The late John Pomory called fabricator and liar.

Discuss the historical aspects of magic, including memories, or favorite stories.

Postby David » 03/23/08 04:08 PM

A person hiding behind the name Siverking and a man with a new book about Soapy Smith have posted on the green site, at School for Scoundrals, and on the Soap Smith web site, calling the late magic historian john Pomeroy a liar and a fabrecater.
"Silverking' wrote The Alexander stuff is utter crap and absolutely invented "research". http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/view ... rum=188&12
David Sweeney
Memphis, TN.
User avatar
David
 
Posts: 26
Joined: 03/14/08 11:04 PM
Location: Memphis Down in Dixie

Postby Richard Kaufman » 03/23/08 05:13 PM

Since Jeff Smith is Soapy Smith's great grandson, and has access to a huge amount of unpublished material on these issues, it's quite possible he knows whereof he writes.

I saw NOTHING in the thread on the Magic Cafe in which John Pomeroy's name was even mentioned.

On the Soapy Smith website Jeff Smith does claim that Pomeroy used his words out of context.

You, however, sound like you have some agenda in making your post here.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 20581
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby David » 03/23/08 07:44 PM

John Pomeroy is no named in the Magic Cafe posting however it does link to the Soapy Smith page where Jeff Smith says "John Pomory most probably lied to me".
I have a problem with someone attacking a respected historian who is not around to defend himself. He uses the word fabreicater and the word liar five times. "Silverking calls it invented research, although Smith admits that Pomeroy paid for paid for computer enhancement of decades old pictures, hardly "invented research". Smith has not addressed why a carefull researcher like Pomeroy would conclud that Alexander and not Frank Reid killed his grandfather. The Jesse Murph story is not new, it saw print as early as 1941, and as Jeff Smith said, is common lore in Alaska. It should be noted however, that it is based on the unsubstiated statement of one man, Mathew Sundeen.
The big problem is while we have the David Charvet book, Mr. Charvet has not released John Poeroy's extensive notes that his book is based on. Mr Chavet clams to own all the Pomeroy reference material.
There is only one thin reference to Alexander in connection to J.D. Smith, however Kate Rockwell and Alex Pantages are well documented.
Jeff Smith is rightfully mad that he was misquoted, however that was likely done
by David Charuet.
I have no agenda and am looking foward to buying Mr. Smith's book, I'm hoping it will help with my own research on the Cardiff Giant.
If "Silverking" has any information, I would be glad to see it.
User avatar
David
 
Posts: 26
Joined: 03/14/08 11:04 PM
Location: Memphis Down in Dixie

Postby Richard Kaufman » 03/23/08 08:03 PM

When you're writing a historical book based on fact, and you have information that refutes things which were written in earlier books, then you have no choice but to plainly state that these things are in error--and whether the other guy is alive or dead at the time is irrelevant.
In this case, perhaps Pomeroy did purposefully misquote Jeff Smith. It's not Smith's fault that he's alive and Pomeroy is dead.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 20581
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Charles McCall » 03/26/08 02:43 PM

Even though some prominent politicians do not seem to understand, there is an important difference between being mistaken and being a liar. In both situations,one would be in error and deserve correction. Is this instance one where the deceased was clearly intentionally fabricating?
Charles McCall
Charles McCall
 
Posts: 24
Joined: 01/20/08 01:00 PM
Location: Bakersfield, CA

Postby Bill Palmer » 04/09/08 04:08 PM

Please show me the link to John Pomoroy.

Also, anywhere that Jeff Smith actually uses the word "fabreicator."
Bill Palmer, MIMC
Bill Palmer
 
Posts: 719
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Houston TX

Postby David » 04/15/08 07:37 PM

As I said above, Jeff Smith's answer to me on Magic Cafe linked to a page of the Soapy Smith website where the words fabreicater and liar (three times) were used to about John Pomeroy. This is the whole of my objection.
The link now leads to another page, and I could find no mention of Mr. Pomeroy. Silverking's post "...the Alexander stuff is utter crap and invented research" remains. A second Silverking post using the term b***s***, was deleated.
Since that web page has been withdrawn, so have my objections.
We still do not know what caused a carefull researcher like Pomeroy to the unlikely linking of Conklin (Alexander the Man Who Knows) to Soapy Smith's shooting. I don't believe ha pulled it out of thin air. Until David Charvet releases Mr. Pomeroy's notes, or a properly footnoted verion of his manuscript, we won't know. I have a dime store theory that the answer may lie in the the massive number of interviews given by Kate Rockwell to numerous magazines and news papers.
I am looking forward to buying Jeff Smith's book.
User avatar
David
 
