|
Post by Michael on Jan 10, 2020 18:50:05 GMT -5
That’s not my average speed for this event. I was only trying to use it to highlight my point about the roads. I'm sure in this case the speeds varied accordingly. Anyway, I know where you are coming from because I’m from the same area and take/took all the roads you did. The problem is that we never traveled those roads back then. Let me give you another example .. I drove into the city in December 2001 and it took me almost 4 hours to get in. Of course the tunnel was closed and there was a lot going on because of the attack so both timing and the circumstances is everything. Like I said, there could always be something to change my mind but all I’ve got puts it at 2 hours or later. Maybe there’s a source I’m missing or forgetting about because that’s always possible but I’m going to need someone to point it out to me.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jan 10, 2020 19:50:03 GMT -5
Like I said we need a map from 1932! You and I both know how many more people live in the area now and how much it has slowed things down. Kind of a shame. In any case do you have any thoughts on where he made that phone call from if not New York?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Jan 10, 2020 20:59:03 GMT -5
Michael, if we apply your average speed of 43 mph you get 1 hour 23 minutes. All I'm trying to point out here is that it could not have taken over 2 hours unless there was a lot of traffic. Most of those roads were larger except for the one off of 518 to his house which was a dirt road. 518 was the Georgetown Pike, 27 was the Lincoln Highway and after New Brunswick he probably took Rt 1 which is the Boston Post Rd. We need a 1932 map of New Jersey. I think he was approximating his times as well and the trip probably took an hour and a half. Also, where do you think he was calling from at 7:00 if not his office in NYC. I have a copy of the 1932 Road Map of New Jersey as published by the New Jersey State Highway Commission in Trenton. Unfortunately, I can't seem to post an image of the trip from NYC to Hopewell as attachments are limited to 1 MB and anything less is too blurry to read. It's really a very nice and colourful map and I'll keep working on it. From it, I'd venture the quickest and best route back in the day would be taking Hwy. 9 after the Holland Tunnel, cutting over to Hwy. 27 and following it all the way south-west to the Hard Surface Road leading to Rocky Hill, and then the Improved Road through Blawenburg into Hopewell. In fact, if you Google Map the route today, this is basically what it recommends as a first choice. Lindbergh was not at all a timid driver and could have easily covered this distance in an hour-and-a-half. Let's also remember that the only person to provide an approximate time of Lindbergh's call from NYC or somewhere enroute was Elsie Whateley who estimated the call came in "about 7:00 pm." Had it even been fifteen minutes earlier, and given his arrival time at Highfields at approximately 8:25 pm, it seems more than reasonable for him to have covered the 60 or so miles from NYC in less than an hour-and-a-half. Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 10, 2020 23:09:55 GMT -5
I am guessing you mean all the lights on Rt. 1? I’m not sure about where the call was made - either of them. I still wonder why it was too late on the 29th at 7 but not too late on the 1st at 7. It’s important to step back and look at everything. But of course maybe Joe could make it work by suggesting he actually called at 7:15 on the 29th? LOL. The “slide-rule” effect always seems to fall in ones favor doesn’t it? I, for one, am not “Winnie the Pooh(ing) anything. Fact is, if Rosner’s trip to NYC from Princeton, Fisher’s trip from NYC to Flemington, and Ellerson’s trip from Englewood all took 2 hours or longer - I don’t care what kind of car CAL was driving. So how does one explain it without ignoring these examples or providing other sources that say differently?
