|
Post by rick3 on May 1, 2010 13:04:14 GMT -5
Part One: for some inexplicable reason, kevin can't make the holds using the brace even though they line up perfect?/ but Joe sees a lineworker at the Mersman Factory fakeing the holes using Haring's book: The Hand of Hauptmann?These two ideas are counterintuitive, and designed to keep us from our appointed rounds...le sot-percheur?
Part Two: But...the holes in the ransom notes are, in point of fact made, and made to line up perfectly(Mark Falzini) in 1932...yet the written confession has to be after BRH arrest and conviction...eg 1935 or later. The only other alternative is 2 tables...with same hold pattern? [or 200]
Inescapable conclusion: If both A and B are true then the table was in someones possession more than 3 years...1932-1935+/and that person or persons must be at least familiar with German language and folk songs. Velly Intellesting! Then after all that it ends up in South Plainfield, NJ>with Elmer Bollard. Leave message in personals/
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 1, 2010 14:54:15 GMT -5
Problem with the table stuff; One, is that you can't make those holes with it. If you do what Joe and I did, you will find out why. So the Mersman tale is interesting, but ultimately a loser. Second, if you do the research I think you will find that the table and the story by the owner is not all that it appears to be. That's a big hint for anyone still interested.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 1, 2010 20:08:29 GMT -5
I side with Kevkon. Nobody's going to use a bulky table as a pattern thing when they could use, as K says, a belt or a macaroni strainer. And if they're so secrative people why put a note to noone on the base of a table that may never be taken apart, and when it was - that's the real hoax. So I doubt Mark, as a very good person had anything to do with it, but Bornmann would suspect him.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 2, 2010 8:20:47 GMT -5
Here's the problem....
If you decide to use the table as a "template" for them holes, you can't reverse the spacing thereafter. It's what you decide when you decide it. There's no changing your mind.
What has my interest is when a light source is placed under the table piece and the notes laid on top. The holes are right smack in the middle.
It's possible the confession is written there to show us where the original spacing came from. It's been a popular theory that it was used over and over again to create the holes. It could be that theory isn't correct. And so, by disproving the theory, you certainly do not disprove the table piece.
See my point? In my opinion: The Hand of Hauptmann "explanation" doesn't work. Dismissing it doesn't work. Trying to explain it is the way to go if you ask me. There is an explanation I am sure will work. The more Kevin & Mairi experiment, we can take that, apply it to what Joe learned then explain what role the table piece played. If its a "hoax" then I will need to see something to indicate that. Up to now I just haven't. But of course that's me, its possible I am wrong.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 2, 2010 9:25:34 GMT -5
That would be expected if the spacing is 1" on center. I would not even hazard a guess as to how many other items would do the same. More to the point, however, is that you may be overlooking the fact that the factory worker making that piece used the same criteria in making the hole as Hauptmann did. It's easy and a major mark on any common ruler.
I'm a bit surprised to hear you say this as you are always the one person who can be counted on to demand solid proof and sources before accepting anything. In this case you seem to be demanding disproof! I say let those who find anything credible about the table to do some homework. It takes only a few minutes to realize that the table piece can not be used to make the holes. The criteria for making them being; shape, spacing, and the often overlooked alignment or indexing on the note paper. After that, if you still actually feel it was possible then move on to the table provenance. This take a lot more time and some monetary investment. Look at the catalogs, get a hold of a Mersman table ( they are widely available) and do some comparing to the Bollard piece. When you have done all of this, I would be very surprised to hear that the Mersman is still a viable theory.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 2, 2010 10:48:41 GMT -5
Kevkon thinks like an attorney.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 2, 2010 12:45:38 GMT -5
So how do we answer the "why" concerning the fact Souder/Snook were looking for such an item (see the May '32 Report I posted) and there's no record of them finding one during the investigations or after even Hauptmann's arrest? I know they found something they suspected at Hauptmann's but it was never mentioned again or brought up at trial....
