Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2020 7:37:17 GMT -5
So glad I had a chance to see the second Fred Hahn statement. It is obvious the prosecution wanted to use Fred Hahn because he saw that money at Hauptmann's house. Hahn was willing to say it was the month of July so that the money would have been in the new radio, but he was not going to change what Hauptmann told him about that money and Fisch being attached to it. So the prosecution could not use Hahn as a witness.
Looks like Joe was right about Gobel turning up dead. He really was! Ransom money had turned up in the Consolidated Gas Company bank deposits, if I am remembering correctly. I will check later. Very interesting possible connection!
Thank you Michael for posting that statement!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2020 7:42:45 GMT -5
Here's a couple more pics of Hauptmann's "old timer," the Brunswick Super Heterodyne Model 160, that he gifted to the Muellers sometime in 1934. Great pictures, Joe. Radios were such an important household item at this time period. Hauptmann was extremely proud of his new one. He loved showing it off. Could it be because radios were a status symbol back then? Sort of like cars are?
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Sept 16, 2020 8:47:09 GMT -5
you got it joe, while im talking about hauptmans apt, when i was in the attic near where rail 16 was i didnt see any plumbing pipes near it. was it a electrician or a plumber who people claim took the whole pieceofwood out and brought it to the basement. i will have to look at my photos i took when i was up there
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Sept 16, 2020 8:48:59 GMT -5
joe, im not buying anymore lindbergh kidnap books, im done. pearlmans book is the last one
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Sept 16, 2020 13:45:50 GMT -5
you got it joe, while im talking about hauptmans apt, when i was in the attic near where rail 16 was i didnt see any plumbing pipes near it. was it a electrician or a plumber who people claim took the whole pieceofwood out and brought it to the basement. i will have to look at my photos i took when i was up there Steve, it was electricians who removed part of the toeboard, (Board 27) so that they could drop wiring down the opening between walls for electrical fixtures to be installed, well before Hauptmann moved in. The removed piece had most likely been sitting in the basement for many years and then found by Hauptmann, who fashioned it into Rail 16.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Sept 16, 2020 13:49:25 GMT -5
joe, im not buying anymore lindbergh kidnap books, im done. pearlmans book is the last one My copy is still enroute and as much as I'm looking forward to reading it, the theory is a really tough row to hoe and I'm getting an uneasy feeling about its actual value. I guess we'll see, but general discussion on this book seems to have basically dropped off a cliff lately.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Sept 16, 2020 18:27:37 GMT -5
according to who
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Sept 17, 2020 7:26:03 GMT -5
Steve, is your question about who removed the missing length of attic toeboard?
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Sept 17, 2020 15:51:49 GMT -5
yes acording to who said rail16 was in the basement
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 17, 2020 19:19:33 GMT -5
yes acording to who said rail16 was in the basement It's in V3 pages 269-418. I don't blame you for not buying anymore LKC books if all you are going to do is curl up to Fisher every night. Crack open a different one now and then and you might learn something new.