Like I said, it’s about the situation in 1932, and not the speed of the car. I need other sources to counter what Ive read. Unfortunately I can’t simply accept Joe’s whims on this subject as proof of anything. I am happy though, that he didn’t besmirch another good Rabbit’s name in the process.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 11, 2020 8:41:15 GMT -5
I have a copy of the 1932 Road Map of New Jersey as published by the New Jersey State Highway Commission in Trenton. Unfortunately, I can't seem to post an image of the trip from NYC to Hopewell as attachments are limited to 1 MB and anything less is too blurry to read. It's really a very nice and colourful map and I'll keep working on it. From it, I'd venture the quickest and best route back in the day would be taking Hwy. 9 after the Holland Tunnel, cutting over to Hwy. 27 and following it all the way south-west to the Hard Surface Road leading to Rocky Hill, and then the Improved Road through Blawenburg into Hopewell. In fact, if you Google Map the route today, this is basically what it recommends as a first choice. From it, I'd venture the quickest and best route back in the day would be taking Hwy. 9 after the Holland Tunnel, cutting over to Hwy. 27 and following it all the way south-west to the Hard Surface Road leading to Rocky Hill, and then the Improved Road through Blawenburg into Hopewell. In fact, if you Google Map the route today, this is basically what it recommends as a first choice. A couple of points I wanted to sincerely make. I have a 1932 map as well. First thing is first. We should be able to expect the route taken based upon the CAL's directions Wayne posted. I don't see any point in making up one's own. Use the map to follow that. The only way that doesn't work is if one were to suggest a deviation which I'd like to hear an explanation about. So this idea to pick up a crayon and outline the best way one thinks he could make it the fastest doesn't seem right to me. Still though, perhaps there are other sets of directions or sources which we could compare or discuss? I'm not being sarcastic. Next, how does a map show the actual condition of the road? Pot holes? Ditches? The roads in NJ are awful in 2019 in February/March and I don't need to imagine how bad they were back then because it's referenced. Specifically no - generally yes (as I wrote before). I do recommend noting where the roads intersect with train tracks too. As we know from researching Hammond it doesn't work like it does today. Again, there are multiple circumstances, and variables that existed in 1932 that do not exist today ... and vice-versa. Lindbergh was not at all a;timid driver and could have easily covered this distance in an hour-and-a-half. Let's also remember that the only person to provide an approximate time of Lindbergh's call from NYC or somewhere enroute was Elsie Whateley who estimated the call came in "about 7:00 pm." Had it even been fifteen minutes earlier, and given his arrival time at Highfields at approximately 8:25 pm, it seems more than reasonable for him to have covered the 60 or so miles from NYC in less than an hour-and-a-half. Lindbergh was a risk-taker for sure. There's no argument here. But does that risk carry over into abusing his car during his day to day travels along the "bad" roads or "terrible" country roads? Would he, for example, not care about "destroying" his personal vehicle like was being done to the NJSP cars? Its a consideration that needs to be made. Again - none of us drove these roads in 1932, so we must rely on what the research and documentation reveals. I've asked for other references to the time it took from other sources so I could cross-reference them with known documentation. Is that really too much to ask if this is actually a serious question? Again, I'm open to anything real and tangible from back during that time period, but all I've got says what it says. As I said earlier, I might be missing and/or forgetting something so enlighten me so I can consider it. Next, and this is really an important question for Joe: What is your personal bias against Elsie Whateley as a source for time? Think about that for a second. I do realize the issue of time in 1932 might be a little different as it is today. For example, I drove to Flemington again on Thursday to do more research and I can tell you, to the minute, when I left and when I got there. Of course that's because I was staring at clock on my dash the entire time. So unless that clock is wrong (somehow I think you might suggest that if it involved this matter) then its indisputable. Back then all they had was a pocket watch or a public clock to refer to. But when it comes to servants and aristocrats, who would be more reliable as to the time? Who's job is it to know what time it was, and what duties were expected at certain times? In fact, I submit that Anne would ask Elsie what time it was concerning most things. That's not to say she couldn't have been off, one way or the other, by a few minutes. And that's the other issue I think you should realize. If you are going to consider a mistake or error in one direction then you absolutely must consider it the other way as well. On a side-note, I couldn't remember my source for the example I gave concerning the "race-car" driver averaging 43mph so I took to google. I didn't find what I was remembering but I did find this link which is very interesting and informative: Franklin hired Erwin “Cannon Ball” Baker in 1928 to establish a transcontinental record in the then-new Airman Limited. Baker did indeed set a new record, averaging 42.5 mph on the ungodly roads of that day. As a reward, Franklin hired Baker full time, paid him well and set up an office for him in Syracuse. Cannon Ball’s main function was to generate publicity by setting records and driving Franklin automobiles to odd and unlikely places like Death Valley. theoldmotor.com/?p=147941I notice the term " ungodly" as it concerns the roads. Of course this doesn't cover NJ but it does exemplify something I've been trying to impress upon anyone in order to understand what I've been finding concerning the descriptions of roads. Anyway, I am open to any variation in time as long as I get something real to consider.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Jan 11, 2020 9:00:23 GMT -5
