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

[HercDriver]

Either way, it's a great article and picture! Nice job chasing it down!

Cheers,
Geno

[HercDriver]

Another thing that I touched on earlier is that the SS on the T202 does not look like he was part of the play, as he's facing the plate/pitcher. This photo/article says Jackson was thrown out by Tannehill. The box score says 3B, but my guess is that it's a mistake and Tannehill was playing his customary SS position. In that case, along with the missing leg wrap, I'd say these are different pictures. I'm not saying the T202 is Jackson or not, but I'm saying that these photos are not of the same play at third.

Man, this is a great thread! It makes me want to try to date all my T202 photos!

Take Care,
Geno

[HercDriver]

I like the article on the bottom right that talks about "today's game." It says the hole in the right field wall was caused by runaway horses attached to a furniture wagon. Also in the game pictured, a fan threw a second ball into play to confuse the fielder, "but Collins grabbed the right one." Classic stuff - makes our era of middle relief specialists, designated hitters, and sausage races seem a bit embarrasing.

OK, I admit I like the sausage race in Milwaukee...

Cheers,
Geno

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by sportscardtheory

I know it's not your job to do so, but who is the player then, if it's not Joe Jackson? Who was it before it "became" Jackson?

Your comment shows a complete lack of comprehension of, not just disgreement with, everything that I and others of like mind have said. I don't know how to put it more simply - there is not enough detail visible on the card to determine who it is with certainty. What don't you understand about that viewpoint?

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by sportscardtheory

I think you are seeing what you want to see. Look at post #209 in this thread. It's a clear as day example of a Jackson slide and his left leg is so far under his backside that it's not visibly there, just like the T202 card. You are seeing dusty air under his right leg. Who the heck slides with both feet extended. Answer, no one. I don't have a horse in this race. I don't have the card and don't plan on getting any.

Speaking of the card, the leg is very visible exactly where it was circled. What is hard to tell due to the cloud of dust is whether it's just a dark sock or if it might have a white wrap.

[T206DK]

Originally Posted by botn

Here is link to a an enormous high resolution scan of the Cleveland player.

www.botn.com/images/LordCatches.jpg

this scan allows me to see a greater difference now in the nose of one of the Jackson face pics and the sliding player. The noses look very different to me now that I see this blow up. also the left side of the face doesn't seem to match Jackson features. Once again though, the player is probably cringing or gritting his teeth so his face is contorted.

[botn]

I also contacted the staff at Blackbestsy.com and here below is the reply I got from them this morning.

Hi Greg,

Thanks for your interest in Joe and for your comments about the card.

We showed the photo to our boss and Official Historian, Mike Nola and
he said there is no doubt in his mind, the photo is that of Joe
Jackson sliding into third. The hair style, the ears, the laugh
wrinkle (crease) on the left side of his face, the build....all give
it away.....it's Joe Jackson...end of debate!!! Mr Nola took the
photo into Photoshop and enhanced it as much as possible, he has no
doubts....it's Joe Jackson. If we were to dig into our archives, we
could probably tell you with some certainty the day the photo was
taken, but right now, we don't have that kind of time to research this
issue further.

Please do let us know if we can assist further in this matter.


I really enjoyed reading the play by play from 1911. That in itself made this entire process worthwhile. I really do not pay any attention to the game today so it was really nice being able to step back in time and get a see how some of the less prominent names in the game played such an important role in the games.

Still reading the articles and so far no other references have been made to any plays at 3rd involving Lord tagging out a runner.

[Abravefan11]

Greg - Great research.

I'm sure those that want and think this is Joe will think your findings are the smoking gun.

Others will probably say it's a very similar picture but not the actual picture and it doesn't give enough detail to say the two are the same play from the same day.

[bmarlowe1]

Though the top leg sock looks dark, it may be worthwhile to look at some of the other Cleveland papers for that day. Usually the photographers from various newspapers would line up side-by-side in foul territory and snap the same scene from slightly different angles within a fraction of a second of eachother.

[botn]

Geno has made several valid observations. It does appear in the T202 that the SS, Tannehill, is facing away from the play at 3rd (seems he is facing 2nd base) so while the image from the newspaper is close I don't think it is the play which was memorialized in the T202.

