jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Sept 2, 2018 1:45:16 GMT -5
Sherlock:
If you look back on here a ways, you'll find that a while back I proved that Charles Lindbergh had nothing to do with TLC. Also, the only person who has been connected to it, evidence wise is BRH. I won't go into my proofs now, but if you find the post and want some answers will do. My information is also on the Hoax site within the last year.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Dec 14, 2018 6:21:45 GMT -5
Glad you liked my post, Joe. Shipman, as you say, was a lone wolf but so in his way was Lindbergh. I have seen nothing to suggest that Lindbergh used or indeed needed accomplices to pull it off. All he had to do was remove the child and leave the ransom note. By pushing this first domino, all the rest (police involvement, publicity etc) would follow and he made sure, by taking charge, that they fell where he wanted - away from him. Yes, there were suspicions about Gow and Whatley as helpers but nothing concrete. Indeed if there were in house helpers, far from risking their careers Lindbergh would protect them (and himself.) I recall Betty Gow: "The Colonel said I wouldn't be touched." It could mean everything or nothing but it sent chills down my spine when I read it.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Dec 17, 2018 16:23:13 GMT -5
Glad you liked my post, Joe. Shipman, as you say, was a lone wolf but so in his way was Lindbergh. I have seen nothing to suggest that Lindbergh used or indeed needed accomplices to pull it off. All he had to do was remove the child and leave the ransom note. By pushing this first domino, all the rest (police involvement, publicity etc) would follow and he made sure, by taking charge, that they fell where he wanted - away from him. Yes, there were suspicions about Gow and Whatley as helpers but nothing concrete. Indeed if there were in house helpers, far from risking their careers Lindbergh would protect them (and himself.) I recall Betty Gow: "The Colonel said I wouldn't be touched." It could mean everything or nothing but it sent chills down my spine when I read it. Who was Shipman? Edit: Sorry, my error. I just noticed a discussion about Shipman at the top of the page. Big case in the UK but unknown for the most part on this side of the Atlantic.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Boehmke on Nov 5, 2022 0:17:55 GMT -5
Didn't know of the possibility that the Lindbergh baby had hydrocephalus,not much they could do for that back then. I had hydrocephalus when I was 7 back in 1973 ,I have a VA shunt to control spinal fluid,it will be 50 years this coming September since it was put in but no problems , as far as I know I'm the longest a patient has survived with never having complications
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Nov 5, 2022 18:39:45 GMT -5
Didn't know of the possibility that the Lindbergh baby had hydrocephalus,not much they could do for that back then. I had hydrocephalus when I was 7 back in 1973 ,I have a VA shunt to control spinal fluid,it will be 50 years this coming September since it was put in but no problems , as far as I know I'm the longest a patient has survived with never having complications Your survival Bob, is an absolute blessing and thanks for sharing your uplifting story. Based on most of the accepted signs and symptoms of the hydrocephalus condition, I have to believe that if Charlie was so affected, over the course of his 20 months of life, he would have been placed under a much more stringent regimen of care and support than that which could be afforded by a basic child caregiver. I also do not believe his mother would have been so inclined to leave him for months on end as she intended to do, and did, during the Lindberghs' Orient trip and international airways mapping exercise, if she had felt the child's health condition was anything more serious than a mild to moderate case of common rickets. Your input would be most valued here.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 5, 2022 18:51:50 GMT -5
Didn't know of the possibility that the Lindbergh baby had hydrocephalus,not much they could do for that back then. I had hydrocephalus when I was 7 back in 1973 ,I have a VA shunt to control spinal fluid,it will be 50 years this coming September since it was put in but no problems , as far as I know I'm the longest a patient has survived with never having complications Wow! Thanks for sharing. You obviously have a unique perspective, is there anything you've read or any picture you've seen that would lead you to either support or refute this theory?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Mar 19, 2023 12:54:17 GMT -5
Hiram, I'm not sure if you've previously seen the originating post for this thread by 'bookrefuge.' In either case, it's well worth the read. The contributor was a registered nurse of 37 years, who unfortunately has not posted here for a number of years. The post is extremely well sourced with solid references and any conclusions contained in it, provide a far less suggestive or speculative outlook than is often seen here on this forum. Having been generally very well received for it's depth of research and factual basis, it makes an excellent case for Charlie having been a normally developing child, throughout his short life. lindberghkidnap.proboards.com/thread/816/case-eugenics-motivated-murder
