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

Kawika · #1 05-25-2010, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sportscardtheory

The thing I don't like about this, is that "Mark" isn't saying anything at all. He's saying he doesn't know, which is the same thing as saying nothing. The only evidence he can possibly use to disprove that it is JJ is to prove that it's another player, which he could never do. ALL the circumstantial evidence points to Jackson, so now it's in doubters hands to prove who it is, because if they can't, it's Jackson, based on the evidence at hand.

I am a land surveyor, not a logician, but the above statement is so riddled with illogicism that my head is spinning.

sportscardtheory · #2 05-25-2010, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kawika

I am a land surveyor, not a logician, but the above statement is so riddled with illogicism that my head is spinning.

I'm sorry that you can't understand it, it's about burden of proof. Everyone has done an exceptional job proving that it is Jackson, while some people are wasting everyone's time saying that they don't know, when they should be proving that's it's not.

bmarlowe1 · #3 05-25-2010, 07:04 PM

Originally Posted by sportscardtheory

The thing I don't like about this, is that "Mark" isn't saying anything at all. He's saying he doesn't know, which is the same thing as saying nothing. The only evidence he can possibly use to disprove that it is JJ is to prove that it's another player, which he could never do. ALL the circumstantial evidence points to Jackson, so now it's in doubters hands to prove who it is, because if they can't, it's Jackson, based on the evidence at hand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kawika

I am a land surveyor, not a logician, but the above statement is so riddled with illogicism that my head is spinning.

David - don't even try to figure out what he is saying.

bmarlowe1 · #4 05-25-2010, 07:08 PM

Paul earlier made a nice point about reasonable doubt. So - here is a thought experiment. Assume that sllding into 3rd base is a serious felony, punishible by a lengthy prison sentence, perhaps even death. The witnesses to the event in question have all died or mysteriously vanished. All we have is the image from the card.

JJ is arrested. Should he be convicted based on that image?

Peter_Spaeth · #5 05-25-2010, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

Paul earlier made a nice point about reasonable doubt. So - here is a thought experiment. Assume that sllding into 3rd base is a serious felony, punishible by a lengthy prison sentence, perhaps even death. The witnesses to the event in question have all died or mysteriously vanished. All we have is the image from the card.

JJ is arrested. Should he be convicted based on that image?

SOMEONE slid. You can't prove it ISN'T Jax. So I say convict him.

Kawika · #6 05-25-2010, 07:15 PM

At least ban him from baseball.

benjulmag · #7 05-25-2010, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

Paul earlier made a nice point about reasonable doubt. So - here is a thought experiment. Assume that sllding into 3rd base is a serious felony, punishible by a lengthy prison sentence, perhaps even death. The witnesses to the event in question have all died or mysteriously vanished. All we have is the image from the card.

JJ is arrested. Should he be convicted based on that image?

Single best post on this thread. Sorry, Brett, got to move over. Beyond reasonable doubt, what does that mean? Somebody in an earlier post said 95%. Not sure where that came from but all I can say is if that is our standard of justice, there are one f****** of innocent people behind bars.

sportscardtheory · #8 05-25-2010, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by benjulmag

Single best post on this thread. Sorry, Brett, got to move over. Beyond reasonable doubt, what does that mean? Somebody in an earlier post said 95%. Not sure where that came from but all I can say is if that is our standard of justice, there are one f****** of innocent people behind bars.

This has absolutely nothing to do with law. Majority rules in these situations.

Peter_Spaeth · #9 05-25-2010, 08:31 PM

All the folks who are convinced should be scrambling to buy up this card before the price goes through the roof. Are you?

Abravefan11 · #10 05-25-2010, 08:41 PM

No Peter I wouldn't buy one before and I won't buy one now. With that said here's why I think the two photos are from the same play.

1) The photos as pointed out before were taken from two different angles. The bottom photo was further up the 3rd baseline than the top.

2) Lord's right hand, Lord's head, and Joe's right arm all have moved proportionally from one photo to the next. Joe's right leg, Lord's feet, and Joe's head have all maintained their position. Nothing is out of place from one photo to the next.

3) The angles surrounding the bag including the curvature on the home plate side are identical.

I know this isn't proper photo identification, but it's pretty compelling to me.