I am guessing you mean all the lights on Rt. 1? I’m not sure about where the call was made - either of them. I still wonder why it was too late on the 29th at 7 but not too late on the 1st at 7. It’s important to step back and look at everything. But of course maybe Joe could make it work by suggesting he actually called at 7:15 on the 29th? LOL. The “slide-rule” effect always seems to fall in ones favor doesn’t it? I, for one, am not “Winnie the Pooh(ing) anything. Fact is, if Rosner’s trip to NYC from Princeton, Fisher’s trip from NYC to Flemington, and Ellerson’s trip from Englewood all took 2 hours or longer - I don’t care what kind of car CAL was driving. So how does one explain it without ignoring these examples or providing other sources that say differently? Like I said, it’s about the situation in 1932, and not the speed of the car. I need other sources to counter what Ive read. Unfortunately I can’t simply accept Joe’s whims on this subject as proof of anything. I am happy though, that he didn’t besmirch another good Rabbit’s name in the process. I've become very familiar Michael, with your own use of the "slide rule" effect commonly used to support your underlying theory, and have come to simply disregard it while reading your otherwise excellent books. Try to consider that one individual's approximation of the time of a phone call doesn't set things in stone as you seem to have done in this case. NYC to Highfields by road, is a pretty linear and straightforward consideration as all you really need to do is the math. And how familiar do you think Lindbergh would have been with his route home, as opposed to others who were probably not "driving to get home?" Your are correct when you state that all things must be considered.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 11, 2020 9:24:53 GMT -5
I've become very familiar Michael, with your own use of the "slide rule" effect commonly used to support your underlying theory, and have come to simply disregard it while reading your otherwise excellent books. Try to consider that one individual's approximation of the time of a phone call doesn't set things in stone as you seem to have done in this case. NYC to Highfields by road, is a pretty linear and straightforward consideration as all you really need to do is the math. And how familiar do you think Lindbergh would have been with his route home, as opposed to others who were probably not "driving to get home?" Your are correct when you state that all things must be considered. Joe - by all means call me out where ever you happen to believe I am doing this and we'll discuss. As far as the possibility that Elsie wasn't 100% on the money concerning the time isn't something I would ever say can't be possible. Your other point about Lindbergh being familiar with the drive is another consideration and one I've made. Heck, he's the one writing out directions - right? But, at least for me, I can't see that accounting for shaving off (at least) a half-hour of drive time. We also know that March 1st was a windy night, and I believe that would have slowed anyone down as well. How much I cannot say. But, for example, concerning Rosner's account I have to assume the wind wasn't like it was on the 1st. We also have to consider deer as well. Even today that's a consideration - a big one actually. Concerning your point about Lindbergh's haste to "get home." I don't see that as pressing on a supposedly ordinary night as opposed to someone like Rosner who wrote that he "immediately jumped" into his car in order to get to the city trying to get the baby back. Maybe he was lying and immediately jumped into his car to take a quick nap before setting off? I try to look at everything Joe - both sides. Are you doing that? Sometimes posts here, to absolutely include yours, come up with angles or perspectives I missed or did not consider. Frankly I embrace them because everything must be in order to figure this thing out. So whatever you do - don't think I am purposely avoiding anything because I'm not. Something Stella asked was a good question and one I've asked myself. Why did Lindbergh live in Hopewell if the drive was about 2 hours? The first thing that comes to my mind is that I've worked with people driving that distance away from the job. Of course that doesn't explain it but it happens. Next, its obvious if he doesn't feel like making the drive he simply goes to Englewood. But I am still bothered by "why" one night was "too late" for the drive when the very next under the same time-frame was not. That, to me, does not make any sense. Of course I am looking at it through the lens of this crime. It could be he was ill or something. But I can only really consider what the documentation gives me and I think that would have been mentioned as the reason instead of blaming it on time if that was the case. (Off topic: I watched "Midsommer" last night and my head is still spinning. My brain is in knots even this morning. I originally thought it wasn't "good" but the damn thing is still haunting me so I guess that means it was better than I thought ... or perhaps worse).
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Jan 11, 2020 9:33:42 GMT -5
I see the Lindbergh directions which were posted by Wayne now, and in them CAL does suggest the same Hwy. 27 route that I "crayoned" out. Of course, we'll probably never know the actual road conditions that presented themselves on the night of March 1, 1932. Bottom line, I certainly wouldn't rule out the likelihood of the guy who flew the Atlantic by himself, to have covered the distance he drove that night, in an hour-and-a-half.