|
|
hiram
Detective
Posts: 124
|
Post by hiram on Mar 19, 2023 13:34:00 GMT -5
Thanks for calling this to my attention, Joe. Very interesting comments from an expert!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 19, 2023 18:15:39 GMT -5
Thanks for calling this to my attention, Joe. Very interesting comments from an expert! First of all, there is no value in those pictures you've posted. They do not support your position in the least. HRO used to do that when claiming he was the Lindbergh baby. He believed he looked like Anne Morrow - and some say he did. Next, Joe's research techniques, or should I say "tactics," have much to be desired of late. He's doing what he did with the Skean article. He sees something he likes, ignores everything he doesn't, and its time to crack open the champagne. You see, when someone on this Board says something I like, I want to know the source. Or at the very least, research it myself and compare it with what I have. See the difference? What I did was go to the Medical Journals. I saw the published research. I chose those who were qualified to testify in Court as an Expert, did, and who were considered the very best. Joe's only source is "Bookrefuge." Ask Joe how many Medical Journals published his research on Rickets. Or if he's testified in Court about Rickets. Or not, I don't think embarrassing him any further is necessary. Regardless, this account I've already neutralized in my book, but Joe certainly won't say that because it harms what he likes. There's other things too, that I didn't put in the book. Like, say, the time Bookrefuge DIAGNOSED the hair abnormality. Just how is anyone's guess. Why? Because he did so without ever seeing the hair. Aside from common sense, I know this just isn't possible. How's that you ask? Because all of the Experts I contacted wanted to see it themselves. After that pictures of it. And in the end, they gave their list of "possibilities." No one ever committed 100% to anything because that's not possible. And they had all the information I did at the time. I didn't leave anything out or select what they should see or not see. Finally, BR wrote about other things that I do not believe Joe would be so quick to agree with - and that matters. Now, let me give you another example.... Let's say on March 1st when I was out for a run someone who was texting clipped me and sent me over the guardrail along Alexauken Creek. I lay there dead until a kid riding a four wheeler spots my dead body on May 12. Ask any expert whether or not they would expect only my heart and liver to remain. You'll find NONE. You'll notice Joe didn't mention the only author who ever actually DID use a bonafide expert in their book on that subject. Why not? Judge Pearlman used real experts. That's indisputable. And yet, I still countered certain positions in V4. The reason is because they didn't have certain information that I do and did not consider it, or drew certain conclusions based on faulty assumptions, one example being what Inspector Walsh would or wouldn't have done. Had I been like Joe, this information would have been left alone and there'd be a big celebration. Wayne has done what i have and probably even moreso. His experts may have said more, or less, or something different. If or when he published these findings they may upset or at least call some of what i have into question, I don't know, but I expect they would compliment or add to it. Regardless, I'd listen for sure, because he's doing it the right way.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Mar 25, 2023 8:07:14 GMT -5
What “research tactics” are you referring to, Michael? I re-posted Bookrefuge’s post for consideration because it identifies real documented examples of Charlie’s development over his 20 months of life. And as Hiram indicated, many here may not have previously had the opportunity to read it. Bookrefuge’s medical-based sources also make a very strong case for this child to have been afflicted with little more than a mild to moderate case of rickets and crossed toes. (clinodactyly) Anyone curious enough to look into Bookrefuge’s implied diagnosis of the hair nodes will find value in the suggested correlation to them and the extensive amounts of UV light Charlie was receiving through the sunlamp in his nursery and being given a lot of outdoors exposure. And as you reference Skeans's absence from Charlie's nursery, I’ve always put more stock in the above kind of information than I do in carefully-crafted but shallow conclusions, such as Charles Lindbergh having “left Skean behind,” one you based primarily on Marguerite Junge’s flawed memoirs and its cherry-picked verification.. a dead seagull that Lindbergh left lying around Next Day Hill as a sign of his alpha male dominance, ie. in other words, “Don’t mess with me and do something ill-advised like bringing Skean to Highfields when I’ve gone out of my way to leave him behind!” Oh the humanity.. Regarding your incident at Alexauken Creek, please accept my condolences in that no one appears to have missed you all that time. I