ERDNASE

Discuss general aspects of Genii.
User avatar
lybrary
Posts: 844
Joined: March 31st, 2013, 4:59 pm
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby lybrary » November 13th, 2017, 10:44 am

MagicbyAlfred wrote:Unfortunately, Bill was himself addicted to gambling, and typically lost all his copious winnings (hundreds of thousands of dollars) at the Faro table.

Erdnase seems to have had a similar problem. Read the passage on "pretty money" in expert: “Hazard at play carries sensations that once enjoyed are rarely forgotten. The winnings are known as "pretty money," and it is generally spent as freely as water.”

MagicbyAlfred wrote:Since this is, after all, an Erdnase thread, it seems fitting to quote from what is said of three card monte in Expert at the Card Table: ""But there is not a single card feat in the whole calendar that will give as good returns for the amount of practice required, or that will mystify as greatly, or cause as much amusement, or bear so much repetition, as this little game; and for these reasons we believe it worth of unstinted effort to master it thoroughly." Interestingly, it would seem from the foregoing quote that Erdnase's orientation toward the game was as a form of magical entertainment, as opposed to a con for card cheats.

I absolute agree. Erdnase describes it as amusement, as something to perform and entertain socially, not as a way to take the money.
Lybrary.com https://www.lybrary.com/s-w-erdnase-m-11.html
preserving magic one book at a time

Jonathan Townsend
Posts: 7689
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Westchester, NY
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Jonathan Townsend » November 13th, 2017, 2:36 pm

? anywhere else it's amusement rather than con/scam? Recall Hofzinser was using and teaching top/bottom changes which work for packets in his tricks - and instructed that the pack be inhand by default.
Mundus vult decipi -per Caleb Carr's story Killing Time

Jack Shalom
Posts: 459
Joined: February 7th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Brooklyn NY

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Jack Shalom » November 13th, 2017, 3:22 pm

Jon I asked that back in 2015 in another thread, and here are some replies I got from Philippe Billot:

"In More Magic published by Pr Hoffmann in 1890, he writes page 51:

THE ThREE-CARD TRICK.
This is more of a sharper's than a conjurer's trick, but it is a frequent experience with any one who is known to dabble in sleight of hand, to be asked, "Can you do the three-card trick ? " It is humiliating to be obliged to reply " No, I can't," and moreover the trick, neatly performed, may be made the occasion of a good deal of fun."

"In Magic No Mystery, published in 1876, we can read :

THE THREE-CARD TRICK.
We explain here one of those tricks of gamblers which, thoagh as old as cards themselves, deceives hundreds every week at race-courses, in hotels, &c.

"A priori", it's not a trick for entertainment, it's "A Gambler's Trick Exposed""

"In Les Tricheries des grecs dévoilées (Card Sharpers Exposed) published in 1861 by Robert-Houdin, after he explained the three card trick, concluded :

"Cette tricherie ne se fait plus que dans les cabarets depuis que la police en a défendu l'exhibition sur la place publique."

This little trick is now confined to the low public houses, the police forbidding the exhibition in the streets.

May be that at time, in France, magicians begin to use it for entertainment."

observer
Posts: 286
Joined: August 31st, 2014, 5:32 am
Favorite Magician: Harry Kellar - Charlie Miller - Paul Rosini - Jay Marshall
Location: Chicago

Re: ERDNASE

Postby observer » November 13th, 2017, 3:51 pm

MagicbyAlfred wrote:
...Canada Bill is widely reputed to be the greatest three card monte hustler ever. .... Unfortunately, Bill was himself addicted to gambling, and typically lost all his copious winnings (hundreds of thousands of dollars) at the Faro table.

....


Addicted indeed, since anyone in Canada Bill's line of work would have known that Faro was as easily and routinely manipulated to the player's disadvantage as 3CM.

Jonathan Townsend
Posts: 7689
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Westchester, NY
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Jonathan Townsend » November 13th, 2017, 3:53 pm

Jack Shalom wrote:Jon I asked that back in 2015 in another thread, and here are some replies I got from Philippe Billot:

"In More Magic published by Pr Hoffmann in 1890, he writes page 51:
...


