ERDNASE

Discuss general aspects of Genii.
User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 483
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: ERDNASE

Postby jkeyes1000 » April 23rd, 2018, 9:25 pm

Carlo Morpurgo wrote:
jkeyes1000 wrote:All practitioners of logic will admit that they can be wrong. I have seen Chris concede this many times.


I must have missed something.... can you point out a few examples?

Regarding logic, with enough time at hand, and with enough skills in rhetoric, arguing, debating, etc., I claim that you can always find ways to "stay alive", so to speak. The winner of the debate is not necessarily the person who is right, unfortunately (for the winner).


I am much too lazy to re-read this dreadfully boring thread in order to quote Chris saying that he can be wrong, but I have certainly seen it on numerous occasions.

I quite agree that one can "win" a debate and still be wrong. Even brilliant logic can fail to discover the truth, as it can be too sensible to accord with senseless Reality. But in lieu of the facts, logic is best for arguments. Intuitions and "feelings" might be right, but they are mere pleas. We need to respect an argument for its rigorous logic, and intuition for its miraculous potential to recognise the truth.

Both can be right, both can be wrong. But an argument benefits more from reason than from wishful thinking.

Jackpot
Posts: 176
Joined: June 8th, 2016, 12:38 am
Location: Santa Rosa, CA

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Jackpot » April 23rd, 2018, 10:02 pm

jkeyes1000 wrote:
Carlo Morpurgo wrote:
jkeyes1000 wrote:All practitioners of logic will admit that they can be wrong. I have seen Chris concede this many times.


I must have missed something.... can you point out a few examples?


I am much too lazy to re-read this dreadfully boring thread in order to quote Chris saying that he can be wrong, but I have certainly seen it on numerous occasions.


It does sound like you are rather lazy. The characterization you make regarding Chris admitting he is wrong makes it sound like he has done it so frequently a rather cursory skimming of this thread would produce the meager few examples you were asked to point out. Perhaps in your initial remarks your were confusing how often Chris has been wrong with how many times he has actually admitted being wrong. After all there is a difference.
Not the one who created the Potter Index.

Bill Mullins
Posts: 5083
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Bill Mullins » April 23rd, 2018, 10:44 pm

jkeyes1000 -- my comments on logic were meant as follows.
Logic is the taking of factual statements and drawing inferences from them, supported by reasoning, induction and deduction. Where Chris falls down is the beginning. He takes statements that are not fact-based, but are suppositions, and draws inferences from them. You can take the rules of Boolean logic and, I suppose, apply them to false statements just as you can to true ones, but garbage in yields garbage out.

jkeyes1000 wrote: I have seen Chris concede this many times.
Can you point to a couple?
Tell me, Bill--How often have you confessed your fallibility in this forum?
It took me only a couple minutes to find three times; I'm sure there are more.
I think he is far more deserving of respect for his reasonable attitude . . . .

In just the last week, Chris has written:
"please continue your self-delusion."
"What a genius you are. [sarcastically]"
"You are the ultimate authority . . . [sarcastically]"
"Your arrogance is mind boggling."
"My bad, I forget that you are all so intellectually honest, so fair, so objective evaluators of information."
"It is a simple fact you can't admit. Very sad."
"Leonard knows nothing! . . . Leonard Hevia is full of lies, lies, lies, ..."
"Eventually you will graduate from middle school. Hang in there."
Reasonable attitude? It's like following Donald Trump on twitter . . . .

Roger M. wrote:Please confirm that this is indeed actual evidence of Gallaway with a deck of cards in his hands ... and not some strange assemblage of writings, events and presumed occurrences that you've then spun into Gallaway with a deck of cards in his hands, a fanciful interpretation as it were?


Well, he never provided the source of these quotes; he never disclosed the "recently discovered Gallaway booklet on Printing Practice, which he wrote for the Training Department of R. R. Donnelley"; he never shared why he believes that this shows Gallaway previously wrote a book called "Copyfitting", which has language from the mon-disclosed book, rather than that it shows Gallaway copied from it. So when Chris says that he has a "record of Gallaway playing cards," it could mean a lot of things.

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 483
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: ERDNASE

Postby jkeyes1000 » April 24th, 2018, 8:52 am

Jackpot wrote:
jkeyes1000 wrote:
Carlo Morpurgo wrote:
I must have missed something.... can you point out a few examples?


I am much too lazy to re-read this dreadfully boring thread in order to quote Chris saying that he can be wrong, but I have certainly seen it on numerous occasions.


It does sound like you are rather lazy. The characterization you make regarding Chris admitting he is wrong makes it sound like he has done it so frequently a rather cursory skimming of this thread would produce the meager few examples you were asked to point out. Perhaps in your initial remarks your were confusing how often Chris has been wrong with how many times he has actually admitted being wrong. After all there is a difference.


I can recall just a few days ago, when the discussion was about the accuracy of the drawings in EATCT. I had agreed with Bill, that the illustration in question probably did not represent a flat hand, but one that was slightly "cupped" and which therefore seemed shorter than it was. Chris conceded that it might be so, and then proceeded to adjust his argument, saying essentially that, even if the hand were not flat, "Erdnase" would still be no taller than 5'7". Perhaps this is why it is so hard for folks like you to give him credit. He is "self correcting", and so he recovers his losses, never conceding The Ultimate Defeat, but rather refining his argument as he goes. This is quite in line with the modern scientific method, and ought not to be disparaged, as it makes his passionate critics seem like religious folks reviling Evolution.

Brad Henderson
Posts: 3991
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Brad Henderson » April 24th, 2018, 9:31 am

so he changed his position (cupped hand v straight) in a case that didn’t require him to change his position (height as basis for proving his candidate).

got it.

