|
Post by Michael on Nov 6, 2006 11:01:18 GMT -5
That supposed 'unique' and powerful evidence found within the ransom note writings. You know the "x" which has caused many a man/woman to decide Hauptmann wrote those notes. In Dr. Gardner's book, The Case That Never Dies, between pages 210 & 211 there are illustrations. On one page Dr. Gardner finds an "x" which exemplifies it may not have been such a unique identifier after all. 165.230.98.36/acatalog/__The_Case_That_Never_Dies_1350.html#1977I stumbled upon one which I believe is quite close as well. So who wrote it? Anyone interested in giving their opinion? Here is the find: Here is the ransom note:
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Nov 6, 2006 12:45:25 GMT -5
Michael, I believe there may be too much being made about Osborn's statement that Hauptmann's version of the "x" was unique. IMHO, it all begins and ends with a direct comparison of the ransom note "x" and Hauptmann's conceded version of the "x," not simply in terms of the general letter formation and styling, but in the distinctive handwriting characteristics which are readily apparent in both examples. Notwithstanding that, how do we account for Osborn's observation?
Dr. Gardner shows an example of Hans Mueller's "x" and this one, a good find on your part nevertheless, also shows a similar style. As a potential explanation, I recently pointed out to Script it seems reasonable that this specific styling of the letter could well have been passed around and imitated within a relatively limited sphere of influence, each writer free to interpretate it as their personal writing mechanics dictated. Was this version of the "x" written by someone within Hauptmann's circle of friends and acquaintances? I see the name "Uhlig" and surmise this might well be the case.
Perhaps there is more truth to Osborn's statement than we can see at first and second glance.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 17, 2007 21:06:29 GMT -5
"Script" from the Lindy "truth" board has made a recent post there which should be of some interest to anyone who finds the handwriting aspect, as I do - intriguing. This post was emailed to me and I read through it carefully.
As always I am completely baffled by his mistakes.
First of all, when an "examination" of material is made it should be clear how it was made. For example, was this made of the originals under glass, and if so what magnification? If not then we appear to be on equal ground by using xerox copies.
My observations of these things which I noted.....years ago......are quite different.
What do we already know? That's important. Well we know that Hauptmann constructed an "x" similar to the one in the ransom notes on one of his drivers permits - but not exactly.
Next see my post above.
Now these "x" Script is pointing out don't look like the ransom note "x". When he says they are all characteristically the same as the one's in the ransom notes I have to disagree. These "x" are different. They aren't right but one can so plainly see the difference. Hauptmann is attempting to make the Gothic "x" and none that I have found in these documents look like a double-e and its my opinion that its a misrepresentation to say so.
If Script wants to say Hauptmann didn't know how to make a Gothic "x" and neither did the ransom note writer then this would be factually correct. But to say an "x" made like an "s" and an "l" are the same as one made like a double-e is a bit of a stretch - even for him.
If anyone would like I could really go into detail and make charts. I could also double-check the rest of his post in order to expose other problems that are contained in it.
Just let me know.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 18, 2007 11:52:57 GMT -5
Ok - Ok I'll start to post on this. Please as you read this new information refer back to the beginning of this thread. Unless I post otherwise, I will be quoting Script from his post on the Lindy "truth" discussion board on Sat Feb 17, 2007 3:05 pm entitled " S & K should take a peek" which was emailed to me by a Member of his board. Let me begin by blasting his assertion concerning the word "pox." Notice too that Hauptmann spelled "box" as "pox" in NOTEBOOK EXHIBIT S-259 and that in the March 7, 1932 ransom note, "box" is also spelled as "pox." No doubt another coincidence? (Script) Well this sounds powerful doesn't it? Of course not. We're talking a German Immigrant misspelling "box" as "pox" how many times? Once - maybe. Why do I say maybe? Let's take a look: This is what Script calls "pox." Is he right? He certainly could be but I wouldn't put money on it. Next, let's iso the "x" in this word: Now let's compare it to the word in the Ransom Note: And of course we will iso this "x" as also: You'll notice the double-e looking letter from the ransom note "x" or as Stein noted looking more like a "u". Now let's assume for a minute that Script actually got something right - does this "x" from Hauptmann's notebook look anything like the "x" in the ransom note? If you find yourself answering "no" like I do then ask yourself why Script wrote in his post they were characteristically the same. Thanks for nothing Script.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 17, 2008 17:53:03 GMT -5
I just had this post below emailed to me by a Member of that board. As most people who post here know... I don't usually respond but sometimes I find it irresistible. Hauptmann wrote "pox Soap", spelling "box" as "pox" and he wrote an "x" at the end like two small "e's" back to back. When you go into the second Lindbergh ransom note you find on line 3, word 1, where the writer spelled "box" as "pox" with an "x" like two small "e's" back to back. The very same strange misspelling and the same unique "x" as found in Hauptmann's notebook.
