kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 4, 2006 13:12:58 GMT -5
Under New Book thread Michael wrote regarding Kelvin Keraga's rail #16 Analysis;
"I agree there is some good information but there are also some uneducated observations there as well. Unfortunately if you read his report each and every point relies on the other. "
Michael, I hope you don't mind me moving this to the wood section. What part of Kelvin"s report do you find problematic? I have read it over several times and although I have found a few errors, on the whole it seems well done. I would have preferred that he had done more to reveal the possible differences between rail #16 and S-226 which might have revealed the reason it was used.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 4, 2006 17:58:48 GMT -5
The planer mark defect conclusion is questionable. Kel did not arrive at it through the proper methods. I pointed this out and his position was that he honestly didn’t think it was necessary which clearly shows why it cannot be accepted as conclusive. I am not an Expert, so I have to rely on Experts to explain to me certain things about their expertise. Kelvin seems to get carried away here and thinks he can do what they do without having their expertise.
I disagree and it shows he's getting caught up.
If Kel was right this would put Forensic Tool Mark Examiners out of a job world-wide. This is why I don't accept his observations, measurements, mathematics, etc. concering this angle as "conclusive" because he is not qualified to do what he does here. They have some worth but certainly not the weight he has personally decided to give them based solely on his conclusions.
Kel doesn't answer why Koehler, making various detailed studies specifically looking for these types of defects doesn't see what he sees. This was done in '33-35 only some 9 years after it was milled. Kel's study occurs 70+ years later! Is it important to note the wood was neglected and abused even before Koehler saw it and especially after Hauptmann's execution? Maybe, then again maybe not - that's for the Experts to decide. Kel says he wasn't even looking for the defects and we all know Koehler was.
That's truly amazing and I guess its time to start playing the lottery.
Some Experts I have communicated with call for invasive studies. Others use terms such as "doubtful" or "I don't think" yet Kelvin draws rock-solid conclusions based upon observations of at least one of these very people....
I mentioned a report that had Mrs. Rauch saying she would have heard Hauptmann sawing his attic floor and Kel "hit the roof" saying she could have been in the basement or something similar and, in essence, I was reckless for bringing it up.
He uses a board in his study which he has no idea if its an original piece of flooring that was laid by Koski.
He finds used wood when Koski purchased his wood brand-new from the yard.
He finds evidence of (3) wire nails under where Rail 16 was laid and never asks why Koski would place these (3) nails there only to nail down an attic floorboard over top of them.
My biggest problem is that he applies Science in some parts but not others. He speculates yet attacks those who speculate. I have a problem with that.
He simply isn't a neutral party drawing conclusions based upon whatever was discovered. He had a theory and set out to prove it. Your observation concerning the Electrician was a perfect example. He quickly gave you a bogus answer without so much as considering you could be correct. He comes across as such a level-headed thinker but its my position this is only the case when it does not apply to his research.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 5, 2006 9:45:14 GMT -5
You make some excellent points on this issue. If I had any interest in defending Kelvin's work , which I don't, I would offer some counterpoints. I really don't know what Kelvin's qualifications and experience are in relation ship to wood and tool marks, so I look at his report respectively. For my part I am 99% certain that rail #16 and s-226 were in fact one board and came from the attic of Hauptmann's apartment. That conclusion on my part is based on the nailing patterns and the grain structure of those boards. I really don't even consider the " planer marks" for several reasons which I would gladly explain if asked. For me the grain orientation and annular rings are proof enough of a singular board. And the nailing pattern including orientation is unique to that attic. The existence of the wire nails(commons) found in the joist under the floorboard is a common occurrence in construction. It is usually the result of temporary bracing and cleats used during the framing of the structure. IMHO anyone so inclined to try and exonerate BRH would do better by attempting to dis-associate him from that attic board than attempting to dis-associate the rail/ floorboard from the attic.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Mar 5, 2006 11:18:46 GMT -5
Michael, I have basic difficulty in understanding your comments about the the presence of the machine planer defect pattern highlighted and photographed by Kel, and which appear on S-226, Rail 16 and other attic floor boards.