It's not that I accept it...its just what I have been shown makes it so hard to dismiss it without something to counter what I've seen. Finding an item from 1932 where the holes line up dead center of bigger holes might do that trick for me.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 2, 2010 13:02:40 GMT -5
If someone wants to exhonerate Hauptmann why wait until after he's dead?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on May 2, 2010 13:04:14 GMT -5
Kevin.....just to erase any doubts...I dont think your arguments holds water!
Its just not as "simple" as you construct it--because all the corners match as well! This means not only do the holes match but their relationship to each sheet match as well! Some common method was used to align each sheet--or group of sheets. [ref. Mark Falzini]
Also, you have not proven to anyone, nor has Joe...that the holes are free formed by one person for each table. Rather I would bet there is some sort of template or hole allignment needed in the factory as well? Why would freeform the best bet? I dont think so/and thus more than one table could be in play?
Apparently, although you claim to have exhausted all methods without success....there is at least one left...The One That Worked.
Its fine if you, and Joe, want to accept this all as just a hoax--but you have as yet not proven to us beyond a reasonable doubt that your combined theories or feelings are correct and the only interpretation! Not by a country mile...and just to be clear....WE dont have to find the proper method to prove our point. You cant prove a negative!
The actual ransom notes speak for themselves...when held up to the brace.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 2, 2010 13:35:56 GMT -5
It couldn't be a hoax because 100% copies of the notes were never made public, and still aren't except to Mark.
It's a bunch of jive unless someone can produce that BRH or Novo or CAL owned the table.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 2, 2010 14:06:44 GMT -5
Sorry Rick, it just don't fly ( and I don't say that without regret). You can hold those holes up to the table plinth till the cows come home and it still is nothing more than a coincidence that they are both an amazing 1" on center. Of course it helps that the table holes are larger than the symbol holes, but I guess that gets dismissed. So does the fact that there are five holes in the table. I guess they felt that using the other two was a bit over the top. Then you have to figure how to index the paper on the base. Seems like common sense would dictate using the edges of the table as a reference, but I guess that would make too much sense. After that there's the minor issue of actually making the holes with the base ( or did they make a table for the notes?). Since you are so interested in this table tale, I really would encourage you to make an attempt at the holes. Funny how these simple tasks always seem to get overlooked in these theories. As I said, if you are really serious, give it the old college try. If you do it will be readily apparent that there is a fundamental problem with the table template theory. If that's all not enough to put this to rest, there's a little issue with the table and Mr Bollard. But that can wait until I see someone is serious enough to actually get past the making of the holes. I have spent a considerable amount of time ( and money) on the whole Mersman issue, so I feel that if someone wants to keep it afloat, they should do the same. So Michael, are you saying that if I show you anything from the pre 1932 era with holes 1" on center it would somehow make a difference in relation to your view on the Mersman? But the Mersman itself doesn't have to be from the same period? Too bad there seems to be an anathema regarding eliminating any of these issues regardless of how badly they fail the litmus test. Maybe you or someone could explain that to me someday.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on May 2, 2010 16:41:50 GMT -5
M. Vre-d Haring and The Hand of Hauptmann: {time and expense negligible}
the following are mm measurements: "3 holds centers from edge of paper"
Nursery note: mag=1"=20mm distance from edge=4.5mm--24--46.5 (29height from bottom)
1st note..........1"=20mm 4.0mm--24--46.5 (28h) same mag NNote
2nd note.........1"=20mm 4.0mm--xx--46 (27.5h) same mag as #1 2b note.........1"=19.5m 4.5mm--24--46 (28h) front
3rd note..........1"=20mm 4.0mm--xx--46......(28h) same mag as #2
4th note.........1"=19.5mm 4.0mm--xx--46......(28height) same mag #2b ______________________________________>>>>>>>>>>>>mag jumps here from ~20 to 23mm? 5th note.........1"=22.5......5.0mm--29--52......(32h)
