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

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn

You're zero for two.

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.

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).

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

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).

Face it. The ears, the nose and, in my case, the feet continue to grow. Is it possible, just possible in some of your IDs without this knowledge, without this made up, oh....fact, you may have made an incorrect conclusion in identity in your past? For all of the science that is out there, we are human first.

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.

[bmarlowe1]

>> 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.

[Brian Van Horn]

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.

[bmarlowe1]

I did not miss that fact (it is in the stuff I read 15 years ago). What you missed is that the growth is not enough to affect ear comparison in photos of men of ball-player age. If I am doing this wrong, so is the FBI.

What you made up was asserting that the relatively microscopic yearly growth in ear cartilage is anything close to what can happen to your feet.

Your either not reading what I post or you can't understand it. So why can't we see a few of the young Waner photos your relative used? Are you afraid the comparison won't look so good?

[Brian Van Horn]

LOL!

You clearly stated that I made it up.

"The stuff about how ears grow like your feet grow - that you made up. It has no basis in fact."

Now, what I in fact said was:

"Anybody who studies ears or noses understands that they change and actually grow as you get older. Also, in my case, that applies to feet."

Your response:

"Oh yes, your ears are like your feet. That was rich."

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit.

If you can't admit your error....well.......

[bmarlowe1]

No, why don't you use the full quote of what you said:
Anybody who studies ears or noses understands that they change and actually grow as you get older. Also, in my case, that applies to feet. I graduated with size nine feet. They are now ten and a half.

The clear implication is that ears also grow a lot -enough to be visible in photos (I guess from the time of graduation to in your case age 53). How else should your statement be interpreted? There is nothing to support that assertion. The scientific evidence is contrary.