Thanks Jack. Looking back a little further we have the mis-printed spot cards ... no fuss then to show an ace and two threes way back then. So what's the history of the monte as magic trick? Maybe entertaining as a story about sharpers? But you might imagine a magician would keep the pack in hand and use a packet switch and/or palming to greater effect. More puzzling as it does not appear "tamed" or repurposed as magic item in that same text. Contrast the monte display/toss with discussions of the glide and the older "throwing a card" item.

Ask Harry to do an Ultra Move in context - or his turnover change. ;) I's difficult to see the item in perspective since I started out seeing tricks with jumbo cards and that routine with a fourth card rather than a betting context.
Mundus vult decipi -per Caleb Carr's story Killing Time

Tom Sawyer
Posts: 307
Joined: January 7th, 2012, 6:44 pm

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Tom Sawyer » November 13th, 2017, 4:52 pm

Just a reminder that Professor Hoffmann also described the "Thee Card Trick" in Modern Magic, which of course preceded the description in More Magic.

Without getting into details, the Modern Magic version (pages 76-77) is simpler, but it does go into the "bent corner" addition, as does More Magic.

Interestingly, Hoffmann introduces the trick in Modern Magic as follows:

This well-known trick has long been banished from the répertoire of the conjuror, and is now used only by the itinerant sharpers who infest race-courses and country fairs. We insert the explanation of it in this place as exemplifying one form of sleight-of-hand, and also as a useful warning to the unwary.

However, it looks as though, by the time of More Magic, the trick had cycled back around to being one that was being performed by magicians.

--Tom S.

Bill Mullins
Posts: 4494
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Bill Mullins » November 13th, 2017, 4:54 pm

MagicbyAlfred wrote:
Jack Shalom wrote:Isn't there the story that Canada Bill offered to pay the railroad agents for the right for him to play on the trains exclusively, with his promise that he would only cheat people of the cloth?


Yes, Jack, there is indeed such a story. It first appeared in print in an article entitled, "Three Keerd Monkey," in the Little Rock Daily Republican, September 14, 1872, p. 3.


From a few days earlier, in the St. Louis Missouri Democrat of 9/10/1872 (and the text suggests it originally appeared in the Omaha Dispatch of 9/6)

Image Image

Bill Mullins
Posts: 4494
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Bill Mullins » November 13th, 2017, 5:05 pm

Jonathan Townsend wrote:Looking back a little further we have the mis-printed spot cards ... no fuss then to show an ace and two threes way back then.


I don't think anyone used mis-spotted cards to gimmick a monte display until DeLand's "Pickitout", in 1908.

Bill Mullins
Posts: 4494
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Bill Mullins » November 13th, 2017, 6:15 pm

lybrary wrote: It comes down to showing contact with McKinney be it by spatial proximity


Edwin S. Andrews worked at the C&NW railroad, whose Chicago depot was just a mile north of Printer's Row. Sounds plenty proximate to me.

Houdini came through Chicago regularly, and played at the Powers Theater (on Randolph, between Clark and Lasalle) in 1900 - 3/4 of a mile north of Printer's Row. Plenty proximate.

Marty Demarest laid out a convincing case that W. E. Sanders visited his folks at the Windsor Clifton Hotel (NW corner of Wabash and Monroe) in the winter of 1901-02. Walk one block west and five blocks south, and you are in Printer's Row. Or three stops on the El.

(and note that Congress and State, where Smith recalled his meeting with Erdnase, is only a block south of the State St. Station of the El)

Tom Sawyer
Posts: 307
Joined: January 7th, 2012, 6:44 pm

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Tom Sawyer » November 13th, 2017, 6:18 pm

Speaking of "candidate viability" . . .

Richard Hatch recently mentioned a candidate suggested by Peter Zenner, namely E.D. Benedict.

Benedict has not been discussed much (so far!) on this thread, but it is interesting to me that he has been catapulted into being one of the leading candidates, based on several basic facts.

Without getting into detail, possibly the two main requirements for any Erdnase candidate are skill with cards, and writing ability.

Provisionally, it can be said that Benedict meets both of those requirements, or, actually, he comes close. At the moment it looks as though Benedict knew sleight of hand (whether with cards, I do not know). Also question has been raised earlier as to whether E.D. Benedict is the same guy who wrote for The Sphinx.