I could well see concern over the question of their very existence had they been observed and documented by Koehler back in the thirties and now were too faint to accurately distinguish, or had disappeared entirely. Your concern over the general mistreatment of the wood evidence over the years is valid and would lend itself to such a hypothetical situation.
What we have are distinguishable planer defects which have clearly survived the years, and which do show remarkable similarity from board to board, to the extent that the pattern demonstrably reoccurs in both lateral and lengthwise positions, when Rail 16 and S-226 are oriented in their originally-assumed positions.
I know that Kel used many different lighting approaches and angles of observation in his work to identify and isolate the defects found on these and other floor boards. I fully support the argument that patterns in relief do not always present themselves to the naked eye and that ideal lighting can be immeasurably helpful in bringing out the true detail and proportions. I find the same effect can be simply demonstrated by holding an old American penny in your hand and finding the ideal lighting, angle and distance to determine it's date, which otherwise might appear only as an indistinguishable blur.
These defect patterns are extremely subtle, but when "pulled into focus" they are clearly distinguishing. I believe Koehler simply overlooked them, perhaps as a result of not observing in fine enough detail, or by not discovering the correct combination of lighting type and angle, as well as viewing angle.
Before we go too far down this road, I guess I need to understand your hesitation in accepting these machine planer defects as evidence relevant and therefore, subject to further scrutiny.
Joe
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 5, 2006 12:31:11 GMT -5
Joe,
1. I have spoken with tool-mark Examiners and you can NOT identify these marks this way.
2. Kel is not a tool-mark examiner.
3. Kel leads us to believe he identified them.
4. Kel leads us to believe this identification proves something.
5. It's speculation portrayed as fact.
Simply look at the forensic guidelines.....You can't slam people for speculation and tout Science if you are going to pull something like this.
Kevin,
I agree they look like a match, however, I don't want to draw conclusions based upon shrugs or things being swept under the carpet.
I accept your observations concerning the wire nails, in fact, that's another reason why I am glad you're here. You seem to have no agenda and call it like you see it. I both respect and appreciate that because it will help us get to closer to the truth. Do you believe these nails were there for that purpose?
I wanted to let you know something concerning your observation about the Electrician.... Try asking anyone who disagrees with it exactly when the Electrician put the wiring in, or even who the Electrician was. I am willing to bet money they won't know. That's why its reckless to shrug off your suggestion.
The Electrician wasn't even contracted out until Aug '26.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 5, 2006 13:17:26 GMT -5
Yes, It is both sad and frustrating that the polarization I mentioned prior seems to make people frightened at any suggestion of possible alternatives. The entire issue of the planing process is so misunderstood and mis stated that I try to steer clear of it, and I have been using power planers for 30 years. The electrification possibility is also dismissed out of hand by many. As I said at the NJSP museum I think it may be possible, even after all these years, to determine that rail #16, or more correctly the piece of flooring it was once was, was removed from the attic a considerable time prior to the kidnapping.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 5, 2006 13:28:18 GMT -5
I certainly like the way you think here....
People get so stand-offish at my challenges....sometimes acting like I am trying to steal their lunch money or something...
If something is correct I believe it will stand up to the those challenges and answer those un-answered questions.
If everyone read Kel's report and accepted it at face value then this alternative scenario, which certainly looks more probable, would have been lost or went undiscovered forever.
I am quite sure there is much more here.
Koski in Aug '26 was ordering molding and roofing material.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Mar 5, 2006 13:47:38 GMT -5
Michael, I'm commenting strictly on what I see, yes, in representative photographs of machine planer defect marks, which have existed in this wood from the time of its factory milling. I don't believe it takes a forensic tool examiner to see the similarities within the patterns as they pertain to a number of the floorboards in Hauptmann's attic. You don't necessarily have to be an architect or draftsman to conclude the ladder sketch in Hauptmann's memo book was not the work of some doodling child.
I have no agenda here at all, if that's what you're implying, nor do I believe we need to subject this and every other point to excessively-rigid guidelines best suited for a courtroom exercise to determine whether evidence is deemed admissible or inadmissable.
You seem to have difficulty accepting the fact that these marks could not have been added post-Koehler, or am I missing your point?
