|
|
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
>>My response has already been given.
Oh yes, your ears are like your feet. That was rich. >> The photos are on the end of the relative back it up. Can you say that again in English? So in the short span of time this thread has been running I got 4 emails and 1 PM requesting photo ID help. I wonder how many Mr. Van Horn got? One in particular is on point. It is from a relative of a 19thC player well-known to us all. There is a team photo owned by the family. One current relative has identified one team member as the ancestor, while another relative disagrees and says it is another team member. That's would be enough to make Mr. Van Horn's head explode. I will just compare the ears. Last edited by bmarlowe1; 05-28-2020 at 08:27 PM. |
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
>> just keeping this on an even keel following a previous accusation in this thread.
You have trouble understanding things. The stuff about how ears grow like your feet grow - that you made up. It has no basis in fact. Last edited by bmarlowe1; 05-28-2020 at 08:32 PM. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
![]() https://www.doctoroz.com/blog/arthur...ue-grow-we-age But, of course, I am just making that up......Not. No hard feelings. Just let me know if you'd like more from that made up, oh, what should we call it......oh, wait......Fact.
|
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I did not say they don't grow and I did say that earlobes may droop when one gets old. I also correctly said they don't grow enough to be perceptible in a photo until one is well beyond ball-playing age. They certainly don't grow like your feet. You've got an imprecise Dr. Oz blog post for popular consumption that you found and incorrectly interpreted after you made your assertion, I have this from "Ear Biometrics and Machine Vision", Burge and Burger, 21st Workshop for Pattern Recognition, Austria, 1997: "It is obvious that the structure of the ear does not change radically over time"... ""Ear shape and structure are relatively constant from about age 8 to age 70." "Forensic Art and Illustration", Karen T. Taylor, Ch. 8, pegs visible ear changing in photos starting beyond age 60. There is much, much more like this, but it is not easy reading (for you). Last edited by bmarlowe1; 05-28-2020 at 09:32 PM. |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Your basis for ID is a uniform and an ear. There are different uniforms in the picture albeit all with the collar at the top of the uniform. Then there is the ear. One ear that, like the rest of the human ears on this planet, has cartilage that grows with age. Of course, there is also the ID from the relative with a very large number of photos of Paul from all ages. Hmmmm....may want to brush up on your ears and noses in the future. As for the throat, I am trying not to hiccup from something else this enthralling discussion is causing me. ![]() Pleasant reading and no hard feelings. |
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
|
>> Is it possible, just possible in some of your IDs without this knowledge...you may have made an incorrect conclusion in identity
No because I have had this knowledge for a very long time and understand it (you don't) - did you read my last post? It isn't that complicated - please read it. I actually read books on the subject before making assertions. >> For all of the science that is out there, we are human first. What does that mean? >> Your basis for ID is a uniform and an ear. No, please read more carefully. It is the ear. Other significant facial feature mis-matches are also there - but the ear is almost always the best thing to use if it is visible because it is nearly constant over the age-ranges of interest to us and does not vary with changing facial expression. >> there is also the ID from the relative with a very large number of photos of Paul from all ages So why can't we see what he used? We don't have to see the whole collection, just a few of the young Paul Waner photos he used. Also read (or re-read slowly) the last paragraph of post #30. Last edited by bmarlowe1; 05-28-2020 at 09:59 PM. |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
You are wonderful for my health.
![]() " Is it possible, just possible in some of your IDs without this knowledge...you may have made an incorrect conclusion in identity No because I have had this knowledge for a very long time and understand it (you don't) - did you read my last post? It isn't that complicated - please read it. I actually read books on the subject before making assertions." So, how is it on something you stated I made up-the growing of the ears and nose-is a fact. A fact that I have known since the age of eight. I am now 53. You identify people in photos, but somehow managed to miss that basic fact and, to boot, accuse me of making it up. They say laughter is the best medicine. I never figured science would make laugh so hard. No hard feelings.
|
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
If I have to, I'll put it in pigeon English. The relative has a huge collection of photos. The photos are more than you and I could ever possibly hope to attain for a collection. Those photos back up the ID of the player being Paul Waner. It doesn't mean the relative has pictures of Paul in this uniform. It means the recognition is that this IS Paul Waner. This has to be explained? No hard feelings. |
![]() |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| 18 Update, 19 Update,19 Holiday Lot. Acuna Vlad Alonso | timber63401 | 1980 & Newer Sports Cards B/S/T | 0 | 11-17-2019 08:54 AM |
| Need base from 93-present | vintage954 | 1980 & Newer Sports Cards B/S/T | 5 | 02-19-2014 12:49 PM |
| New Year's Present | ZernialFan | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 1 | 12-31-2013 10:30 AM |
| An Opening Day Present to You All | slidekellyslide | WaterCooler Talk- Off Topics | 1 | 04-01-2011 04:23 AM |
| 50 - present wantlist | Archive | 1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 0 | 08-25-2007 11:02 AM |