Benedict also has that highly interesting connection with McKinney's company.

So, I have been pondering this, and it has made me wonder whether, even based on these few facts, Benedict may have a stronger case than Gallaway. At the moment, I don't know, one way or the other. If he does, it tends to show that seemingly endless arguing (such as in the Gallaway case) does not necessarily contribute to the strength of a case, but that it can actually emphasize weaknesses that might otherwise have gone unstressed.

I'm not saying that Gallaway has a bad case, but then again, it appears that if one has the right facts, one does not need many to make a good case.

--Tom Sawyer

Richard Hatch
Posts: 1855
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Providence, Utah
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Richard Hatch » November 13th, 2017, 6:51 pm

Zenner's E. D. Benedict candidate does appear to be at least as strong a candidate (to me) as Edward Gallaway. He has a clear connection to McKinney (mentioned in the bankruptcy records as owing $45.85 to McKinney), clear interest and reputed ability in magic, writing skill (contributed to the Sphinx and a preliminary stylometric analysis seems to show a close match to Erdnase), possible connection by marriage to Dalrymple, connection to Del Adelphia (who opened his act with an illusion Benedict had published in the Sphinx) and is the right age. He was in the business of distributing books and he went bankrupt shortly after the book was published (possibly explaining why he still owed McKinney money!). Zenner has hinted that he may even have been the "E. S. Andrews" who was a con man (found by Todd Karr). If he can establish that, I'd probably have to say "case closed"!

Tom Sawyer
Posts: 307
Joined: January 7th, 2012, 6:44 pm

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Tom Sawyer » November 13th, 2017, 7:22 pm

Dick, those are all good points (at least, as of now!), and I think I had most of that in mind, even though I only focused on two or three things.

--Tom S.

Roger M.
Posts: 1244
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Roger M. » November 14th, 2017, 2:31 pm

On Sept 8th in this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=49999&p=337773#p337773,

Our host, Richard K. posted this note:

"There is a new candidate, and a book is in the works about him. He's an interesting choice, but other than that I must remain mum."

Any updates you can share with us on this Richard?

With Peter Z's candidate (specific details not publicly shared by Peter yet), and this teaser from Richard, it seems there may be some new directions taken in the search?

User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 23861
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Richard Kaufman » November 14th, 2017, 3:56 pm

I cannot offer any more information.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

Jack Shalom
Posts: 459
Joined: February 7th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Brooklyn NY

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Jack Shalom » November 15th, 2017, 9:23 am

Chris's latest newsletter talks about 1900 Jackpots author Eugene Edwards. He tries to make the case that Edwards might be Erdnase, and Chris says he has a bombshell coming up. (Edwards is Galloway?)

One part of Chris's report that I find unconvincing is his claim that Edwards must have been a professional card shark, because of his inside info about how pros work. But at least in the excerpts Chris provides, Edwards does not say anything more than had been reported by DeVol at least a decade earlier. Chris's excerpts from Edwards feel very much like second-hand stories to me.

I'm not sure why Chris insists Erdnase was a pro. I think he actually has a better case for Galloway and Edwards if Erdnase was what he appears to be--a very interested amateur.

Roger M.
Posts: 1244
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Roger M. » November 15th, 2017, 10:48 am

As relates to Eugene Edwards book Jackpots - on October 25th, on his blog (which you should definitely be reading) - Tom Sawyer has already noted that the writing of Eugene Edwards reads an awful lot like Erdnase.

As for being an "expert", I strongly agree with Jacks observation above, with pretty much everything quoted in Chris's newsletter as an example of "expertise" able to be parsed from any number of books of the day, including the popular 40 Years A Gambler on the Mississippi by George Devol, published in 1887 - 15 years prior to EATCT.

Although reading Jackpots demonstrates the writing similarity is there, and is interesting - I'd hardly be confident enough to state that Edwards is Erdnase just based just on that similarity.

It will be interesting to see how the line is drawn from Eugene Edwards to Gallaway though ... which appears will be coming next from Chris's desk.