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 483
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: ERDNASE

Postby jkeyes1000 » April 24th, 2018, 9:57 am

Brad Henderson wrote:so he changed his position (cupped hand v straight) in a case that didn’t require him to change his position (height as basis for proving his candidate).

got it.


Not quite, Brad. The estimate of the height, using the hand as a measure, is subject to a margin of error, and of course, to anomaly. Chris has mentioned this himself several times (probably every time the topic is addressed). It therefore does not constitute proof that Galloway wrote EATCT, it is simply a piece of evidence worthy of consideration.

Now, when Chris writes about the possibility of Galloway having met Houdini, this is just an interesting side note. In itself, the suggestion is evidence of nothing. So it is an "it could happen" sort of idea, but he does not suggest that this bolsters his case in any significant way. It is a fascinating concept, no more, and ought not to be seized upon as if he had said, "Here is more proof that Galloway is Erdnase". It is you that jumps to the wrong conclusion, not him.

Jackpot
Posts: 176
Joined: June 8th, 2016, 12:38 am
Location: Santa Rosa, CA

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Jackpot » April 24th, 2018, 10:44 am

jkeyes1000 wrote:This is quite in line with the modern scientific method, and ought not to be disparaged, as it makes his passionate critics seem like religious folks reviling Evolution.

No critic has disparaged the modern scientific method. People who applied tests to a weak hypothesis have been criticized, badgered and slandered. Why? Because they have not accepted a weak hypothesis as an article of faith. Zealotry is a problem, and in this case you have failed to identify the greatest zealot.
Not the one who created the Potter Index.

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 483
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: ERDNASE

Postby jkeyes1000 » April 24th, 2018, 11:00 am

Jackpot wrote:
jkeyes1000 wrote:This is quite in line with the modern scientific method, and ought not to be disparaged, as it makes his passionate critics seem like religious folks reviling Evolution.

No critic has disparaged the modern scientific method. People who applied tests to a weak hypothesis have been criticized, badgered and slandered. Why? Because they have not accepted a weak hypothesis as an article of faith. Zealotry is a problem, and in this case you have failed to identify the greatest zealot.


I would rather style someone a "zealot" for advocating Sanders because he "could have lied about his height", or "could have fibbed about needing the money" or "could have scrambled his name into "Erdnase" because he had experimented with anagrams", or "could have spent a lot of time in gambling houses because there are pages missing from his diary", than someone who prefers Gallaway because he worked at the print shop, kept a copy of EATCT in his library, was a showman at some point, was not too tall to match Smith's description, and might very well have required the cash.

Bob Coyne
Posts: 556
Joined: January 26th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Charlies
Location: Montclair, NJ

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Bob Coyne » April 24th, 2018, 12:51 pm

jkeyes1000 wrote:I would rather style someone a "zealot" for advocating Sanders because he "could have lied about his height", or "could have fibbed about needing the money" or "could have scrambled his name into "Erdnase" because he had experimented with anagrams", or "could have spent a lot of time in gambling houses because there are pages missing from his diary", than someone who prefers Gallaway because he worked at the print shop, kept a copy of EATCT in his library, was a showman at some point, was not too tall to match Smith's description, and might very well have required the cash.

As I pointed out to one of your previous statements where you tried to make one of these same claims:

Sanders was "hard up" for money at various times, apparently because of gambling debts. A friend wrote to him "You need not have worried about the money -- I did not I assure you. We are all of us who have the sporting blood likely to be 'hard up' at any time. 'I've been there before many a time' as the song goes and know well the feeling at the same time..."

At that time I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were just unaware of this information. It's now obvious (if it wasn't already) that you aren't interested or able to integrate countervailing information into your thinking.

All your other assertions above are similarly inaccurate or largely irrelevant. They ignore or mischaracterize information/analysis that's been stated here repeatedly.

Furthermore, I would "style someone" who engages in that sort of transparent and ineffective debating technique as a "troll".

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 483
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: ERDNASE

Postby jkeyes1000 » April 24th, 2018, 1:08 pm

Bob Coyne wrote:
jkeyes1000 wrote:I would rather style someone a "zealot" for advocating Sanders because he "could have lied about his height", or "could have fibbed about needing the money" or "could have scrambled his name into "Erdnase" because he had experimented with anagrams", or "could have spent a lot of time in gambling houses because there are pages missing from his diary", than someone who prefers Gallaway because he worked at the print shop, kept a copy of EATCT in his library, was a showman at some point, was not too tall to match Smith's description, and might very well have required the cash.

As I pointed out to one of your previous statements where you tried to make one of these same claims:

Sanders was "hard up" for money at various times, apparently because of gambling debts. A friend wrote to him "You need not have worried about the money -- I did not I assure you. We are all of us who have the sporting blood likely to be 'hard up' at any time. 'I've been there before many a time' as the song goes and know well the feeling at the same time..."

At that time I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were just unaware of this information. It's now obvious (if it wasn't already) that you aren't interested or able to integrate countervailing information into your thinking.

All your other assertions above are similarly inaccurate or largely irrelevant. They ignore or mischaracterize information/analysis that's been stated here repeatedly.


I was aware of your "hard up" argument for Sanders, Bob. But more often than not, Sanders advocates tend to suggest that he was only joking about needing the money. And besides--his "need" was likely to be less severe than someone of a lower class. The quote you offer even says so. That it was "no big deal', that he had friends, relatives, etc. At any rate--if this is your line of reasoning then you can't very well sneer at the notion that Gallaway might have needed it (as suggested by his daughter-in-law). At best, your argument for Sanders' momentary poverty might measure up to the Gallaway hypothesis, but I don't see it taking first place.