Mark,

What do you think about what Mike Nola says? Were you able to use the scan I provided to make any kind of determination on the sliding player?

[tbob]

There's been a lot of discussion about ears, chins, faces, wrinkle lines, sideburns, etc. but nothing said about Joe's slender calves. The T202 picture shows a player sliding in with, what appears to me, slender calves. If you look at blowups of some of the other likely suspects in the Joss Day and other pictures, you don't find a combination of facial and anatomical features with the addition of those skinny legs. I think I am ready to concede that in all probability it is Joe.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by botn

Mark,

What do you think about what Mike Nola says? Were you able to use the scan I provided to make any kind of determination on the sliding player?

I've had excellent correspondence with Mike Nola* several times and he is an expert on JJ. He helped me un-authenticate an item Heritage had mis-labeled (that was based on an erased date). I don't know specifically what his skills are in facial ID. I don't doubt that he feels certain about this image.

In my view, though your scan is a bit better - there still isn't nearly enough their for certainty. If I was advising an author looking for a JJ sliding photo for his book, I would tell him to find another. If the card was in a Library of Congress collection labeled as Lord and Tannehill, I would tell them to leave it that way. If an authenticator asked me if he should authenticate the image as JJ - I would say not.

If you study the subject, you will see an inherent bias against certainty that 2 faces are the same person when you really can't see one of them very well. That's because the mind has a tendency to fill in what you can't see - and not always correctly.

This is a lot more blurry than any image I have ever seen anyone try to seriously identify. I can point to a couple of barely discernable features that seem to be very similar to JJ, and as has been said, it can be JJ. That's where I would leave it unless the photo is found.

* edited to add:
Mike won't remember, but back when I was first getting interested in this stuff I disagreed with an ID of Syd Smith in the Addie Joss day panorama on Mike's site because the player was clearly shorter than Smith's SABR listed height of 5'10". On this Mike was right (Syd was really about 5'5"-5'6") and I have since learned to distrust the early ballplayer height listings. The SABR bio committee chair still refuses to change Smith's height listing.

[brett]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

I've had excellent correspondence with Mike Nola* several times and he is an expert on JJ. He helped me un-authenticate an item Heritage had mis-labeled (that was based on an erased date). I don't know specifically what his skills are in facial ID. I don't doubt that he feels certain about this image.

In my view, though your scan is a bit better - there still isn't nearly enough their for certainty. If I was advising an author looking for a JJ sliding photo for his book, I would tell him to find another. If the card was in a Library of Congress collection labeled as Lord and Tannehill, I would tell them to leave it that way. If an authenticator asked me if he should authenticate the image as JJ - I would say not.

If you study the subject, you will see an inherent bias against certainty that 2 faces are the same person when you really can't see one of them very well. That's because the mind has a tendency to fill in what you can't see - and not always correctly.

This is a lot more blurry than any image I have ever seen anyone try to seriously identify. I can point to a couple of barely discernable features that seem to be very similar to JJ, and as has been said, it can be JJ. That's where I would leave it unless the photo is found.

Enough already... It's Joe. You now have newspaper documentation and on top of everything else here's the word from somenbody who knows alot more about Joe Jackson than you or even me...
Hi Greg,

Thanks for your interest in Joe and for your comments about the card.

We showed the photo to our boss and Official Historian, Mike Nola and
he said there is no doubt in his mind, the photo is that of Joe
Jackson sliding into third. The hair style, the ears, the laugh
wrinkle (crease) on the left side of his face, the build....all give
it away.....it's Joe Jackson...end of debate!!! Mr Nola took the
photo into Photoshop and enhanced it as much as possible, he has no
doubts....it's Joe Jackson. If we were to dig into our archives, we
could probably tell you with some certainty the day the photo was
taken, but right now, we don't have that kind of time to research this
issue further.

Please do let us know if we can assist further in this matter.

Now you can admit that I'm right and let it go. I knew this when I started the post. The evidence is overwhelming and it's nice to know that I just made a valuable contribution to this board and the hobby.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by brett

Enough already... It's Joe. You now have newspaper documentation and on top of everything else here's the word from somenbody who knows alot more about Joe Jackson than you or even me...

Newspaper photo - no white rap - explain it.