Ted M
Posts: 900
Joined: January 24th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Dani DaOrtiz
Location: Madison, WI

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Ted M » November 15th, 2017, 7:08 pm

Roger M. wrote:
Richard Hatch wrote:Looks like this Erdnase kickstarter campaign will meet its goal. Thoughts?
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/110191763/the-expert-at-the-card-table-with-photographs-from


This is exactly what David Ben and Julie Eng have already done to perfection with The Experts at the Card Table.

I'm not sure what possible improvement could be achieved beyond what David and Julie have already done so well?

Maybe I'm missing something?


Er, what does the "secret of the Practice Board" mean?

Just for statistical interest, 90 people seem to have shelled out 200 clams for this book so far. It's way over its $5,000 goal at $23,000 with 19 days to go.

Personally I'm awaiting volumes 2 and 3 from David Ben, and I'll still have enough for Richard's Harapan Ong book...

Tom Sawyer
Posts: 307
Joined: January 7th, 2012, 6:44 pm

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Tom Sawyer » November 20th, 2017, 6:02 am

Hi All,

During a lull like the present one, it might be interesting for people to think about what kinds of features make a candidate a “leader,” or for that matter, about the kinds of things that make a person a candidate at all.

Such features often have little to do with the strength of a candidate's case.

Regardless of that, I'll list a few that occur to me:

1. Reputation of a candidate apart from being an Erdnase candidate. For instance, we know of people like Hilliar and (if you are interested in card games) Foster, even apart from any discussion of them as possible candidates.

2. Support for a candidate on this Erdnase thread.

3. The field in which the candidate is known to have worked. Magician candidates, and there are several, tend to be a little more interesting than someone like Edwin Sumner Andrews, not just because their background tends to support their candidacy, but because most of the people who are interested in the Erdnase controversy came to it because of an interest in magic.

4. The physical appearance of the candidate. I’m not saying that this one is especially logical, but there is probably some validity to this. Men like R.F. Foster and W.E. Sanders seem to fit the stereotype of the suave gambler. Edwin Sumner Andrews just looks like a regular family man, and he obviously had a beautiful family, which certainly supports that view. Edward Gallaway looks like a bookish person, which apparently he was. But . . . as they say, looks can be deceiving.

In an earlier post on this thread, I mentioned a bunch of other, somewhat similar, factors. A few of them are worth repeating here. Actually, now that I look at them further, they all seem worth repeating. In my original post, I included a little discussion of each point, heavily edited here.

1. Accessibility of information.
2. Reputation of a person forwarding a candidate.
3. Colorfulness of the candidate. R.F. Foster (interesting to me, but not to most); Wilbur Edgerton Sanders (interesting to most).
4. Traction. For some inexplicable (to me) reason, some candidates, or would-be candidates, just seem to appeal to a lot of people.
5. Publicity. Obviously, people like Milton Franklin Andrews, Edwin Sumner Andrews, and W.E. Sanders have gotten (relatively speaking) huge amounts of analysis and publicity relative to that of most (perhaps all) other candidates.
6. Longevity. A candidate who has managed to hang on for a long time is kind of like mud on a boot -- hard to shake off -- no matter how weak the case. (This is not to say that all candidates who have been around a while have weak cases.)
7. Actual strength of the case.
8. Appeal of “the story.” I think some people are swept up by an interesting story that connects known evidence, no matter how utterly implausible that story may be.

--Tom Sawyer

Tom Sawyer
Posts: 307
Joined: January 7th, 2012, 6:44 pm

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Tom Sawyer » November 21st, 2017, 7:16 am

Hi All,

All right, since the Erdnase lull continues, here are a few words about Cab No. 44, a 1910 novel by R.F. Foster. It appears that this was first mentioned in the Erdnase world by Dick Hatch on a different thread in 2003, then on this thread in 2005, first by Bill Mullins, and then by Dick again.

The book was also discussed by the late Hurt McDermott in his 2012 book Artifice, Ruse & Erdnase.

I notice that, in several places on Google Books, the book is discussed as having been the subject of an interesting advertising campaign, which involved a cab with the book title on it, and a kid who dispensed flyers, but that is not really what I want to talk about in this post.

The March 1910 A.L.A. Booklist lists it under “Foster, Robert Frederick,” and describes it as “A detective story of considerable interest, based on a wager between two financiers as to whether a suspect can elude the New York police for a month.”