I hope someone isn't going to tell us this is just an accidental coincidence or that some policeman wrote "pox" in Hauptmann's notebook. If someone does I'm reaching for a barf bag. (Script - LTB Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:47 pm) Barf bag indeed..... There are several problems with this post above. I posted the picture of what's written in the actual notebook in my post dated 2-18-07 (above). Now Script is supposed to be an Expert yet I'd have to say he's not seeing what is obvious to me. What is that you ask? The word is " Pott Soap." That's a double "t" not an "x" and even if it were an "x" it is in no way characteristically the same of those made in the ransom notes and wasn't made like a double "e". Just look for yourself and ask why an "Expert" can't see what you are seeing. It's called bias. People are people and generally see what they want to see. The 2nd point is this doesn't even look like Hauptmann's handwriting, and in fact, the entire book was supposed to be "mislaid" by the Prosecution so the Defense couldn't use it based upon this very point - that the Prosecution's Experts believed someone other then Hauptmann had been writing in it. You see Script has made this claim before and I disproved it LAST YEAR, yet, he uses this Busch League tactic, that is, if he recites it again it makes it true even though it wasn't LAST YEAR.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 18, 2008 15:39:02 GMT -5
Someone needs a new set of credentials..... A new post was emailed to me by a Member of the "truth" board. The following is from that post authored by the infamous Script-ed dated Tue Mar 18, 2008 1:51 pm: OK. Again, he's wrong on both points. The word is "Pott" and and therefore the letter in question is really two letters "tt." Now if it were an "x", and it isn't, its absolutely without a doubt unlike any "x" in the ransom notes. Scripted is claiming back to back "e"s... look for yourself. He is trying to make it seem like since he's an "Expert" he can see something we can't. I am not an Expert but I have eyes and can plainly see what is written there. It's "Pott Soap." Unfortunately for Script-ed I have all the documentation he hopes no one sees when he cites this stuff. Hauptmann camped out during this trip and this is in reference to the soap needed to wash the dishes, pots, and pans. They also had this and used it on Hunter's Island. Of course Scripted has done his research to know this, yet, why does he ask this question then? Hmmm, maybe he hasn't done the research! They are clearly there as the person who wrote this comes from the bottom up to cross both letters. Again, if this is an "x" show me where this is done in ANY ransom note "x." Show where its done in any "u" or "ee" formulated "x" anywhere else. It can't be shown because it doesn't exist. This truly would be unique but unto itself because there is no other "x" like it anywhere. Again, look at it yourself and decide. Then compare it to his absurd and ridiculous claims. All he has is that he is supposed to be an "Expert" and nothing more. What he is saying clearly isn't there. It's like the King Who Wore No Clothes. Get this.... Is this a legitimate argument? It was his claim it was an "x." I claimed it is a "tt." Now he's saying if I am right then every "x" is really a "tt." No Scripted, the "x" are "x" and the "tt" is a "tt." Your childish attempt at confusing the issue or putting words in my mouth exposes you as the simpleton you are. People aren't fooled by this nonsense. Now, next time you put something in writing you may want do some homework first before inserting your foot into your mouth. A Prison Guard just took you, the supposed Expert - to school.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Mar 21, 2008 10:15:20 GMT -5
I'll stay out of your simmering feud here, Michael. Only to say that I personally believe Script has offered greatly to the discussion in terms of identifying more unmistakeable similarities within Hauptmann's writing and the ransom notes than could possibly be found in nature, in spite of the many dissimilarities within the wide variation of his writing style.
In this case though, I agree you're right and he's wrong. It certainly looks like a double "tt" to me. I'm wondering though if this could be referring to something other than a box of soap. Particularly noting the price of 90 cents, (in the Depression) might this really be referring to a "soup pot" with a simple miscue to look more like "soap" and the use of double consonants in the word "pott," when one "t" would do and which we know Hauptmann often did?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 21, 2008 17:02:16 GMT -5
Joe,
Thanks for your input, and I don't think you are getting into the middle of it. He put it out there and I think its important for debate to come from all perspectives - not just his and not just mine. I've rec'd numerous emails... but I wish they were posts.
