Richard Hatch wrote:Brad Henderson wrote:fwiw I think demarest's candidate has an amazing litany of coincidences, if that's the measure of a candidate. We know he knew one of the tricks in EATCT...
I don't believe this is correct. His Yellowstone diary shows him playing with MUTUS NOMEN, a trick NOT in EATCT. Which is a bit puzzling, if he was Erdnase... why not include it?
Because it was not accomplished by sleight of hand?
lybrary wrote: A magician is a performer
Nope. Not always. The majority of "magicians" who form the "fraternity" are not performers. They are hobbyists and amateurs (in the true meaning of the word, i.e., 'lovers' of magic). They buy tricks, play with them, and stick them in a drawer. Some watch performers and criticise them. Some flick cards up and down and then retire to the bar whilst the Gala Show is on, so that they may follow their true love - finger flicking.
Bill Mullins wrote: Seen elsewhere on the internet:
I am not sure of very many things in life, but based on the facts and arguments I have seen on the Erdnase thread of the Genii forum, I AM sure of the following:
1. Harry S. Thomson was not S.W. Erdnase.
And the evidence for this statement is ?
Mr. Sawyer has a vested interest in Harry not being 'Erdnase'; he wants to keep self-publishing books on the subject. What makes him so sure? Is it because he IS Tom Sawyer, just as David Ben can't be wrong because he IS David Ben? And Bill Mullins can't be wrong because he IS Bill Mullins? (He has been researching Erdnase for years you know) Others are in the same boat. They have spent many years defending their candidates and then this "ridiculous" "newbie" comes along with a new theory, with evidence to back it up. Oh dear...
So what happens? Sheriff Bill Mullins rounds up his posse and they try to shoot down said "newbie". Debate is not enough; they have to exterminate any new ideas.
Joe Mckay wrote: Was Erdnase actually a bona fide card cheat?
Didn't Tony Giorgio use to argue that Erdnase was useless for the genuine card cheat?
At last we hear from a sane person. The clues are in the book. We have a section on 'Legerdemain'; we have references to "entertainment" and "amusement" and "performer". The author was a magician with access to books previously published on the "art" of "card manipulation". Period.
Bill Mullins wrote: In addition to Smith and (probably) McKinney, Erdnase outed himself to Edwin Hood, Hugh Johnston, Del Adelphia, and probably Frederick Drake (at least, Drake claimed to know who he was). I would bet that Emil Sorenson knew him, and possibly other members of the Chicago community including Hilliar, Vernelo, or Roterberg.
I posted my initial findings on July 7th. My hunch was that Erdnase was known to the people behind The Sphinx and that's where I went looking for a suitable candidate. Why wouldn't the unusual name 'Erdnase' be queried right from the start? Because they knew who it was.
lybrary wrote: What if he assumed the name E.S. Andrews simply for the purpose to write his book, opened a bank account (assuming this is possible with a pseudonym, or perhaps using a fake ID), got his checkbook and introduced himself as Andrews to Smith and McKinney. Smith remembers the check was #1. This could be indication that Erdnase opened the bank account just for that purpose. Then he reverses his fake name E.S. Andrews to get S.W. Erdnase to use as his nom-de-plume. This would be a great psychological trick, a two layer protection for his identity. Then he would have had strong anonymity, because neither Smith, nor McKinney nor the bank, if he used a fake ID, would have known who he really was.
Elementary my dear Watson. But I believe that McKinney should be deleted from that paragraph. If mail addressed to "S.W. Erdnase c/o James McKinney" was being delivered to his business premises then he had to know where to redirect it.