So it appears that it was definitely written by the Foster who was well known as a card-game expert.

But I wanted to mention something else that seemed kind of unexpected to me.

I saw reference to a book titled The Body in the Shaft, by R.F. Foster, and I thought, “Hmmm. That’s interesting.”

Further investigation, however, determined that the author was a writer named Reginald Francis Foster (1896-1975). There are many scattered references to him on the Internet. Apparently The Body in the Shaft was first published in the UK in 1924 under the title The Lift Murder.

--Tom Sawyer

Roger M.
Posts: 1244
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Roger M. » November 22nd, 2017, 6:45 pm

In Chris's latest newsletter, he doubles down on his claim that he has found Erdnase, and (as suspected) he has drawn a line between Gallaway, Edwards, and Erdnase ... claiming that they're all the same person.

I won't go into details, you can read Chris's newsletter on his website if you're registered there (which I suspect is Chris's point in continuing to post to this Genii thread, driving traffic to his website).

Regardless, we've all been exposed to Chris's tendency to take "massive leaps of faith" that would get any normal jumper killed ... and there's lots more of them in this latest of Chris's tales.

A number of these leaps of faith border on the utterly bizarre, indeed defying rational comment.

Jack Shalom
Posts: 459
Joined: February 7th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Brooklyn NY

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Jack Shalom » November 22nd, 2017, 7:21 pm

I've accepted that it is unlikely that we will have a "smoking gun" for Erdnase; but I was expecting such for Chris's claim that Edwards = Gallaway. But best I can tell, it's still a very circumstantial case from Chris that Edwards is Gallaway. In my opinion, a twice removed candidate needs at least one firm link for consideration.

Leonard Hevia
Posts: 1438
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Dai Vernon, Frank Garcia, Slydini, Houdini,
Location: Gaithersburg, Md.

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Leonard Hevia » November 22nd, 2017, 7:39 pm

I expected nothing from Chris's assertions that Gallaway was Erdnase. Most of his circumstantial evidence isn't compelling enough. He still has not answered my question as to whether or not Gallaway owned more than one magic book, which is The Expert. Bill Mullins pointed out that Chris had no evidence that Gallaway owned a library of magic books.

Zenner's candidate appears interesting, but from what Mr. Hatch described, the evidence looks circumstantial as well.

Bill Mullins
Posts: 4494
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Bill Mullins » November 22nd, 2017, 9:11 pm

If the fact that Gallaway owned a copy of Expert is evidence that Gallaway was Erdnase, then I suppose that the fact that Houdini owned a copy of Jack Pots is evidence that Houdini was Eugene Edwards. And if Eugene Edwards was Erdnase, then it follows that Houdini was Erdnase. QED.

Bill Mullins
Posts: 4494
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Bill Mullins » November 22nd, 2017, 9:38 pm

Chris's most recent newsletter says that Eugene Edward had "detailed knowledge about Chicago, and Alabama (both places Gallaway knew very well)".

Alabama is mentioned is on page 160, as follows: "Edward W. Pettus, at one time senator from Alabama, was an inveterate poker player . . . ." Alabama never had a senator named Edward Pettus. It did, however, have a senator named Edmund Pettus, after whom a famous bridge in Selma is named.

Perhaps Eugene Edwards isn't quite the scholar of Alabama lore that Chris makes him out to be.

Bill Mullins
Posts: 4494
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Bill Mullins » November 22nd, 2017, 10:08 pm

Chris also says that Edwards "uses an expression from Robert Frost: "throw a church by the steeple."" Frost was born in 1874; the expression isn't hard to find in print in the 1850s. And while Frost did use the expression, it was only in his notebooks, which remained unpublished until 2006. It is unlikely that Edwards got the expression from Frost.

Tom Sawyer
Posts: 307
Joined: January 7th, 2012, 6:44 pm

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Tom Sawyer » November 23rd, 2017, 11:50 pm

Hi All,

Concerning Bill Mullins’s post of 19:11 yesterday . . .

Personally, I like the fact that Gallaway owned a copy of the book. That fact makes his candidacy a little more exciting than it otherwise would be.