Posts: 26
Joined: 03/14/08 11:04 PM
Location: Memphis Down in Dixie

Postby Vaclav » 05/07/08 06:04 AM

A short version of a long story.
Originally, I believe, John Pomeroy's book was to be called "The life and legend of Alexander Conlin The man who knows"
And it supposed to be two volumes plus footnotes.
Then when John was already too sick with cancer he dictated the last parts to his wife, who typed it down on her computer.
And since he knew he did not have time to edit it he asked Dave Charvett to do so and publish the book.
After publishing he supposed to return the manuscript to his wife and she should have had royalties from the book.
What David Charvett published was not even close what John Pomeroy have intended. He also put his name on the cover as a co-writer and John Pomeroy's wife have only received seven copies as a payment. And she never got back the manuscript.
And what have happened the rest of the material from Johns research?
Well there is a second book about Alexander "written " by Charvett
If you compare what Charvett written about John Pomeroy and how much material he got from him in May 2001 Magic magazine and then what he said and written (and I'm not sure of the month on this one), but I believe it was in Magic magazine from June or July 2007 you will get the picture where is the problem.
So no John Pomeroy is not a liar and he did his research and did not fabricate anything.
I have written about this matter on Magic Cafe last year, but since I lost my password to that side and for some reason I cannot get a new one (I tried to request it many times and written an E-mails to Steve) I could not check or answer any more questions. But if you lookup my name there you should see what have been said there.
Even about the Soapy story.
A since I was working with John Pomeroy at that time and been at his house almost every day until his death I think I should know a little what was going on then.
Vaclav
Vaclav
 
Posts: 2
Joined: 05/07/08 05:36 AM

Postby Jeff Smith » 05/07/08 01:52 PM

Hello, There are several mistakes in the previous post that I wish to correct, as well as I feel a great need to explain my side of this debate.

The page on my website that best explains my views was not deleted. It was moved and can be viewed at A Wrong Corrected

Richard Kaufman: (from post dated 3/23/08) I claim that David Charvet took my words out of context in his books, not John Pomeroy. Thank you for sticking up for me.

David: (from post dated 3/23/08) I do indeed say John Pomeroy lied to me...and he did! He lied when he told me he had paid for computer analysis on photographs that he thought might be Alexander Conlin. My website page indicated above shows the letter he sent to me in which he indicates he did the computer analysis. No such analysis was ever released from his notes. This is why I called his work regarding Soapy Smith, "invented research." At the time I believed him and congratulated him by letter. This letter contains my words that continue to be taken out of context in David Charvet's book (first & second edition). These "out of context" words clearly make it appear in Charvet's books that I supposedly agreed with Pomeroy that Conlin shot my great grandfather, Jefferson Randolph "Soapy" Smith. In all our communications Pomeroy never mentioned to me any theory he had that Conlin killed Soapy. The first I heard of it was from David Charvet in his books.

I am sorry that John Pomeroy is no longer with us to defend himself but my family has been studying the history of our con man descendant for over 100 years, and I myself have researched his life for most of mine. I am not about to cease telling the truth of his death because John Pomeroy passed away. There is nothing remotely true in what Charvet wrote, but because it is in print it will continue to confuse anyone who reads it for the remainder of time, and that is just not acceptable. I am out to tell the true story of my descendant. I see no reason why I should not have that right.

David, you wrote, "Smith has not addressed why a careful researcher like Pomeroy would conclude that Alexander and not Frank Reid killed his grandfather." The reason I did not conclude it is because Pomeroy never mentioned any theory that Alexander killed my great grandfather. I first learned of it in Charvet's books. In fact, I am not convinced it was Pomeroy's theory at all. Someone needs to ask David Charvet if he can prove Pomeroy has such a ridiculous theory in his notes in the first place.

