Roger M. wrote:Benedict is a legitimate candidate.
Gallaway is a ridiculous distraction best left alone back on Chris’s blog.
What are the main points for Benedict connecting him with Erdnase?
Roger M. wrote:Benedict is a legitimate candidate.
Gallaway is a ridiculous distraction best left alone back on Chris’s blog.
Roger M. wrote:Oh Pavel ... stick with the subject matter and avoid getting personal.
Gallaway is irrelevant - now rather than resort to personal insults, make a cohesive case demonstrating that he’s not irrelevant.
That’s how forums work.
Bob Coyne wrote:What are the main points for Benedict connecting him with Erdnase?
PavelTheGreat wrote:
His (Gallaway's) relevance is:
1) He was there (at McKinney)
2) Benedict was there (at McKinney)
3) If Benedict wrote book and Gallaway was involved in any way (design, type-setting etc) they are likely to have met
4) If Benedict "need cash" he will first try to sell book to publisher rather than try to market it himself. If you don't believe this you have never tried to sell a book.
5) And if Benedict was desperate, he might take petty cash.
6) Gallaway could seize opportunity to print book cheaply (using his own labour) and obtain rights to book. A good investment with little risk.
6) "Erdnase" could be nick-name for Gallaway but has no credible connection to Benedict
7) Gallaway adequately fits description by Smith
8) Smith did not know Erdnase from Adam--either before or after the meeting. And yet Smith and Benedict worked in same building!
9) No known reason for Benedict to use pseudonym. As a performer he sought fame, and he even WROTE ARTICLES for magic magazines using his real name.
Roger M. wrote:PavelTheGreat wrote:
His (Gallaway's) relevance is:
1) He was there (at McKinney)
confirmed, but so were lots of other people2) Benedict was there (at McKinney)
not entirely accurate, bordering on convenient wordplay ... Benedict was a customer at McKinney, and may never have met anybody but the secretary at the front counter3) If Benedict wrote book and Gallaway was involved in any way (design, type-setting etc) they are likely to have met
"Likely" is a leap of faith - "may have met" would be more accurate, and indicates they "may not" have met.4) If Benedict "need cash" he will first try to sell book to publisher rather than try to market it himself. If you don't believe this you have never tried to sell a book.
This is an unacceptably large leap of faith, and is pure conjecture5) And if Benedict was desperate, he might take petty cash.
Pure conjecture lacking any evidence whatsoever6) Gallaway could seize opportunity to print book cheaply (using his own labour) and obtain rights to book. A good investment with little risk.
Pure conjecture lacking any evidence whatsoever6) "Erdnase" could be nick-name for Gallaway but has no credible connection to Benedict
I find the entire nickname theory silly at best, and a distraction, I don't give it any weight as a result. I consider it to be pure conjecture.7) Gallaway adequately fits description by Smith
"Adequate" is a pretty broad term. "Accurately" wold be a better one ... but overall, this is in the "+" column8) Smith did not know Erdnase from Adam--either before or after the meeting. And yet Smith and Benedict worked in same building!
I've worked in a medium sized office building for over a decade, and don't know 85% of the people who also work there. It's commonplace to know your "neighbours", but not know anybody beyond those neighbours9) No known reason for Benedict to use pseudonym. As a performer he sought fame, and he even WROTE ARTICLES for magic magazines using his real name.
Purporting to be revealing both magicians and gamblers secrets is reason enough for any author who made his living in one of those two fields to write anonymously
Thanks for laying out your case so clearly Paco, even if I may not agree with you.
Roger M. wrote:Ummm, they weren't in the office building Pavel, they met in a hotel room.
You might want to buff up on the basic research before making any premature statements about what did or didn't happen.
You know ... facts.
Anyway, conjecture doesn't work quite like you think it does. There are 327 million people in the United States today, and "conjecture" would be to claim that they've all met one another.
In reality, we start off with the basic fact that those 327 million people almost certainly haven't met one another - until such time as somebody can demonstrate that they have.
That's not "conjecture", that's just recognizing an obvious bit of stark reality.
Roger M. wrote:Ummm, they weren't in the office building Pavel, they met in a hotel room.
You might want to buff up on the basic research before making any premature statements about what did or didn't happen.
You know ... facts.
Anyway, conjecture doesn't work quite like you think it does. There are 327 million people in the United States today, and "conjecture" would be to claim that they've all met one another.
In reality, we start off with the basic fact that those 327 million people almost certainly haven't met one another - until such time as somebody can demonstrate that they have.
That's not "conjecture", that's just recognizing an obvious bit of stark reality.
Roger M. wrote:Painfully obvious that you haven't done your research Pavel, you're just throwing crap at the wall.
Yes, they met in a hotel - not an office.