Bill Mullins
Posts: 5083
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Bill Mullins » April 24th, 2018, 3:42 pm

jkeyes1000 wrote:I was aware of your "hard up" argument for Sanders, Bob. But more often than not, Sanders advocates tend to suggest that he was only joking about needing the money. And besides--his "need" was likely to be less severe than someone of a lower class. The quote you offer even says so. That it was "no big deal', that he had friends, relatives, etc. At any rate--if this is your line of reasoning then you can't very well sneer at the notion that Gallaway might have needed it (as suggested by his daughter-in-law). At best, your argument for Sanders' momentary poverty might measure up to the Gallaway hypothesis, but I don't see it taking first place.


We don't know enough about Sanders or Gallaway's personal financial situation ca. 1901 to say that "needs the money" is more applicable to one or the other. It is a null argument.

Bob Coyne
Posts: 556
Joined: January 26th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Charlies
Location: Montclair, NJ

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Bob Coyne » April 24th, 2018, 3:59 pm

Bill Mullins wrote:
jkeyes1000 wrote:I was aware of your "hard up" argument for Sanders, Bob. But more often than not, Sanders advocates tend to suggest that he was only joking about needing the money. And besides--his "need" was likely to be less severe than someone of a lower class. The quote you offer even says so. That it was "no big deal', that he had friends, relatives, etc. At any rate--if this is your line of reasoning then you can't very well sneer at the notion that Gallaway might have needed it (as suggested by his daughter-in-law). At best, your argument for Sanders' momentary poverty might measure up to the Gallaway hypothesis, but I don't see it taking first place.


We don't know enough about Sanders or Gallaway's personal financial situation ca. 1901 to say that "needs the money" is more applicable to one or the other. It is a null argument.


Exactly. And we also don't really know if "needs the money" was applicable to Erdnase either, or if he was merely engaging in a bit of rhetoric. So this really is, as you say, a null argument.

I was merely correcting the record as to Sanders' financial position which was being misrepresented. Even speculation needs some accuracy and basis in facts.

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 483
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: ERDNASE

Postby jkeyes1000 » April 24th, 2018, 4:49 pm

Bob Coyne wrote:
Bill Mullins wrote:
jkeyes1000 wrote:I was aware of your "hard up" argument for Sanders, Bob. But more often than not, Sanders advocates tend to suggest that he was only joking about needing the money. And besides--his "need" was likely to be less severe than someone of a lower class. The quote you offer even says so. That it was "no big deal', that he had friends, relatives, etc. At any rate--if this is your line of reasoning then you can't very well sneer at the notion that Gallaway might have needed it (as suggested by his daughter-in-law). At best, your argument for Sanders' momentary poverty might measure up to the Gallaway hypothesis, but I don't see it taking first place.


We don't know enough about Sanders or Gallaway's personal financial situation ca. 1901 to say that "needs the money" is more applicable to one or the other. It is a null argument.


Exactly. And we also don't really know if "needs the money" was applicable to Erdnase either, or if he was merely engaging in a bit of rhetoric. So this really is, as you say, a null argument.

I was merely correcting the record as to Sanders' financial position which was being misrepresented. Even speculation needs some accuracy and basis in facts.


O-kay, Bob. You were "merely correcting the record", not trying to make a case for Sanders' need for money. Just like when you first proposed the idea. It wasn't to offer a counter to the Gallaway theory, just your funny little way of saying "No one knows". Sure, Bob.

Bob Coyne
Posts: 556
Joined: January 26th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Charlies
Location: Montclair, NJ

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Bob Coyne » April 24th, 2018, 5:57 pm

jkeyes1000 wrote:
Bob Coyne wrote:
Bill Mullins wrote:
We don't know enough about Sanders or Gallaway's personal financial situation ca. 1901 to say that "needs the money" is more applicable to one or the other. It is a null argument.


Exactly. And we also don't really know if "needs the money" was applicable to Erdnase either, or if he was merely engaging in a bit of rhetoric. So this really is, as you say, a null argument.

I was merely correcting the record as to Sanders' financial position which was being misrepresented. Even speculation needs some accuracy and basis in facts.


O-kay, Bob. You were "merely correcting the record", not trying to make a case for Sanders' need for money. Just like when you first proposed the idea. It wasn't to offer a counter to the Gallaway theory, just your funny little way of saying "No one knows". Sure, Bob.

That's exactly right. I don't think it's very relevant either way. As I remember you were the one who kept arguing Erdnase couldn't be Sanders because Sanders didn't need the money. That was never my argument.

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 483
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: ERDNASE

Postby jkeyes1000 » April 24th, 2018, 6:23 pm

Bob Coyne wrote:

"As I remember you were the one who kept arguing Erdnase couldn't be Sanders because Sanders didn't need the money. That was never my argument."

Bob, I never once argued that Sanders couldn't be Erdnase. I am simply saying that it stands to reason, that Sanders was wealthier, and therefore less in need of money than Galloway.

If Gallaway had as much money as Sanders, we would wonder how he acquired it--would we not? And that might lend credence to the "pretty money" theory. Oh, dear. Better not pursue that one!

Bill Mullins
Posts: 5083
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Bill Mullins » April 24th, 2018, 7:10 pm

jkeyes1000 wrote: I am simply saying that it stands to reason, that Sanders was wealthier, and therefore less in need of money than Galloway.

There is no way of knowing if Sanders was wealthier at the time in question, ca. 1900-1901. (or at any other time, for that matter.)