know we don’t seem to agree on a whole lot in this case especially within the question of motive, but I thought we did regarding the body having been somewhere else between March 1 and the time it was “returned” to its ultimate burial site, before it was discovered on Mt. Rose Hill. Does this mean that the kid on the four-wheeler was the same guy who hit you on the shoulder of the road and decided to move you after the fact? Why then in your hypothetical scenario, would you imply that Charlie’s body lay on Mt. Rose Hill for 72 days straight? Certainly if it had, within the location and general burial conditions in which it was discovered, one would then expect there to have been much less left of the corpse. But if the body had been buried securely in another undisclosed location before Mt. Rose, clearly there is no way of knowing now what collective opportunities, scavengers would have had to consume whatever they could within an unknown time frame. Regardless of the above, you might well discover what a psychologist has to say about your hypothetical scenario, of more value than my own input here.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 25, 2023 14:05:09 GMT -5
Anyone curious enough to look into Bookrefuge’s implied diagnosis of the hair nodes will find value in the suggested correlation to them and the extensive amounts of UV light Charlie was receiving through the sunlamp in his nursery and being given a lot of outdoors exposure. And as you reference Skeans's absence from Charlie's nursery, I’ve always put more stock in the above kind of information than I do in carefully-crafted but shallow conclusions, such as Charles Lindbergh having “left Skean behind,” one you based primarily on Marguerite Junge’s flawed memoirs and its cherry-picked verification.. a dead seagull that Lindbergh left lying around Next Day Hill as a sign of his alpha male dominance, ie. in other words, “Don’t mess with me and do something ill-advised like bringing Skean to Highfields when I’ve gone out of my way to leave him behind!” Oh the humanity.. There's a reason why you do not cite any other research. That's my point. You merely grab onto his speculation as if its more than what it is. Next, there are always two sides to every coin. You have a nasty habit of looking at one side but ignoring the other when it suits you. This idea that you like so much, supposedly that CJr's hair was caused by excessive use of a sun lamp as well as being outside in the sun, actually harms your overall position. It's not one or the other like you've chosen to do. The child was handed over to arguably the best Pediatrician in the country very shortly after birth. His family was rich and wanted for absolutely nothing. And yet, under BOTH of these circumstances, we are led to believe the child developed Rickets. Okay, so treatment must have been immediate. And yet again, the treatment obviously wasn't so effective and the corpse bears this out. What were the treatments? Well, we have Dr. Van Ingen's letter to Mrs. Morrow outlining them written on May 4. Right? He gives a specific diet and recommends a spoon full of cod liver oil daily. No where does it say to use a sunlamp, or to give the child Viosteral. But we know from other sources they were being utilized. How does one reconcile these various facts? So here you are, embracing the idea that the child's unusual hair was caused by excessive use of something the child's Doctor never asked for. And why "extensive" do you think? And why don't these things appear to have worked? Next, give me some research about this and not just BR's post. For example, I asked several Medical Experts about this after providing them with everything I have and not one mentioned this possibility. Experts on Rickets, in fact, who noted the Sun Lamp but said not one word about the possibility of it creating this issue with the hair. Believe me, if they did, I wouldn't ignore it or argue against the possibility. I just think they are much more of a legitimate source for the potential answers than someone motivated by the conclusions in the Marlis book. But that's just me. Perhaps you agree with that book too, I don't know, but since you avoid that topic, I am guessing you do not. Anyway, even the FBI believed there was something to be discovered about the baby as I wrote in my book. Why must Van Ingen be interviewed by a former friend working in the Bureau in order to get to the truth? And of course, there's other issues that concern health that I mention, constantly, but seem to get skipped over in these discussions. The deformed toes. The fact Flagg put Lindbergh in touch with Carrel. The transcontinental flight that several Doctors warned Anne NOT to take BECAUSE she was pregnant. Have you studied the possibilities? The potential harm that could be done to a fetus? How about what symptoms can be attributed to "Rickets" and what cannot? What underlying conditions can create rickets-like symptoms. The hair ... are there conditions that matches with other symptoms we know existed? Plenty. But no, you just go with the one you like or makes you feel the most comfortable. On Skean, go back and re-read what I've written. You know, where I completely demolished your position about it.