You have spoken to tool mark examiners. Have you shown them the representative photgraphs of the machine planer defect patterns in the context of the Kel's report and the indications which connect Rail 16, S-226 and other attic floorboards?
Joe
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 5, 2006 13:57:19 GMT -5
Joe,
My comment was a general one and wasn't directed to you personally. I will address the rest of your post later when I return home.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 5, 2006 16:28:35 GMT -5
I think its important to note that I have never said Kelvin's conclusion (as I believe he states) that Rail 16 & S-226 were once the same board AND was laid on those joists by Koski as part of the original attic flooring was "incorrect." I have said that I think each point within his report seems to rely on the next and I have challenges to some of those points so I do not personally find it "conclusive" yet.
Again, I want to state that I respect Kel's Rail 16 research. The time he put into this project demands both respect and admiration.
However, if something isn't quite right from where I am standing then I usually say what's on my mind. My only motivation when I do this here is to make sure everything is copacetic before I draw a conclusion. Kelvin has taken exception and started swinging. As everyone knows, I am a counter-puncher and will never stand around waiting for the next punch to land. I also believe I am fair. That is, if I am wrong I try to make sure everyone knows I was incorrect and would never try to hide the fact. I also try to apply everything evenly. Kelvin, for example, is inconsistent in his distribution of his philosophy when it comes to certain people - to include himself.
Michael, I'm commenting strictly on what I see, yes, in representative photographs of machine planer defect marks, which have existed in this wood from the time of its factory milling. I don't believe it takes a forensic tool examiner to see the similarities within the patterns as they pertain to a number of the floorboards in Hauptmann's attic. (Joe)
***I've got a serious problem with this Joe. The forensic guidelines differ with your position. Why don't you think it necessary to follow them in this instance?
Again, tool marks are 3D but normal pictures only show 2D. The 3rd and missing dimension, which the photo does not contain, is a very important piece of the forensic puzzle. Professional Forensic Toolmark Examiners use many techniques when attempting to draw a conclusion.
Let me use this example once more:
Check out the pictures of Harold Olson's birthmark(s). Everyone who looks at the pictures expresses how it's likeness appears to match the blown up photos of Charles Jr's. Even David Wilentz himself admitted as much during his sit down meeting with HRO on 12-5-72. But, as Wilentz said to Olson, just because he possessed some of the "same marks" and other traits that Charles Jr possessed - it didn't make him Charles Jr.
You don't necessarily have to be an architect or draftsman to conclude the ladder sketch in Hauptmann's memo book was not the work of some doodling child.(Joe)
***I don't agree with this either, although Kevin's observations have caught my attention when I dove-tail them in with what you have been saying.
You seem to have difficulty accepting the fact that these marks could not have been added post-Koehler, or am I missing your point?(Joe)
***There is nothing in his Summary Report which backs up his conclusions concerning these "marks." It seems to me he is jumping to conclusions based upon the other conclusions he came to within his report.
This scares the hell out of me, and I start to think and wonder if he didn't do this in some way with those other points as well.
I have no idea about when and I think that should be up to Experts to decide.
You have spoken to tool mark examiners. Have you shown them the representative photographs of the machine planer defect patterns in the context of the Kel's report and the indications which connect Rail 16, S-226 and other attic floorboards?(Joe)
***You're doing it too Joe. The guidelines are clear....haven't you looked them up? Anyway, one Expert has reviewed his entire report and I believe he is writing something up on it concerning the tool-marks for publication. When I hear something I will let you know.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 6, 2006 7:16:04 GMT -5
I think Kelvin's research is very good but for me there are two major errors and omissions. First he fails to adequately describe the process of wood processing for those who are not professional woodworkers. I have run thousands of linear feet of wood through planers and moulders and I can tell you that there are many more factors involved in the process which effect the finish product and resulting marks than those mentioned. Michael is correct here when he argues the 3 dimensional aspects of surface markings and defects from the machining process. Second, as a "technical" paper on the attic board his final conclusions pertaining to the entire kidnapping are out of place and destroy any sense of impartiality that one should expect from a technical analysis. I don't disagree with his conclusions on the whole, but I think that he re iterated the findings of Koehler. That is ok as I believe Koehler's work was highly professional and ahead for it's time. I would just have preferred to see more new ground covered and possibly alternative explanations to balance the report out as well as making it more objective.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Mar 6, 2006 12:40:14 GMT -5
Apparently, CAL, BRK and JFC, our crack recovery team, did not want a standard for payment of the ransom as high and demanding as Charlies birthmarks from CJ and the Bronx Blackmailers?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 6, 2006 13:09:37 GMT -5
And that thought has what to do with wood, the ladder,Kelvin's report, or the attic floorboard??? You seem determined to de-rail any and all attempts to actually arrive at an answer or allow constructive debate.