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Sept 17, 2020 19:50:39 GMT -5
I understand, Amy, but the only warnings by Mueller to Hauptmann about Fisch's questionable character could have come after Hauptmann's arrest. There weren't any before that. Actually, Hans was warning Hauptmann that he should not trust Fisch before Hauptmann was ever arrested. This is revealed in the prison cell conversation between Anna and Richard of October 24, 1934. Anna reminds Richard about the warnings Hans had given Richard about Fisch being no good. The warnings were before Hauptmann was ever apprehended. This is why I think Mueller had heard things about Fisch and didn't want Hauptmann to trust Fisch. I did post this in the past but I will post it again here. imgur.com/mMRXKpmI understand about being consistent in your convictions. I have some convictions concerning this case that I stand solidly behind also. Every researcher has to decide for themselves the weight they give to the documents they read based on what they understand about this case at the time they are reading them. Thank you for offering to ask Michael to post the January 5, 1935 Hahn statement. I have asked Michael for too many things already! That is true. To me, cross-referencing facts and documents and analyzing people's actions and motives helps me to draw what I believe are plausible conclusions in this case. I've tried to do this in the Hahn matter as well. To reiterate: Hahn said he saw the money in the Victrola in either June or July '32, when Anna was away. That makes it July, as Anna left for Germany on July 1. He didn't see the Stromberg-Carlson, which definitely makes it later than May '32. He said Hauptmann drove him to Hunters Island, then he changed his mind and said it was his friend Gobel. He said Hauptmann took him around in his canoe, then drove him home, with a stop at the Hauptmann apartment. Hauptmann bought his canoe on July 7, '32, proving again that this alleged Victrola incident could only have occurred in July. Wilentz brought up Hahn's Victrola story at the trial, placing it as far back as April, because he knew very well that Hahn would have noticed the new radio any time after about May 2, when it was delivered. He was desperate for April and did his best (= worst) to confuse the jury on this topic. If, as you believe, Amy, Hahn saw the money and heard the name Fisch in April '32, when everybody had read in the papers that the ransom had been paid, and Hahn had his suspicions about Hauptmann all along at that time, as he would later say, why didn't he contact the authorities to tell his Victrola story then? He even had a second chance to do so: Shortly after Hauptmann's arrest, the newspapers reported that two $20 bills had been discovered in the Victrola. Again, Hahn kept silent. He finally gave his first statement to Breslin on November 19, 1934, and waited or was kept waiting until January 5, 1935, to give his second. Once Fisch and Hauptmann were, by apparently sheer coincidence, “reintroduced” at the Henkels' apartment about August 2, 1932, after supposedly having been complicit in the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby and the subsequent extortion of the ransom, what suddenly freed up their previously secret, clandestine relationship to the outside world? They became practically inseparable. There is no explanation for such a change in behavior. Hahn's statements contain too many inconsistencies, and even the one consistent point about seeing the money in the Victrola had its origin in a newspaper article. He had plenty of opportunity to come forward with his information on the case early on but didn't. He was a liar – in my view. (My last two cents on this topic
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2020 21:36:19 GMT -5
OK! Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Sept 18, 2020 6:06:18 GMT -5
curl up to fisher? whatis your points in your books. i dont think you solved anything, the evidence is still there,i think you over anylize alot of theories
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Sept 19, 2020 9:56:36 GMT -5
Actually, Hans was warning Hauptmann that he should not trust Fisch before Hauptmann was ever arrested. This is revealed in the prison cell conversation between Anna and Richard of October 24, 1934. Anna reminds Richard about the warnings Hans had given Richard about Fisch being no good. The warnings were before Hauptmann was ever apprehended. This is why I think Mueller had heard things about Fisch and didn't want Hauptmann to trust Fisch. I did post this in the past but I will post it again here. imgur.com/mMRXKpmI understand about being consistent in your convictions. I have some convictions concerning this case that I stand solidly behind also. Every researcher has to decide for themselves the weight they give to the documents they read based on what they understand about this case at the time they are reading them. Thank you for offering to ask Michael to post the January 5, 1935 Hahn statement. I have asked Michael for too many things already! That is true. To me, cross-referencing facts and documents and analyzing people's actions