still they can disagree. I would venture that this is not all that unusual. So absent more corroboration, as suggested, I would discount whatever was offered as an ID in this case, unless there's much more that isn't being shared with us.

[Brian Van Horn]

Todd,

I thank you for your input. I just respectfully disagree.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by phikappapsi

Pretty sure the point Brian is about to make is that, even in the two photos you used, that compare waner vs waner and are known. There's a dramatic difference in the earlobe. Which you've said all along disqualifies.

OK - so here is young PW turned a bit so you can see his earlobe. I admit we are comparing right ear to left ear - not quite kosher - but 99% of the time it is OK. Anyway now you can see a full ear in both photos and there is nothing here to indicate a mismatch.

[bmarlowe1]

>> Now, look at that flap of ear hanging down on the ear on the right side of the 1945 photo. Now, you can try to make the argument these might not be the same distance away in the photographs, but we just lined up the ears and there's that hanging bottom ear lobe.

Already answered, full-frontal (earlobe hidden) vs. semi-profile (earlobe visible). I know you don't understand this, but most will. I bet phikappapsi does.

[phikappapsi]

Yeah, that is a bit(much) more convincing for sure.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

>> Now, look at that flap of ear hanging down on the ear on the right side of the 1945 photo. Now, you can try to make the argument these might not be the same distance away in the photographs, but we just lined up the ears and there's that hanging bottom ear lobe.

Already answered, full-frontal (earlobe hidden) vs. semi-profile (earlobe visible). I know you don't understand this, but most will. I bet phikappapsi does.

The point is this using your statement in post 11:

"Even beyond age 70 - what you usually see is drooping earlobes (due to years of gravity pull) and the top of the ear may curl over a bit, but the basic ear shape stays the same and if one is careful you can compare an old man's ears to that of a teenager."

Let's face it. Your post 74 lined up the exhibit and the 1945 Yankees picture to make a point. Oops! Now you knew these pictures had to be at the same distance for your line comparison. The only problem is that the head shot in the 1926 exhibit was just a smidge higher than the 1945 Yankees photo. So, move up the Yankees photo for a proper alignment. Gee, that hanging earlobe just won't cooperate.

As for the other ear, please stop running away from the point.

The point being that the ear changed noticeably in size and the alignment of the 1926 exhibit and the 1945 Yankees photo prove it along with your line markings prove it.

Still I really must apologize.

Sorry, Mark. Checkmate. You lose on this point.

No hard feelings.

[perezfan]

While I’ve seen enough to draw my own conclusion, I’ve got to believe there are better pics available, than just these three. I’m not invested enough to put the time into researching it. But aren’t there loads of accessible Paul Waner photos that would make it easier for both sides to make their respective cases?

Not that it would help much to sway either side, haha.

[bmarlowe1]

>> Now, look at that flap of ear hanging down on the ear on the right side of the 1945 photo. Now, you can try to make the argument these might not be the same distance away in the photographs, but we just lined up the ears and there's that hanging bottom ear lobe.

I already said distance has nothing to do with this- in all likelihood the distance from camera to subject in the various photos was different. That does not matter. Again - you do not seem to be reading the posts.

>> The only problem is that the head shot in the 1926 exhibit was just a smidge higher than the 1945 Yankees photo. So, move up the Yankees photo for a proper alignment.

Then the rest of the photo would be misaligned, do you not undesrtand that? The alignment as shown is based on correct forensic practice. If you don't like it take the time to create your own graphic for all of us to see.

It is clear from your comments that you don't comprehend any of this.You have a lot of trouble interpreting what you are seeing in images. Perhaps another N54 member can do a better job of explaining it all to you.

[Brian Van Horn]

LOL!

The constant of the thread is that the childhood photo of Paul Waner, the 1926 exhibit of Paul Waner and the 1945 Yankees photo of Paul Waner all show his left ear.

Your own alignment of the 1926 exhibit and the 1945 Yankees have done you in on the point of aging and its effect, well before 70, on the left earlobe. Face it. You sank your own argument with picture evidence.

Still, I thank you.

No hard feelings.

[Fred]

So.... is it Paul Waner?

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

OK - so here is young PW turned a bit so you can see his earlobe. I admit we are comparing right ear to left ear - not quite kosher - but 99% of the time it is OK. Anyway now you can see a full ear in both photos and there is nothing here to indicate a mismatch.

Wow! You lined up a second picture to reinforce your first comparison. The earlobe is still lower with age and in the latter picture, Paul Waner is still nowhere close to 70.

Thank you. You're so kind.

No hard feelings.

Still, keep making my argument for me with photographic evidence to boot. You're doing a wonderful job.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Brian Van Horn]

LOL!

You scuttled your own argument with photographic evidence.

That is a coherent statement.

Simple enough?

No hard feelings.

[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.

[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)

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by 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)

Brian,

Deeply appreciated.

[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.

[Marchillo]

The crux of the OP's argument is that there was a family member that positively identified the item as being Paul Warner and a lot of this is verified through family photos. It seems like the family member was more than happy to take the time to talk to Brian and provide some insight. It seems to me that the relative would be more than happy to share some of these photos.

Has the OP asked to see the photos?
Has the OP asked if they can post the photos?

Otherwise this is a circular argument that will go nowhere.

I contend that Tom Brady filled in for Craig Biggio on his 1989 Topps card.

[conor912]

Worst. Thread. Ever.

[thecatspajamas]

Mark, thank you for your reasoned responses throughout this thread. I appreciate your insight and analysis of this and other photos that have been presented through the years. I have unfortunately allowed my SABR membership to lapse, but if you have a short list of any resources or in print or online that are readily-accessible or easily-purchased for someone interested in learning and correctly-applying the basic techniques you describe, could you give a good "Recommended Reading" list for beginners? Thanks!