User avatar
Zenner
Posts: 125
Joined: September 30th, 2008, 8:49 pm
Favorite Magician: Al Koran
Location: Derbyshire, England

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Zenner » April 24th, 2018, 7:11 pm

It doesn't seem too long ago that nobody knew what Marshall D. Smith's middle name was. The books don't mention it and neither do the Census returns. Yet when I decided to do a Google today, it seemed that everybody was saying it was "Dennison". I wondered where that had come from and carried on searching.

Lo and behold - way back in 1901, his father, Colonel Nicholas Smith, had a book published called Hymns Historically Famous. In the 'Acknowledgements' Smith said that he was indebted to ..."Marshall Denison Smith of Chicago, for the portraits of Toplady, Lyte, Elliott, Duffield and Palmer" (five of the composers included in the book).

I assume that Marshall's father knew how to spell his son's middle name, so there we have it - "Marshall Denison Smith".

And we have five more samples of Marshall D. Smith's work...
Peter Zenner

Joe Mckay
Posts: 1553
Joined: April 13th, 2008, 6:56 am
Favorite Magician: Lubor Fiedler
Location: Durham, England

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Joe Mckay » April 24th, 2018, 7:57 pm

In some lecture notes by Jim Steinmeyer, he mentions that it is commonly thought that Thurston met Erdnase.

Interesting.

User avatar
Zenner
Posts: 125
Joined: September 30th, 2008, 8:49 pm
Favorite Magician: Al Koran
Location: Derbyshire, England

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Zenner » April 24th, 2018, 8:15 pm

Joe Mckay wrote:In some lecture notes by Jim Steinmeyer, he mentions that it is commonly thought that Thurston met Erdnase.

Interesting.


I don't know if Erdnase (i.e., Edward D. Benedict) met Thurston, but his son Hal did in 1920 -

July 2. In today’s Film Daily -- “Thurston at Work. Howard Thurston, the magician, who has organized the Thurston Pictures, Inc., has decided to begin operations at the Hal Benedict Studios at College Point, L. I.” (page 8) “Hal Benedict, College Point, Flushing, Long Island. Flushing 3142.”

July 31. In today’s Film Daily -- “The cast for Twisted Souls, Howard Thurston’s picture, has been engaged. George Kelson will direct. Production at Hal Benedict Studios, College Point.” (page 244)

“Thurston wisely realized that his magic did not translate to the screen, where special effects could easily dazzle audiences. He wrote a script, first titled Eternity, about a fake spiritualist who encounters genuine marvels. The press reported that it “dealt largely with Thurston’s experiences in India and China” and depicted “the truth of spiritualism as demonstrated by the Yogis of the Hindustan.” It was shot at the Hal Benedict Studios on Long Island and directed by George Kelson.”

“The finished film, at six reels in length, was ultimately titled Twisted Souls. It was never released, and only a few segments of it survive, including Thurston as the rumpled and distraught medium, brandishing a gun and encountering Indian mystics in a ramshackle mansion. Several years later, Thurston attempted to re-cut the film, renaming it The Spirit Witness, but distributors weren’t interested. It offered none of the derring-do from Houdini’s film adventures, although the film encouraged Thurston to try his hand at additional scripts.” (Steinmeyer, The Last Greatest Magician, page 234)
Peter Zenner

Jackpot
Posts: 176
Joined: June 8th, 2016, 12:38 am
Location: Santa Rosa, CA

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Jackpot » April 24th, 2018, 8:54 pm

jkeyes1000 wrote:I would rather style someone a "zealot" for advocating Sanders because he "could have lied about his height", or "could have fibbed about needing the money" or "could have scrambled his name into "Erdnase" because he had experimented with anagrams", or "could have spent a lot of time in gambling houses because there are pages missing from his diary", than someone who prefers Gallaway because he worked at the print shop, kept a copy of EATCT in his library, was a showman at some point, was not too tall to match Smith's description, and might very well have required the cash.


And I would agree with you if the few carefully chosen statements you have selected were all we had to go on.

One thing has always puzzled me about the "... he needs the money" statement and Gallaway. Since Gallaway knew the publishing industry and if he really needed money why would he self-publish a book? If someone needs money it seems like it's going to take some time before one sees a return on his investment of time and money. While I don't think writing a book and self-publishing is an easy way to make money, Gallaway would have known it isn't an easy way to make a buck. I think the statement is not the real reason the book was written and published, but a joke.

Everyone knows the easy money in publishing magic books didn't start happening until Richard Kaufman appeared on the scene. :)
Not the one who created the Potter Index.

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 483
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: ERDNASE

Postby jkeyes1000 » April 24th, 2018, 9:28 pm

Jackpot wrote:
jkeyes1000 wrote:I would rather style someone a "zealot" for advocating Sanders because he "could have lied about his height", or "could have fibbed about needing the money" or "could have scrambled his name into "Erdnase" because he had experimented with anagrams", or "could have spent a lot of time in gambling houses because there are pages missing from his diary", than someone who prefers Gallaway because he worked at the print shop, kept a copy of EATCT in his library, was a showman at some point, was not too tall to match Smith's description, and might very well have required the cash.


And I would agree with you if the few carefully chosen statements you have selected were all we had to go on.

One thing has always puzzled me about the "... he needs the money" statement and Gallaway. Since Gallaway knew the publishing industry and if he really needed money why would he self-publish a book? If someone needs money it seems like it's going to take some time before one sees a return on his investment of time and money. While I don't think writing a book and self-publishing is an easy way to make money, Gallaway would have known it isn't an easy way to make a buck. I think the statement is not the real reason the book was written and published, but a joke.

