jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Apr 10, 2010 2:29:57 GMT -5
So now I have to answer for an ancient movie where some Daniel Boone wanabee wanders around pretending he is a child and shoots people? Shane was probably the lousiest classic movie and worst acted of all time and Alan Ladd was just a complete nobody who if you've ever seen any of his acting jobs was best at saying nothing which thankfully he did very well.
The great actors and draws by then were nearly gone - Errol Flynn, Ronald Colemann, Olivia DiHaviland.
Alan Ladd was lucky there were cowboy movies aroung in those days, because like a lot of others (superstars) , John Wayne? (maybe ? ), Randolf Scott, and possibly Barbara Stanwyck they would never have made it. Also, of course tons of others not very well known. Tell me about a good Tex Ritter or Gene Autry movie. Not like the earlier horror movies when there were true actors who really did parts. I mean Gene rides into town with Smiley Burnett - is this a real person? But he sure made a lot of money doing it.
I'm not telling what I know regarding Lindbergh wood - you look at it and figure it out. Hey, if I told you - it wouldn't be unknown!
And I don't care about your "rat's ass" - you brought it up - if you have a problem there try kaopectatate.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Apr 10, 2010 2:52:43 GMT -5
And I have given long, long discussions on here (look back) and never even heard a response. Wouldn't I be at least a not contributor, but some kind of an influence perhaps upon all things? But never a word. And I can show you the posts - they're on here. Not just one or two - many.
So where is fairness?
I mean I don't mind being told FU - that's happened a lot before, but why be consistently ignored - and usually because the principals here are discussing (more important?) matters.
And how many guests has that happened to - oh, they're just a guest Kev, we can go on talking about ladder splices - well?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 10, 2010 8:16:31 GMT -5
Very disappointing Jack. Not because you failed to stand behind your claim(s). I think we all pretty much expected that. I just thought you might be a little more creative with your method of avoidance. Really Jack you should be able to do better than; "I'm not telling what I know regarding Lindbergh wood - you look at it and figure it out." You know how often that one has been used? Tell you what, give it another try. C'mon Jack, show us all how a real pro avoids answering a question!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 10, 2010 8:50:06 GMT -5
Jack,
Why not say how many problems you have with the ladder then list one specific at a time. With each specific it can then be addressed.
I want to say "for" or "against" but that's the pitfall of this Crime (and this evidence). I've found points that don't fall within either and they're dicussion led to a truth which was neither.
This discussion board provided for that truth to come to the surface. And so my point is we have to shed and/or shake off pre-conceived notions, bias, and the black and white mentality.
Sometimes the answer lies in the middle.
The ball is in your Court. List your first issue.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 10, 2010 16:12:00 GMT -5
That's how to do it, Jack! Spam-a-lot. I forget who it was, but someone who posts here was really good at that. I know your "fake wood theory" was just meant for attention so I won't press it further. I do understand your frustration at not getting any response to some of your posts, though. It happens to all of us and it is disappointing when it is something that you feel could go somewhere. I guess it's just a reality of this case and the dwindling interest in it. Of course it also might be that what your posting isn't sufficiently defined and others don't understand what you are proposing. If you are serious, keep focused and make sure your point is clear to everyone.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Apr 10, 2010 17:25:21 GMT -5
I have no idea, Kevkon, what spam means - remember me telling you, Kevkon that i am lo-tech? But i do know that I can look at things and sometimes see what other people aren't seeing. And your diatribe and Michael's is very cute, but for all you and other's years of supposed credence about rail 16 you've missed an important point. I've already said too much and it will go to Dave. And I don't like your hostile attitude - if you'd like to meet in an alley someplace to settle this tell me where. Bring Michael!
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Apr 10, 2010 17:31:01 GMT -5
What if "fake-wood-theory" is not fake - then are you just going to stand on your head and go "hoopla"!?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 10, 2010 19:22:38 GMT -5
I really don't think that it's something I need to concern myself with, Jack. For one thing, nothing major has been overlooked and if it were, I would welcome it. Second, I know what you havenot investigated by your own admission. Finally, you need the attention way too badly to hold back on even the smallest discovery.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 5, 2010 16:10:59 GMT -5
Wanting to supplement the discussion on the symbol by continuing to question the name C. Tihy.....
He's from the Bronx, a Volunteer (Private) for the Union Cavalry (14th Regiment) during the Civil War.
Where is this coming from? A lifelong Bronx resident perhaps, someone who knows a little history, or a Civil War buff. But are we to expect a German stow-away to have this information at their finger-tips?