But since knowledge of Gallaway’s ownership of the book preceded Gallaway’s candidacy, it may have been more of a “field-limiting” fact than one that supports his candidacy with much clarity, in large part because there are reasons why he might have owned a copy that would have nothing to do with authorship.

Another thing that dilutes that part of the case is the fact that Gallaway’s connection with McKinney is weakly shown by the ownership of the book, and strongly shown by other evidence. So in my mind there is a little redundancy in the “evidence of the ownership.”

---Tom Sawyer

Bill Mullins
Posts: 4494
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Bill Mullins » November 24th, 2017, 12:53 am

Any time I make a post the result of which is that Houdini was Erdnase, don't pay too much attention to it. The point of it is not to show that Houdini was, in fact, Erdnase. What I'm generally trying to do is take an argument that was used to show that someone else was Erdnase, and show that the same argument applies equally well to someone else who is obviously not Erdnase. If the argument leads to a ridiculous conclusion, the argument itself is ridiculous. Something like Reductio ad absurdum, for you logicians.

User avatar
lybrary
Posts: 844
Joined: March 31st, 2013, 4:59 pm
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby lybrary » November 24th, 2017, 12:03 pm

Bill Mullins wrote:Any time I make a post the result of which is that Houdini was Erdnase, don't pay too much attention to it. The point of it is not to show that Houdini was, in fact, Erdnase. What I'm generally trying to do is take an argument that was used to show that someone else was Erdnase, and show that the same argument applies equally well to someone else who is obviously not Erdnase. If the argument leads to a ridiculous conclusion, the argument itself is ridiculous. Something like Reductio ad absurdum, for you logicians.

This is completely false and misleading logic, because taking one fact in isolation and showing that it applies to others who are not Erdnase, doesn't disprove anything. The mere ownership of a first edition doesn't make somebody Erdnase, but it puts one in a pool of suspects which is much smaller than say everybody who played cards. By applying other facts which further limit and reduce the suspect pool the candidacy gets stronger. It is the combination of facts that matter not how strong or weak any particular fact in isolation is.

The only case where a fact in isolation makes sense is an exclusion of being Erdnase. For example, if a candidate turns out to not speak English we can safely exclude him from being Erdnase. For exclusionary purposes looking at a single fact is sound. Unless you are arguing that the ownership of a first edition of Expert EXCLUDES somebody from being Erdnase your argumentation is completely false.
Lybrary.com https://www.lybrary.com/s-w-erdnase-m-11.html
preserving magic one book at a time

Roger M.
Posts: 1244
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Roger M. » November 24th, 2017, 12:40 pm

Important to note that Chris doesn't have any other convincing facts linking Gallaway to Erdnase beyond Gallaway owning a copy of EATCT, which makes Bill's post all that much more relevant.

Bill's irreverent "Houdini must be Erdnase" linkage is, in fact - exactly what Chris does repeatedly, and indeed has done since he began touting Gallaway.

Folks need to read Chris's posts very carefully, as what he often sells as fact, or implies is widely agreed upon ... is more often nothing of the sort - and indeed his stated conclusions are frequently just fabrications.

User avatar
lybrary
Posts: 844
Joined: March 31st, 2013, 4:59 pm
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby lybrary » November 24th, 2017, 1:08 pm

Roger M. wrote:Important to note that Chris doesn't have any other convincing facts linking Gallaway to Erdnase beyond Gallaway owning a copy of EATCT, which makes Bill's post all that much more relevant.

I guess you have been sleeping at the wheel. Here are a couple facts for you to contemplate:
- documentary proof of contact with McKinney
- proven author/writing history (editorials, books, booklets, course material)
- proven self-publishing and copyright activity
- proven writing ability on par with Erdnase (look at vocabulary richness for example)
- proven interest in cards, gambling and sleight of hand with cards via the books in his library
- proven overlap in a significant number of rare words and phrases. Some consider him sounding like Erdnase including the only forensic linguist, who has shared his expertise on this matter, and others:
Roger M. wrote:Chris, I see what you mean by hearing Erdnase in the intro, it certainly seems more than just a similar style. Indeed it would be at the least a very similar style.

Richard Hatch wrote:I agree with Chris that this does sound like it could have been written by the same author who wrote the "Professional Secrets" section of EATCT.