and motives helps me to draw what I believe are plausible conclusions in this case. I've tried to do this in the Hahn matter as well. (Agreed.. the only way to go. Thanks to your recent information, that process continues.. Joe)To reiterate: Hahn said he saw the money in the Victrola in either June or July '32, when Anna was away. That makes it July, as Anna left for Germany on July 1. He didn't see the Stromberg-Carlson, which definitely makes it later than May '32. He said Hauptmann drove him to Hunters Island, then he changed his mind and said it was his friend Gobel. (What is your source that Hahn first claimed Hauptmann drove him when they visited Hunter's Island? I may have missed it, but don't see that specifically mentioned in Hahn's first statement. Joe) He said Hauptmann took him around in his canoe, then drove him home, with a stop at the Hauptmann apartment. Hauptmann bought his canoe on July 7, '32, proving again that this alleged Victrola incident could only have occurred in July. Wilentz brought up Hahn's Victrola story at the trial, placing it as far back as April, because he knew very well that Hahn would have noticed the new radio any time after about May 2, when it was delivered. He was desperate for April and did his best (= worst) to confuse the jury on this topic. (Do you know if the Stromberg-Carlsen had ever left the Hauptmann residence, possibly for warranty work? Maybe a long shot here, but is there anything within the Davega records to indicate this possibility? Hauptmann didn't gift the Brunswick to the Muellers until early in 1934, so it seems likely it was still part of the Hauptmann furnishings even after Richard purchased the Stromberg-Carlsen. Joe)If, as you believe, Amy, Hahn saw the money and heard the name Fisch in April '32, when everybody had read in the papers that the ransom had been paid, and Hahn had his suspicions about Hauptmann all along at that time, as he would later say, why didn't he contact the authorities to tell his Victrola story then? He even had a second chance to do so: Shortly after Hauptmann's arrest, the newspapers reported that two $20 bills had been discovered in the Victrola. Again, Hahn kept silent. He finally gave his first statement to Breslin on November 19, 1934, and waited or was kept waiting until January 5, 1935, to give his second. (Hahn does indicate he was wrestling with the decision whether or not to report his suspicions to Detectives Burke or Madden, and that documented others tended to dissuade him. If he had acted as he considered doing, such a statement would have been a monumental stain by anyone's standards given the case's notoriety and implications of having labelled a friend or acquaintance of such a crime. I'm sure such a scenario was actively being played out by many suspecting people with much less to go on, within NYC. Joe) Once Fisch and Hauptmann were, by apparently sheer coincidence, “reintroduced” at the Henkels' apartment about August 2, 1932, after supposedly having been complicit in the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby and the subsequent extortion of the ransom, what suddenly freed up their previously secret, clandestine relationship to the outside world? They became practically inseparable. There is no explanation for such a change in behavior. (I disagree. Such an introduction through mutual friends would have been cathartic for both Hauptmann and Fisch, because they now would have had no reason to keep any ill-pursued relationship a secret. Joe) Hahn's statements contain too many inconsistencies, and even the one consistent point about seeing the money in the Victrola had its origin in a newspaper article. He had plenty of opportunity to come forward with his information on the case early on but didn't. He was a liar – in my view. (My last two cents on this topic (Hahn's statement contains too much in the way of corroborative and recalled detail and consistency (and with his wife) to not at least point to a very real suspicion on his part. Definitely worth more drilling down to an unalterable truth and I sincerely hope you don't throw out the baby with the bathwater here! Joe)
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Sept 19, 2020 10:12:22 GMT -5
yes acording to who said rail16 was in the basement Steve, from the time I began with this case, I have never been able to visualize Hauptmann ever having been in a position of having to cannibalize his attic for a piece of wood for his ladder. I just don't buy it, not to mention the sloppy cut leaving the overhang beyond the joist which would make no sense at all for even an average carpenter like Hauptmann to do. There is also the fact that Rail 16 shows no joist / dirt shadowing from having been part of the attic floor from the time Koski laid it, something that would have been there if Hauptmann had removed it just before the kidnapping. Hauptmann had access to the Rauch basement and his retrieving the discarded piece of toeboard from there, does very little to harm the position that it was he who built the ladder. The electricians' work is well documented and put forth in Michael's book. He has no argument from me on this one.