While Mike may know a lot more about JJ than I do, that does not mean he knows more about identifying people in photos than I do. Unless he is JJ's mother, it's just another opinion on a blurry image.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Not so fast, Brett. Mark is an expert in this area, and what he is saying should be given very strong consideration. There is a psychological aspect to this, as he points out. To paraphrase Paul Simon, a man sees what he wants to see. I think there is a very good chance it is Jackson, but it has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt, to my mind. The face is grainy and fuzzy, we can't see the eyes, and we can't see the hair.

Also, a little modesty would be in order.

[brett]

Originally Posted by T206DK

there is a slim chance that the player sliding in the picture has the same cheekbones structure and chin as Jackson does when relaxed. Look at the lines that run from his nose down the sides of his face to his chin. Jackson also had a sunken area under one of his eyes that to me makes it impossible for that face on the card to be him. Even if he was gritting his teeth while bearing down on the bag his face would not look as aged and old as it does in the T202 pic. The ears do not match up either, at least not the way I see them, so I don't know why that is still being argued. The player that is sliding is not Jackson, but is someone who could have looked similar in uniform and was older than he was ( my opinion).

Yeah you're right, in the picture below from the same year Joe doesn't have any lines running from his nose to his chin and he looks EXTREMELY young for his age (and of course the ears don't match up either). Neither does the hair, chin or anything else. Nah, that's not Joe Jackson.

[ChiefBenderForever]

Great research and info from everybody ! Still a few holes in the bucket that just won't hold the water but a great adventure so far !

[dabbuu]

Originally Posted by brett

Enough already... It's Joe. You now have newspaper documentation and on top of everything else here's the word from somenbody who knows alot more about Joe Jackson than you or even me...
Hi Greg,

Thanks for your interest in Joe and for your comments about the card.

We showed the photo to our boss and Official Historian, Mike Nola and
he said there is no doubt in his mind, the photo is that of Joe
Jackson sliding into third. The hair style, the ears, the laugh
wrinkle (crease) on the left side of his face, the build....all give
it away.....it's Joe Jackson...end of debate!!! Mr Nola took the
photo into Photoshop and enhanced it as much as possible, he has no
doubts....it's Joe Jackson. If we were to dig into our archives, we
could probably tell you with some certainty the day the photo was
taken, but right now, we don't have that kind of time to research this
issue further.

Please do let us know if we can assist further in this matter.

Now you can admit that I'm right and let it go. I knew this when I started the post. The evidence is overwhelming and it's nice to know that I just made a valuable contribution to this board and the hobby.

Don't bother arguing with this guy anymore it's a waste of your time, everyone knows it's Joe.

[brett]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

While Mike may know a lot more about JJ than I do, that does not mean he knows more about identifying people in photos than I do. Unless he is JJ's mother, it's just another opinion on a blurry image.

Obviously I don't think JJ's mother is around to help us, so the next best thing we have is the foremost Joe Jackson expert on the planet who's dedicated his life to studying all things about the man. When he says, "The hair style, the ears, the laugh wrinkle (crease) on the left side of his face, the build....all give it away.....it's Joe Jackson...end of debate!!!" I'll take that to the bank even though you're not willing to give me your blessings.

[brett]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Not so fast, Brett. Mark is an expert in this area, and what he is saying should be given very strong consideration. There is a psychological aspect to this, as he points out. To paraphrase Paul Simon, a man sees what he wants to see. I think there is a very good chance it is Jackson, but it has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt, to my mind. The face is grainy and fuzzy, we can't see the eyes, and we can't see the hair.

Also, a little modesty would be in order.

That's the problem with "experts"... they're never willing to admit when they're wrong. I didn't "want" to see anything and wouldn't give a rat's ass if it weren't Joe. If anything, for whatever reason your expert is still trying to stick to his guns and convince people that it may not be when it is. Sorry about my cockiness, but modesty went out he window when I was all but proven right about 150 posts ago. When the top Joe Jackson expert on the planet just enhanced the card and said he has "NO DOUBT" that it's Joe then that's good enough for me. By the way, I already own other Joe Jackson cards and my life would still be complete if I didn't own another... But it just so turns out that I do!

[drdduet]

Can't we use that software from Avatar to clean up the image, zoom in, and positively id who this "unidentified Cleveland player" is?