- and many many more, all explained in detail in my ebook
Lybrary.com https://www.lybrary.com/s-w-erdnase-m-11.html
preserving magic one book at a time

Roger M.
Posts: 1244
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Roger M. » November 24th, 2017, 1:24 pm

lybrary wrote:- documentary proof of contact with McKinney
- proven author/writing history (editorials, books, booklets, course material)
- proven self-publishing and copyright activity
- proven writing ability on par with Erdnase (look at vocabulary richness for example)
- proven interest in cards, gambling and sleight of hand with cards via the books in his library
- proven overlap in a significant number of rare words and phrases. Some consider him sounding like Erdnase including the only forensic linguist, who has shared his expertise on this matter, and others:


Thanks for the list Chris, it saves me typing it out.
Unfortunately, to anybody but yourself, (and as folks have been trying to tell you) none of these are convincing.

I realize that you believe if you repeat them often enough, they may gain some traction somewhere ... but I propose to you that if they haven't gained any traction by now (which they havn't), they'll like never gain any traction.

But as I note, none of them are convincing ... if they were, some folks would already be "convinced" - and to my reading, nobody (sock puppets aside) but you believes Gallaway is Erdnase.

User avatar
lybrary
Posts: 844
Joined: March 31st, 2013, 4:59 pm
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby lybrary » November 24th, 2017, 1:44 pm

Roger M. wrote:Unfortunately, to anybody but yourself, (and as folks have been trying to tell you) none of these are convincing.

Can you be more specific why you think they are not convincing? Are you saying Erdnase was not a writer? Not a good writer? That the book was not printed at James McKinney? That the book was not self-published and it was not copyrighted? Show me all those candidates who exhibit Erdnase-like writing, publishing, and copyrighting activity.
Lybrary.com https://www.lybrary.com/s-w-erdnase-m-11.html
preserving magic one book at a time

Leonard Hevia
Posts: 1438
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Dai Vernon, Frank Garcia, Slydini, Houdini,
Location: Gaithersburg, Md.

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Leonard Hevia » November 24th, 2017, 3:02 pm

lybrary wrote:
Roger M. wrote:Important to note that Chris doesn't have any other convincing facts linking Gallaway to Erdnase beyond Gallaway owning a copy of EATCT, which makes Bill's post all that much more relevant.

I guess you have been sleeping at the wheel. Here are a couple facts for you to contemplate:
- documentary proof of contact with McKinney
- proven author/writing history (editorials, books, booklets, course material)
- proven self-publishing and copyright activity
- proven writing ability on par with Erdnase (look at vocabulary richness for example)
- proven interest in cards, gambling and sleight of hand with cards via the books in his library
- proven overlap in a significant number of rare words and phrases. Some consider him sounding like Erdnase including the only forensic linguist, who has shared his expertise on this matter, and others:


Beyond The Expert, what else was there in Gallway's library that showed an interest in magic and sleight of hand? You are still asleep at the wheel Chris and have not answered this question.

Roger M.
Posts: 1244
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Roger M. » November 24th, 2017, 3:05 pm

Chris, I feel I should clarify that I believe what you've discovered and/or proposed is interesting, but not convincing.

    Erdnase was indeed a writer, and a very good one ... however so were probably 100,000+ other people in the United States between 1900 and 1910. (out of 76 million U.S. citizens at the time, perhaps double or triple that number)

    The EATCT was indeed printed at Mckinney, but there are far more employees at printers who aren't the author of the books they're printing than there are employees at printers who are the authors of the books they're printing.

    EATCT was indeed self-published, but so were thousands of other books in the same decade.

    There is a reasonably high likelihood that none of the candidates currently under consideration are Erdnase. There is an equally high likelihood that EATCT was the only book Erdnase ever wrote, and thus no legitimate comparable writing style will ever, or could ever be found.

Simply put, none of your arguments as presented are convincing enough to make Gallaway into Erdnase. They're just not.

Perhaps more to the issue is that you've brought nothing new or convincing to the table for a long while now, and your responses here are simply repeating yourself over and over again in order to dispute anybody who doubts that Gallaway was Erdnase.

You've made your case Chris, and it's not been embraced. You probably need to deal with that reality by doing more (quality) research, or simply accept that, as you presented your case, you ultimately didn't convince folks that Gallaway was Erdnase.