Everyone knows the easy money in publishing magic books didn't start happening until Richard Kaufman appeared on the scene. :)


I suspect that if Gallaway was Erdnase (and I am not yet persuaded), he could have got the printing done very cheaply. Perhaps even by means of bartering with his employer. Though publishing a book is not the surest or the easiest way to make money, it might well have seemed the best option, as he could have use of the equipment, do the work himself, and invest precious little cash in the project. In other words: low risk.

User avatar
lybrary
Posts: 1171
Joined: March 31st, 2013, 4:59 pm
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby lybrary » April 24th, 2018, 9:34 pm

Jackpot wrote:One thing has always puzzled me about the "... he needs the money" statement and Gallaway. Since Gallaway knew the publishing industry and if he really needed money why would he self-publish a book? If someone needs money it seems like it's going to take some time before one sees a return on his investment of time and money. While I don't think writing a book and self-publishing is an easy way to make money, Gallaway would have known it isn't an easy way to make a buck. I think the statement is not the real reason the book was written and published, but a joke.
Who else but somebody capable working at a print shop could self-publish profitably? He could print the book on a budget for much less than anybody going to a printer as a regular customer. Imagine for a moment that my thesis that Eugene Edwards was Erdnase is correct. Then "Jack Pots" was written by Erdnase but published by Jamieson-Higgins in 1900. Erdnase/Gallaway working at James McKinney, who did the printing of "Jack Pots" for Jamieson-Higgins, might have come to the conclusion that the publisher wasn't contributing much, and that he could make more money by not only writing a book but self-publishing it, as well as printing it on a budget in the shop he was working at, and where he was good friends with the owner.

You also need to understand the magic book market at that time. Roterberg's "New Era Card Tricks" (1897) was a huge financial success. Houdini commented in the final issue of his Conjurers’ Monthly: "A. Roterberg is the only magical dealer who published a book from which a large income was derived." Erdnase was probably aware of the fact that Roterberg's book was such a success. Roterberg self published his book. I think it was at least part of the motivation for Erdnase to write and also self-publish his book.
Lybrary.com Magic & Gambling
preserving magic one book at a time

Jonathan Townsend
Posts: 8042
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Westchester, NY
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Jonathan Townsend » April 24th, 2018, 10:04 pm

lybrary wrote:...Who else but somebody capable working at a print shop could self-publish profitably? He could print the book on a budget for much less than anybody going to a printer as a regular customer. Imagine for a moment ...
That's a sensible perspective. Also, good find on "Jack Pots". :) That brings us closer to reading "Expert" in context.
Mundus vult decipi -per Caleb Carr's story Killing Time

Bob Coyne
Posts: 556
Joined: January 26th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Charlies
Location: Montclair, NJ

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Bob Coyne » April 24th, 2018, 10:40 pm

jkeyes1000 wrote:Bob, I never once argued that Sanders couldn't be Erdnase. I am simply saying that it stands to reason, that Sanders was wealthier, and therefore less in need of money than Galloway.!


That's not an accurate account of what happened.

You predicated various arguments on Sanders having plenty of money. For example: "If Sanders had plenty of money, it makes no sense for him to have paid for thirty drawings and then laboured to do the rest himself. Perhaps he called upon an old school chum to help him. " and "The irony is that they [Sanders advocates] are compromising their own case by admitting that there might have been more than one illustrator."

And you then claimed that Sanders advocates had to change their interpretation of Erdnase in order to deal with that supposed problem: "Sanders advocates argue that Erdnase must not have needed the cash".

And then when I pointed out that what we know about Sanders' gambling debts and rocky financial state undercuts your whole premise, you falsely assign some other motivation: 'O-kay, Bob. You were "merely correcting the record", not trying to make a case for Sanders' need for money. Just like when you first proposed the idea. It wasn't to offer a counter to the Gallaway theory, just your funny little way of saying "No one knows". Sure, Bob." '

It's really hard to keep up with all these misrepresentations and strawmen arguments.

User avatar
Zenner
Posts: 125
Joined: September 30th, 2008, 8:49 pm
Favorite Magician: Al Koran
Location: Derbyshire, England

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Zenner » April 25th, 2018, 7:07 am

Jackpot wrote: One thing has always puzzled me about the "... he needs the money" statement and Gallaway. Since Gallaway knew the publishing industry and if he really needed money why would he self-publish a book? If someone needs money it seems like it's going to take some time before one sees a return on his investment of time and money. While I don't think writing a book and self-publishing is an easy way to make money, Gallaway would have known it isn't an easy way to make a buck. I think the statement is not the real reason the book was written and published, but a joke.


I used to think that it could have been a joke but then I found that on November 13 [Thursday], 1902, it was reported on page 15 of The Chicago Tribune that Edward D. Benedict had gone bankrupt. “Petitions in Bankruptcy. 8386. Edward D. Benedict. Liabilities $4,694; assets $1,561. Attorney W. Ray Fetzer”

$4,694.00 in 1902 equals $131,642.74 today. Yup - Erdnase needed the money!
Peter Zenner

User avatar
lybrary
Posts: 1171
Joined: March 31st, 2013, 4:59 pm
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby lybrary » April 25th, 2018, 8:58 am

Zenner wrote:I used to think that it could have been a joke but then I found that on November 13 [Thursday], 1902, it was reported on page 15 of The Chicago Tribune that Edward D. Benedict had gone bankrupt. “Petitions in Bankruptcy. 8386. Edward D. Benedict. Liabilities $4,694; assets $1,561. Attorney W. Ray Fetzer”

