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

[bmarlowe1]

>> Let's see. Look at your picture and the 1945 Yankees picture. Notice a huge difference in the nose and, no, it is not due to angle or smile.

Looks about the same as the young PW smiling photo

>> Also, please look at the ear in each photo. Notice a difference? Remember, we're talking about ages 22 to 23 as opposed to 41 or 42. Not 70.

There is absolutely no visible difference in the ear.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

>> Let's see. Look at your picture and the 1945 Yankees picture. Notice a huge difference in the nose and, no, it is not due to angle or smile.

Looks about the same as the young PW smiling photo

>> Also, please look at the ear in each photo. Notice a difference? Remember, we're talking about ages 22 to 23 as opposed to 41 or 42. Not 70.

There is absolutely no visible difference in the ear.

Oh, my goodness. LOL!

Would you agree the pictures are about the same size and distance from Paul Waner in both photos?

Just asking. Again, just asking.

[bmarlowe1]

>> Would you agree the pictures are about the same size and distance from Paul Waner in both photos?

Again, in English please

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

>> Would you agree the pictures are about the same size and distance from Paul Waner in both photos?

Again, in English please

It is in English! LOL!

Let's try this again. Would you agree since you literally lined up these photos they are just about the same size and that the pictures were taken from about the same distance away?

[bmarlowe1]

>> Would you agree since you literally lined up these photos they are just about the same size and that the pictures were taken from about the same distance away?

I don't know how far away the cameras were from the faces depicted, except to say they were far enough away to avoid what is called "perspective distortion" that occurs in extreme close-ups. That is all that is important here.

I don't know the size of the original photos or negatives which is not relevant to anything here.

[Brian Van Horn]

Well, here you go.

Take the 1945 Yankees photo of Paul Waner and move it up just slightly so it matches the slight bit of ear just above your top right line in the 1926 exhibit. That way, there is an alignment of the heads in both pictures.

Aren't you going to thank me for doing your due diligence in this matter?

Now, overlap your red lines again. That's a boy. You're making progress.

Now, look at that flap of ear hanging down on the ear on the right side of the 1945 photo. Now, you can try to make the argument these might not be the same distance away in the photographs, but we just lined up the ears and there's that hanging bottom ear lobe. Bad, naughty ear lobe. You aged 28 or 29 years before you should have and there is that more pronounced inner ridge of the ear lobe. OK. Slightly different angle of the photos. Still, the ear is longer and more pronounced. To boot, your red lines back this up. Guess what? He's not 70 in the picture.

Oh, but I'm just making this up.....with backup from the pictures and your red lines.

No hard feelings.

[nolemmings]

My two cents: That ain't Paul Waner. Some resemblance, maybe even a Waner family member, but no Poison.

I would give modest at most credence to a family member's identification. I've personally seen my family members quibble over who is pictured in various old family photos, even when the two people arguing are themselves both in the picture and dispute the identity of another! Both were obviously present and would have recollection and still they can disagree. I would venture that this is not all that unusual. So absent more corroboration, as suggested, I would discount whatever was offered as an ID in this case, unless there's much more that isn't being shared with us.

[phikappapsi]

Pretty sure the point Brian is about to make is that, even in the two photos you used, that compare waner vs waner and are known. There's a dramatic difference in the earlobe. Which you've said all along disqualifies.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by phikappapsi

Pretty sure the point Brian is about to make is that, even in the two photos you used, that compare waner vs waner and are known. There's a dramatic difference in the earlobe. Which you've said all along disqualifies.

Do you not understand that in the younger full frontal photo (at left) the earlobe is not visible? You can see it in the semi-profile (at right) but not in the full-frontal image. That is often the case. I know that because I have done literally thousands of these, you haven't.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by phikappapsi

Pretty sure the point Brian is about to make is that, even in the two photos you used, that compare waner vs waner and are known. There's a dramatic difference in the earlobe. Which you've said all along disqualifies.

OK - so here is young PW turned a bit so you can see his earlobe. I admit we are comparing right ear to left ear - not quite kosher - but 99% of the time it is OK. Anyway now you can see a full ear in both photos and there is nothing here to indicate a mismatch.

[bmarlowe1]

>> Now, look at that flap of ear hanging down on the ear on the right side of the 1945 photo. Now, you can try to make the argument these might not be the same distance away in the photographs, but we just lined up the ears and there's that hanging bottom ear lobe.

Already answered, full-frontal (earlobe hidden) vs. semi-profile (earlobe visible). I know you don't understand this, but most will. I bet phikappapsi does.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

OK - so here is young PW turned a bit so you can see his earlobe. I admit we are comparing right ear to left ear - not quite kosher - but 99% of the time it is OK. Anyway now you can see a full ear in both photos and there is nothing here to indicate a mismatch.

Wow! You lined up a second picture to reinforce your first comparison. The earlobe is still lower with age and in the latter picture, Paul Waner is still nowhere close to 70.

Thank you. You're so kind.

No hard feelings.

Still, keep making my argument for me with photographic evidence to boot. You're doing a wonderful job.