Is it just "good to know" that fact, or is it actually critical to know before you toss out some ridiculous, uninformed leading question about why Erdnase had cold hands when he met with Smith?
Read up Pavel, get a grasp of the basic facts before you start arguing with people who've actually done their research.
PavelTheGreat wrote:
....It is clear what you are really saying is that you don't like the idea of anybody but your candidate being Erdnase.
You have closed mind. You are sure you are right, and you will hear no opposing evidence.
Your debating style is about ad cool and rational as a flame thrower.
Nobody is perfect. This is a complex mystery due to all the sources of fact and speculation. So I make an assumption that Smith and Erdnase met at Smith's office, because this has rarely if ever been mentioned in my reading
But as assumptions go it was reasonable. I mean, this is what offices are for.
Which raises another question in my mind which possibly you can inform me. If (as I believe), EATCT was written by Benedict, it would be very strange circumstance for he and Smith to meet in hotel, when they could meet in office building where they both work.
Roger M. wrote:PavelTheGreat wrote:
....It is clear what you are really saying is that you don't like the idea of anybody but your candidate being Erdnase.
I don't have a candidate, and as a result you don't have a point.You have closed mind. You are sure you are right, and you will hear no opposing evidence.
Far too personal an analysis considering you don't know me. Regardless, I'm open to any evidence of substance as my years of posts in this thread will demonstrate. What you're presenting is uninformed claptrap, so I'm not interestedYour debating style is about ad cool and rational as a flame thrower.
I'm not debating anybody. You think this is a debate.Nobody is perfect. This is a complex mystery due to all the sources of fact and speculation. So I make an assumption that Smith and Erdnase met at Smith's office, because this has rarely if ever been mentioned in my reading
It's a fundamental element of the foundational research. You haven't done any research, so you don't know this.But as assumptions go it was reasonable. I mean, this is what offices are for.
It was ridiculous, as any Erdnase investigator is aware that they met in a cold hotel room.Which raises another question in my mind which possibly you can inform me. If (as I believe), EATCT was written by Benedict, it would be very strange circumstance for he and Smith to meet in hotel, when they could meet in office building where they both work.
Do your own research. You haven't done any to date, so now would be a good time to start.
I'll leave you now Pavel. You have done ZERO research, and make everything far too personal. This makes an exchange with you difficult if not impossible.
Which sources of fact beyond the printer, the book, and the artist do you believe to be relevant?PavelTheGreat wrote:Roger M. wrote:This is a complex mystery due to all the sources of fact and speculation. So I make an assumption that Smith and Erdnase met at Smith's office
Jonathan Townsend wrote:Which sources of fact beyond the printer, the book, and the artist do you believe to be relevant?PavelTheGreat wrote:Roger M. wrote:This is a complex mystery due to all the sources of fact and speculation. So I make an assumption that Smith and Erdnase met at Smith's office
PavelTheGreat wrote:
If you want to persuade anyone that "earth" was used less often than "dirt" in 1902, you need to show super-abundance of examples of "dirt" in print. Happy hunting, Bill.
Bob Coyne wrote:Bill Mullins wrote:Bob - your link in the post previous isn't working. Late-night network maintenance?
Strange...I just now tested it in three different browsers browsers, and it worked. So maybe some temporary network glitch when you tried it. Here's the link as text (vs using the URL bbcode, in case that caused it to get truncated or mangled something in your browser)...though I notice this also gets turned into a clickable link vs pure text.
http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~coyne/erdna ... -pen-names
Bill Mullins wrote:PavelTheGreat wrote:
If you want to persuade anyone that "earth" was used less often than "dirt" in 1902, you need to show super-abundance of examples of "dirt" in print. Happy hunting, Bill.
I'm not trying to persuade anyone that "earth" was used less often than "dirt". I'm responding to your claim that when people said "earth", they meant "dirt". You made this claim to suggest that "Erdnase" was a nickname implying "dirty nose".Bob Coyne wrote:Bill Mullins wrote:Bob - your link in the post previous isn't working. Late-night network maintenance?
Strange...I just now tested it in three different browsers browsers, and it worked. So maybe some temporary network glitch when you tried it. Here's the link as text (vs using the URL bbcode, in case that caused it to get truncated or mangled something in your browser)...though I notice this also gets turned into a clickable link vs pure text.
http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~coyne/erdna ... -pen-names
Hmm. Doesn't work with (my installation of) Chrome, but I can access it with MS IE (or Edge, or whatever it is being called nowadays).
And since Benedict has been revived, I think it's worth pointing out that you can associate him (or his name) with magic tricks maybe 8 or 10 times in the conjuring literature, and a few more in newspaper articles. Many of those are explicitly not card-related; they are coins, or mentalism, or apparatus tricks. In only one place is he associated with playing cards -- an article he wrote about an apparatus-based rising cards trick. Despite the fact that he was a magician, there is no evidence at all that he had the necessary skill with playing cards to be behind Expert.