I have no bias against Elsie Whateley as a time source and regard her best recollection neutrally, simply as an approximation as she herself testified. After all, she made no mention of having looked at a time source and seemed to have offered the general time she did, based on the performance of her household duties and interactions with others in the house around dinner time. If it works for you, so be it but I just don't feel that's good enough to continually make the case you have, that the call came in "at 7:00 pm."
Oops.. I actually pulled the section of my comment regarding Lindbergh's Franklin Sedan, at about 3:00 am this morning, when I woke up and realized he was driving his brown Lincoln Sedan on the evening of March 1, 1932. In any case, I'd venture his Lincoln would have given the old Franklin Airman a good run for it's money between NYC and Highfields.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jan 11, 2020 9:49:35 GMT -5
As I'm reading it Lindbergh's instructions say to pick up Rt 27 after New Brunswick so we really don't know what other road he drove to get into the city. The biggest question in my mind is where he would be calling from along his way since you think he was much closer to home. Did gas stations or restaurants commonly have telephone booths in 1932? Wouldn't he risk being seen? He was a pretty recognizable fellow.
And yes I was just broadsided by 2 deer in November on 518 in the pouring rain.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Jan 11, 2020 9:58:21 GMT -5
I've become very familiar Michael, with your own use of the "slide rule" effect commonly used to support your underlying theory, and have come to simply disregard it while reading your otherwise excellent books. Try to consider that one individual's approximation of the time of a phone call doesn't set things in stone as you seem to have done in this case. NYC to Highfields by road, is a pretty linear and straightforward consideration as all you really need to do is the math. And how familiar do you think Lindbergh would have been with his route home, as opposed to others who were probably not "driving to get home?" Your are correct when you state that all things must be considered. Joe - by all means call me out where ever you happen to believe I am doing this and we'll discuss. As far as the possibility that Elsie wasn't 100% on the money concerning the time isn't something I would ever say can't be possible. Your other point about Lindbergh being familiar with the drive is another consideration and one I've made. Heck, he's the one writing out directions - right? But, at least for me, I can't see that accounting for shaving off (at least) a half-hour of drive time. We also know that March 1st was a windy night, and I believe that would have slowed anyone down as well. How much I cannot say. But, for example, concerning Rosner's account I have to assume the wind wasn't like it was on the 1st. We also have to consider deer as well. Even today that's a consideration - a big one actually. Concerning your point about Lindbergh's haste to "get home." I don't see that as pressing on a supposedly ordinary night as opposed to someone like Rosner who wrote that he "immediately jumped" into his car in order to get to the city trying to get the baby back. Maybe he was lying and immediately jumped into his car to take a quick nap before setting off? I try to look at everything Joe - both sides. Are you doing that? Sometimes posts here, to absolutely include yours, come up with angles or perspectives I missed or did not consider. Frankly I embrace them because everything must be in order to figure this thing out. So whatever you do - don't think I am purposely avoiding anything because I'm not. Something Stella asked was a good question and one I've asked myself. Why did Lindbergh live in Hopewell if the drive was about 2 hours? The first thing that comes to my mind is that I've worked with people driving that distance away from the job. Of course that doesn't explain it but it happens. Next, its obvious if he doesn't feel like making the drive he simply goes to Englewood. But I am still bothered by "why" one night was "too late" for the drive when the very next under the same time-frame was not. That, to me, does not make any sense. Of course I am looking at it through the lens of this crime. It could be he was ill or something. But I can only really consider what the documentation gives me and I think that would have been mentioned as the reason instead of blaming it on time if that was the case. Michael, to be very honest, I just don't have the time or motivation available to explore every example I see, but I certainly will keep it in mind and appreciate your request. We also don't know anything much about the drives made by Ellerson, Rosner, Breckinridge, Will Rogers or any other visitor during that time. Did they stop along the way, have engine or general car problems, run into bad road conditions, have to be detoured, etc.? I'd venture that most people back in the day just tacitly accepted there was no guarantee of arriving on time, unless they gave themselves plenty of buffer. On the other hand, unless any travel holdups were implicitly communicated by Lindbergh himself after arriving home at 8:25 pm, I have little reason to doubt he left NYC sometime just before 7:00 pm. Lindbergh chose his home location north of Hopewell in part because he intended to commute between NYC and his home by airplane, via the personal airfield he had plans to build. The raised elevation location would also have kept fog at a reasonable level.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Jan 11, 2020 10:09:08 GMT -5