And if he's not behind this name, doesn't it mean someone else is? And if they are, then what else did the "other" person come up with besides a "lost" historical figure from the Bronx?
It's J.J. Faulkner all over again. Someone Hauptmann couldn't have known about because he was still in Germany at the time....
This is why I think we need to be careful focusing solely on the idea that only Hauptmann could have come up with this symbol.
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Mar 26, 2012 16:13:11 GMT -5
Can someone point me to the thread where it is proved that Hauptmann was connected to the nursery note please?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 19, 2016 20:03:54 GMT -5
Was the paper used on the first note and second note the same larger piece which was torn into two parts?
|
|
|
Post by georingoes on Jun 19, 2016 20:25:14 GMT -5
Mark Falzini has stated in his write-up on the Ransom notes that the Nursey note and the 2nd ransome note were once one piece of paper. I know the Nursey note is relatively small and rectangular, but does anyone know the actual dimensions of it and the 2nd note?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 19, 2016 21:15:01 GMT -5
Is there an echo in here?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 20, 2016 5:18:17 GMT -5
Was the paper used on the first note and second note the same larger piece which was torn into two parts? Yes. Anyone who's ever looked at the paper under a microscope says they were. While I've seen all of the notes, I've never had that opportunity myself. I know the Nursey note is relatively small and rectangular, but does anyone know the actual dimensions of it and the 2nd note? I don't know this off the top of my head but I'll search to see if the dimensions are in a report somewhere.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 20, 2016 12:37:58 GMT -5
In light of that - the first and second notes were sent by the same person(s) - is it still your opinion that the ransom was not meant to have been paid?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 20, 2016 18:35:38 GMT -5
I know the Nursey note is relatively small and rectangular, but does anyone know the actual dimensions of it and the 2nd note? My original recollection was the dimensions were included in Stein's Handwriting Report. After discovering I was wrong I searched high and low all the while knowing I've seen it mentioned before. Unfortunately I could not find it among my material. So it's either something I saw at the Archives and didn't copy - or it's in a place I can't think of to check. I am quite sure this might be something Mark has so if you give him a call at the Archives I know he'd be happy to help. This is the only thing I did find so I am going to post it (from Osborn D.'s report): "The second five symbols are on different size paper from the first five." In light of that - the first and second notes were sent by the same person(s) - is it still your opinion that the ransom was not meant to have been paid? Yes. That was something I considered before I had the idea. I don't see it harming the position especially when considering the other variables which surround those two notes.
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Apr 28, 2017 14:01:22 GMT -5
There seems to be some debate about whether the nursery note looks markedly different from the subsequent ransom notes and what the implications are.
Has anyone considered the possibility that the nursery note wasn't written proximate to the abduction but had been written a year or more before the event?
Subsequent ransom notes refer to the plot having been planned for at least a year. What if the nursery note was originally a generic draft for a planned kidnapping that hadn't even decided on a target yet? The nursery note is not specific to Lindbergh, makes no mention of him or CALjr and simply refers to a generic "child" (without reference to gender) as the abducted. Even the envelope is unaddressed.
If Hauptmann wrote the letter over a year before it was actually utilized, this could account for the handwriting differences, the slight variation of the original symbol from the others, yet account for the apparently identical stationery, how all the notes could be by Hauptmann's hand and yet still not place him in Hopewell on 3/1/32.
There has also been some commentary that the $50,000 ransom was too low for a baby of CALjr's worth - perhaps the hypothetical kidnapping target was originally intended to be someone of lesser means? Even the ladder could have been intended to be portable, untraceable yet still adaptable to whatever environment the ultimate target might present to the kidnapper... thus the "two segments too short, three segments too tall" dilemma at Hopewell. In summary the note and ladder were created as tools to a future kidnapping but not Lindbergh-specific in their creation.
As a newcomer to the LKD board, my opinions are still in flux and I am trying to reconcile Hauptmann's involvement as note writer, ladder builder and ransom custodian, while still believing Lindbergh was substantially involved in the death of his son...