And the fact that he (and Gallaway, for that matter) had business dealings with McKinney doesn't add to the case for him being Erdnase at all. Most people who work in publishing don't write books. Most people who write books don't work in publishing. So if you have a guy who worked in publishing, why should it suggest he wrote a book?
If you discount Benedict's day job (as I think you should), all you are left with is that he is a magician in Chicago who may resemble the man Smith remembered. He has no known reason to use the name "Erdnase"; he has no known skill with cards; He had a wife and kid, which doesn't fit with the image of the card shark (reformed or not). I don't think the case for him is particularly strong.
Bill Mullins wrote: If you discount Benedict's day job (as I think you should), all you are left with is that he is a magician in Chicago who may resemble the man Smith remembered.
Bill Mullins wrote: He has no known reason to use the name "Erdnase";
Bill Mullins wrote: he has no known skill with cards;
Bill Mullins wrote: He had a wife and kid, which doesn't fit with the image of the card shark (reformed or not).
Bill Mullins wrote: I don't think the case for him is particularly strong.
Richard Kaufman wrote:Peter, if you continue to make derogatory remarks about someone else who is contributing to this thread in your posts you will indeed go into hibernation.
Zenner wrote:Somebody had to distribute Expert and the fact that Benedict was by then a professional distributer of books is, I believe, pertinent.
Bill Mullins wrote: He has no known reason to use the name "Erdnase";
You haven't been reading the latest posts, Bill. I have explained how Benedict knew E.C. Andrews, who signature read "E.S. Andrews".
I have reason to believe that he used the name E.S. Andrews when he was up to the fraudulent activities outlined by Todd Karr.
Bill Mullins wrote: he has no known skill with cards;
Catch up Bill. His full evening show consisted of three parts. One of those parts was SLEIGHT OF HAND with coins and CARDS.
Bill Mullins wrote: He had a wife and kid, which doesn't fit with the image of the card shark (reformed or not).
He wasn't a card shark;
There was a Dalrymple family linked to a Benedict family in the genealogy book I downloaded. So there was a reason that Benedict might have thought that he was related to Louis Dalrymple.
PavelTheGreat wrote: in any language, earth and dirt are same thing. It is disingenuous to suggest that they were (or are) distinctly different.
the search for "Erdnase" may be complicated by the involvement of more than one person. It may be vain to try to ascribe all of the qualities and conditions to ONE CANDIDATE.
We may have one fellow that could be called "Erdnase", who met with Smith but did not write book.
Bill Mullins wrote:PavelTheGreat wrote: in any language, earth and dirt are same thing. It is disingenuous to suggest that they were (or are) distinctly different.
Pavel -- I've noticed that this is how you make your case. You make a statement about how things are, or how they would have been, without giving any facts that support your statements. This is what you've done with Earth and dirt. I've shown clearly that you are wrong about this -- that when people said "Earth" in 1902, they meant the planet or the world the majority of the time. You responding, "No, earth and dirt meant the same thing" doesn't fly here. If you want to persuade me, you've got to make a supported logical argument. You can't just keep asserting otherwise.the search for "Erdnase" may be complicated by the involvement of more than one person. It may be vain to try to ascribe all of the qualities and conditions to ONE CANDIDATE.
Except that the very best evidence we have, the book itself, says that the book was published by the author. Singular. Not "the authors."We may have one fellow that could be called "Erdnase", who met with Smith but did not write book.
Smith believed he was talking to the actual author of the book, not a stand-in: "could Andrews have had someone represent him, while doing business with me or the publisher? I doubt that. The man I met, I’m sure, was the real article. He was good, he was honest with me. By that I do not mean the money, I have in mind the way he talked to me. He put more cards on the table than was necessary. He withheld nothing. I liked his ways. He sold himself to me."
not excitable, enthusiastic, or chatty as Erdnase seems to be.
MagicbyAlfred wrote:Seem like he try to disguise self by affecting certain writing style - leaving out article and preposition, and not pluralize certain word in sentence he write on various thread. But then in more recent posts on this thread, was inconsistent because majority of sentences grammatically correct. But Richard look into crystal ball and see through disguise...
MagicbyAlfred wrote:Paco, you never need to feel inferior about your English! I would give anything to speak Spanish (or any other language) as well as you speak English. Not to mention (but to mention) tha you have written a book in English that has influenced and inspired me.
Bill Mullins wrote: He has no known reason to use the name "Erdnase";
You haven't been reading the latest posts, Bill. I have explained how Benedict knew E.C. Andrews, who signature read "E.S. Andrews".