As I'm reading it Lindbergh's instructions say to pick up Rt 27 after New Brunswick so we really don't know what other road he drove to get into the city. The biggest question in my mind is where he would be calling from along his way since you think he was much closer to home. Did gas stations or restaurants commonly have telephone booths in 1932? Wouldn't he risk being seen? He was a pretty recognizable fellow. And yes I was just broadsided by 2 deer in November on 518 in the pouring rain. He could even have used a private phone anywhere along the way, but due to his private nature, I can't really see that happening. After all, if you're telling someone you're on your way home, isn't that usually done from Point A? BTW, a couple of Christmases ago, my car was t-boned by an albino white deer while driving through a residential neighbourhood that bordered a conservation area. Check out that one in a book of animal symbols!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 11, 2020 10:15:17 GMT -5
As I'm reading it Lindbergh's instructions say to pick up Rt 27 after New Brunswick so we really don't know what other road he drove to get into the city. The biggest question in my mind is where he would be calling from along his way since you think he was much closer to home. Did gas stations or restaurants commonly have telephone booths in 1932? Wouldn't he risk being seen? He was a pretty recognizable fellow. And yes I was just broadsided by 2 deer in November on 518 in the pouring rain. It's a good question. There's a lot questions to be asked. And of course there's catch-22s right? Like the fact Whited actually claimed he saw a car the NJSP believed was Lindbergh coming home. Here you'll have a group who believe Whited's testimony but ignore this fact. There were payphones, and there were phones in houses. From the phone record investigations that I've been able to find, they mostly focused on calls made from Hopewell out. So anyone who made a call on March 1st to Brooklyn for example, they would run that down to find out who called who and for what reason. I've never found anything concerning the incoming calls to Highfields on March 1st. Again - its always possible that I missed or forgot something but in this specific area I highly doubt it. As to Lindbergh being identified... There's your proof concerning Whited above - right? What became of that? There could have also been a place he was comfortable. Also remember that Lindbergh wore a disguise when he supposedly identified Hauptmann's voice. I've got something new on this too. Lanigan gave a big smile to Sisk when telling him about that one. Sisk related this to Hoover who immediately suspected it was bogus - among other things. Sorry to hear about that! I've seen deer literally run into cars. Recently, I had one slowly walk out in front of me without a care in the world. People feed them so they become less and less worried about cars and people. There was a fawn last year who was completely unafraid of people and I had to walk around it to get to my car in the parking lot. On the tow paths between the canal and the river the deer there are damn near tame. Seems cool but people can be dangerous for any number of reasons so its not a good situation for them to be certain. The other thing I've found is that deer aren't stupid. But if they are afraid, they tend to double back. So they might dart out in front of your car, safely make it, then turn around and come back directly into your path. It seems they feel protected in a dangerous situation returning to where they came from apparently because they know its safe there as opposed to where they haven't been.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 11, 2020 10:33:17 GMT -5
We also don't know anything much about the drives made by Ellerson, Rosner, Breckinridge, Will Rogers or any other visitor during that time. Did they stop along the way, have engine or general car problems, run into bad road conditions, have to be detoured, etc.? I'd venture that most people back in the day just tacitly accepted there was no guarantee of arriving on time, unless they gave themselves plenty of buffer. On the other hand, unless any travel holdups were implicitly communicated by Lindbergh himself after arriving home at 8:25 pm, I have little reason to doubt he left NYC sometime just before 7:00 pm. We don't know what we don't know. But we do know what we do. So I agree that anything is possible as it relates to the certain accounts. But if something isn't mentioned I think the odds are low. But that's just me. However, if you start to do this everywhere you are going to have a huge problem in formulating any kind of account. So I'd consider possibilities but also consider the odds as well. As an example, Rosner said for the first three days it wasn't unusual for Police to pull over cars to search for the child and talked about that happening to him. Fisher mentioned this happening to him near the tunnel on March 1st but then not seeing any police afterwards. So these accounts seem to agree and disagree at the same time. But without the accounts its kind of hard to imagine something then rely on it. Lindbergh chose his home location north of Hopewell in part because he intended to commute between NYC and his home by airplane, via the personal airfield he had plans to build. The raised elevation location would also have kept fog at a reasonable level. That was supposedly the eventual plan. Who's idea was it to drive down on the weekends before that house was ready? Albino Deer = extremely rare. Did it survive? Regardless, go play the lottery.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jan 11, 2020 13:00:15 GMT -5
