Shoeless Joe Jackson Auto- Fake?

[Snowman]

Also worth noting is that the provenance of the photo, at least according to the story in the video someone linked to earlier, is not nothing.

I hate when people speak so authoritatively on these sorts of issues though, as if there's any way they could know with absolute certainty either way. Then they throw the weight of expertise at it by saying something like "The Joe Jackson Museum stated that this autograph is 100% fake." This, of course, is intended to give the reader the impression that some actual museum with a team of expert historians and conservators has examined the photograph and somehow deemed it to be fraudulent. This is deceptive though, as this is a "museum", not a museum. In actuality, it's a guy named Dan who bought a house that Joe Jackson lived in who put some memorabilia inside and let's the public tour it for free. A kind gesture for sure, and probably a great guy with an immense knowledge of Joe Jackson. It reminds me of all the creationists who would write books debating evolutionary biologists in the 80s and 90s. They would always put "Dr. So-and-so" as the author of the book. Then you'd look them up and their "doctorate" degree was always some degree in something like theology from a non-accredited university. Meanwhile, the evolutionary bioligsts they would debate had authored numerous college textbooks and none of them would say "Dr." on the spine, just their first and last names, despite the fact that they all held PhDs in relevant fields from places like Harvard and Stanford.

There is an implication of expertise when someone says a museum has rendered an opinion on some historical document. A guy named Dan who filed as a non-profit and let's people tour his home is a "museum", not a museum. Again, probably a great guy. But as a potential buyer of an important historical document, he's not someone whose advice I would be interested in seeking out.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Mr. Mike Nola of the Museum 9historian, board member) appears to have commented on this photo back at the time of the Heritage sale and did not raise (at least was not quoted as raising)any issue as to authenticity.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/...000-this-month

Different individual than the one now claiming fake, btw.

[Leon]

I took out links to the bogus Halls of Shit website. As O'[keefe once told me, 1/3 of it is true, 1/3 of it is not true and the other 1/3 of it he makes up. Having a few true things makes one think it's all true. Peter Nash is a criminal and should be in jail. No links to that trash. I know some of it is phony because he made up trash about me. So it's not really a debate.
.

[SteveS]

I've apologized to Leon in a PM and do so here for posting the links. I meant only to help those above who were looking for the article. Once again, I'm sorry.

So I guess the bottom line is, when there are so few signatures of Joe, and none of them look exactly alike, and he was not really able to sign his name without practicing and/or copying an example his wife set out, unless there is rock-solid provenance, the best that can be said for a purported Joe Jackson autograph is that it's likely authentic (or not), and 100% certainty probably won't ever be determined.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Leon

I took out links to the bogus Halls of Shit website. As O'[keefe once told me, 1/3 of it is true, 1/3 of it is partially true and the other 1/3 of it he makes up. Having a few true things makes one think it's all true. Peter Nash is a criminal and should be in jail. No links to that trash. I know some of it is phony because he made up trash about me. So it's not really a debate.
.

He was like that movie where Raul Julia played both the cop and the drug dealer. I never got it.