|
Post by skeptical on Oct 27, 2022 10:26:51 GMT -5
I had an old friend, born in 1920 who was a pilot beginning when he was 18, when he bought a $500 surplus Jenny. He died in his sleep almost 90, but not before he’d regale me with stories of early aviation and the flight of Charles Lindbergh. My friend had 13 forced landings, 7 of them in the same plane, never stacked one in, yet he said that what Lindbergh did was terrifying to even consider repeating. No wonder Lindbergh was the most famous man in the world in 1927. youtu.be/SrVyLFp5mhwMy friend could never believe a man so lucky, rich, famous and suicidally brave could plot against his own son. The world would forgive Lindbergh for anything except a crime against his own baby son. He’d never risk his own fame, for that.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 27, 2022 17:54:23 GMT -5
I had an old friend, born in 1920 who was a pilot beginning when he was 18, when he bought a $500 surplus Jenny. He died in his sleep almost 90, but not before he’d regale me with stories of early aviation and the flight of Charles Lindbergh. My friend had 13 forced landings, 7 of them in the same plane, never stacked one in, yet he said that what Lindbergh did was terrifying to even consider repeating. No wonder Lindbergh was the most famous man in the world in 1927. youtu.be/SrVyLFp5mhwMy friend could never believe a man so lucky, rich, famous and suicidally brave could plot against his own son. The world would forgive Lindbergh for anything except a crime against his own baby son. He’d never risk his own fame, for that. Your post contradicts itself.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Oct 28, 2022 9:16:06 GMT -5
I had an old friend, born in 1920 who was a pilot beginning when he was 18, when he bought a $500 surplus Jenny. He died in his sleep almost 90, but not before he’d regale me with stories of early aviation and the flight of Charles Lindbergh. My friend had 13 forced landings, 7 of them in the same plane, never stacked one in, yet he said that what Lindbergh did was terrifying to even consider repeating. No wonder Lindbergh was the most famous man in the world in 1927. youtu.be/SrVyLFp5mhwMy friend could never believe a man so lucky, rich, famous and suicidally brave could plot against his own son. The world would forgive Lindbergh for anything except a crime against his own baby son. He’d never risk his own fame, for that. Not wanting to compromise his fame would not have been a consideration within Lindbergh's mind if he'd ever entertained the slightest inclination about wanting to have his son "destroyed" over childhood rickets for which he was being medically treated, and crossed toes. If Lindbergh had, for whatever reason, suddenly been transported into this degree of insanity, would this scrupulously fair individual have really given a tinker's cuss about his name or reputation? Fortunately for Michael and his followers, there is enough magic dust in the moonlight within a veritable mountain of preferred circumstantial evidence that has and continues to fashion, the most elaborate and forever-shifting house of cards to gratuitously support such a theory. It's been going strong here for about twenty years at the top of its game, perhaps only being overshadowed recently by the likes of Lise Pearlman's outrageous 'Suspect No. 1.' Ask Michael about how "cog-in-the-wheel contractor" Richard Hauptmann, coincidentally the same guy who benefitted almost entirely from the ransom payment, might have ultimately received his trickle down marching orders from alleged mastermind Charles Lindbergh through the misty, shadowy layers of the "Gang of the Century," and wait for the long pause...
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 28, 2022 13:22:45 GMT -5
Ask Michael about how "cog-in-the-wheel contractor" Richard Hauptmann, coincidentally the same guy who benefitted almost entirely from the ransom payment, might have ultimately received his trickle down marching orders from alleged mastermind Charles Lindbergh through the misty, shadowy layers of the "Gang of the Century," and wait for the long pause... This first thing I would point out to Bob, I mean Joe, is his own position that this multifaceted crime had at least one other participant. Perhaps he needed to change this position in order to support his point above, I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised. Next, this idea that because Ransom Money wasn't discovered under Lindbergh's bed somehow means he couldn't have initiated this whole thing is absurd. First because cops would have never been able to search for it and next because, obviously, that makes no sense. Finally, I've not only answered this question before, I did so directly to Joe himself. This means he's either forgotten or never paid much attention to the answer because it wasn't something he wanted to hear - pick your poison. As I've stated, all of the information is in my four volumes. They aren't meant to be scanned, hopscotched,or skipped around. They are meant to be read, cover to cover, with all of the information intended to be absorbed and considered. Also, I don't always spoon feed what the information could mean or implicate. It's designed, most of the time, for the reader to do that for themselves. So once again, I will point out what I wrote about Nosovitsky. One of many examples starts on page 259 in V4: Major Charles Russell hired Nosovitsky to help frame Robert LaFollette. As the conspiracy progressed, another confederate was hired, Harry Molner. Nosovitsky wanted to know who hired Major Russell so he followed him leading him to Van Ness Harwood. For anyone counting that's already FOUR people involved in this conspiracy without the promised 50K fee being paid yet. Once confronted, Russell explained that Harwood was working for an anonymous group of Wall Street people. In the end, Russell double-crossed Nosovitsky by having him arrested so that he would abscond with the full 50K amount that had been paid for the job. According to Joe's position above, none of this was possible. And frankly, if I hadn't done the research and located the manuscript, no one would have any clue about it. To this day we do not know who the "Wall Street people" were. We don't know how many they were. Nor do we know if they too were working for somebody else. And again, if not for the manuscript and the research to find it, no one would have ever known anything at all about it. It's also important to point out that if I never found it, that has nothing to do with the fact it had occurred. Anyway, the next time Joe claims I can't answer this question or any other I have already answered, please remind him. It's getting tiresome repeating myself and rewriting sections of my books he claims to have already read.
|
|