wayne, what does this have to do with the kidnapping Hi Wolf, You have to wonder why CAL, who was desperate to find his son, repeatedly and often misled the police and press. He even told Walsh that Anne heard the ladder breaking (again, another lie). Also during the 72 days of the kidnapping, there are numerous accounts by numerous witnesses that CAL was repeatedly playing practical jokes. I'll be glad to list them for you. Lying to the police & the media and playing practical jokes does not seem like an optimal plan to get your son back, does it? Honestly, can you see John Walsh behaving like this?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Jan 11, 2020 18:23:19 GMT -5
It was one of the strangest and most unexpected things I've ever experienced. A large white blur in my left peripheral vision from out of nowhere, followed a split second later by a large bang. It was a buck, as it left a couple of rack dents in the driver side back door, and some crumpled metal to the tune of $2500 dollars in damages. In my side view mirror, I saw it stumble to its feet (hooves I guess) and take off, but not sure if it made it. Even though it wasn't my fault, I guess they really couldn't go after the other driver in this case, so I got stuck with the deductible and a nice collection of snow white hair stuck in the molding of my back door window! In native North American culture the sighting of an albino deer was taken very seriously and prompted meetings between the elders to determine what fortune lay ahead, usually within the growing season ahead.. and perhaps casino revenue today. In any case, I'm still working but perhaps my blessings have come in other ways.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Jan 11, 2020 18:26:29 GMT -5
wayne, what does this have to do with the kidnapping Hi Wolf, You have to wonder why CAL, who was desperate to find his son, repeatedly and often misled the police and press. He even told Walsh that Anne heard the ladder breaking (again, another lie). Also during the 72 days of the kidnapping, there are numerous accounts by numerous witnesses that CAL was repeatedly playing practical jokes. I'll be glad to list them for you. Lying to the police & the media and playing practical jokes does not seem like an optimal plan to get your son back, does it? Honestly, can you see John Walsh behaving like this? Why do you even consider or imagine this, being that John Walsh was not Charles Lindbergh, or vice-versa?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jan 11, 2020 19:12:49 GMT -5
Hi Wolf, You have to wonder why CAL, who was desperate to find his son, repeatedly and often misled the police and press. He even told Walsh that Anne heard the ladder breaking (again, another lie). Also during the 72 days of the kidnapping, there are numerous accounts by numerous witnesses that CAL was repeatedly playing practical jokes. I'll be glad to list them for you. Lying to the police & the media and playing practical jokes does not seem like an optimal plan to get your son back, does it? Honestly, can you see John Walsh behaving like this? Why do you even consider or imagine this, being that John Walsh was not Charles Lindbergh, or vice-versa? Gee, Joe, lying to the NJSP, lying to the NYPD, lying to the FBI, lying to the press, playing practical jokes while his son was missing. Yes, Joe, you've convinced me this is perfect behavior for a father who is trying to find his son. Well done.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jan 11, 2020 19:16:46 GMT -5
As well as waiting 15 1/2 hours to take a look at the sleeping suit after it was delivered to Condon. CAL must have had more important and pressing matters.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Jan 11, 2020 20:07:59 GMT -5
As well as waiting 15 1/2 hours to take a look at the sleeping suit after it was delivered to Condon. CAL must have had more important and pressing matters. Wayne, as much as I admire your research abilities and tenacity, I believe you and some others here are beating a dead horse that goes nowhere but down a rabbit hole trying to reconcile the intricacies within the base personality of Charles Lindbergh as you see them pertaining towards an incredibly-more nefarious outcome. As I've stated innumerable times in the past, I don't like Lindbergh's personality. His immature behaviour would annoy me immensely on the best of days, despite the great contributions he made to aviation and advancement of the human spirit towards the attainment of things that were once only dreamed about. Your agenda here seems very clear, but have you not yet found it rather engaging that not one single and tangible piece of conclusive proof backs up your seeming need to "rack up points" to prove in this kind of misappropriated way, that Lindbergh was the force behind his son's kidnapping and death?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jan 11, 2020 20:19:54 GMT -5
