Jack Shalom wrote:Is that a no?
It is a don't expect to be spoon fed. Read the book and then we can have a conversation about it.
lybrary wrote:Dude, you should read more carefully
Leonard Hevia wrote:And what exactly did Gallaway do at the circus for three years?
lybrary wrote:Leonard Hevia wrote:And what exactly did Gallaway do at the circus for three years?
Gallaway says he was the orator and worked in front of the tent. We also have evidence of him managing a sideshow at a county fair. Given Gallaway's background in the print industry I would assume he was involved with marketing the circus, perhaps wrote ads and announcements, got tickets and programs printed.
Leonard Hevia wrote:Which suggests that Gallaway did not perform magic at the circus for those three years and instead handled other duties.
Leonard Hevia wrote:or there is a documented performance
Bill Mullins wrote:Leonard -- In other words, Chris still has no evidence that Gallaway performed magic as part of his circus career. But you knew that, didn't you.
lybrary wrote:That is a misunderstand of the role of the orator. Magic was also performed outside the tent. A circus historian said that it would not be uncharacteristic for an orator to perform a magic trick as part of his oration. The direct quote is: "It would not be unusual for a talker to present acts of his own in the side show, magic, playing cards and the like." http://www.circushistory.org/Query.htm
Roger M. wrote:As well, what's missing is any other correspondence that Chris may have had with the historian, any bit of which could impact his response immensely.
lybrary wrote:Leonard Hevia wrote:A university professor would mark that with a red pen and request a citation for that statement.
Boy am I lucky you are not a university professor.
Leonard Hevia wrote:Circumstantial evidence alone isn't enough to make definitive statements. Eugene Edwards may very well be Gallaway, but a shared interest in gambling from both men is the beginning, and not the end.
lybrary wrote:Before you make any big statements about my work you should at least read my free newsletter, and better yet my ebook "The Hunt for Erdnase: and the path to Edward Gallaway" https://www.lybrary.com/the-hunt-for-er ... 73843.html
Leonard Hevia wrote:What for?
lybrary wrote:You are sitting on a mighty high horse without having contributed one iota to the search for Erdnase.
All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
lybrary wrote: If he wouldn't make such a good case there wouldn't be the need for the amount of response he has received.
Roger M. wrote:Despite your efforts, you've not convinced anybody to join you in even contemplating that Gallaway might be Erdnase.
Jeff Pierce Magic wrote:I think that Chris has provided more evidence, if only circumstantial that Gallaway is Erdnase. But that's more evidence than most, so yes, Gallaway is a viable candidate.
S. Tauzier wrote:I believe Chris is right. You guys - you’ve spent too much time in love with the wrong angle.
Richard Hatch wrote:I think Chris' research and arguments as laid out in detail in his Hunt for Erdnase book make Gallaway viable. He was "at the scene of the crime" (McKinney's print shop), owned a copy of the first edition, sounds (to some) like Erdnase when writing, self published books in Chicago that bear some resemblance to the first edition (price on title page, for example). Chris makes a good circumstantial case for Gallaway, in my opinion.
Poor Ed has taken a lot of heat on the Erdnase thread, but even if you throw out all the evidence that people are unhappy with, there are some very basic facts that will probably keep him in the running ... To my way of thinking the linguistic case looks “okay,” ... But I’ve always liked the fact that Gallaway owned a copy of Erdnase. The fact that he worked with McKinney is good, and the fact that he was self-published is good.
lybrary wrote: Shame on you. You are despicable.
lybrary wrote:The level of negativity, and the often completely baseless and ridiculous critique, Edward Gallaway's case and my work has created on this forum is the best measure for the strength of the Gallaway case. He is a threat to the old opinions. If he wouldn't make such a good case there wouldn't be the need for the amount of response he has received. My all time favorite quote, which perfectly applies here, is from Arthur Shopenhauer who said:All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
lybrary wrote:Leonard Hevia wrote:And yet you don't know whether or not Gallaway had any magic books in his library.
observer wrote:AJM wrote:Can’t we just agree that Gallaway is/was Erdnase <>
Peace and Love
Was Erdnase ... Spartacus?
Leonard Hevia wrote:One text? The Expert? Surely even you would agree that a well rounded magician would have more than just one magic book in his library.
lybrary wrote:Leonard Hevia wrote:One text? The Expert? Surely even you would agree that a well rounded magician would have more than just one magic book in his library.
How many magic books did E.S. Andrews and W.E. Sanders have in their library?
Chris Wasshuber wrote:"With some thought one can make a pretty good estimate about many facts . . .To ignore these quantitative aspects . . . "
Bill Mullins wrote:Irrelevant, since no one is building a case for Andrews or Sanders based on their magic libraries.
Bill Mullins wrote:Your thesis is "Gallaway is Erdnase" ...
Bill Mullins wrote:You do it again, when you say [in your comment at Sawyer's blog] "most everybody played cards back then. Any person taken randomly would by a very high likelihood have played cards in the 19th century." How do you know this?
Bill Mullins wrote:Gallaway worked with McKinney? How many other people did? 32? 100? 1000?
Bill Mullins wrote:But to what end? Suppose we have a bunch of numbers. What do you do with them? Are you trying to calculate the probability that Gallaway was Erdnase? Probabilities are useful for examining random processes, and whether or not Gallaway (or Sanders, or Andrews) was Erdnase isn't the outcome of a random process. He either was Erdnase (p = 1) or he wasn't (p= 0).
Bill Mullins wrote:<>When you make an "estimate", like your recent (Nov 12) statements "Not everybody who buys a book is an author. About 1 out of 10 is an author. ", you aren't doing anything quantitative, even though you are putting numbers into the mix. How do you determine that 1 book buyer in 10 is also an author? There's no data to back that up -- it's a number you've pulled from thin air. It is a completely subjective opinion. You have no way of showing that 1 in 100 is less (or more) accurate, or 1 in 5. But you later use that ratio to "calculate" the odds of Gallaway having been Erdnase. The answer you get isn't quantitative -- you've used the wrong formulas, and the wrong numbers in those formulas. The number that results is meaningless, because nothing that came before it has been quantified in any meaningful sense of the word.