$4,694.00 in 1902 equals $131,642.74 today. Yup - Erdnase needed the money!
Wouldn't you agree that the timing is a bit off? Benedict went bankrupt November 1902. Expert was off the press before February 1902. Erdnase probably wrote the preface sometime in 1901. Knowing a year or more ahead of time that you go bankrupt is a bit of a stretch in my opinion. More importantly, if Benedict was already seeing and sensing that his company was in peril, why would he embark on writing and self-publishing a book? Why would he drain more funds from his company into a risky project? Why would he not put all his efforts and resources into making sure his company does not go bankrupt? If the bankruptcy would have happened in 1901 then you would have strong evidence supporting the "needing the money" comment. But with the actual timeline you have, it makes no sense to me.
Lybrary.com Magic & Gambling
preserving magic one book at a time

Bob Coyne
Posts: 556
Joined: January 26th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Charlies
Location: Montclair, NJ

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Bob Coyne » April 25th, 2018, 9:54 am

lybrary wrote:
Zenner wrote:I used to think that it could have been a joke but then I found that on November 13 [Thursday], 1902, it was reported on page 15 of The Chicago Tribune that Edward D. Benedict had gone bankrupt. “Petitions in Bankruptcy. 8386. Edward D. Benedict. Liabilities $4,694; assets $1,561. Attorney W. Ray Fetzer”

$4,694.00 in 1902 equals $131,642.74 today. Yup - Erdnase needed the money!
Wouldn't you agree that the timing is a bit off? Benedict went bankrupt November 1902. Expert was off the press before February 1902. Erdnase probably wrote the preface sometime in 1901. Knowing a year or more ahead of time that you go bankrupt is a bit of a stretch in my opinion. More importantly, if Benedict was already seeing and sensing that his company was in peril, why would he embark on writing and self-publishing a book? Why would he drain more funds from his company into a risky project? Why would he not put all his efforts and resources into making sure his company does not go bankrupt? If the bankruptcy would have happened in 1901 then you would have strong evidence supporting the "needing the money" comment. But with the actual timeline you have, it makes no sense to me.

I dont think this whole "needing the money" argument leads anywhere, given that we don't know if Erdnase was serious or not, or to what degree, or for what he needed the money even if it was to be taken literally. Nor do I think Benedict is Erdnase.

But putting that aside...I don't see why financial peril and potential bankruptcy precludes pubishing the book. For the writing, itself, I doubt he "embarked" on the writing anytime close to when he published it. It was probably in the works for a few years. As for the question of then putting resources into publishing it vs saving his main business, he may have thought a successful book would provide the funds to rescue his company. i.e. It could have been a Hail Mary pass of sorts. In fact, for someone attracted to gambling (which we have to assume the author was), that could just be one more big bet.

User avatar
lybrary
Posts: 1171
Joined: March 31st, 2013, 4:59 pm
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby lybrary » April 25th, 2018, 10:32 am

Bob Coyne wrote:It could have been a Hail Mary pass of sorts.
Doing something Benedict had never done before, write a book and self-publish it, is highly unlikely that he would choose it as a Hail Mary. Benedict's profile does not support the profile of a writer who would write to make a profit. All he wrote were a few articles for the Sphinx several years after Expert was published. Has he written anything besides those articles?
Lybrary.com Magic & Gambling
preserving magic one book at a time

Bill Mullins
Posts: 5083
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Bill Mullins » April 25th, 2018, 10:52 am

lybrary wrote:Wouldn't you agree that the timing is a bit off? . . . Knowing a year or more ahead of time that you go bankrupt is a bit of a stretch in my opinion.

Ernest Hemingway, The Sun Also Rises (1926)
" "How did you go bankrupt?" Bill asked. "Two ways," Mike said. "Gradually and then suddenly." "

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 483
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: ERDNASE

Postby jkeyes1000 » April 25th, 2018, 12:02 pm

Bob Coyne wrote:
jkeyes1000 wrote:Bob, I never once argued that Sanders couldn't be Erdnase. I am simply saying that it stands to reason, that Sanders was wealthier, and therefore less in need of money than Galloway.!


That's not an accurate account of what happened.

You predicated various arguments on Sanders having plenty of money. For example: "If Sanders had plenty of money, it makes no sense for him to have paid for thirty drawings and then laboured to do the rest himself. Perhaps he called upon an old school chum to help him. " and "The irony is that they [Sanders advocates] are compromising their own case by admitting that there might have been more than one illustrator."

And you then claimed that Sanders advocates had to change their interpretation of Erdnase in order to deal with that supposed problem: "Sanders advocates argue that Erdnase must not have needed the cash".

And then when I pointed out that what we know about Sanders' gambling debts and rocky financial state undercuts your whole premise, you falsely assign some other motivation: 'O-kay, Bob. You were "merely correcting the record", not trying to make a case for Sanders' need for money. Just like when you first proposed the idea. It wasn't to offer a counter to the Gallaway theory, just your funny little way of saying "No one knows". Sure, Bob." '

It's really hard to keep up with all these misrepresentations and strawmen arguments.


Being sceptical of the Sanders hypothesis is not the same as ruling it out. I am judging your argument in terms of likelihood when it comes to speculation.

True, we don't know enough to be certain, but we can guess (isn't that what all of us are doing?) based on possibilities and probabilities.

Anything that hasn't been utterly debunked is technically possible, but to suggest that it is the best answer, you need to compare it with other ideas and show that it makes more sense.

Personally, I think Roger is a twit, but he has the right concept--rely solely on facts and make few if any assumptions. Too bad that he violates his own stated principles by saying that none of the candidates needed the money, therefore it is an irrelevant concern. I rather think each piece of evidence is potentially important and should not be so easily dismissed. You can't just "wish away" the awkward bits. You need to reason them out.

