|
Post by Michael on Jan 23, 2019 15:25:38 GMT -5
I hope you are joking.... Don't go anywhere!
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jan 23, 2019 17:12:23 GMT -5
CALjr's health issues have been wildly overstated here for a long time... Joe, Really? Please, ask any podiatrist in the world if this is not an overstated health issue --
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jan 23, 2019 17:15:31 GMT -5
I hope you are joking.... Don't go anywhere! I second that! Ilovedfw, please tell us what your pediatric nurse/friend says.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jan 24, 2019 3:26:26 GMT -5
whats the childs sickness have anything to do with this case? saying Lindbergh did this is the dumbest thing I ever heard When asked for help on the case, the first thing Scotland Yard asked was whether or not they'd looked into the child possibly being "destroyed," due to physical ailments. If it was that far fetched of a concept, why would that be their initial line of inquiry?
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Jan 24, 2019 9:58:59 GMT -5
hauptmann wasnt arrested yet
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Jan 24, 2019 10:00:55 GMT -5
maybe Lindbergh didn't know he might have been guessing
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jan 24, 2019 11:16:21 GMT -5
maybe Lindbergh didn't know he might have been guessing There's a birthday candle in that photo. That's the same as someone asking you back in the middle of June 2002 when 9/11 happened and saying, "Oh, that happened about two weeks ago." Same time frame.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 24, 2019 12:17:21 GMT -5
I've got to respond to Joe's post on the other site: But I'm sure it won't stop some folks from wondering how Meghan could have possibly made it beyond her second birthday..
This is a perfect example of mixing up actual realities with something else in an attempt to dilute the true facts. William Allen not only wasn't thanked, he wasn't even allowed in Lindbergh's home. So I'd say if Meghan were alive back then as a toddler - how do we all assume Lindbergh might feel about her without the toe condition? With the toe condition? So context is important right? Next, how many believe Lindbergh could have ever been her father if she had existed back then?
Strength, Superior Race, Inferiors, and Defectives. Truth be damned.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 24, 2019 12:41:00 GMT -5
I've got to respond to Joe's post on the other site: But I'm sure it won't stop some folks from wondering how Meghan could have possibly made it beyond her second birthday.. This is a perfect example of mixing up actual realities with something else in an attempt to dilute the true facts. William Allen not only wasn't thanked, he wasn't even allowed in Lindbergh's home. So I'd say if Meghan were alive back then as a toddler - how do we all assume Lindbergh might feel about her without the toe condition? With the toe condition? So context is important right? Next, how many believe Lindbergh could have ever been her father if she had existed back then? Strength, Superior Race, Inferiors, and Defectives. Truth be damned. Relax Michael. This is a perfect example of someone overreacting to a bit of well-placed, but highly relevant sarcasm, and then doing exactly what they say the other person is doing, by going off on a tangent. I hadn't even mentioned Lindbergh in this particular instance, yet you felt compelled to bring up William Allen's treatment by the Lindberghs at Highfields. That's fine and I'll play along, but perhaps you can tell me how the William Allen incident in any way, relates to a Lindbergh connection with the individual we all know was actually involved in the disappearance of Charlie by virtue of real physical circumstantial evidence, as opposed to pure speculation.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 24, 2019 13:07:21 GMT -5
Relax Michael. This is a perfect example of someone overreacting to a bit of well-placed, but highly relevant sarcasm, and then doing exactly what they say the other person is doing, by going off on a tangent. I hadn't even mentioned Lindbergh in this particular instance, yet you felt compelled to bring up William Allen's treatment by the Lindberghs at Highfields. That's fine and I'll play along, but perhaps you can tell me how the William Allen incident in any way, relates to a Lindbergh connection with the individual we all know was actually involved in the disappearance of Charlie by virtue of real physical circumstantial evidence, as opposed to pure speculation. Relax? Now I think you are overreacting. I know exactly what it was and simply gave my position on it. That's all. I realize to some its a good method to "point but ignore" and sometimes it happens to the best of us. Was Lindbergh a fan of what he perceived as those of "inferior" blood? Those born of "defectives?" The "Defectives" themselves? No, he wasn't. He didn't even think the "Japs" should be flying because they were "yellow" & "brown." So forgive me if I think its important to bring this stuff up when someone makes light of the idea that he wasn't someone who felt this way - when he clearly was.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 25, 2019 9:55:14 GMT -5
