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

[orator1]

Mark, based on the 4 close-ups of 1911 Naps players in post #219, can any of their facial features exclude them from being the player in question?

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by orator1

Mark, based on the 4 close-ups of 1911 Naps players in post #219, can any of their facial features exclude them from being the player in question?

Paul - they way I would like to put it is that I can't be sure who it is or isn't based on what has been posted and also the reproduction in Slocum's book.

[sportscardtheory]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

Paul - they way I would like to put it is that I can't be sure who it is or isn't based on what has been posted and also the reproduction in Slocum's book.

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?

[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?

[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".

[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.

[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.