David, you wrote, "The Jesse Murphy story is not new, it saw print as early as 1941, and as Jeff Smith said, is common lore in Alaska. It should be noted however, that it is based on the unsubstantiated statement of one man, Mathew Sundeen." Actually, the Murphy story first appeared the following day after Soapy was shot dead. It was exposed in a letter to R.C.M.P. commander Steel in a note written by J. M. Tanner, one of the three other men with Jesse Murphy on the wharf when Soapy was shot. Steel wrote to his superiors twice, stating that it was Jesse Murphy and not Frank Reid who killed Soapy. Documentation of these and other letters are in my book. Sundeen was only one of several men who exposed the truth of the shooting years later. You can find out more on the Murphy shooting on my website HERE.

David, you wrote, "I have no agenda and am looking forward to buying Mr. Smith's book, I'm hoping it will help with my own research on the Cardiff Giant." Thank you in advance for the purchase of my upcoming book. I think I already answered your question about the Cardiff Giant on another forum. The Cardiff Giant is not involved with Soapy's history. I am guessing that you read that somewhere, and the fact that someone once wrote that is just another example of "invented research." Soapy had McGinty, a petrified man that still exists and is a real corpse. My book will go into great detail on that story, including the possible identification of the corpse, another man who tried to kill Soapy.

Jeff Smith
The Soapy Smith Preservation Trust
What's New (discussion board)
Last edited by Jeff Smith on 05/07/08 03:25 PM, edited 0 times in total.
Reason: make point clear
Jeff Smith
 
Posts: 8
Joined: 05/07/08 11:35 AM

Postby Vaclav » 05/07/08 06:16 PM

Magic Magazine May 2001
Excerpt from article John Pomeroy Renaissance Man by David Charvet pg.63

Outside the shop John was busy at the typewriter. He had previously written Dove, Silk, and Flower magic; Basic Makeup for Magician; ad Mentology all published by Mickey Hades. Since 1959, he had been researching the life of Claude Alexander Conlin, who performed in vaudeville as Alexander the Man Who Knows Although in 1993, haphazard book was released on mythical entertainer, it was Johns goal to ultimately produce the definitive volume on Alexander.
By 1999, the book project was nearing completion. But increased back pain was plaguing John. Sometimes the pain was so intense that he was immobilized for weeks at time. Doctors were consulted and tests were conducted. A malignant tumor was discovered near the base of the spine. It was cancer.
Last spring John called me (knowing I as a cancer survivor) to ask what his best course of treatment would be. We chatted and he promised to keep me posted regarding his progress, both with the disease, and the Alexander book. Then early in June, I have received another call informing me that the cancer had spread and John had less than six months to live. Just few weeks later on July 27,2000 he died.
In my last conversation with John, he expressed his wish to see the Alexander book to completion. Friend, Stephen Minch had already promised that it would be published.
But at that time, Stephen also knew that the last portion of the manuscript was still in Johns head and not yet on paper. I phoned John and volunteered to help transcribe his mental notes. But he assured me that he dictated the remaining information to his wife Mitsy. She had learned to use the computer to transform the massive accumulation of notes and interviews, as well as the dictated material in to manuscript form.
And to augment the exhaustive text, there were hundreds of photos, clippings and drawings from Johns four decades of painstaking research.
Only a Renaissance man such as John David Pomeroy could have persisted with a project such as this.
He unearths priceless historic gems on Alexanders secretive life that eluded the others.
The book will stand as testament to the endurance of a true practitioner of magic, who throughout his life never compromised his love of art.

David Charvet is currently editing and preparing John Pomeroys book, The Life and Legends of the Celebrated C.Alexander, The Man Who Knows, for publication by Hermetic Press. Many items from the Gem the Gem Magic line will continue to be produced by the Viking Magic Company

If not anything else: in 2001 Dave Charvet is editing John Pomeroys book
in 2007 Dave Chavet is writing in the Magic Magazine
MY biography of Claude Alexander Conlin was released in 2004 by Mike Caveney Magic Words.

So 2001 -John Pomeroys
2007 -it became Dave Charvets
Dave Charvets own words. I rest my case.
And as for the Soapy Smiths story. I did not see the computer analysis, (and as a matter of fact almost nothing from Johns manuscript except for 2 or 3 pages)
But is it possible that it was intended in the book as one of the legends?

All I can say that the book is nothing John had in mind.

Vaclav
Vaclav
 
Posts: 2
Joined: 05/07/08 05:36 AM

Postby David » 05/10/08 03:47 PM

Thank you for clearing that up.
User avatar
David
 
Posts: 26
Joined: 03/14/08 11:04 PM
Location: Memphis Down in Dixie


Return to Magic History and Anecdotes