|
|
|
Post by kanneedwards on Mar 6, 2006 15:24:44 GMT -5
rick, from the very first night when jasfie and his "bodyguard" showed up at highfields, he never falls to disappoint in his bizarre behaviors. the next AM when CAL catches him trying to Pocket some of charlie's toys to the convinient nom de plume he happened to have ready, his little mind can almost rival his mouth. really, he just never stops, with every contact he adds to this mystery. i bet CAL was soooo relieed when he appeared on the scene
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 6, 2006 16:09:36 GMT -5
I wonder what scares you two so much?
|
|
|
Post by rick for kathy on Mar 6, 2006 17:58:36 GMT -5
Hi Kathy....if ever there was a bigger failure in the anals of kidnapping--well, most likely Kevcon will know the reference?
I always thought that when you step up to the Plate to be the all famous "Go Between" there should be at least a minimum standard of performance rating?
John "Jafsie" Condon quickly becomes the failure to rival all failures....killing time, sending false and confusing signals in all directions, to the cops, to the gang, to CJ:
"Doos you gottit the mony" (answer: Nope gottit see the goods first!) Did JFC mean the baked goods?
And then for the Coup de grace--withholds the $50 gold certs? For a go-between to perform this poorly you might have to assume he had some help?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 7, 2006 6:08:43 GMT -5
Kevin, I have heard this over and over again when I've consulted Tool Mark Examiners. It's funny, when the discussion was between Kel and I, he was asking that I reveal who they were....the insinuation being I was making it up. Sometimes you simply have people who want to help you understand your dilemma from their Expert position but do not want the publicity associated with such a controversial case. To me that does not undermine their abilities so I post it without plastering their names on the net. The FBI forensic guidelines are here: www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/handbook/forensics.pdf As you can see they would want the wood sent to their labs. If pictures were enough the guidelines would state that. End of story. Now this doesn't mean he is wrong in his conclusions, it simply means his methods are lacking, therefore, the conclusions which rely on these methods may not be solid. My biggest problem is his resistance to admitting this issue, and instead attempting to make me look bad. I also agree with your observation concerning the conclusion of his report. It clearly shows the bias that existed. Again, I wonder how much stuff he found never made it into this report, and/or other flaws which I may not have caught up to yet. Checks and balances are a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 7, 2006 6:11:21 GMT -5
Rick,
I was thinking about posting a link to your web-site in our link section but I can't find it. Could you post it?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 7, 2006 7:43:51 GMT -5
I think a really good defense lawyer would have made some inroads on cross.
|
|
|
Post by Rab on Mar 7, 2006 17:16:26 GMT -5
I agree with Kevin that we need to think about reasons for why the rail that became rail 16 was removed from the attic. The simplistic view that it was a last-minute replacement doesn't stand up to even the barest scrutiny because it was never, ever quicker to go to the attic. It was only quicker if the rail had already been removed from the attic and if it had been removed and Hauptmann had forgotten then it perhaps explains somewhat why he would do such a thing. Because to do it deliberately and then not remove the remainder seems perverse, though it cannot be ruled out.
There is much argument (by me) in the archives on LindyKidnap on the electrical work question and I still haven't seen any evidence that the very visible wires running by the rail 16 position were there when the floor was laid. The wiring to me looks far too rough.