Bill Mullins wrote: Don't forget, Peter, that you're talking to the guy who found that signature.
Bill Mullins wrote: And as I posted here, Benedict didn't know E. C. Andrews early enough to adopt a corruption of his name for a pseudonym.
Bill Mullins wrote:But suppose he did. You contend that knowing a guy with bad handwriting named Andrews is sufficient reason to adopt a reversal of his poorly-spelled name as a pseudonym? Really?
Bill Mullins wrote:Still looking for any reason to think that Benedict and Karr's Andrews are the same person.I have reason to believe that he used the name E.S. Andrews when he was up to the fraudulent activities outlined by Todd Karr.
Bill Mullins wrote: he has no known skill with cards;
Catch up Bill. His full evening show consisted of three parts. One of those parts was SLEIGHT OF HAND with coins and CARDS.
Bill Mullins wrote: If this has been made clear previously, my apologies for forgetting it. But I spent a while reviewing everything I could find about Benedict before posting, and while I saw mention of his sleight of hand skills, I saw nothing that said he handled cards. Can you give the explicit reference?
Bill Mullins wrote: And before I forget . . .There was a Dalrymple family linked to a Benedict family in the genealogy book I downloaded. So there was a reason that Benedict might have thought that he was related to Louis Dalrymple.
A guy named Bendict being related to a woman named Dalrymple is not evidence that Edward Benedict was related to Louis Dalrymple.
Zenner wrote:Benedict was 10 in 1870. The Genealogy of the Benedicts in America was published in that year. Edward's family is listed on page 153 and a family of Dalrymples is listed on page 162. There was a link between the two names which could have been enough to make Edward believe that he might have been distantly related to Louis Dalrymple. I don't believe that he was but Edward D. Benedict is the only candidate to have his name linked to the name Dalrymple.
Zenner wrote:Bill Mullins wrote: And as I posted here, Benedict didn't know E. C. Andrews early enough to adopt a corruption of his name for a pseudonym.
When I suggested that you hadn't been reading my posts, I was accused of being "derogatory". Now it appears that you are not even reading your own posts. I clicked on "here" and was taken back to your post dated August 21, 2015. That was when we were discussing the fact that Andrews and Harry S. Thompson worked for the same company. Your post clearly mentions Thompson's name several times and not a mention of the name Benedict. I didn't introduce him as an alternative candidate until October 2, 2017!
Bill Mullins wrote:But suppose he did. You contend that knowing a guy with bad handwriting named Andrews is sufficient reason to adopt a reversal of his poorly-spelled name as a pseudonym? Really?
It's as good a reason as any of the other suggestions put forward for other candidates. At least there is a connection.
Bill Mullins wrote:Still looking for any reason to think that Benedict and Karr's Andrews are the same person.I have reason to believe that he used the name E.S. Andrews when he was up to the fraudulent activities outlined by Todd Karr.
I am still working on that; you will have to bear with me.
Bill Mullins wrote: he has no known skill with cards;
Catch up Bill. His full evening show consisted of three parts. One of those parts was SLEIGHT OF HAND with coins and CARDS.Bill Mullins wrote: If this has been made clear previously, my apologies for forgetting it. But I spent a while reviewing everything I could find about Benedict before posting, and while I saw mention of his sleight of hand skills, I saw nothing that said he handled cards. Can you give the explicit reference?
"As a manipulator of cards and coins he is not surpassed by the great Herrmann." (The Rock Island Argus, Thursday, April 25, 1889)
Edward D. Benedict is the only candidate to have his name linked to the name Dalrymple.
Bill Mullins wrote:Edwin S. Andrews was related (by marriage) to Louis Dalrymple.
Credit to Richard Hatch for much of this research.
Bill Mullins wrote: On other hand, maybe he wasn't that good after all . . .
Bill Mullins wrote:The Salt Lake Tribune, 22 Nov 1891, Page 4 - "Benedict, the magician, gave a performance at the Opera House on Friday night which attracted only a small audience. The entertainment was not worthy of much criticism, and was inferior to many shows of a similar nature."
Bill Mullins wrote: Or maybe he was an okay stage magician, but was not even the right guy:
The Kearney NE Daily Hub, 3 Dec 1891, p 3
"If Kearney people have the impression that Benedict is a second class magician they are entirely mistaken -- Benedict hails from Australia and he is making a trip east from the Pacific slope."
Bill Mullins wrote: It is indeed difficult to demonstrate that one magician named Benedict isn't really a different magician named Benedict:
The Paterson NJ News 23 Feb 1897, p. 4
"The Excelsior Quartette composed of Mr. James Taylor, George Pepplin, John Laird, Marine Pepplin, will appear; also Nathan Benedict, magician."