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Sept 19, 2020 14:24:19 GMT -5
That is true. To me, cross-referencing facts and documents and analyzing people's actions and motives helps me to draw what I believe are plausible conclusions in this case. I've tried to do this in the Hahn matter as well. (Agreed.. the only way to go. Thanks to your recent information, that process continues.. Joe)To reiterate: Hahn said he saw the money in the Victrola in either June or July '32, when Anna was away. That makes it July, as Anna left for Germany on July 1. He didn't see the Stromberg-Carlson, which definitely makes it later than May '32. He said Hauptmann drove him to Hunters Island, then he changed his mind and said it was his friend Gobel. (What is your source that Hahn first claimed Hauptmann drove him when they visited Hunter's Island? I may have missed it, but don't see that specifically mentioned in Hahn's first statement. Joe) He said Hauptmann took him around in his canoe, then drove him home, with a stop at the Hauptmann apartment. Hauptmann bought his canoe on July 7, '32, proving again that this alleged Victrola incident could only have occurred in July. Wilentz brought up Hahn's Victrola story at the trial, placing it as far back as April, because he knew very well that Hahn would have noticed the new radio any time after about May 2, when it was delivered. He was desperate for April and did his best (= worst) to confuse the jury on this topic. (Do you know if the Stromberg-Carlsen had ever left the Hauptmann residence, possibly for warranty work? Maybe a long shot here, but is there anything within the Davega records to indicate this possibility? Hauptmann didn't gift the Brunswick to the Muellers until early in 1934, so it seems likely it was still part of the Hauptmann furnishings even after Richard purchased the Stromberg-Carlsen. Joe)If, as you believe, Amy, Hahn saw the money and heard the name Fisch in April '32, when everybody had read in the papers that the ransom had been paid, and Hahn had his suspicions about Hauptmann all along at that time, as he would later say, why didn't he contact the authorities to tell his Victrola story then? He even had a second chance to do so: Shortly after Hauptmann's arrest, the newspapers reported that two $20 bills had been discovered in the Victrola. Again, Hahn kept silent. He finally gave his first statement to Breslin on November 19, 1934, and waited or was kept waiting until January 5, 1935, to give his second. (Hahn does indicate he was wrestling with the decision whether or not to report his suspicions to Detectives Burke or Madden, and that documented others tended to dissuade him. If he had acted as he considered doing, such a statement would have been a monumental stain by anyone's standards given the case's notoriety and implications of having labelled a friend or acquaintance of such a crime. I'm sure such a scenario was actively being played out by many suspecting people with much less to go on, within NYC. Joe) Once Fisch and Hauptmann were, by apparently sheer coincidence, “reintroduced” at the Henkels' apartment about August 2, 1932, after supposedly having been complicit in the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby and the subsequent extortion of the ransom, what suddenly freed up their previously secret, clandestine relationship to the outside world? They became practically inseparable. There is no explanation for such a change in behavior. (I disagree. Such an introduction through mutual friends would have been cathartic for both Hauptmann and Fisch, because they now would have had no reason to keep any ill-pursued relationship a secret. Joe) Hahn's statements contain too many inconsistencies, and even the one consistent point about seeing the money in the Victrola had its origin in a newspaper article. He had plenty of opportunity to come forward with his information on the case early on but didn't. He was a liar – in my view. (My last two cents on this topic (Hahn's statement contains too much in the way of corroborative and recalled detail and consistency (and with his wife) to not at least point to a very real suspicion on his part. Definitely worth more drilling down to an unalterable truth and I sincerely hope you don't throw out the baby with the bathwater here! Joe) “(What is your source that Hahn first claimed Hauptmann drove him when they visited Hunter's Island? I may have missed it, but don't see that specifically mentioned in Hahn's first statement. Joe)”
Hahn's statement given to Breslin on Nov. 19, 1934: “Q: Who else went up with you on the first visit? A: The first time I went myself. Q: Did you go up alone? A: With Hauptmann. Q: In his car? A: Yes.” “(Do you know if the Stromberg-Carlsen had ever left the Hauptmann residence, possibly for warranty work? Maybe a long shot here, but is there anything within the Davega records to indicate this possibility? Hauptmann didn't gift the Brunswick to the Muellers until early in 1934, so it seems likely it was still part of the Hauptmann furnishings even after Richard purchased the Stromberg-Carlsen. Joe)”
