|
Post by Michael on Sept 13, 2010 17:54:23 GMT -5
Kevin - I don't know how anyone could say they don't match if invasive studies concluded they did. Regardless, as everything is now properly explained it appears that would only be icing on the cake. What you see now is those people who will defend, to the bitter end, that Hauptmann went into the attic for this board when it can now clearly be shown he did not.
It's almost like if they "concede" on one point they look wrong and that cannot NEVER happen or else they might be suspected of being wrong elsewhere.
Steve - Did you read Keraga's report? Do it again, look for the omissions I've talked about then read his fantastic conclusion. Open minded?
I've also seen the "invite" for "Script's" chat on Hauptmann's unique "x." Please read my posts, or check out Lloyd's book where it is shown it ain't unique. Read some of Scripts other assertions which he based upon things even his own Science doesn't recognize. If I were a Defendant I'd want Script as an Expert - for the Prosecution.
Jim Fisher's books speak for themselves. He blasts others as being "Revionists" when his "theories" are based upon invented conversations and a couple of days at the Archives. It's my position that the Pot should not call the Kettle BLACK. Lloyd's book toasted his assertions with source material - sometimes multiple sources from various Archives....
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 13, 2010 20:53:47 GMT -5
Trust me, they would ( look no further than 9/11).
Hey, it doesn't matter to me if people have a prejudiced view. Just as long as they don't pretend any different. I can respect Keraga's work ( I even happen to agree with it), but please let's not pretend that it was conceived and constructed without prejudice.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 14, 2010 6:10:07 GMT -5
What is it you agree with? Surely not his conclusion or Hauptmann would have been building the ladder in the attic Pre-March 1st. The attic was referred to by Keraga (Flemington presentation) as Hauptmann's "secret place."
Secret place!!!
Nevermind the shadowing, reports, Rauch's mother hearing conversations through the walls, or whatever else may upset this omission/revision of the facts.....
Not to sound like a "Revisionist" or anything but I do believe, just as Koehler did (see his reports) there was a place away from the Hauptmann home where this ladder was built.
I've always said his report reflected some good things and some bad things. And I won't hold back about either.....
There are circumstances the reports reveal that the wood doesn't not. We've learned that first hand by and through your original theory - which those reports back up. So if you proceed with any theory without those reports then I can't see how the position would not be challenged. The idea that Hauptmann went up there for the purposes to build his ladder or steal a piece of wood from that floor was ALWAYS irrational. Keraga's report only proves one thing....
And it ain't what he concluded.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 14, 2010 7:02:45 GMT -5
I was only referring to the conclusions of the match of the wood.
No way was the ladder built in the attic.
The Garage was Hauptmann's "secret place". That is a known fact based on his preference to hide things in there. He could have used the attic instead, but he didn't. There was probably good reason not to.
Was the ladder constructed somewhere else? I don't see why that would be necessary, but it's certainly possible. It's even possible that Hauptmann didn't actually build it, though I think that's extremely unlikely.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Sept 14, 2010 7:52:04 GMT -5
i agree kevcon, i was up in hauptmanns attic and it would have been a hassle to take the shelves out of a linen closet and climb on the beams to go to the attic and build a ladder. i think he needed a piece and went up there and took part of 226. i have pictures of that closet. thats the only thing i disagree with kel on that. i remember you only can stand up in a certain spot in the middle of the attic. i think he built it in that garage
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 15, 2010 6:02:33 GMT -5
Koehler surmised it was built elsewhere due to the fact there was evidence that certain tools were used in its construction that were not in Hauptmann's garage. Also, I believe, that no one ever saw this ladder there or anywhere near him.
I think his garage was where he decided to hide the money because it was further from his wife and nearer to his car. Also, it gave access to it to (an)other(s) if need be.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 16, 2010 6:08:30 GMT -5
I'm interested to know what anyone thinks about Liz Pagel's Soil Report.... How its finding may translate into a "hide-out" where perhaps the ladder was built, ransom notes written, plans were made, etc.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Sept 16, 2010 7:49:01 GMT -5
i think i have her soil report. i remember giving her some old documents on it from the fbi files
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Sept 17, 2010 3:09:53 GMT -5
There is such as thing as common sense......................... How much good did all of the scientific analysis of the Shroud of Turin do? In the end I suspect most people kept their respective positions. The only people who would possibly benefit from an exhaustive and invasive study of the LKC ladder are those who are completely open minded and carry no prejudice. That's a pretty small group. The rest would do just as they do now, attack or defend the findings based on their prejudice. Kevin....actually this is one of the best storyies ever told!@#$%^&*()_Way better than the LKC......and....there is a connection! [DYBT?] Once the 3 independent labs got mid 13th century....well that pretty much eliminates JC unless he was ressurected again? Then there is the whole science of HOW the Shroud was faked? As it turns out, it is a camera obscura print with some blood added. Real blood...quite clever. Pickett and Prince have now concluded that the image AND the artist are...Leonardo Da Vinci! The most clever genius in History! [ TSOTurin--Whose image was IT?]The connection to FPL is that after the carbon dating a scientist from texas sent the Lab some tiny little wood frags on tape from the True Shroud...claiming that he had found....remnants of the true cross!@#$%^&*()_ But Regis Miller determined that the oak microscopic wood frags were "pulped" fragments and thus.......Kleenex!@#$%^&*()_thus the power of the scope! I was assigned to the Center for Wood Anatomy for 3 years and never once did I see RM Id any single wood sample without a razor blade section and a microscopic con- fir-mation.....there are too many similar wood species to just "eyeball" IT. 100x tells the Truth...The Center Ided about 2000 samples/year...and still do although RM has now retired.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 17, 2010 7:15:39 GMT -5
Rick, I know about the Shroud findings, but I didn't know that FPL was involved. Thanks for that. Of course the Shroud is one of many fakes. Of course people will continue to see it as authentic. Same with the LKC and testing the wood. So what would be the point?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Sept 17, 2010 18:32:27 GMT -5
I'm interested to know what anyone thinks about Liz Pagel's Soil Report.... How its finding may translate into a "hide-out" where perhaps the ladder was built, ransom notes written, plans were made, etc. Michael--it sure isnt easy to interpret LPs report? but I'll give it a shot: - i think the reddish brown color and presence of ferrous oxide is important...but those soils seem to be missing FE?