[botn]

Mark,

Thank you for your analysis and opinion on the image.

Greg

[ChiefBenderForever]

Originally Posted by brett

That's the problem with "experts"... they're never willing to admit when they're wrong. I didn't "want" to see anything and wouldn't give a rat's ass if it weren't Joe. If anything, for whatever reason your expert is till trying to stick to his guns and convince people that it may not be. Sorry about my cockiness, but modesty went out he window when I was all but proven right about 150 posts ago. I already own other Joe Jackson cards and my life would still be complete if I didn't own another... But it just so turns out that I do!

You have to be 100% for them to admit you are right, even if you are 99% sure it stills leaves a 1% chance you are wrong.

[rdixon1208]

While I think it is a strong possibility that it is him, I've found myself asking this question:

Would I pay a premium for this card as a Joe Jackson card based on what I know now?

The answer is no. Not yet anyway.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by botn

Mark,

Thank you for your analysis and opinion on the image.

Greg

You are welcome Greg, anytime. Sorry about the previous mis-understanding, to which I contributed.

Mark

[botn]

No worries, Mark. Sorry for jumping down your throat. Much nicer when we all work together even if there are differences of opinions.

[orator1]

I'm not an attorney, but I've read that "beyond a reasonable doubt" is typically quantified as being 95% certain. Given the weight of ALL the evidence combined, I am comfortable that it is JJ beyond a reasonable doubt.

[slidekellyslide]

Just a few random thoughts so far.....

-The sliding player's left leg is obviously underneath his other leg...I'm not sure what Andrew is seeing, but that is a cloud of dust, not a leg.

-Brett is being very arrogant about this, but the fact remains that absent the original photo it's still not 100%.

-Some guy (dabbuu??) used his first ever post after having been registered for over a year now to add absolutely nothing to this thread. Somebody's sock-puppet?

-the wrap on Jackson's ankle that is not in the Newspaper photo could have been painted out of the photo....I've seen many cases of inane "painting" by early photographers to change the photo.

-I actually think this IS Joe Jackson.

[ChiefBenderForever]

I think it's him as well, but also need to respect the purist opinions as well, who may never be convinced without iron clad proof, although it is getting very close.

[T206DK]

Originally Posted by brett

Yeah you're right, in the picture below from the same year Joe doesn't have any lines running from his nose to his chin and he looks EXTREMELY young for his age (and of course the ears don't match up either). Neither does the hair, chin or anything else. Nah, that's not Joe Jackson.

you can be a smartass about it if you want, but your image comparison doesn't prove anything Brett. I still say the player sliding is much older than Jackson" looked" at that time. How you base your judgement on just partial bits of evidence is amazingly peculiar for someone who doesn't really care if it's Joe Jackson or not. If this was a court case you'd have lost by now. Your expert's opinion is just that ...an opinion from a self described Joe Jackson expert who knows nothing about facial recognition or photo idenitification. based on the same photos we've all been looking at. How closely has he examined other photos of players on the team that looked simialr in uniform to one another ? He hasn't most likely
this card. the sad thing is, whether you like it or not you've now convinced a certain amount of people that it is Jackson on the card, and who knows where this will go after that.
It's not Joe Jackson just because Mike Nola and you think it is...sorry. It's going to take some definitive evidence which you may never find in order to be able to make that statement to anyone but your collecting buddies.

[brett]

Originally Posted by T206DK

you can be a smartass about it if you want, but your image comparison doesn't prove anything Brett.

Actually, it proves a lot. You said that he didn't have "smile" lines on his face and didn't really look as old as the player on the T202 card, so I attached a picture from that same year that clearly proves you wrong on both accounts. Sorry to all the doubters, but it's definitely Joe Jackson and I'm not backing down. You can believe whatever you'd like, but the poll proved that 2 to 1 people here believe that it IS him and the top Joe Jackson expert out there (who has no stakes in this whatsoever) verified it when another poster here emailed him... That's good enough for me.

[deadballera]

Great research and info from all contributors

What a thread !!!

[barrysloate]

Well I don't think the poll proves anything, it's just a poll.

There's quite a bit of evidence here and my opinion is it is probably Joe Jackson, and I commend Brett on this find. I do, however, wish that Brett took it down a notch. No need to be in everyone's face about it. It takes away some of the lustre from what is otherwise a great piece of detective work.

