Quote:
Originally Posted by Directly
any upper level discussion!
|
Translation: Affirmation from anyone who agrees with me.
You discount the simple "ear test" that Mark has presented, which compares distinct features which cannot be altered, choosing instead to lean on the hairstyle the guy is sporting? A feature that could be altered at whim? Do you seriously think that Comiskey was the only guy sporting a widow's peak in that area/time?
Here's the thing about comparing photographs of people to determine identity: all it takes is 1 feature that doesn't match up to render any number of similarities moot. If 1 guy's ears are lower on the head than the other's, it's not the same guy. If 1 guy's eyes are closer together than the other's, it's not the same guy. Same goes for location of nose on the face, jaw structure, eye color, etc. And yes, shape of the ears as well. It doesn't matter if the rest of the facial features appear to match up completely, if there is 1 unalterable feature that DOESN'T match, it's not the same guy. You couldn't change the spacing of your eyes, or move the location of your nose on your face, or change the color of your eyes (in that day and time, at least). And unless you are suggesting that the gentleman in your photograph sheared off the lower part of his ear between photographs, he couldn't have changed the shape of his ear so drastically either.
Think of it like you're on the jury for a murder case in court: You look at all the evidence presented, and make your determination based on that evidence. If there is 1 factor that introduces reasonable doubt, you don't find the defendent guilty. If all the evidence matches up
except that the defendent is on surveilance video in Phoenix at the time the guy was murdered in DC, you don't say, "well, I still think he looks like a killer, so I'll say he's guilty." It doesn't matter how many people concluded he was guilty prior to that one key piece of evidence being presented. If they, like you, made their judgement in absence of that key piece of evidence, they made the wrong judgement. It's not a comment on the intelligence or expertise of those who made faulty judgements before (well, depending on how obvious the new evidence is), but cases are overturned all the time based on the introduction of new evidence.
I don't know who the other "authority on sports memorabilia and autographs" was that you consulted, but I would not be so quick to discount Mark's very simple and thorough presentation of new evidence. When the opinions of two authorities differ, you then have to look at why they differ. Mark has explained very clearly why his opinion differs from your authority's. The ears are something that I too have often overlooked when comparing photos, but that was through my own neglect, not because they are unimportant. If your authority has an explanation for the difference of the shapes of the ears other than "I hadn't considered that factor," I'm sure we would all be glad to hear it.