While we're speculating, two things have always bothered: the inch or so was removed from rail 16 (that formed the gap between it and S226) and why the cut was made between the joists rather than flush (as some have claimed a carpenter would *always* do). My speculation on this is that there are no pry marks or other marks (e.g. hammering from below) visible on rail 16 (to my knowledge) so that suggests it was removed by hand. Could the inch or so have been removed in situ (i.e. two cuts) in order to afford an end-on grip on the rail in order to remove it? Because pulling it up by hand from the side is surely beyond difficult. If that was the case then it makes sense that the cut would be made between the joists because too close to the lefthand joist and the rail might break at the righthhand joist and too close to the righthhand joist and there would not be enough leverage. Somewhere in the middle would be just about right. This might also explain why more was taken than apparently needed: if it did break at the righthand joist there was another chance to try again. Just a thought.
Rab
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 7, 2006 17:58:17 GMT -5
My own belief is that Hauptmann did not go up into that attic specifically to obtain the board for rail #16. Why go to all that trouble when the garage is made from 1" material? I believe that board was removed prior and stored, perhaps in the cellar. It is very possible that Hauptmann was never even aware of it's origin. I know I have been "shut down" when ever I bring up the electrical wire installation, but I think it is a good bet. Looking at a photo I recently obtained of 16 and S-226 in place I saw below them what I suspected all along. The top wall plate was visible and is directly below where rail 16 was located. That plate, located at the top of a wall , would provide the means for an electrician to snake his wires down the wall. It is also quite common for this to be required after plastering as a new electrical fixture or outlet is desired. I don't know why the board was cut as it was off the joist, leverage may have been a consideration. Or, perhaps it was just speed as I have witnessed electricians and plumbers do the very same thing. The cut seems rather skewed and might indicate a bent saw blade or an inexperienced sawyer. There is not a lot of clearance to the plaster ceiling and I don't see any evidence of it or the lath being hit in any of the photos.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Mar 7, 2006 18:07:09 GMT -5
Good point. Sawing the board at it's midway point to provide leverage in lifting it by hand, seems like a step that could have reasonably been thought out ahead of time. Could it be that Hauptmann was concerned about making any more noise in the attic than the sawing itself required? At the same time, it seems unlikely there would be any danger in leaving an overhang at the far end of the attic's unfinished floor.
I'm not sure why pry marks would necessarily have been visible on Rail 16. We know the length of board removed to create Rail 16 required ripsawing and planing so it seems quite possible any original pry marks might well have been lost in the removed wood.
The potential lifting of the board that Rail 16 was eventually cut from, seems to add credence to Bornmann's own account regarding his lifting by hand, S-226 and the rest of the 27th board it was attached to.
As to why Hauptmann decided to cannibalize his attic floor, I don't leave anything out at this point, including an inner need to further stamp his identity on the proceedings. There seems to be a highly personal connection and desire to demonstrate ego as seen in the personalized ransom note handwriting, ransom note signature and ladder design.
Joe
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 7, 2006 18:19:15 GMT -5
I wanted to apologize to Rab for not remembering his comments concerning this possibility in the past....
From the records I possess, it surely looks as though Koski is finished with the attic and working on molding and roofing just as the Electrician is being contracted out by the Contractor, who, despite Rauch's testimony that he was the Contractor - wasn't Rauch. Why Rauch would testify to something so blatantly false is beyond me. Wouldn't it have been very easy for the Defense to know who the Contractor really was?
As is written in Dr. Gardner's book, left-over material did wind up in Rauch's basement which everyone had access to - so its not beyond reason to believe Hauptmann may have taken lumber from there from time to time.
If S-226 was not added to this floor, ex post facto, this "Electrician Explanation" is a sure bet. It explains why S-226 was not removed flush. Even Koehler stated in Court that a carpenter would have cut it flush and not left it hanging over the joist like that. It also eliminates this crazy idea that Hauptmann climbed into the attic specifically for this "replacement" piece, and answers why Mrs. Rauch didn't hear him doing this.
It doesn't answer everything, however, it is so much easier to swallow with what it does answer.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Mar 7, 2006 21:01:21 GMT -5
Is there an available picture which illustrates the possible "electrical connection" in relation to the removed length of Board 27 in the attic?
I've come in a bit after the fact on this area of discussion. Were the hemlock joists drilled to accomodate a length of wire that ran towards the centre of the attic floor, hence the suggestion the length had to be removed? I'm trying to understand why that specific length of board would have been necessary to remove, in order to accomodate whatever electrical wiring was added after the fact.