That radio never left the Hauptmann apartment again, or we'd have heard about it. The police interviewed the manager of a Davega City Radio Store at one location and also the general manager of a different Davega store at another location, both of whom looked up the documents pertaining to the sale. They also interviewed the salesman who sold the radio to Hauptmann, and the truck driver who delivered it to Hauptmann's apartment. Neither mentioned any warranty issues or any complaints by Hauptmann to have required them to take the radio back for repairs. I guess Hauptmann held on to his old Victrola longer than necessary for sentimental reasons, or it took him longer than most to feel generous. “(Hahn does indicate he was wrestling with the decision whether or not to report his suspicions to Detectives Burke or Madden, and that documented others tended to dissuade him. If he had acted as he considered doing, such a statement would have been a monumental stain by anyone's standards given the case's notoriety and implications of having labelled a friend or acquaintance of such a crime. I'm sure such a scenario was actively being played out by many suspecting people with much less to go on, within NYC. Joe)”
An anonymous tip would have sufficed. And, of course, the wife had dissuaded him (always blame the wife!). “Breslin Q: You had some talks with your wife about your suspicions of Hauptmann? A: Yes Q: Was she suspicious too? A: No, she said, “You imagine things that is not.” I didn't say something.” After Hauptmann's arrest, he was certain that Hauptmann was involved in the case, yet again said nothing. No excuse this time, but certainly a moral obligation to step up! “Breslin Q: What made you think he had kidnapped this Lindbergh baby. A: Well he had this leg and what I read about in the paper and she went to Germany and he bought a new boat and radio, and everything match together and all of a sudden it came to me that he was in this thing.” “(I disagree. Such an introduction through mutual friends would have been cathartic for both Hauptmann and Fisch, because they now would have had no reason to keep any ill-pursued relationship a secret. Joe)”
Anna H., the Henkels, Uhlig, Mrs. Selma Kohl, Margaret Helfert, the Muellers, the Schuesslers – all met Fisch for the first time on or after August 2, 1932. Only Hahn and Hauptmann himself said otherwise. Hauptmann had no choice because he had given the police the Fisch story in the afternoon on the day after his arrest. There are no earlier sightings of the two by any of Fisch's other friends, either. What criminal enterprise were BRH and Fisch in together before the snatch? Wholesale or retail theft, extortion, blackmail, murder, bootlegging, pies, ringing doorbells and running away? Any thoughts? Just one suggestion, please! “(Hahn's statement contains too much in the way of corroborative and recalled detail and consistency (and with his wife) to not at least point to a very real suspicion on his part. Definitely worth more drilling down to an unalterable truth and I sincerely hope you don't throw out the baby with the bathwater here! Joe)”
Hahn's statement has one insurmountable flaw: that of allegedly having heard the name Fisch between April and July '32. Impossible! And since we will never agree on this point, there is really no use to continue this discussion. But it's been fun, Joe.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Sept 19, 2020 18:11:10 GMT -5
when i was in the attic he could have got the piece up there since he had acess to it and was next to his bedroom. but i dont think it matters if he got it in the attic or basement, it connected him to the ladder
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Sept 19, 2020 18:32:40 GMT -5
One more comment, Joe: I did not mean to come across as rude or dismissive of your beliefs. As Amy had pointed out, we are entitled to our opinions and beliefs in this case. But based on my own, and absent any concrete, tangible evidence of Fisch and Hauptmann having forged a quick, nefarious relationship in March/April '32, the time Hauptmann himself had suggested for their initial meeting, I just feel that I had to throw out the bathwater -- thankfully not with a baby in it, but because there was no Fisch in it, either.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Sept 19, 2020 18:35:24 GMT -5
when i was in the attic he could have got the piece up there since he had acess to it and was next to his bedroom. but i dont think it matters if he got it in the attic or basement, it connected him to the ladder No, it really doesn't matter. He's connected to the ladder, the handwriting and the ransom money up to his eyeballs. How many strikes against him does a guy really need?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Sept 19, 2020 19:37:04 GMT -5
One more comment, Joe: I did not mean to come across as rude or dismissive of your beliefs. As Amy had pointed out, we are entitled to our opinions and beliefs in this case. But based on my own, and absent any concrete, tangible evidence of Fisch and Hauptmann having forged a quick, nefarious relationship in March/April '32, the time Hauptmann himself had suggested for their initial meeting, I just feel that I had to throw out the bathwater -- thankfully not with a baby in it, but because there was no Fisch in it, either. Thanks, and I love the piscatorial imagery! I do understand where you're coming and although I don't have any conclusive evidence that they did know each other before August of 1932, I do believe something is askew here. As much as you indicate you're intractable about your own views, I won't keep from considering any and all reasonable avenues to fully explore this. For example, and at the risk of pulling you back against your will, what do you think of Hauptmann's answer in questioning, where he indicated to have met Fisch anywhere from between 1929 and 1931? Here, he's indicating the time frame lines up with his meeting at the Henkels, but it seems a bit unusual to me that in 1934, he's confusing years by this amount. What's the deal here? Is he combining events for some reason? There is also his admission that after having revealed to his interrogators that he knew Fisch in 1931, he's now "in the bag." That also seems just a bit unusual. How do you explain all of this?