|
|
|
Post by Instadulcelol on Dec 29, 2023 22:31:20 GMT -5
Replying to Lieutenant—pediatric nurse—CL Jr baby. Absolutely phenomenal post!! Thank you for crafting such an enlightening format of the baby’s health documentation.
I see you points on every single circumstance. And I respectfully agree with you & respectfully disagree in a few areas of the criminal circumstance.
I’m a personal trainer & my sisters was a pediatrician and my other a OR nurse. My sister who was a doctor was brilliant & saw life in blood pumping threw the veins. My sister the nurse is wicked, whip smart & sees quality of life much differently.
As a trainer & firmer judge , I see the potential with diet, exercise, supplements, nutrition, alkaline water & such so I think I have a healthy approach to my view but especially on the crime.
I want to believe that Casey Anthony loved her child. I want to believe John Ramsey loved Jon Benet’. I want to believe CL loved his son.
I believe all 3 did in their way & I think all had serious character flaws. I believe the baby having rickets, being born in late June & OJ being born in early July & have had rickets & my husband born 6/7/63 had a Vit D deficiency makes me look at when their moms conceived. All 3 had to be conceived in October & for the first 5 mos is fall & winter & there has to be a connection.
There is no ? that CL was not a genius. To me he was as much a scientist as a mechanical engineer. Also to me, he was a product of his time & having family in law which is reason free from passion, mixed with an isolationist, eurogenic mentality which exceptional expected detail to order while leading 3 other family lives & telling the women even upon your death do not make his paternity known is a recipe for disaster.
It’s no secret he idealized his Nordic bloodline—though his wife was gorgeous & dark & exotic & her family from a rurally area like Cleveland—some forget your kids only get 1/2 of your DNA—your spouse deposits the rest & I’m full blooded Italian & a first generation from my father—I just did a 23nMe bc my father was Abruzzee & my mother, Calabrese. Thru her line, I’m a lil Sicilian, Asian & black. We are allllll 1. J Edgar had black ancestry, Jayne Mansfield as well. Just bc it may not be right on the nose doesn’t mean one doesn’t carry the possibility of their ancestors choices that can pop up anytime.
Crime scene facts & behaviors we know….
That child was thrown out like a piece of trash with no value or respect to its life, left for animals to feed on.
How could this child that was 20 mos & 35 lbs leave with a stranger whole sick & not make a sound?
What most terrified me was his desire for eurogenics to strengthen the master race which was his Nordic white race.
That baby was gorgeous but I saw that dark haired, dark infant that looked completely different at 20 mos but I could still see the right blonde Afro. That child was getting that much Vit D & used a sunlamp & was that light?!?
That’s not possible. That child was a dark baby & had a lil tanning bed over his crib & got lighter?!
Science doesn’t lie. I easily saw black in that child & he was beautiful but his fathers eyes had a different ideology at the time who felt like a God & tho his wife looked exotic not mean he still didn’t want his kids to be a reflection of his values at the time. I might feel differently if he had not populated so many other women like he was looking for a lighter child who looked more like him.
When you have a child that young who you really don’t have a relationship with & experiences with & they are still forming a personality & are just saying hi & bye, some may not feel the connection & think their idealogy of the time is what should be their namesake.
I think in many ways he resembled Jeffrey Epstein—not in child sex traffic but not seeing the value of life for what they’re twisted idealogy they have set to be connected to their progeny.
|
|