Relax Michael. This is a perfect example of someone overreacting to a bit of well-placed, but highly relevant sarcasm, and then doing exactly what they say the other person is doing, by going off on a tangent. I hadn't even mentioned Lindbergh in this particular instance, yet you felt compelled to bring up William Allen's treatment by the Lindberghs at Highfields. That's fine and I'll play along, but perhaps you can tell me how the William Allen incident in any way, relates to a Lindbergh connection with the individual we all know was actually involved in the disappearance of Charlie by virtue of real physical circumstantial evidence, as opposed to pure speculation. Relax? Now I think you are overreacting. I know exactly what it was and simply gave my position on it. That's all. I realize to some its a good method to "point but ignore" and sometimes it happens to the best of us. Was Lindbergh a fan of what he perceived as those of "inferior" blood? Those born of "defectives?" The "Defectives" themselves? No, he wasn't. He didn't even think the "Japs" should be flying because they were "yellow" & "brown." So forgive me if I think its important to bring this stuff up when someone makes light of the idea that he wasn't someone who felt this way - when he clearly was. You missed my point on the other board. I was suggesting that there are some studying this case who have become almost debilitatingly consumed by the pointing out of physical traits and anomalies as critically all-important, so that little else regarding the essential parent - child relationship seems to matter or merit any kind of consideration within the equation. I'm not singling you out here Michael, and I believe that on a very base level, we humans, with our requisite egos well intact, routinely demonstrate a general, self-preserving kind of need to want to look outside of ourselves for answers and satisfaction. It eventually leans towards little more than an exercise in ignoring one's own issues and values and more about preserving some resulting and dissociated agenda. And there's a very well-established agenda here on this board. As a suggested antidote, you may want to openly promote the inclusion of more balance and perspective, as opposed to the perennial, one-dimensional hit list of reasons why CAL might want his son eliminated. I thought BookRefuge, based upon his/her professional background, did an excellent job (unbiased research, informative, clarity of thought, balanced perspective, well articulated) at that, and his/her return would be an enormous positive to this board.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 26, 2019 10:20:22 GMT -5
CALjr's health issues have been wildly overstated here for a long time, while a major error like Lloyd Gardner's "Viosterol Megadose Oops," get quietly downplayed and swept under the rug. No one here seems willing to relinquish the fist bumping speculative good times, and draw upon truly professional opinion, not only within the context of the child's physical and mental health and wellbeing but also within the context of the parent - child emotional and empathic connection, ie. was he a wanted child? It's been little more than a steady Goebbel's-like drip.. drip.. of lame "Sick Charlie" news here for a long time with very little else of value to show. Hey Joe. Who swept it under the rug? It's been fully acknowledged here after Wayne (and the help of others here) assisted in proving it a mistake. That was just one factor contained within the theory and in no way supposedly proves the child did not have an issue. Does it erase Lindbergh's beliefs in eugenics? I don't think so and in truth that's the Elephant in the room that is constantly being swept under the rug. So I think the argument can go both ways. Its as if someone who holds these strict beliefs only hold them in some places. They can "come and go" if need be. Its also as if we aren't "allowed" to consider these beliefs when we all absolutely know they existed. Why not? Why should any fact be ignored? The Lindberghs issued the daily menu appeal to the public a few days after their child was kidnapped. I don't believe anyone at that time considered the included reference to a daily dosage of 14 drops of Viosterol out of the ordinary for what would likely have been perceived a response to address a rickety condition. This never was an issue to be resolved, but that didn't stop a noted expert on the case from having it grow arms and legs. Regarding your reference to Lindbergh's alignment with Eugenics, it seems just a bit unusual that he would have married into the Morrow family, with what would most certainly have been a readily-identifiable history of physical and mental health issues. And imagining for a moment he had something to do with the elimination of what he considered to be his "defective" son, why would he choose to have five more children with Anne, after they lost Charlie?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 26, 2019 10:44:08 GMT -5