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Sept 21, 2020 10:14:28 GMT -5
joe, just saw the zoom interview of the mother and daughter authors of suspect number one. seems like nice people but they researched very one sided. i cant believe people think lindbergh killed his child just because the child was sick.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Sept 21, 2020 11:30:04 GMT -5
joe, just saw the zoom interview of the mother and daughter authors of suspect number one. seems like nice people but they researched very one sided. i cant believe people think lindbergh killed his child just because the child was sick. From what I've heard so far Steve on this book, I'm not surprised you're saying this. There is almost infinitely more to consider within this case vs. virtually any other one out there. It's really no wonder then how relatively easy it is to find enough supportive proof of choice for virtually any pet theory, and then filling in the gaps with opinion and speculation. Anyway, it's pretty clear Lise Pearlman is not the first one to have done this, it's really become a cottage industry in this case. I know the interview you're talking about and I plan to watch it.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Sept 21, 2020 18:31:22 GMT -5
yes ronnelle wants to zoom me also, weve been friends alot of years i hate to lock horns with her again but it will be very respectful since 1998 when she first started her website
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 22, 2020 10:18:34 GMT -5
joe, just saw the zoom interview of the mother and daughter authors of suspect number one. seems like nice people but they researched very one sided. i cant believe people think lindbergh killed his child just because the child was sick. It's obvious they went where their research led them. Getting experts on board was another step in determining what direction to take. So this idea they were "one-sided" doesn't shake out. Are you suggesting they told their Experts what to write? So this one-sided argument does not fit here. I recommend reading the book, checking their sources, then challenging them with other sources where you do not agree. From what I've heard so far Steve on this book, I'm not surprised you're saying this. There is almost infinitely more to consider within this case vs. virtually any other one out there. It's really no wonder then how relatively easy it is to find enough supportive proof of choice for virtually any pet theory, and then filling in the gaps with opinion and speculation. Anyway, it's pretty clear Lise Pearlman is not the first one to have done this, it's really become a cottage industry in this case. I know the interview you're talking about and I plan to watch it. I see a lot of the pot in here calling the entire kitchen black. Research isn't a dirty word. Too often actual source documentation is dismissed while anything else is considered more reliable. Let me tell you that it isn't. We can only get to the truth by locating everything then sorting it out. That may lead to a difference of opinion from there, of course, but that is far better than clinging to the historical narrative which is quickly dismissed by what actually occurred. So while opinion and speculation does happen in the absence of a smoking gun, its far more informed then approaching it from an ignorant position. yes ronnelle wants to zoom me also, weve been friends alot of years i hate to lock horns with her again but it will be very respectful since 1998 when she first started her website Do you still have your IROC Z? Would be cool if you gave the interview from behind the wheel. Anyway, definitely a must see and I can't wait for it!
