Skip to main content

Marcus vs. Owen (t = 1 hr)

Here's a comparison of Owen's and Marcus' baby pictures at 1 hour old. Erin and I have differing opinions: one thinks the two boys look different as newborns, the other thinks they look very similar. Not that it matters too much, seeing as they're both perfect in every way. What do you think?

Comments

Code name: 1% said…
All new babies look the same: squished. That said, the differences between these two are subtle. First glance = same baby. Second glance = related babies.
Anonymous said…
owen had more hair-or at least it was farther down on his forehead. plus, like you said, owen was 22% bigger. maybe it's because marcus's arms are bent, but owen's arms look longer. but they totally look like brothers. more alike than me, erin and brian looked at teeny-tiny stage.
Owen lacks definition in his pecs, but clearly has an advantage in overall bulk. Marcus appears to have toned up for this competition, but I question his hairstyle choice as it makes him look a bit like United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia - http://www.ocregister.com/newsimages/local/2005/08/30chapman.jpg. It's interesting to note that the brothers have both opted for the left-handed CLAW pose. I'm seeing great things in the boys' future.
both amazing and yummy! i think they look pretty similar!
Aunt Linda said…
I think they are both alike in their perfection. Kelly thinks all babies look like ET..the only difference is some are with and some are without hair. He did say that they got their good looks from John because Erin still has hers.

Hugs from Houston.

J,K,L and M

Popular posts from this blog

back-talk begins

me: "owen, come here. it's time to get a new diaper" him, sprinting down the hall with no pants on: "forget about it!" he's quoting benny the rabbit, a short-lived sesame street character who happens to be in his favorite "count with me" video. i'm turning my head, trying not to let him see me laugh, because his use and tone with the phrase are so spot-on.

The Long Con

Hiding in Plain Sight ESPN has a series of sports documentaries called 30 For 30. One of my favorites is called Broke  which is about how professional athletes often make tens of millions of dollars in their careers yet retire with nothing. One of the major "leaks" turns out to be con artists, who lure athletes into elaborate real estate schemes or business ventures. This naturally raises the question: In a tightly-knit social structure that is a sports team, how can con artists operate so effectively and extensively? The answer is quite simple: very few people taken in by con artists ever tell anyone what happened. Thus, con artists can operate out in the open with little fear of consequences because they are shielded by the collective silence of their victims. I can empathize with this. I've lost money in two different con schemes. One was when I was in college, and I received a phone call that I had won an all-expenses-paid trip to the Bahamas. All I needed to d

Reader Feedback: Whither Kanake in (white) Astronomy?

Watching the way that the debate about the TMT has come into our field has angered and saddened me so much. Outward blatant racism and then deflecting and defending. I don't want to post this because I am a chicken and fairly vulnerable given my status as a postdoc (Editor's note: How sad is it that our young astronomers feel afraid to speak out on this issue? This should make clear the power dynamics at play in this debate) .  But I thought the number crunching I did might be useful for those on the fence. I wanted to see how badly astronomy itself is failing Native Hawaiians. I'm not trying to get into all of the racist infrastructure that has created an underclass on Hawaii, but if we are going to argue about "well it wasn't astronomers who did it," we should be able to back that assertion with numbers. Having tried to do so, well I think the argument has no standing. At all.  Based on my research, it looks like there are about 1400 jobs in Hawaii r