- and...questioned soil #1-2 doesnt mention that quality?
- I see the "sandy loam" point, but...what excludes some other similar soils to IF1? Wasnt Fisch apt just acrossed the street from Biritella's Temple? Conclusions need to be taken with a grain of soil here/
- Kev--The Point=The Truth: the scientific method is by its very nature "double blind"-- so you get what you get and then the results either match or don't match your pipedreams and expectations,,[ like the Shroud] just so its credible, reproducible and unbiased. Its not designed as a guessing game...its a testing game.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 19, 2010 9:59:55 GMT -5
I believe, if nothing else, that it shows the ladder was somewhere other then both Hauptmann's place AND Highfields.
This is important.
And so we either have a separate building area, a pick-up or staging area nearer to the target - or both.
I do not and never will believe this was a seat of the pants or fly by night operation. There was preparation the degree of which may be far more then we've ever considered.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Sept 19, 2010 20:00:16 GMT -5
I believe, if nothing else, that it shows the ladder was somewhere other then both Hauptmann's place AND Highfields. This is important. And so we either have a separate building area, a pick-up or staging area nearer to the target - or both. I do not and never will believe this was a seat of the pants or fly by night operation. There was preparation the degree of which may be far more then we've ever considered. MM I can go with that--but we might play hell finding out where it is between the Bronx and Highfields? Maybe it wasnt realized during practice runs which end was supposed to go "up"? "Let me start off with a few of my points and assertions about the ladder: 1. The S-226 "discovery" did not happen on 9-26-34. 2. Bornmann did not pull up S-226 with his bare hands. S-226 was supposed to have been secured by (14) face nails--yet this is his absurd claim. 3. Bornmann, Enkler and Cramer's original intentions were to go into the attic and "look for the ransom money" if they had ever been up there prior to October 9th. 4. Enkler and Cramer were there to dismantle or pull up any boards which may conceal hiding places for the ransom money. 5. The piece of S-226 that supposedly "snapped off" when it was pulled up by Bornmann(?) has gone mysteriously missing? 6. The "missing" piece that supposedly connects Rail 16 and S-226 is also missing, and all parties involved give it a different measurement for it so as to "get a better grain match". Koehler himself giving (3) different measurments for it. 7. The "missing" piece was not among those small pieces that littered the attic floor. 8. Hauptmann was supposed to have sawn S-226 to make Rail 16 in the attic, leaving S-226 "hanging" over a joist. Something Koehler said a real carpenter would never do. 9. Hauptmann was supposed to have removed 2" off of Rail 16 in order to square and already squared end. 10. Koehler lied when he said S-226 had been at "Troop C" for comparison prior to October 9th 1934. Bornmann claimed it had been locked up in the closet at hauptmanns apartment during that whole period at Trial. 11. Bornmann lied when he said only thumb pressure was needed to insert the nails in the holes. 12. Who cut down S-226 so it would fit into the car? Bornmann says he did it but later says either Enkler or Cramer did. Why cant he remember, and if this was done for that purpose, why did it remain in the closet as Bormann claimed it did? 13. Koeher is unaware of any attic board as of 10-4-1934, yet Bornmann in his report claims to have turned it over to him at "Troop C" a full (3) days before Koehler arrived at Troop C? In fact, even the nails and small pieces of wood that Bornmann turned over to Koehler...is thought by Koehler to have come from Hauptmanns garage. 14. Bornmann's attic reports are clearly back-dated. 15. Bornmann lies when he said he was the first cop up into the attic. 16. Miller's testimony proves there was no missing board after March 1, 1932? 17. Rauch's testimony proves that S-226 was not removed from the attic on 9-26-34. 18. S-226 is signed and dated by Enkler and Cramer 10-9. 19. Hoover claimed the wood evidence was "phoney". 20. The 27th board was added, was not the toe-board as Koski originally said the floor was laid in the middle first. 21. Koehler fabricated his measurments concerning his floorplan to show that the attic was completely symmetrical when in fact it wasnt."MM" 12-31-02
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 20, 2010 7:57:03 GMT -5
Well I have a theory about that..... It comes from some reports I don't think many people paid any attention to.
Next, the old material you posted which I wrote some time ago let me comment on it. Some of it is correct. Some is wrong. And some must be qualified within their proper context. All of this I can now do because of all the research and/or information that has come my way since I wrote it.
Now that's not to say I can't be wrong. I can.
|
|