6th note.........1"=23mm....6.0mm--31--52......(32.5h)
9th note.........1"=22.5......5.0mm--28--51.5....(31h) same mag as #6
Greenhouse...1"=23mm....5.0mm--xx--54......(31h) same mag as #6, but 54 seems +2
all these are pretty darn close! the small number on right is distance from close edge. the height is bottom of note to center...not off by much.....all mags not exact, but some same--eg #5 and #9! All 3 holes parallel to bottom of note edge/ Lets assume you use a simple awl or ice pick thru the holes....this could help account for slight variations? Stacked notes should show light/ even by these rough measurments. The center hole is always slightly closer to one or other...not always the same? Must be the sloppy tolerances kev cant mimic?.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 2, 2010 18:44:30 GMT -5
No, but if you could drop the whole Mersman thing and just look at holes objectively you would understand why those holes have their relationship to one another. Take your icepick and make a couple. then let us know if they are anything like those found on the notes. It will become evident very quickly why the table block would not do. They say a picture is worth a thousand words, here three holes are worth a million words.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 2, 2010 22:33:55 GMT -5
You're trying to make a subjective thing objective, Kevkon. The holes more than likely were driven in by any old nail that was laying around and from undetermined angles, but the point is that within a few millimeters they're correctly spaced. Rick is trying to say that, not to prove the obfuscationess of the holes themselves.
Seems to me this board should be more trying to find out who did the kid than who did the holes.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on May 3, 2010 2:31:44 GMT -5
So...moving right along here:
1. How many pair of holes are close to 1" center to center? X FIVE 2. How many outside holes are close to 2" center to center? NONE 3. How many 3-leaf clovers are there....and why change punches in mid-stream...only 4...the near edge holes on notes 1-4? 4. {center hole blocked silver nitrate xx} Nursery note: mag=1"=20mm distance from edge=4.5mm-X-24--46.5 (29height from bottom)
1st note..........1"=20mm 4.0mm-X-24--46.5 (28h) same mag/scale as NNote
2nd note.........1"=20mm 4.0mm--{xx}--46 (27.5h) same mag/scale as #1 2b note.........1"=19.5m 4.5mm-X-24--46 (28h) front
3rd note..........1"=20mm 4.0mm--{xx}--46......(28h) same mag as #2
4th note.........1"=19.5mm 4.0mm--{xx}--46......(28height) same mag #2b ______________________________________>>>>>>>>>>>>mag jumps here from ~20 to 23mm? 5th note.........1"=22.5......5.0mm-X-29-X-52......(32h)
6th note.........1"=23mm....6.0mm--31--52......(32.5h)
9th note.........1"=22.5......5.0mm--28--51.5....(31h) same mag as #6
Greenhouse...1"=23mm....5.0mm--{xx}--54......(31h) same mag as #6, but 54 seems +2
Conclusion: 1" centers on a cardboard, shoe, belt or macaroni strainer dont cut it as a template!
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 3, 2010 7:37:00 GMT -5
Nor a table piece. And if you just tried to make the holes you would know why. It's a lot easier than scaling all of those dimensions out of an old book!
Look, I have a suggestion. Why don't you list the steps you believe would have been employed in the making of the holes with the table block. Include every step from table to finished ransom note. I will follow each of your steps using an exact replica of the table block. I will photograph each of these steps and post them here for all to see. This should put the matter to rest. Additionally, I might very well be missing something in regard to the use of the table block and your step by step might show me this.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 3, 2010 7:48:01 GMT -5
Unfortunately the table piece is undated so we just don't know what the date of manufacture is. Additionally, I've wondered if it is the actual piece or if this "confession" is simply directing us to the source, that is, a mersman table connecting piece.
In the absence of many facts there's no way to tell - right now.
If you find something from 1932, and it has bigger holes which the note holes line up dead center that would start to create some legitimate doubt in me.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 3, 2010 8:09:23 GMT -5
It may be undated, but that doesn't mean no date can be determined. But before I go further on that, I would like to see what Rick posts on how exactly the piece would have been utilized in conjunction with the notes. That way I can see if I have overlooked something and everyone can see the process.
|
|