And I don't believe we have definitive evidence that's it's Jackson, I'm just saying I do feel it's him.

[sportscardtheory]

Originally Posted by brett

Yeah you're right, in the picture below from the same year Joe doesn't have any lines running from his nose to his chin and he looks EXTREMELY young for his age (and of course the ears don't match up either). Neither does the hair, chin or anything else. Nah, that's not Joe Jackson.

These comparison photos end the debate for me. Along with all the other subtle evidence, the long, very noticeable wrinkle on the left side of his face is now a dead-giveaway. This is Shoeless Joe Jackson.

[sportscardtheory]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

Your comment shows a complete lack of comprehension of, not just disgreement with, everything that I and others of like mind have said. I don't know how to put it more simply - there is not enough detail visible on the card to determine who it is with certainty. What don't you understand about that viewpoint?

Nope. It's your lack of comprehension that sucks. I was only asking who you think the player is, and apparently you don't have an answer. Many have shown that it certainly could be him, (and the wrinkle on the left side of his face now proves to me that it is) yet you haven't brought anyone else into the equation. If it's not SJJ, then who may I ask, is it, oh knowledgeable one?

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by sportscardtheory
I know it's not your job to do so, but who is the player then, if it's not Joe Jackson? Who was it before it "became" Jackson?

Originally Posted by sportscardtheory

nope. It's your lack of comprehension that sucks. I was only asking who you think the player is, and apparently you don't have an answer. Many have shown that it certainly could be him, (and the wrinkle on the left side of his face now proves to me that it is) yet you haven't brought anyone else into the equation. If it's not sjj, then who may i ask, is it, oh knowledgeable one?

QED
I know what you asked, and if you understood my point of view you would understand that I haven't said anything that requires an answer your question, nor I have I expressed an ability to answer it. In fact I have claimed the opposite. I'll try again: "too blurry to be sure".

[brett]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

There's quite a bit of evidence here and my opinion is it is probably Joe Jackson, and I commend Brett on this find. I do, however, wish that Brett took it down a notch. No need to be in everyone's face about it. It takes away some of the lustre from what is otherwise a great piece of detective work.

Barry, I think the snobbery of some of the veterans of this board has taken away the lustre from what is an amazing discovery that I just happened to make. I was very diplomatic a couple days ago, but once certain people who think they're holier than thou start talking crap like "unless Joe Jackson's mother can verify it"... I'd also love to hear their thoughts on the Kennedy Assasination.

Instead of trying to show how smart they are they should just look at the pictures, weight the evidence, and call it what it obviously is.

[sportscardtheory]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

Originally Posted by sportscardtheory
I know it's not your job to do so, but who is the player then, if it's not Joe Jackson? Who was it before it "became" Jackson?



QED
I know what you asked, and if you understood my point of view you would understand that I haven't said anything that requires an answer your question, nor I have I expressed an ability to answer it. In fact I have claimed the opposite. I'll try again: "too blurry to be sure".

That's a cop-out. It HAS to be someone, and if you say it's not Joe Jackson, then who is it? IT HAS TO BE SOMEONE.

[ChiefBenderForever]

Originally Posted by T206DK

the sad thing is, whether you like it or not you've now convinced a certain amount of people that it is Jackson on the card, and who knows where this will go after that.
It's not Joe Jackson just because Mike Nola and you think it is...sorry. It's going to take some definitive evidence which you may never find in order to be able to make that statement to anyone but your collecting buddies.

I don't see how it sucks at all or why you are so worried about this card carrying a premium because we now know it is a 90% chance or better it is Jackson. Sometimes the mystery or unknown is more exciting than absolute proof. It's things like this that keep the hobby exciting, as much as I find new varitations, errors, and the like interesting, this is much more enticing, and I don't think the value would shoot through the roof at all if 100% proven it's him, maybe 5X at the most.

[calvindog]

Gosh, lots of sarcasm on this thread. It really does take away from my ability to enjoy Brett's discovery and Greg's crackerjack detective work.

My amateur opinion is that it is Jackson. After all, it looks like him and does not resemble anyone else on the team. I don't think it's even a close call here.