P.S. No offense intended, Rog. Just a little tit-for-tat.

User avatar
lybrary
Posts: 1171
Joined: March 31st, 2013, 4:59 pm
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby lybrary » April 25th, 2018, 12:43 pm

Bill Mullins wrote:
lybrary wrote:Wouldn't you agree that the timing is a bit off? . . . Knowing a year or more ahead of time that you go bankrupt is a bit of a stretch in my opinion.

Ernest Hemingway, The Sun Also Rises (1926)
" "How did you go bankrupt?" Bill asked. "Two ways," Mike said. "Gradually and then suddenly." "
great fiction
Lybrary.com Magic & Gambling
preserving magic one book at a time

Bob Coyne
Posts: 556
Joined: January 26th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Charlies
Location: Montclair, NJ

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Bob Coyne » April 25th, 2018, 12:51 pm

jkeyes1000 wrote:Being sceptical of the Sanders hypothesis is not the same as ruling it out. I am judging your argument in terms of likelihood when it comes to speculation.

True, we don't know enough to be certain, but we can guess (isn't that what all of us are doing?) based on possibilities and probabilities.

Anything that hasn't been utterly debunked is technically possible, but to suggest that it is the best answer, you need to compare it with other ideas and show that it makes more sense..

yes, of course it's all about what's likely. That's just another strawman.

You made elaborate and repeated arguments based on a conviction that Sanders was not in need of money. That's what I was pointing out. It's irrelevant whether you thought it ruled him out, or just that it made him much less likely (which, at a minimum, you clearly thought). Examples:

    1) "Can this be Sanders? That would be a difficult argument to make. It could certainly be either Gallaway or Benedict."

    2) Which is another reason to doubt Sanders. If this was a labour of love, a vanity edition, why would he approve of such a thrifty and aesthetically null method?

    3) If Sanders had plenty of money, it makes no sense for him to have paid for thirty drawings and then laboured to do the rest himself....I think the obvious conclusion is that the author or "publisher" could not afford more

I corrected that with some actual facts about what we know. And then you claim I'm "trying to make a case for Sanders' need for money". It's really not worth pursuing this anymore. I don't want to have to keep correcting misrepresentations of what I actually said.

And as I said, I don't even think Erdnase was being serious, though it's possible he was. So other than correcting the record/logic, this doesn't seem like an important part for or against the case for any candidate.

User avatar
AJM
Posts: 1182
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: ERDNASE

Postby AJM » April 25th, 2018, 3:47 pm

I feel this thread is becoming a parody of itself.
Corner-person Begrudger

Roger M.
Posts: 1416
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Roger M. » April 25th, 2018, 7:11 pm

jkeyes1000 wrote:P.S. No offense intended, Rog. Just a little tit-for-tat.


None taken - I did (after all) rather forcefully question your sanity and/or mental health - so for me to then take any offense at your response would be more than a bit churlish on my part.

Quick wit and sassy repartee can be, admittedly - somewhat entertaining ... but it's not as satisfying as actually reading something from a fellow poster, or finding something yourself that legitimately advances the search for Erdnase.

You would be better served though, if you altered your opinion of this thread from "boring" to being "vital" ... which is how most every other Erdnase researcher views it. This thread is, to most folks, the record of note in the search for Erdnase. (which is also why Chris will never leave this thread until Gallaway is indisputably proven to be Erdnase, or until Chris is presented with evidence that the entire world considers incontrovertible proof that somebody else besides Gallaway was Erdnase.)

Bill Mullins
Posts: 5083
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Bill Mullins » April 25th, 2018, 9:01 pm

jkeyes1000 wrote: I am judging your argument in terms of likelihood when it comes to speculation.


The likelihood is that whoever Erdnase was, no one on this forum has ever mentioned his name. In other words, it is probable that Erdnase was not E. S. Andrews or Edwin S. Andrews, or Benedict, or Gallaway, or Sanders, or any of the other candidates.

That doesn't mean that it isn't fun to discuss and hash out the candidates, but I'd bet that Erdnase has yet to be discovered.

Bob Coyne
Posts: 556
Joined: January 26th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Charlies
Location: Montclair, NJ

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Bob Coyne » April 26th, 2018, 12:10 am

Chris,

I just took a look at your new version of the Gallaway book, specifically the section that you say contains photos and illustrations of Gallaway's hands. I didn't read through the justification for them being Gallaway's in detail but looked at the photos themselves.

You highlight the illustration with the long pinky that looks similar (in that respect) to the one in Erdnase doing the backpalm (that also has a long pinky). But then in the photos, that you also say are also of Gallaway, there's one on top of page 98 (in the upper right, touching the paper roll) where the pink is quite small relative to the other fingers (i.e. it's normal sized). The simple explanation is that the illustrator wasn't trying to be accurate with exact proportions. i.e. the illustration was more diagrammatic than a depiction of real life.

Also, in the illustration, the index finger is extremely short (it extends no further than the pinky!). Though in Erdnase, the index finger is quite long, extending almost as far as the middle and ring fingers. So they're very different in that respect. Overall, the hands overall don't look the same to me (even assuming they are accurate renditions)

The sizes and proportions are also inconsistent among the various Erdnase illustrations. And that makes it very problematic to try to use them as the basis of comparison. But that's a separate issue.

Anyway, I'm curious how you reconcile all the above.

Roger M.
Posts: 1416
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Roger M. » April 26th, 2018, 10:02 am

lybrary wrote:That all changed because I did last week find a record of Gallaway playing cards - very skillfully I should add. See my upcoming newsletter.