As for what Scripted has contributed... I find it hard to accept his wisdom when he's supposed to be an Expert but has done some very questionable things in relationship to his expertise. (e.g. comparing print to cursive, drawing conclusions on xerox copies and pictures in Haring's book, drawing conclusions without looking at originals under glass, and now this...just to name a few).
Now he's repeating a both weak and dysfunctional assertion that if I say what I see is a "tt" in "Pott Soap" then all "x" are "tt"s. Again, what I see as a "tt" is the only thing I believe is a "tt" and what I see as an "x" is an "x." If this silly argument were true then every "ve" would be an "x" according to Scripted. That means where ever Hauptmann wrote "Ave" he was really writing "Ax" - right Scripted?
It's desperate to say the least.
The other thing I have to mention is that Scripted is falling into a trap. That is, he is so convinced Hauptmann wrote the notes that everything he sees is incriminating - even if its not there - and he appears to be seeing the infamous "x" just about everywhere.
The "Pott Soap" is a perfect example, and it shows he's inventing stuff.
Now the other pitfall is that he's only referring to (1) notebook, however, there are many. This tells me he probably doesn't have the others and so he can only use what he has.
You cannot do that.
You can't omit evidence simply because you haven't taken a look or don't have it. One must reserve their judgment until they see and consider everything.
If you noticed his earlier retort wherein he asks what is "Pott Soap?" Here he is trying to make fun of the combination implying these two words don't make sense together. Firstly, he forgot to research the camping Hauptmann did, then next he appears to purposely omit the words "Camp Milk".... one could just as easily ask what's "camp milk?"
Why did Scripted omit this observation?
In Scripted's post dated Thu Mar 20, 2008 he attempts to undermine my creditability by implying I am claiming to be an Expert. Effective in supporting him because he's supposed to actually be one and everyone knows I am not, because I claim NOT to be despite his fraudulent assertion that I do and have. And so this would support the only way to know what the letters are is if you are an Expert. THEN he claims it "isn't astrophysics ".... Scripted is playing both sides of the fence here isn't he?
But he's right, you can make an intelligent decision yourself, and that's what I suggest each and everyone reading this does.
We know this is a "tt" and its embarrassing for him. Here's a clue to Scripted: Look for other "tt"s elsewhere in Hauptmann's writing. They're there and they look suspiciously close to the "tt" in "Pott Soap." Gee, I wonder why? And I wonder why Scripted never did this?
It's a good suggestion Joe and I'd love to agree with you, however, in this case I agree with Scripted. In Hauptmann's handwriting he makes several letters both similar and different in this very notebook, but, the "a" in "Soap" is something I consider a slam dunk. But that's my opinion for what its worth.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 7, 2008 16:32:11 GMT -5
Christina, Hopefully now everyone can see what I've been talking about over the years. Excellent posts and insite on your part. Here's a little more of that same notebook both Scripted and Allen pretend they don't see: Since they don't know what " pott soap" is then I suppose they won't know what " camp milk" is either. Believe me - they know - their pride won't let them admit when they're wrong. It's unfortunate and discredits everything that comes from either of them.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 7, 2008 16:57:03 GMT -5
Michael, for what it's worth, there is a pot soap. It's handmade soap. There is also a soap pot for making it.
OK, I hesitate here but what the hell, remember the buried "crock"? Remember what traces were found? Anyone know how you make soap?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 7, 2008 18:05:32 GMT -5
Hauptmann and Diebig made homemade soap which they sold in an attempt to make money.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 8, 2008 6:43:44 GMT -5
Interesting, that might explain the traces on the money.
|
|
|
Post by pzb63 on Apr 9, 2008 1:46:52 GMT -5
Apparently, hand made soap is made up of a combination of animal fats, oils and salt, heated in a large vessel. The curds floating to the top are the soap, and the liquid byproduct is glycerol.
I have read that traces found on the money variously include lipstick, crayon, machine oil and emery filings, and also that some of the money showed traces of water damage - please correct me if this is wrong.
Are these the traces you refer to Kevkon, or did some of the money have traces of soap, and/or animal fats, or glycerol?
Did liptsicks and crayons of the era contain animal fats?
A trivial point - in more ancient times- about 1A.D.- wood ash was also an ingredient in soap among Germanic tribes.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 9, 2008 6:25:37 GMT -5
Yes, it makes sense if the buried crock had been used as a soap pot(t) and then had the money stored in it. Who knows, there might even have been other such pot(t)s used.
|
|