As well as waiting 15 1/2 hours to take a look at the sleeping suit after it was delivered to Condon. CAL must have had more important and pressing matters. Wayne, as much as I admire your research abilities and tenacity, I believe you and some others here are beating a dead horse that goes nowhere but down a rabbit hole trying to reconcile the intricacies within the base personality of Charles Lindbergh as you see it pertaining towards an incredibly-more nefarious outcome. As I've stated innumerable times in the past, I don't like Lindbergh's personality. His immature behaviour would annoy me immensely on the best of days, despite the great contributions he made to aviation and advancement of the human spirit towards the attainment of things that were once only dreamed about. Your agenda here seems very clear, but have you not yet found it rather engaging that not one single and tangible piece of conclusive proof backs up your assertions, speculation and seeming need to "rack up points" to prove in this kind of misappropriated way, that Lindbergh was the force behind his son's kidnapping and death? Joe, have I said I have an agenda? I'm completely on the fence. I'm simply just asking questions that need to be asked, trying to make sense of things that don't make since. So, my friend, I'm all ears -- please show me "one single and tangible piece of conclusive proof" that BRH climbed into the nursery, abducted Charlie, and then killed him.
|
|
|
Post by Wondering on Jan 11, 2020 22:24:01 GMT -5
And why would Lindbergh not have told the police that his son had light brown hair when he was kidnapped instead of the golden curls the press and police were reporting?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Jan 13, 2020 12:06:05 GMT -5
Wayne, as much as I admire your research abilities and tenacity, I believe you and some others here are beating a dead horse that goes nowhere but down a rabbit hole trying to reconcile the intricacies within the base personality of Charles Lindbergh as you see it pertaining towards an incredibly-more nefarious outcome. As I've stated innumerable times in the past, I don't like Lindbergh's personality. His immature behaviour would annoy me immensely on the best of days, despite the great contributions he made to aviation and advancement of the human spirit towards the attainment of things that were once only dreamed about. Your agenda here seems very clear, but have you not yet found it rather engaging that not one single and tangible piece of conclusive proof backs up your assertions, speculation and seeming need to "rack up points" to prove in this kind of misappropriated way, that Lindbergh was the force behind his son's kidnapping and death? Joe, have I said I have an agenda? I'm completely on the fence. I'm simply just asking questions that need to be asked, trying to make sense of things that don't make since. So, my friend, I'm all ears -- please show me "one single and tangible piece of conclusive proof" that BRH climbed into the nursery, abducted Charlie, and then killed him. Wayne, I don't believe you or anyone else here would actually come out and say "I have an agenda within my study of this case." And I can't provide what you're looking for, but can tell you that Hauptmann played a major role within the kidnapping plan and execution through the circumstantial physical ladder/wood and handwriting evidence that connects him implicitly. I really don't care if he was actual individual who climbed the ladder, entered the nursery and carried off CALjr. (although that would be a bonus) Are you also sitting on the fence about whether or not he was involved in the kidnapping?
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Jan 13, 2020 14:07:30 GMT -5
Another factor limiting speed that has not been discussed is the absence of streetlighting and the relatively poor quality of automobile headlights of the era. "Studies into the matter resulted in the adjustment of beam patterns, and hence the realization that light directed in a certain way could make things safer for drivers, and also less imposing on oncoming motorists. As the 1930s progressed, the industry launched a slew of lighting innovations, including the replaceable glass lens, the integrated bulb and the metal reflector headlight. The ultimate innovation of the 1930s, however, was the sealed beam headlight. Making its debut in 1936, the sealed beam contained light within a circular enclosure that featured plug prongs in back. With this design, cars could produce light more safely and efficiently than ever. Once a bulb had expired, it could simply be taken into an auto shop and replaced. By decade’s end, the sealed-beam headlight design had become mandatory on all motor vehicles. In the history of automotive headlights, the 1930s were significant for expanding the concepts of light design and how it can enhance the driving experience. The industry was now offering a range of headlight bulb types that housed light more safely, while also addressing both the positive and negative effects that bright lights can have on fellow motorists in trafficked situations. With these advances, automakers exited the primitive stages of light design and entered the period that many drivers would recognize as the modern era of headlights." www.theretrofitsource.com/blog/history-automotive-lighting/Candlepower (CP) and lumens measure different light qualities, and 1 candlepower equals 12.57 lumens. A 1933 Chrysler headlight output was a measly 21 CP (265 Lumens); a 2000 Chrysler headlight output ranged between 70-88 CP (880-1100 lumens). Can you imagine tearing along unlit rural country roads on a stormy night with headlights only a third the power of modern headlights? You may know the route and be a great driver, but you can't overdrive your headlights...