Here's another thought jogged by Kevin's mention of the garage and relative to the need to remove the original length of Board 27. Hauptmann built his garage after returning from California, I believe October, 1931. Could it be he was short a specific length of board for a section of wall or roof of the garage, and didn't want to transport such a length from the lumberyard on the outside of his car? After removing the length from the attic floor, he discovered the piece was not needed and then stored it in the garage?
Joe
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 7, 2006 21:23:23 GMT -5
The possible reason for the removal of the section of floorboard which became rail#16 that I suggest is due to the need to run electrical cable down the wall which runs parallel and directly underneath that floorboard. I was not absolutely sure about the location of that wall and only suspected it due to the lapping of the floor joists. Now with a better picture I could clearly see the top plate or 2"x4" which runs under the floor joists. An electrician needing to run a line into that wall would remove that part of the floorboard and then drill through the plate thus gaining access to a wall cavity . In an unfinished attic this procedure would be used both before and after plastering the living area wall/ceiling surfaces. You could also be right about Hauptmann's need for the wood to finish the garage but once again, that is a lot of extra work to go to for a readily available material.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Mar 7, 2006 21:39:22 GMT -5
My question then is why remove approximately ten feet of Board 27 in order to run a wire into the wall beneath? Would this not necessitate the removal of only a foot or so of Board 27?
You're right about the extra work required to remove the ten feet of board from the attic to complete a job elsewhere, but we know this was done and would have represented a considerable inconvenience for anyone. The questions remain, what prompted the urgency or desire, and were there any other options at that specific point in time?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 7, 2006 22:02:01 GMT -5
Joe, I really can't say exactly how the length of flooring to be removed was determined. Often times in this type of situation more is better than less. They may have been unsure as to exactly how many holes would be required and where. Also remember that the length is not the factor to consider, rather the joist bays are what counts.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 13, 2006 13:21:59 GMT -5
Does anyone know how much, if any, items belonging to the Hauptmanns were stored in the attic? How was the attic accessed thru the scuttle, was there a ladder stored in the closet or elsewhere?
Regarding the issue of whether rail #16 was removed from the attic at a date prior to the construction of the ladder there is another possible clue available. If you look at rail #16 now and photos taken from the time as well as Koehler's extensive investigation of it you may notice one thing missing. Usually, and I am tempted to say always, when a floorboard is removed from a structure in which it has been attached for some time there are tell tale indications of the structure it was attached to in the way of distinct discolorations at the connection points. This discoloration can occur as the result of UV rays, finishes and in this case soot which is carried via the convection of air through the structure. At locations where the board and structure ( floor joists) connect the structural elements shield the floorboard from these elements. There is no sign of this discoloration or soot/dirt deposits present on rail #16 and certainly Koehler would have noticed them had they been present at the time. If, however you look carefully at S-226 and extension you can see the faint remnants of the floor joist outline present on the underside of the board due to the soot/ dirt deposits. That would indicate to me that the floorboard from which rail #16 was fashioned was not attatched to the floor joists for any great length of time.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 13, 2006 19:56:51 GMT -5
Great observation Kevin!
Kelvin must have missed this....I don't see any reference to this in his Summary Report. It's very strange that he would find "planer marks" that Koehler didn't see some 70+ years earlier but missed this simple inconsistency. Maybe he didn't miss it but felt it was something we didn't need to consider?
Let me play "devil's advocate" here for a second and ask a question. Would the application of silver nitrate ruin any potential shadowing?
I'll check the reports and lists to see what was up in that attic and get back to you. If I don't answer in a reasonable amount of time please remind me so that I don't forget.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 13, 2006 21:27:23 GMT -5
The silver nitrate question is beyond my knowledge, perhaps Rick could offer some insight. I have had the experience of applying oil and alcohol based finishes over wood with this type of dirt stain and it has remained, though somewhat obscured. I would also think that these discolorations would have been noticed prior to the application of silver nitrate and would show up in the b&w photos taken prior to the application. My guess is that unless some sort of aggressive brushing took place as part of the application of silver nitrate the tiny soot/dirt particles would remain in the grain of the wood .
|
|