I repeat myself, for the benefit of ayone who seriously considers the above "other factor." Would the "major players" in this case, those being Charles (presumably the mastermind) and Anne Lindbergh, Betty Gow, Henry Breckinridge, Elmer Irey, Norman Schwarzkopf, J. Edgar Hoover, John Condon and possibly the Whateleys, Al Reich and Alexis Carrel, (have I missed anyone?) essentially decided from the beginning, or at some point thereafter depending on their point of entry into the case, to summarily defraud and deceive not only themselves and their immediate and extended families, but also all of the state and federal law enforcement agencies who would ultimately have had even an investigative brush with this case, every American as well as foreign news agency that reported on this crime, the governments of affected states and the entire political structure of the United States, all the way up to the office of the president and finally, an entire planet of sympathetic and everyday people, who were shocked and revolted by the relative enormity and strangeness of this crime? I believe it’s a question every LKC researcher has to ask themselves in order to try and maintain true objectivity, in what they uncover or read towards establishing a responsible, personal conclusion. All of those people do not have to be "involved." Putting together a list of everyone as if they are all required doesn't make it so. As I've proven via the source material, no one was above doing or saying something they shouldn't have. The purpose for which were many and to varying degrees. In short - people were lying all over the place and your argument is that no one would lie or be untruthful? The key is to determine who wasn't telling the truth and the "whys" behind it. "Knowing" or "suspecting" about the crime something is different than "being" an actual participant. Protecting someone is different from being an actual participant. Lying about ransom delivery so one doesn't get disbarred is different also. So would one lie for something bigger? That's the key to it. Whateley knew something, or at the very least, believed he did. Just look at how he reacted time and time again. He'd let something slip then get scared and excuse himself and hurry away. It all has to be considered. How someone could spend so much time researching and NOT consider it is what's most perplexing to me. (Michael)
Are "all of these people" just blissfully ignorant of their involvement, deceitful or innocent, requested or voluntary, no matter what the level? I think you're confusing "major players" who would have been using their professional critical thinking, training and experience in a virtual landscape of insider information, with "everyday individuals" who had a passing interest in this case. Now, was everyone playing at such a ridiculously high level of moral piety throughout? Of course not. Rules were bent everywhere and lies would have been told routinely in the interests of preserving anonymity or ensuring the press or even police at times was not allowed to discover key and sensitive information. Would this not be a given under the dynamics of the kidnapper and victim interface? You know as well as I do that Lindbergh was allowed to deal privately with the kidnappers for over two months, essentially free of any obligation to report his activities to investigators. And if you could have asked anyone of these major players why they did what they did and said what they said, you'd get nothing more than that they were attempting to serve a higher purpose here, period. I believe your perception and explanation that some of these major players could have been involved and others totally unaware of what they were really doing, is just a bit shortsighted but quite convenient to your agenda.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 26, 2019 11:50:03 GMT -5
[The Lindberghs issued the daily menu appeal to the public a few days after their child was kidnapped. I don't believe anyone at that time considered the included reference to a daily dosage of 14 drops of Viosterol out of the ordinary for what would likely have been perceived a response to address a rickety condition. This never was an issue to be resolved, but that didn't stop a noted expert on the case from having it grow arms and legs. Regarding your reference to Lindbergh's alignment with Eugenics, it seems just a bit unusual that he would have married into the Morrow family, with what would most certainly have been a readily-identifiable history of physical and mental health issues. And imagining for a moment he had something to do with the elimination of what he considered to be his "defective" son, why would he choose to have five more children with Anne, after they lost Charlie? You're something else Joe. Of course it was an issue to be resolved. At least for me there was. And why would that be? Because I pursued, checked, and double-checked Lloyd's source. And so did others. I know there are people who simply sit on their hands BUT continue to argue against stuff they don't like anyway but I'm not one of them. I like to see for myself rather then listen to someone who operates from an ignorant position. And without that source in hand that's what it would be.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 26, 2019 12:09:19 GMT -5