I can't even be bothered except to note that Chris pulls a quote from a book that he claims Gallaway wrote (Copyfitting) in which the author (which is very likely not Gallaway) obliquely references playing cards in the third person, information which Chris then twists into Gallaway being some sort of a card counter.

The claim that the words are Gallaways to begin with are based on Chris's old stand-by, linguistic evidence.
In this case the amateur linguistic analysis is twisted and abused even more than normal in order to try and assert Gallaway as the author of the book in question.

Chris's early leaps of faith have sadly become outright fabrication.

In other words, Chris's latest newsletter is simply more of the same ... not even remotely convincing.

User avatar
lybrary
Posts: 1171
Joined: March 31st, 2013, 4:59 pm
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby lybrary » April 26th, 2018, 10:55 am

Bob Coyne wrote:But then in the photos, that you also say are also of Gallaway, there's one on top of page 98 (in the upper right, touching the paper roll) where the pink is quite small relative to the other fingers (i.e. it's normal sized).
In the photo you reference the pinky is not totally straight and the only comparison you can make is to the ring finger, which matches the illustration. The pinky is shorter than the ring finger. The surprising feature of the hand is that pinky and index finger are almost the same length. This is not a comparison you can make from the photo you are referencing.

Bob Coyne wrote:Also, in the illustration, the index finger is extremely short (it extends no further than the pinky!). Though in Erdnase, the index finger is quite long, extending almost as far as the middle and ring fingers. So they're very different in that respect.
Not at all correct. You have to compare index with pinky in illustration 79. In illustration 79, as has been noted before the middle-finger could be somewhat bent. The card hides that. That means it is not possible to make a direct length comparison. However both index-finger and pinky are exposed and their relative length matches the illustration from "The Monotype System" book.
Lybrary.com Magic & Gambling
preserving magic one book at a time

User avatar
lybrary
Posts: 1171
Joined: March 31st, 2013, 4:59 pm
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby lybrary » April 26th, 2018, 11:25 am

Roger M. wrote:
lybrary wrote:That all changed because I did last week find a record of Gallaway playing cards - very skillfully I should add. See my upcoming newsletter.


I can't even be bothered except to note that Chris pulls a quote from a book that he claims Gallaway wrote (Copyfitting) in which the author (which is very likely not Gallaway) obliquely references playing cards in the third person, information which Chris then twists into Gallaway being some sort of a card counter.

The claim that the words are Gallaways to begin with are based on Chris's old stand-by, linguistic evidence.
In this case the amateur linguistic analysis is twisted and abused even more than normal in order to try and assert Gallaway as the author of the book in question.

Chris's early leaps of faith have sadly become outright fabrication.

In other words, Chris's latest newsletter is simply more of the same ... not even remotely convincing.
Roger's typical distortions of what I wrote. First, the book from where the quote comes is titled "The Monotype System" not "Copyfitting", but they are all part of the Monotype system operator and instruction manuals. (They are all digitized and can be found on Google and the Hathitrust, if you want to check them out yourself.) Here is the quote:
The brain strain when working rapidly is much less than when working slowly; if you doubt this, try to keep track of the cards when playing with people who “take all day” to decide what card to play.
That is not an oblique reference and clearly expresses the author's own experience. That is proof that Gallaway played cards and played it seriously.

Combine this with the photo we have of the hand making a fan of rulers produced by the Monotype system. As I show in my ebook, this is the same hand as seen in the photos. The thumb matches. Gallaway had spatulate thumbs. That means we not only know now that Gallaway played cards, but that he could do really nice fans. While a fan is not a bottom deal, it is a first hint at sleight-of-hand with cards.

Regarding the question if the author is Edward Gallaway or not, there is much more than linguistics. Yes, Olsson emphatically agrees that this was written by Gallaway, he called it 'classic Gallaway', and also a first stylometry analysis I did shows a very good match, but we also have Gallaway borrowing from it without quotation or attribution in his later writings, suggesting it is stuff he wrote. He does quote and attribute when he borrows from others. Why is he not attributing or quoting these paragraphs from the Monotype books? It is because he is the author. And I just did an analysis of the head shown in one photo with the portrait we have from Gallaway. The relative positions of all the features in the face visible are a match. (This will be added to my ebook in the next week or so.) This is Gallaway. The person sitting at the Monotype keyboard is Gallaway. That means there are three independent groups of evidence that proof this was written by Gallaway:

  • verbatim borrowing without quoting or attribution
  • linguistic fingerprint a great match
  • photo of head matches Gallaway with respect to relative position of eyes, nose, mouth, ears, ...
As to how close these hands match Erdnase's, I am sure this will be an ongoing discussion. I have documented some of the surprising similarities I noted. My ebook includes all the photos, there are quite a few, and I am inviting others to check for themselves.
Lybrary.com Magic & Gambling
preserving magic one book at a time

Brad Henderson
Posts: 3991
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Brad Henderson » April 26th, 2018, 11:59 am

That is not an oblique reference AND clearly expresses the author's own experience. That is proof that Gallaway played cards and played it seriously.


1) yes it is
AND
2) No. not it is not. not at all. not in a least bit.

i have made references to sports techniques in my writing and i have no experience playing sports beyond one traumatic summer of pee wee baseball, and i certainly never took any seriously in any form.

But i have eyes.

if it’s true as you said chris that “everyone” played cards back then, then he could have easily and indifferently observed the process.

and while i’m sure many played cards. - i can’t imagine with the moralizing of the day that it was 1) most everyone and 2) those that did did so for money.


Return to “General”