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by conor912

Worst. Thread. Ever.

Thank you.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by 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.

LOL! You're right. I have won game set and match. If you get the head sizes aligned correctly (1945 is much smaller), the ear in the 1945 Yankees photo is much bigger. Did it not occur to you when you put in the lines across the two pictures this flaw would be obvious? The eyes and the lips which were lined in up in previous photo comparisons are no where near lined up. As King Arthur said to the Black Knight in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail," "You make me sad". I am sad you resulted to compromising science to this point.

To paraphrase from "Hamlet":

Hoisted upon your own petar.

By the way, your latest hari kari attempt cost you your final limb, Black Knight.

No, we will not call it a draw.

No hard feelings.

[timn1]

Originally Posted by conor912

Worst. Thread. Ever.

Maybe it’s time to stop agreeing to disagree and just stop.

[bmarlowe1]

>> If you get the head sizes aligned correctly (1945 is much smaller), the ear in the 1945 Yankees photo is much bigger.

The heads and the ears the same same size in both posts 127 and 133. Try a ruler.

Thx to all who emailed me about the OP having episodes of high irrationality when challenged. Some where back there he said something about this all making him feel younger. Perhaps that explains his posts reading like those of a petulant 12 year old. No hard feelings.

At some point I will respond to Cats Pajama's request.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

At some point I will respond to Cats Pajama's request.

Thanks Mark. Please feel free to do so in a new thread. I suspect those who would enjoy and benefit most from the resources are not so likely to navigate to the end of this one.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

>> If you get the head sizes aligned correctly (1945 is much smaller), the ear in the 1945 Yankees photo is much bigger.

The heads and the ears the same same size in both posts 127 and 133. Try a ruler.

Thx to all who emailed me about the OP having episodes of high irrationality when challenged. Some where back there he said something about this all making him feel younger. Perhaps that explains his posts reading like those of a petulant 12 year old. No hard feelings.

At some point I will respond to Cats Pajama's request.

LOL! Ah, irrationality. Try your red lines. The red lines which sunk your argument. The red lines in post 133 which you lined up with Paul Waner's eyebrows in one picture and the middle of his eyes in the 1945 Yankees picture to try to convince us the ears were the same. Ah, my irrationality. Thank you.

Apparently the e-mails missed.

No hard feelings.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by timn1

Maybe it’s time to stop agreeing to disagree and just stop.

I agree.

[ahumes13]

Originally Posted by conor912

Worst. Thread. Ever.

I completely disagree, my ear lobes are tight, come at be bro! This has been a personal checkpoint as to the state of the union - and I mean that in a good way. If we (some of us?) are arguing about bulbous noses and ear lobes online in a subection of a baseball memorabilia site, then as a society we're very weird, but also ain't doing too bad in the grand scheme of things.

A good weekend to all...and I'm with Brian, it is Waner, noses and other things droop - fight me!

Andy

[nolemmings]

Sorry, gotta tell ya. It's Shoeless Joe Jackson. His descendant Reggie, or was it Jesse?, told me so. Q.E.D.

[bmarlowe1]

>> The red lines in post 133 which you lined up with Paul Waner's eyebrows in one picture and the middle of his eyes in the 1945 Yankees picture to try to convince us the ears were the same.

You would have to be rational to be convinced. Like I said, just measure the ears top to bottom with a ruler. You will be dumbfounded by what you see.

Ignoring advice from many to start ignoring the OP, I'll add one more graphic he won't understand, but most will. In the spirit of catspajama's suggestion for education:

First the images are size-matched according to correct forensic procedures (red dotted lines). The idea is that if you align easy-to-see landmarks (here eyes, nostrils, mouth) and both images depict the same person, the relative sizes of other features should match, like for instance ears.

Note that the blue lines are parallel (to the uninitiated, that means the space between them is constant across both images). It allows you to compare the sizes of objects (here the ears) between the lines even though they are not horizontal. The difference in ear size is stark.

No 40-year-olds in these images, and I am certain there are way too many levels of logic for the OP to comprehend. I am happy to respond to any sensible commentary.

[quinnsryche]

This has been one of the best threads on this site in a LONG time! Keep it going, I laugh hard every post.

[oldjudge]

God help me for getting into this, but the two faces in post 146 seem to be different sizes. If you resize the photo on the right s.t. the distance from the middle of the eyes to the bottom of the chin is the same as in the photo at the left, how do the ear sizes then compare?

[tiger8mush]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

God help me for getting into this, but the two faces in post 146 seem to be different sizes. If you resize the photo on the right s.t. the distance from the middle of the eyes to the bottom of the chin is the same as in the photo at the left, how do the ear sizes then compare?

I think if you resize one of the photos, the eyes/nose/mouth won't line up, which (if I understand Mark correctly) will prove its not the same person.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

God help me for getting into this, but the two faces in post 146 seem to be different sizes. If you resize the photo on the right s.t. the distance from the middle of the eyes to the bottom of the chin is the same as in the photo at the left, how do the ear sizes then compare?

Jay - I was hopping someone would ask that question. Two things:
1) It is often hard to find "the bottom of the chin." On the right it is lost in shadow, on the left the skin of his neck seems to hang down somewhat below his chin. This is common and it makes it hard to discern where the chin ends and the neck skin begins. So I try to avoid that as a landmark. However analysts do sometimes use it.
2) I could probably estimate accurately enough where the chin bottoms are. If I then resized as you requested the nostrils and mouth would no longer align. This would be considered as proof that these are 2 different persons regardless of ear size.


Just noticed - Rob (Tiger8mush) already had the right answer!