Are "all of these people" just blissfully ignorant of their involvement, deceitful or innocent, requested or voluntary, no matter what the level? I think you're confusing "major players" who would have been using their professional critical thinking, training and experience in a virtual landscape of insider information, with "everyday individuals" who had a passing interest in this case. Now, was everyone playing at such a ridiculously high level of moral piety throughout? Of course not. Rules were bent everywhere and lies would have been told routinely in the interests of preserving anonymity or ensuring the press or even police at times was not allowed to discover key and sensitive information. Would this not be a given under the dynamics of the kidnapper and victim interface? You know as well as I do that Lindbergh was allowed to deal privately with the kidnappers for over two months, essentially free of any obligation to report his activities to investigators. And if you could have asked anyone of these major players why they did what they did and said what they said, you'd get nothing more than that they were attempting to serve a higher purpose here, period. I believe your perception and explanation that some of these major players could have been involved and others totally unaware of what they were really doing, is just a bit shortsighted but quite convenient to your agenda. You are asking me questions that you've already drawn a personal conclusion about. However, my answer is some would and some would not. It all depends on what the motive was for doing so. Keep one's job, glory, stay alive, because they believed Hauptmann was guilty, etc. Pick your poison. But it all comes back to the question as to whether or not someone was willing to lie. If they weren't there's no discussion. Then there's also differing degrees of ignorance to factor in as well. Hoover himself believed certain things he wasn't told about OR was told something completely different at the time they supposedly occurred - were LIES. To him that meant it wasn't true OR to the lesser extent that they "hid" the information from them for nefarious purposes. So you've also got Cops lying to other Cops. Cops hiding information from other Cops as well. There's a complicated situation everywhere mixed in with people willing to lie for as far as their moral compass would allow with some extending farther than others. Hauptmann's beating was a perfect example. NYPD and NJSP beat the hell out of him and lied. The State Prosecutors lied. The FBI did not get involved in the beating. Why not? Because they were obviously more ethical and professional. And YET they did not stop it and did not reveal what happened to the Defense either. So I see that its just easier for you to say I have an "agenda" rather than acknowledge that I did a helluva lot of research. My "agenda" is the truth and the best way that I know how to get there is by looking at everything and considering everything no matter how upsetting it is to you or other people who happen to think like you do. I am grateful for that perspective because it allows for preparation/information in order to answer certain questions I might not have considered. So while you or others might simply ignore it at least I know there's neutral personalities who will see by facts, proof, and real examples that they can be called into question.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Feb 2, 2019 7:32:29 GMT -5
[The Lindberghs issued the daily menu appeal to the public a few days after their child was kidnapped. I don't believe anyone at that time considered the included reference to a daily dosage of 14 drops of Viosterol out of the ordinary for what would likely have been perceived a response to address a rickety condition. This never was an issue to be resolved, but that didn't stop a noted expert on the case from having it grow arms and legs. Regarding your reference to Lindbergh's alignment with Eugenics, it seems just a bit unusual that he would have married into the Morrow family, with what would most certainly have been a readily-identifiable history of physical and mental health issues. And imagining for a moment he had something to do with the elimination of what he considered to be his "defective" son, why would he choose to have five more children with Anne, after they lost Charlie? You're something else Joe. Of course it was an issue to be resolved. At least for me there was. And why would that be? Because I pursued, checked, and double-checked Lloyd's source. And so did others. I know there are people who simply sit on their hands BUT continue to argue against stuff they don't like anyway but I'm not one of them. I like to see for myself rather then listen to someone who operates from an ignorant position. And without that source in hand that's what it would be. Perhaps you're confusing people who sit on their hands with those who demonstrate a little common sense and understanding from time to time. 14 drops of commercially-available Viosterol has been a normal dose for Charlie's reported medical condition since I began studying this case at the same time you did. Anne did not specify the concentration, but due to its widespread usage at the time, the standard concentration of 250D in a bottle with a dropper, was widely accepted. I'm also curious as to your thoughts on why Lindbergh "would have married into the Morrow family, with what would most certainly have been a readily-identifiable history of physical and mental health issues. And imagining for a moment he had something to do with the elimination of what he considered to be his "defective" son, why would he choose to have five more children with Anne, after they lost Charlie?"