T206DK · #11 05-25-2010, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

All the folks who are convinced should be scrambling to buy up this card before the price goes through the roof. Are you?

yeah me and my brother bought of these off Teletrade years ago for between $10-$12 a card. I have two fo these cards. I thought I only had one. My brother now owns 5 of these cards thanks to the hype from this thread. I believe he will be going to the local vintage card shop where he lives tomorrow and will buy the one or two that are for sale there also. I would personally like to thank Brett for making my brother and many others think they are going to be rich men very soon. He bets a PSA 7 or 8 of this card will sell for over $15,000 to the right buyer ! he sold one of his Cobbs last year to somone for about that price.
3 people contacted my brother either from the PSA boards or this one yesterday wanting to buy his cards, so the rush has already started I'm afraid. I thnk now the bet should be what seller or auction house will use Brett's "Joe Jackson" reference in trying to sell this common for a super premium.

tbob · #12 05-25-2010, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

Paul earlier made a nice point about reasonable doubt. So - here is a thought experiment. Assume that sllding into 3rd base is a serious felony, punishible by a lengthy prison sentence, perhaps even death. The witnesses to the event in question have all died or mysteriously vanished. All we have is the image from the card.

JJ is arrested. Should he be convicted based on that image?

Mark- Paul's point about reasonable doubt as used in a courtroom proceeding is erroneous so I wouldn't use that as a basis for any argument. In Paul's defense he is not an attorney and admitted he thought he read somewhere about the definition of reasonable doubt, which is incorrect.

tbob · #13 05-25-2010, 10:26 PM

Now if the JJ case was a civil case, I think a jury could find the Plaintiff (Brett) has established his case by a preponderance of the evidence.

bmarlowe1 · #14 05-25-2010, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tbob

Mark- Paul's point about reasonable doubt as used in a courtroom proceeding is erroneous so I wouldn't use that as a basis for any argument. In Paul's defense he is not an attorney and admitted he thought he read somewhere about the definition of reasonable doubt, which is incorrect.......Now if the JJ case was a civil case, I think a jury could find the Plaintiff (Brett) has established his case by a preponderance of the evidence.

I wasn't using Paul's point at all as the basis for what I said - and I don't think his stated percentage is the criterion for reasonable doubt. I did think his comment was pointed in the right direction. The point I made stands on it's own. If you're on the jury in a criminal case, how do you vote?

Abravefan11 · #15 05-25-2010, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

If you're on the jury, how do you vote?

Mark you know I have the up most respect for you and your methods, but given what I see in comparing the newspaper photo and the T202 image I would find JJ guilty.

calvindog · #16 05-25-2010, 10:50 PM

I think what Bob is asking is whether the jury is watching a civil or criminal trial. If it were me, I'd vote on a civil case that it is Jackson; on a criminal case I'd vote no, that the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt has not been met.

mark evans · #17 05-25-2010, 10:57 PM

I concur with Jeff, but really don't see the analogy to legal disputes. Would love to buy the card. Until this thread, it was probably affordable.

brett · #18 05-26-2010, 03:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

Assume that sllding into 3rd base is a serious felony, punishible by a lengthy prison sentence, perhaps even death. The witnesses to the event in question have all died or mysteriously vanished. All we have is the image from the card.

JJ is arrested. Should he be convicted based on that image?

Based on all the insurmountable evidence that's come out in the past couple days, HELL YES!

bmarlowe1 · #19 05-26-2010, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

Assume that sllding into 3rd base is a serious felony, punishible by a lengthy prison sentence, perhaps even death. The witnesses to the event in question have all died or mysteriously vanished. All we have is the image from the card.

JJ is arrested. Should he be convicted based on that image?

Quote:

Originally Posted by brett

Based on all the insurmountable evidence that's come out in the past couple days, HELL YES!

The question was put in terms of the card only for a reason. Based on the card plus the Tim/Paul photo newpaper photo analysis, JJ may be in trouble at least in civil court.

As to the newpaper photo, let me try to provide a possible explanation for the socks and shadows (if this has already been done, sorry but I didn't see it). This needs to be justified and it isn't artist overpaint:

From the card and the very small shadow on the back of Lord's right foot we can see that the sun is high above and somewhat to our right. The sock on his back leg is partly shadowed by his own body. In the newpaper photo, he has moved that left foot forward - more under his body - hence it is more shadowed.

As to the slider's high leg - the one we see with the wrap on the card - we do see the wrap a little bit in the newpaper photo - just to our left of Lord's right leg - a thin strip of white - then it goes black perhaps due to the shadow of Lord's body as he slides under him. The extreme black and white is what we get because this is a half-tone image.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
1940 Play Ball JOE DiMAGGIO Signed Card PSA/DNA	joedawolf	1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T	3	12-15-2009 09:30 AM
Shoeless Joe Jackson signed, or did Joe's wife sign for him?	tcrowntom	Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used	0	06-07-2009 10:30 AM
CAN SOMEONE HELP?---EBay: A seller has a 1915 Cracker Jack Ty Cobb & Shoeless Joe $4500+	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	44	11-16-2005 11:48 AM
A couple of nice Shoeless Joe Jackson PSA cards for sale!!!!!!	Archive	Pre-WWII cards (E, D, M, etc..) B/S/T	2	04-29-2005 03:12 PM
Shoeless Joe	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	7	02-04-2005 10:52 PM