It's really not a big deal, nor is it a personal insult to you - or to your research ... so Gallaway isn't Erdnase ... so what?

OR ... maybe Gallaway will indeed turn out to be Mr. Erdnase ... with the convincing and compelling evidence yet to be presented.

User avatar
lybrary
Posts: 844
Joined: March 31st, 2013, 4:59 pm
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby lybrary » November 24th, 2017, 3:33 pm

Roger M. wrote:Erdnase was indeed a writer, and a very good one ... however so were probably 100,000+ other people in the United States between 1900 and 1910. (out of 76 million U.S. citizens at the time, perhaps double or triple that number)

The EATCT was indeed printed at Mckinney, but there are far more employees at printers who aren't the author of the books they're printing than there are employees at printers who are the authors of the books they're printing.

EATCT was indeed self-published, but so were thousands of other books in the same decade.

You are making the same error that Bill is constantly making. You have to put these things together. How many of the 1000-3000 who had a first edition of Expert where good writers? If we apply the ratio your are implying (~100,000 good writers out of 76 million folks) then you are down to about 4 people who meet both criteria. How many of those had contact with McKinney? That is how one determines the strength of facts not whatever you personally feel is strong or weak.

Roger M. wrote:You probably need to deal with that reality by doing more (quality) research, or simply accept that, as you presented your case, you ultimately didn't convince folks that Gallaway was Erdnase.

That from somebody who has contributed zero research to the Erdnase investigation. Give me a break!
Lybrary.com https://www.lybrary.com/s-w-erdnase-m-11.html
preserving magic one book at a time

Roger M.
Posts: 1244
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Roger M. » November 24th, 2017, 3:43 pm

lybrary wrote:That from somebody who has contributed zero research to the Erdnase investigation. Give me a break!


I've certainly done enough research to determine when somebody is offering up nothing but smoke and mirrors Chris, as you do on a continuous basis!

Indeed, I can (and will) continue to utilize my extensive knowledge of the search for Erdnase to challenge you and your sloppy, incomplete, and fabricated research at every turn!

You need a self-induced reality check ASAP Chris!

User avatar
lybrary
Posts: 844
Joined: March 31st, 2013, 4:59 pm
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby lybrary » November 24th, 2017, 5:05 pm

Roger M. wrote:I've certainly done enough research ...

Oh please, tell us all about your groundbreaking research.
Lybrary.com https://www.lybrary.com/s-w-erdnase-m-11.html
preserving magic one book at a time

Roger M.
Posts: 1244
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Roger M. » November 24th, 2017, 5:19 pm

lybrary wrote:
Roger M. wrote:I've certainly done enough research ...

Oh please, tell us all about your groundbreaking research.

I have to leave you here Chris, you're behaving like a child.
Peace.

User avatar
lybrary
Posts: 844
Joined: March 31st, 2013, 4:59 pm
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby lybrary » November 24th, 2017, 5:30 pm

Roger M. wrote:
lybrary wrote:
Roger M. wrote:I've certainly done enough research ...

Oh please, tell us all about your groundbreaking research.

I have to leave you here Chris, you're behaving like a child.
Peace.

What I thought. Nothing to back up your grandiose claims. Nothing but hot air. The typical bedroom critic.
Lybrary.com https://www.lybrary.com/s-w-erdnase-m-11.html
preserving magic one book at a time

Bill Mullins
Posts: 4494
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Bill Mullins » November 25th, 2017, 12:01 am

lybrary wrote: You are making the same error that Bill is constantly making. You have to put these things together.


The only one making errors of probability here is you, Chris, when take individual probabilities and multiply them together to imply that their product reveals some ultimate probability.

Take the example just mentioned. Suppose that 100,000 of 76 million Americans in 1901 were good writers, and suppose that there were 2000 First Edition copies of Expert. You've suggested, then, that that means that there were ~3 good writers who owned a First Edition copy of Expert. That would be true If and Only If the distribution of good writers, and the population of people who owned 1st Ed copies of Expert, were independent of each other.

But they almost certainly weren't independent of each other. Good writers, as a group, tend to read more than average people, and have more books than average people.


Return to “General”