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Feb 2, 2019 8:17:25 GMT -5
Are "all of these people" just blissfully ignorant of their involvement, deceitful or innocent, requested or voluntary, no matter what the level? I think you're confusing "major players" who would have been using their professional critical thinking, training and experience in a virtual landscape of insider information, with "everyday individuals" who had a passing interest in this case. Now, was everyone playing at such a ridiculously high level of moral piety throughout? Of course not. Rules were bent everywhere and lies would have been told routinely in the interests of preserving anonymity or ensuring the press or even police at times was not allowed to discover key and sensitive information. Would this not be a given under the dynamics of the kidnapper and victim interface? You know as well as I do that Lindbergh was allowed to deal privately with the kidnappers for over two months, essentially free of any obligation to report his activities to investigators. And if you could have asked anyone of these major players why they did what they did and said what they said, you'd get nothing more than that they were attempting to serve a higher purpose here, period. I believe your perception and explanation that some of these major players could have been involved and others totally unaware of what they were really doing, is just a bit shortsighted but quite convenient to your agenda. You are asking me questions that you've already drawn a personal conclusion about. However, my answer is some would and some would not. It all depends on what the motive was for doing so. Keep one's job, glory, stay alive, because they believed Hauptmann was guilty, etc. Pick your poison. But it all comes back to the question as to whether or not someone was willing to lie. If they weren't there's no discussion. Then there's also differing degrees of ignorance to factor in as well. Hoover himself believed certain things he wasn't told about OR was told something completely different at the time they supposedly occurred - were LIES. To him that meant it wasn't true OR to the lesser extent that they "hid" the information from them for nefarious purposes. So you've also got Cops lying to other Cops. Cops hiding information from other Cops as well. There's a complicated situation everywhere mixed in with people willing to lie for as far as their moral compass would allow with some extending farther than others. Hauptmann's beating was a perfect example. NYPD and NJSP beat the hell out of him and lied. The State Prosecutors lied. The FBI did not get involved in the beating. Why not? Because they were obviously more ethical and professional. And YET they did not stop it and did not reveal what happened to the Defense either. So I see that its just easier for you to say I have an "agenda" rather than acknowledge that I did a helluva lot of research. My "agenda" is the truth and the best way that I know how to get there is by looking at everything and considering everything no matter how upsetting it is to you or other people who happen to think like you do. I am grateful for that perspective because it allows for preparation/information in order to answer certain questions I might not have considered. So while you or others might simply ignore it at least I know there's neutral personalities who will see by facts, proof, and real examples that they can be called into question. I've never questioned the great amount and value of the research you've done Michael, and I don't believe anyone else has done more. I do not ignore anything that I read or see with my own two eyes here or elsewhere. Personally speaking, it's all weighed and considered on a playing field, and you just might be surprised at how level that playing field is. Hauptmann's beating is a great example of something having gone totally sideways and then trying to make sense and value of it. Does that event matter in this case? Yes and no. It demonstrates not only the resolve of Hauptmann not to break down and come clean within a very damning landscape of circumstantial physical evidence, but oppositely, the degenerate underbelly of the NJSP and NYPD using tactics that were admittedly on their part, common for the time. One has to look no further than Hugo Stockburger's account of cop-killer Metelski's beating, as described in Mark Falzini's "Their Fifteen Minutes." It also demonstrates the boiling point of frustration reached by those two organizations and how they ultimately acted out their own personal and resultant mob-oriented agendas, knowing full well any repercussions would be unlikely. And of course, Condon's refusal to positively ID Hauptmann didn't help him escape this wrath. At the end of the day though, Hauptmann's beating makes little to no difference as to his actual level of complicity and guilt in the original crime. As an aside, I'm currently reading Don Tolzmann's English version edit of Hauptmann's full autobiography, (Ich Bin Unschuldig) and it is an absolute eye-opener.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2019 13:32:39 GMT -5
As an aside, I'm currently reading Don Tolzmann's English version edit of Hauptmann's full autobiography, (Ich Bin Unschuldig) and it is an absolute eye-opener. I have read this book also. I found it to be very informative even though BRH is the author. It certainly had an impact on my understanding of Hauptmann and how his mind works!