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Apr 29, 2017 6:37:59 GMT -5
If that were the case it seems to me the symbol was given a lot of thought. It was dreamed up before even a choice of victims was made. The ladder has always been a problem for me because of several things. First it's construction. It was flimsy at best. Wouldn't someone who was about to commit the crime of the century at least try it out on a similar building? Hauptmann wasn't just a handy man with tools but a professional carpenter who had earned a living in construction. Secondly it's impossible for me to believe he climbed up a tiny opening in the ceiling which I believe was inside a closet to get a piece of lumber when he had access to an unlimited amount. If this piece were to fit the missing attic board it would have had to be planed quite a bit after its removal. Why would anyone do that? If anyone had been watching the Lindbergh house they would have known a ladder was behind the house and not risked being seen with one in the car. In a low traffic area ( Linddbergh chose this location because of its isolation) why risk someone seeing you with a 3 piece ladder in your car? Better yet, prior to the night, why not hide a sturdy ladder in the vast woods around the estate? Of course this leads me to the lucky coincidence of the baby being at the house the very night RBH was picking his wife up from work in another state...that's for another discussion!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 29, 2017 6:48:32 GMT -5
Has anyone considered the possibility that the nursery note wasn't written proximate to the abduction but had been written a year or more before the event? Subsequent ransom notes refer to the plot having been planned for at least a year. What if the nursery note was originally a generic draft for a planned kidnapping that hadn't even decided on a target yet? The nursery note is not specific to Lindbergh, makes no mention of him or CALjr and simply refers to a generic "child" (without reference to gender) as the abducted. Even the envelope is unaddressed. As far as I know this is a unique observation. Plenty have mentioned how generic the 1st note is, but none that I can remember ever suggested what you have. Thanks for floating that out there because it's definitely something to think about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2017 10:57:52 GMT -5
In summary the note and ladder were created as tools to a future kidnapping but not Lindbergh-specific in their creation This is an intriguing position that I have not considered. I am now going to spend some time reviewing facts in this case with this possibility in mind and see if it leads me anywhere. Thanks for posting this.
|
|
|
Post by scathma on May 1, 2017 8:26:55 GMT -5
Secondly it's impossible for me to believe he climbed up a tiny opening in the ceiling which I believe was inside a closet to get a piece of lumber when he had access to an unlimited amount. If this piece were to fit the missing attic board it would have had to be planed quite a bit after its removal. Why would anyone do that? I subscribe to the notion that the board wasn't in the attic when BRH appropriated it for the ladder. Obtaining it from the basement or other location where it had been stored since the electricians had cut it to make way for wiring seems like a good theory. When BRH claims he never did the cutting and removal from the attic, he is telling the truth (for a change!) and was probably shocked to hear during the trial of the proof its previous use was attic flooring.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on May 1, 2017 8:50:43 GMT -5
Secondly it's impossible for me to believe he climbed up a tiny opening in the ceiling which I believe was inside a closet to get a piece of lumber when he had access to an unlimited amount. If this piece were to fit the missing attic board it would have had to be planed quite a bit after its removal. Why would anyone do that? I subscribe to the notion that the board wasn't in the attic when BRH appropriated it for the ladder. Obtaining it from the basement or other location where it had been stored since the electricians had cut it to make way for wiring seems like a good theory. When BRH claims he never did the cutting and removal from the attic, he is telling the truth (for a change!) and was probably shocked to hear during the trial of the proof its previous use was attic flooring. since I was in hauptmans apt I took pictures of the opening in that linen closet and it isn't small. what really is crazy you had to take the shelves out to climb up there.i would like to know if the hatch that's there now, was there when Hauptman lived there or did the police put it in later after the arrest
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on May 1, 2017 14:21:46 GMT -5
There seems to be some debate about whether the nursery note looks markedly different from the subsequent ransom notes and what the implications are.
Has anyone considered the possibility that the nursery note wasn't written proximate to the abduction but had been written a year or more before the event?
Subsequent ransom notes refer to the plot having been planned for at least a year. What if the nursery note was originally a generic draft for a planned kidnapping that hadn't even decided on a target yet? The nursery note is not specific to Lindbergh, makes no mention of him or CALjr and simply refers to a generic "child" (without reference to gender) as the abducted. Even the envelope is unaddressed.
If Hauptmann wrote the letter over a year before it was actually utilized, this could account for the handwriting differences, the slight variation of the original symbol from the others, yet account for the apparently identical stationery, how all the notes could be by Hauptmann's hand and yet still not place him in Hopewell on 3/1/32.
There has also been some commentary that the $50,000 ransom was too low for a baby of CALjr's worth - perhaps the hypothetical kidnapping target was originally intended to be someone of lesser means? Even the ladder could have been intended to be portable, untraceable yet still adaptable to whatever environment the ultimate target might present to the kidnapper... thus the "two segments too short, three segments too tall" dilemma at Hopewell. In summary the note and ladder were created as tools to a future kidnapping but not Lindbergh-specific in their creation.