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Sept 22, 2020 14:01:18 GMT -5
there one sided mike its nonsense that lindbergh did it.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Sept 22, 2020 19:40:36 GMT -5
cant wait either mike its going to happen soon. ronelle is my friend i cant be to cute. i will answer hher questions and like to tell people about inside hauptmans house before they ruined history when they renovated it. i should have rented it for a week to do some measuring and experiments. ritchie and i wasnt informed of there plans
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Sept 27, 2020 10:09:55 GMT -5
From what I've heard so far Steve on this book, I'm not surprised you're saying this. There is almost infinitely more to consider within this case vs. virtually any other one out there. It's really no wonder then how relatively easy it is to find enough supportive proof of choice for virtually any pet theory, and then filling in the gaps with opinion and speculation. Anyway, it's pretty clear Lise Pearlman is not the first one to have done this, it's really become a cottage industry in this case. I know the interview you're talking about and I plan to watch it. I see a lot of the pot in here calling the entire kitchen black. Research isn't a dirty word. Too often actual source documentation is dismissed while anything else is considered more reliable. Let me tell you that it isn't. We can only get to the truth by locating everything then sorting it out. That may lead to a difference of opinion from there, of course, but that is far better than clinging to the historical narrative which is quickly dismissed by what actually occurred. So while opinion and speculation does happen in the absence of a smoking gun, its far more informed then approaching it from an ignorant position. Michael, I don’t roundly view research or source documentation as dirty words, so there’s little to be gained here by yelling at clouds. Where I do have a problem with source documentation is where it is questionable, unreliable or makes little or no sense, but then gets held up on high, or worse is mutated, to support personal theories. A good example of this would be your treatment of Elsie Whateley’s statement that Lindbergh called home “about seven o’clock” on March 1, in the absence of any other closer estimates, and that you've now morphed it into “at seven o’clock.” Why is this? Because all of a sudden, it wouldn’t have been possible for him to have made the journey from NYC (assuming that’s where he called from) to Highfields in an hour and twenty five minutes, arriving at 8:25 pm as he did. As a general comment, I wouldn’t get so bogged down by fear of the “historical narrative.” I doubt many people with an informed level of understanding studying this case nowadays, including myself, actually view that historical narrative as totally reliable and accurate. I would venture though it’s a whole lot closer to the truth than some of the unusual theories with all of their obvious pitfalls, that have been floated out there since this case began.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 27, 2020 20:21:49 GMT -5
Michael, I don’t roundly view research or source documentation as dirty words, so there’s little to be gained here by yelling at clouds. Where I do have a problem with source documentation is where it is questionable, unreliable or makes little or no sense, but then gets held up on high, or worse is mutated, to support personal theories. A good example of this would be your treatment of Elsie Whateley’s statement that Lindbergh called home “about seven o’clock” on March 1, in the absence of any other closer estimates, and that you've now morphed it into “at seven o’clock.” Why is this? Because all of a sudden, it wouldn’t have been possible for him to have made the journey from NYC (assuming that’s where he called from) to Highfields in an hour and twenty five minutes, arriving at 8:25 pm as he did. As a general comment, I wouldn’t get so bogged down by fear of the “historical narrative.” I doubt many people with an informed level of understanding studying this case nowadays, including myself, actually view that historical narrative as totally reliable and accurate. I would venture though it’s a whole lot closer to the truth than some of the unusual theories with all of their obvious pitfalls, that have been floated out there since this case began.