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Jan 14, 2020 7:31:35 GMT -5
It's difficult getting anything in the way of a detailed map to upload here due to file size restriction. Anything that can upload loses detail with enlargement. I hope this is good enough.. it just has to be rotated counterclockwise. Hopewell is about an inch to the right of the red post-it square. Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jan 14, 2020 8:58:54 GMT -5
Thank-you Mary and Joe, I'll take a look!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2020 19:54:10 GMT -5
So I found an interesting NJSP report not too long ago. It seems that the authorities went checking back issues of New York papers to see if they could find any articles that publicized in advance that Lindbergh was to be at the NYU dinner the night of March 1, 1932. imgur.com/eKzgucGThe kidnappers had asked for ransom note responses in the New York American and once the New York Journal as an alternate. Authorities knew the kidnappers were reading these papers so it makes sense they would check to see if they (the kidnappers) had been tipped by a newspaper article in one of them that Lindbergh would not be at home the night of March 1. The New York Times did carry an article in its February 28, 1932 edition about the dinner but there is no mention of Lindbergh as a guest in that article. imgur.com/dslqLo9How likely is it that the kidnappers were checking newspapers hoping(?), at some point, to come across a story that would say Lindbergh would not be home on a certain night and that is how they chose the date to commit the snatch? I wonder if this was on the minds of the authorities when they went looking for some article confirmation that could be used as a source for such planning by the kidnappers.
|
|
|
Post by Miakat on Oct 16, 2023 9:28:34 GMT -5
So I found an interesting NJSP report not too long ago. It seems that the authorities went checking back issues of New York papers to see if they could find any articles that publicized in advance that Lindbergh was to be at the NYU dinner the night of March 1, 1932. imgur.com/eKzgucGThe kidnappers had asked for ransom note responses in the New York American and once the New York Journal as an alternate. Authorities knew the kidnappers were reading these papers so it makes sense they would check to see if they (the kidnappers) had been tipped by a newspaper article in one of them that Lindbergh would not be at home the night of March 1. The New York Times did carry an article in its February 28, 1932 edition about the dinner but there is no mention of Lindbergh as a guest in that article. imgur.com/dslqLo9How likely is it that the kidnappers were checking newspapers hoping(?), at some point, to come across a story that would say Lindbergh would not be home on a certain night and that is how they chose the date to commit the snatch? I wonder if this was on the minds of the authorities when they went looking for some article confirmation that could be used as a source for such planning by the kidnappers. That NJSP Report was interesting. Given they didn't look at all the relevant newspapers, I had a look and found an article in the NY Times dated February 21, 1932 which stated that CAL was going to attend the dinner and that he was a speaker.
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Oct 16, 2023 15:31:16 GMT -5
That is a great article you found! Thanks for finding and posting it. Could this have had anything to do with why March 1 was chosen for the kidnap night? Even if it did, how would Hauptmann or any other outsider know that Charlie would be there on a Tuesday night when he never was before?
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Oct 16, 2023 17:03:38 GMT -5
1932 was a leap year -- an added day of February 29th every four years.
I have always thought that the extra day may have thrown someone off, maybe even Lindbergh?
"30 days has September, April, June, and November. All the rest have 31, except for February with 28, and 29 in each leap year."
Do you remember that saying?
Years ago, that was the way many learned the amount of days in each month. Knowing how many days in each month probably is just as important as learning the Times Table or the Periodic Table! Not any more? Bring back the Trivium? Not a bad idea.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 16, 2023 21:17:43 GMT -5
Just staggering to me that the police didn’t look into why Lindbergh didn’t attend. Like it’s a massive red flag and they ignored it, even after Scotland Yard specifically mentioned the possibility the baby had been “destroyed” for health reasons and a kidnapping staged.
|
|