As a newcomer to the LKD board, my opinions are still in flux and I am trying to reconcile Hauptmann's involvement as note writer, ladder builder and ransom custodian, while still believing Lindbergh was substantially involved in the death of his son... This is an interesting theory, whether you presume that Hauptmann wrote all the ransom notes or none of the ransom notes, for that matter. Remember that Behn states that Nosovitsky wrote all of the notes except the first. He is sure Noso was NOT in New York nor New Jersey on the night of the purported kidnapping. So if the first note was written by Noso as well, it could have been written at an earlier date, then placed in the nursery by someone else, consistent with Noso being out of town at the time. Now can you please explain the particulars of the "slight variation of the original symbol from the others"?
|
|
|
Post by scathma on May 1, 2017 18:21:02 GMT -5
Now can you please explain the particulars of the "slight variation of the original symbol from the others"? This from earlier in the thread: This change might indicate that a "refinement" to the singnature process occurred from the original draft version to when the later notes were created after CALjr was abducted. I was originally inclined towards the idea that Noso was creator of the ransom notes but it seemed the consensus was that the "experts" had proven that BRH wrote the notes. I like how you have adapted my comment to apply to Noso's involvement too!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2017 20:38:09 GMT -5
This change might indicate that a "refinement" to the singnature process occurred from the original draft version to when the later notes were created after CALjr was abducted. Kevkon's observation about the holes having no bleed through on the first (nursery) note is very important. The ink circle symbol was created for this note without holes. I believe this shows that Michael is correct that the nursery note was supposed to be a stand alone note that was to "prove" that the missing child had been "kidnapped". There was not supposed to be any other notes--no extortion of the $50,000. That was not part of the original plan. Once the decision was made to extort that money (before the child is taken), then the holes were added to the symbol on the nursery note. Hence no bleed through because the nursery note symbol ink was dry at the time the holes were punched.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on May 2, 2017 8:17:12 GMT -5
I don't understand why you would say this, amy35. Wasn't the main theme of the nursery note to make the demand of $ 50,000. Why would someone even bother leaving that note if not to demand the ransom?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on May 2, 2017 11:04:22 GMT -5
A simple pre-punched cardboard template placed against the lower right corner of each note would have ensured exact placement of the holes, one page at a time or with multiple pages. I also wouldn't discount the possibility the writer simply made life easier for himself once he realized he would be dealing with an intermediary (Condon) and decided to pre-punch multiple instructional notes.
I assume Kevin (Kevkon) was referring to red ink bleed-through, or not, at the centre hole location? If there are any comparison photos with magnification demonstrating this, I'd certainly like to see them. In any case, I don't see a whole lot of significance of pre-punching before inking the nursery note, other than that the ransom note writer was able to refine his process, beyond the nursery note.
I don't believe the nursery note writer originally intended for the ransom negotiations to go beyond another instructional note or two. All signs seem to point to the original design being a 'quick snatch and return' of the child, (alive or dead) with Lindbergh not calling in the police and being notified to pay up within 2 - 4 days, as the nursery note indicated. Here, the kidnapper's fatal mistake was not making this requirement clear on the envelope, or perhaps assuming Lindbergh would open it immediately. Regardless, I'd have to think if Lindbergh was part of some 'faux kidnapping' plan, he would have opened the envelope right away as pre-planned, as opposed to summoning the police, press and the world to his doorstep.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2017 16:58:01 GMT -5
Wasn't the main theme of the nursery note to make the demand of $ 50,000.Why would someone even bother leaving that note if not to demand the ransom? Since this is supposed to be a kidnapping in order to explain Charlie being missing, a note asking for money (ransom) would need to be left there.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on May 2, 2017 19:31:45 GMT -5
I subscribe to the notion that the board wasn't in the attic when BRH appropriated it for the ladder. Obtaining it from the basement or other location where it had been stored since the electricians had cut it to make way for wiring seems like a good theory. When BRH claims he never did the cutting and removal from the attic, he is telling the truth (for a change!) and was probably shocked to hear during the trial of the proof its previous use was attic flooring. since I was in hauptmans apt I took pictures of the opening in that linen closet and it isn't small. what really is crazy you had to take the shelves out to climb up there.i would like to know if the hatch that's there now, was there when Hauptman lived there or did the police put it in later after the arrest It wasn't a convenient spot from which to obtain a board.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on May 5, 2017 10:33:22 GMT -5
not if you needed one quick. we wernt there so its laughable when people question what Hauptman did when they wernt even there
|
|