This is a rather poor example since I quote her (V2 Page 3). I am going to repeat myself here but I'm doing it for your own good: You are too worried about what I am thinking here rather than what the sources reveal. Don't worry about what you think I think but instead look at it neutrally as best you can.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Sept 28, 2020 9:50:40 GMT -5
Michael, I don’t roundly view research or source documentation as dirty words, so there’s little to be gained here by yelling at clouds. Where I do have a problem with source documentation is where it is questionable, unreliable or makes little or no sense, but then gets held up on high, or worse is mutated, to support personal theories. A good example of this would be your treatment of Elsie Whateley’s statement that Lindbergh called home “about seven o’clock” on March 1, in the absence of any other closer estimates, and that you've now morphed it into “at seven o’clock.” Why is this? Because all of a sudden, it wouldn’t have been possible for him to have made the journey from NYC (assuming that’s where he called from) to Highfields in an hour and twenty five minutes, arriving at 8:25 pm as he did. As a general comment, I wouldn’t get so bogged down by fear of the “historical narrative.” I doubt many people with an informed level of understanding studying this case nowadays, including myself, actually view that historical narrative as totally reliable and accurate. I would venture though it’s a whole lot closer to the truth than some of the unusual theories with all of their obvious pitfalls, that have been floated out there since this case began. This is a rather poor example since I quote her (V2 Page 3). I am going to repeat myself here but I'm doing it for your own good: You are too worried about what I am thinking here rather than what the sources reveal. Don't worry about what you think I think but instead look at it neutrally as best you can.
While it's comforting to know you're in such a beneficent mood Michael, my post has very little to do with your above grievance. I'm simply telling you, and you can take this as for your own good if you wish, "about seven o'clock" does not mean "at seven o'clock." This is all about being accurate and not massaging factual information to effect a personal conclusion. When you put such personal interpretations into print, I'm sure you realize not everyone will have read Elsie Whateley's original statement, as an example. For years, you've been laying into others when their statements and conclusions do not agree with source documentation. You've called that behaviour "reckless" or you continuously accuse them of "shrugging things off." In your books, you state things like "a person would have to be crazy to believe.." or "I don't think any reasonable person would disagree.." I'm sure there are dozens of other examples, and I think it's quite apparent you have a very sizeable interest and investment in what others think in this case, or you wouldn't keep telling people they must always decide for themselves, while saying something else at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 28, 2020 11:15:46 GMT -5
While it's comforting to know you're in such a beneficent mood Michael, my post has very little to do with your above grievance. I'm simply telling you, and you can take this as for your own good if you wish, "about seven o'clock" does not mean "at seven o'clock." This is all about being accurate and not massaging factual information to effect a personal conclusion. When you put such personal interpretations into print, I'm sure you realize not everyone will have read Elsie Whateley's original statement, as an example. For years, you've been laying into others when their statements and conclusions do not agree with source documentation. You've called that behaviour "reckless" or you continuously accuse them of "shrugging things off." In your books, you state things like "a person would have to be crazy to believe.." or "I don't think any reasonable person would disagree.." I'm sure there are dozens of other examples, and I think it's quite apparent you have a very sizeable interest and investment in what others think in this case, or you wouldn't keep telling people they must always decide for themselves, while saying something else at the same time. Gee, well I started to wonder whether or not I was crazy so I opened V2, turned to page 3, and double checked what I quoted. I expected to find a huge mistake based upon your most recent post. But no, there it is in black & white. So what part of an exact quote do you or anyone else who can read have a problem with? Where I state an opinion its quite obvious that's what it is. And I do believe I have limited them compared to most authors. But here again, you seem to be having a problem with what you believe I happen to think, and this approach seems to be your only recourse to upset it. You and anyone else are free to disagree, and I've given the actual quote so that could happen. One can clearly see where I am drawing what I happen to believe. I don't know, perhaps "about 7 P.M." means 7:30, 7:45, or 8 PM to you, but where I'm from, and based on the 20 years of reading similar documentation, it means about 7 PM.. At the risk of offending you, that means the target time is 7 PM and could be 6:55 or 7:05. But when one starts to venture beyond that were looking at "about 7:15" or "about 6:45." Also, I've seen the type where one might say around "7:00 to 7:15." What would that mean to you I wonder? 10:00 PM? So again, one can absolutely see what was said, what my position is, and why I hold it. Neither nefarious nor misleading. Decide for yourself Joe, and as you can see, I've given you and any reader the best opportunity to do it. Carry on my friend.
|
|