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

[Brian Van Horn]

Paul Waner.

Just confirmed with a relative of the Waners.

Thank you,

Brian Van Horn

[bmarlowe1]

As anyone involved with serious photo ID would tell you, relatives often suffer from the same wishful thinking as do collectors. I am just guessing this person who offered the ID did not know Waner as a young person.


A relative's opinion pales in probative value compared to an ear mismatch.


See post #29:
https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=214345

[Brian Van Horn]

No hard feelings.

[bmarlowe1]

?

[Brian Van Horn]

The cheekbones and the relative trump the ears.

No hard feelings.

[bmarlowe1]

So sharing some portion of DNA gives one some enhanced ability to ID a kid in a 110 year old photo. That's as illogical as everything else you have said on this subject.


And, the cheekbones do not match. In any case, any apparent particlular feature "match" would not trump an ear mis-match, at least according to the scientific literature and practice by any major law-enforcement agency. So you can go with that, or you can go with Mr. Van Horn.