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Feb 11, 2019 12:09:10 GMT -5
amy, the huddleson report he tells the shrink a little about his life
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2019 13:49:04 GMT -5
Steve,
Thanks for reminding me about the Huddleson report!! I am adding that to my "To Do" list for my next visit to the archives. I really want to read that and see what else I can learn about Hauptmann.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Feb 13, 2019 9:52:36 GMT -5
I think ronnelles board has it
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 13, 2019 10:35:14 GMT -5
I think ronnelles board has it Ronelle has the first six pages starting here: www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/huddleson1.jpgThe actual document is in two parts and totals 23 pages. It's at the NJSP Archives but I seem to remember finding one part in one place and another part somewhere else. But if you find 23 pages together then I am mis-remembering.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Feb 13, 2019 14:38:24 GMT -5
Steve, Thanks for reminding me about the Huddleson report!! I am adding that to my "To Do" list for my next visit to the archives. I really want to read that and see what else I can learn about Hauptmann. Amy, I'm pretty sure I have the full report and will post it when I can next week.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2019 18:51:33 GMT -5
Amy, I'm pretty sure I have the full report and will post it when I can next week. That would be awesome, Joe. I look forward to that post!!
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Feb 14, 2019 22:43:17 GMT -5
I think ronnelles board has it
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Feb 15, 2019 9:44:46 GMT -5
I have 2 full 23 page copies laying around
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Feb 17, 2019 23:28:17 GMT -5
Amy, I'm pretty sure I have the full report and will post it when I can next week. That would be awesome, Joe. I look forward to that post!! Amy, I've just tried attaching the Huddleson Report to this message but apparently it's too large a file to send. I also noticed that in the pdf file that was sent to me by Mark Falzini, pages 15 and 17 are missing so they might have been the reverse sides of double pages that were never copied when the report was first discovered, I'm really not sure. Resultantly, the version I have is 21 pages in length. Michael, is there another way to attach it or can I send it to you to upload? Or if you have the full 23 pages, perhaps you can upload your copy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2019 8:07:31 GMT -5
That would be awesome, Joe. I look forward to that post!! Amy, I've just tried attaching the Huddleson Report to this message but apparently it's too large a file to send. Thanks Joe for your efforts to attach this report. I did get a copy from Mark Falzini. He is such a helpful and friendly man. I guess it will be difficult to discuss this report in any detail. Perhaps just pages can be targeted for discussion?? Just so myself and others are clear, this examination of Hauptmann was made strictly to confirm whether or not Hauptmann was competent to stand trial. Correct?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 18, 2019 9:48:06 GMT -5
Michael, is there another way to attach it or can I send it to you to upload? Or if you have the full 23 pages, perhaps you can upload your copy. The only thing I could suggest would be to use another host site like imgur.com or any of those you'd prefer then post the link here. The problem is that these hosts seem to come and go. Sam is real good at finding hosts and I've piggybacked his ideas for hosts over the years. Also, if there are any missing pages from whatever copies either you or Amy need then let me know and I'll see if I have them.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Feb 19, 2019 17:38:16 GMT -5
I think it was in this thread, so I'll ask it here: Do we have any updates on the post-birthday photos?
|
|