[brett]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

I know what you asked, and if you understood my point of view you would understand that I haven't said anything that requires an answer your question, nor I have I expressed an ability to answer it. In fact I have claimed the opposite. I'll try again: "too blurry to be sure".

Why is it too blurry for you but not for several other people here who don't claim to be photo ID experts? Just look at all the pictures and overwhelming circumstancial evidence and stop trying to outsmart yourself.

[sportscardtheory]

This is how I see it. The photo contains visual evidence of the player being Shoeless Joe Jackson. If no one can show the same, if not better, evidence that it's another player, then isn't it now Jackson until someone can DISPROVE that it is. If the player has been a "mystery" since 1912, then the mystery is now solved. If it's not Joe Jackson, then who is it and what is the evidence showing that it is said player. More evidence points to it being Jackson than any other player, so even if it's questionable, it's now up to someone to prove that it's NOT him.

[tbob]

Originally Posted by orator1

I'm not an attorney, but I've read that "beyond a reasonable doubt" is typically quantified as being 95% certain. Given the weight of ALL the evidence combined, I am comfortable that it is JJ beyond a reasonable doubt.

Well, actually there are no percentages and although the judge always instructs the criminal jury what "reasonable doubt" is, juries often struggle with the concept. It is extremely subjective despite the definitions. The standard is much higher in a criminal case than in a civil case in which the standard is "by a preponderance of the evidence," for example, but the area is very gray.

[botn]

I think it is Jackson but I want to be able to get more proof before I would feel comfortable saying so. Mark is only saying that the image is too blurry to know who it is based on the process he uses to do photo id. Yeah I am defending Mark now...Actually I have been neutral from the beginning and just don't see the need for people to be attacking one another over this. That said I do regret having sold a couple of the PSA 7s and PSA 6s which I had in inventory. At the same time I am not sure what kind of premium, if any, I would be willing to place on the next one I acquire. I am not done researching this.

By the way, folks from Blackbestsy wrote to me again and reaffirmed their feeling that it is Jackson depicted on the T202 though did not offer a reason why the white wrap or sox was not present in the newspaper photo.

[mark evans]

I'm convinced. Congrats to Brett and thanks to all for the outstanding research, especially Greg for the newspaper story.

Mark

[brett]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

Just a few random thoughts so far.....

-the wrap on Jackson's ankle that is not in the Newspaper photo could have been painted out of the photo....I've seen many cases of inane "painting" by early photographers to change the photo.

-I actually think this IS Joe Jackson.

I think you hit the nail on the head. It's possible the photographer touched up the photo so the reader could more easily see his leg over the lighter background. Everything about these pictures are WAAAAAY too similar for it not to be. It looks like the newspaper photo was snapped a tenth of a second after the picture on the T202 card.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by brett

I think you hit the nail on the head. I believe the photographer touched up the photo so the reader could more easily see his leg over the lighter background. Everything about these pictures are WAAAAAY too similar for it not to be. It looks like the newspaper photo was snapped a tenth of a second after the picture on the T202 card.

Complete, wild speculation, in my opinion. Sure.

[HercDriver]

Brett --

While I'm not taking sides in the "it is" or "it isn't" Joe, I will say I don't believe the pictures come from the same slide. Not only the leg wrap, but my explanation of the SS positioning from my last post along with the newspaper caption saying it was a throw from SS. I think if it's Jackson, it's a different play at third...

Cheers,
Geno

[Peter_Spaeth]

Cmon Geno, the photographer not only blacked out the ankle wrap, he repositioned the shortstop. It is clear as day.

[Kawika]

We have a problem here. Lichtman is never wrong and Mark is never wrong. Things fall apart; the center cannot hold. Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.

Brett: Just because you don't like Mark's conclusion doesn't mean you need to play the smarty-pants elitist card. That's just being obnoxious. He hasn't said you're wrong, he hasn't said you're right, he has said, in essence, close but no cigar, yet anyway. Mark is no amateur in the field of photo identification, and his methodology is more rigorous than yours. Believe me, if a smoking gun turns up and Mark confirms what you are opining you will be glad to have his endorsement. He has earned my respect; he deserves yours.

Disclaimer: I believe it is Jackson but my opinion is solely based on wishful thinking.