ERDNASE

[jkeyes1000]

I seriously doubt that Olsson would consider any of the words you mentioned above to be "of Greek Origin"

The origin of a word is determined not by John Olsson's opinion or consideration, but by the language it comes from. Standard dictionaries trace the etymologies of all of the above words to Greek.

Just guessing, mind you, but I would think he meant actual Greek words, which were usually italicised, back then

Instead of guessing, why don't you look up what he actually said, so you would know if he meant actual Greek words, or (quoting from the report) "words of Greek origin."

I know that you question Olsson''s proficiency Bill, but here you are quoting him, saying "words of Greek origin". After which, you disdain his opinion as to what the phrase signifies.

Do you see the problem with that?

It's his statement. Therefore, it were best to understand his meaning.

American English is a bit less precise than British English at times. I think this might be one of those times. "Of Greek origin" tends to mean "imported directly", not "derived from".

We are all using words whose etymologies may be traced to the Greek. I don't think it could be said of any of us that we employ a "paucity of them".

Now, you might have the advantage of having read Olsson's report, but do you honestly think that's what he was saying?

I can't imagine the relevance of such an analysis. And perhaps this is why you have such a low estimate of his work. It would indeed seem to be "quackery", and I would quite agree with you, if you could demonstrate that it was his error, rather than yours.

[jdwatchboy]

magicam,

I've been collecting Erdnase seriously for about 15 years I guess. Not really sure when I first "noticed" that I had a collection, but I bought my first edition in 2004 (I think) and that was 13 years ago.

Jason

I have a version, but not worth much i feel. Jason, met you in ottawa. The guy with the bottom deal who was worried about the sound compared to dealing off the top. Up to 7 years practicing, 13 to go:)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Leonard Hevia]

This semantic stuff and comparison to writing styles seems very tenuous to me. I would like some REAL evidence!

In other words you want to see a smoking gun. Sure, folks here have been looking for that for quite some time. The trail is too obscure for that to be easy. What seems tenuous to you is actually circumstantial evidence that are signposts to help guide the researcher.

The comparison of writing styles helped researchers determine that Milton Franklin Andrews was likely not Erdnase. His poor writing abilities and other factors like not physically meeting Smith's recollections no longer justified his position in the list of possible candidates. Without that smoking gun yet, researchers have to momentarily settle for high degree of probability.

[Bill Mullins]

jkeyes -- The entire passage:
"some writers will tend to use longer words than other writers, or words with a more latinate or germanic or hellenic origin. In Expert, for example, there is a paucity of words of Greek origin (we see very few prefixes such as anthro-, bio-, morph-, demo, philo-, etc);"

If he meant, as you said earlier, "actual Greek words", this is an extraordinarily imprecise way of saying so. While I do have a few problems with Olsson's work, I think his writing is relatively clear and straightforward, and if he says "words of Greek origin", then the rational interpretation of them is "English words the etymology of which is from the Greek", and not "Greek words". (and who, besides actual Greek people, uses actual Greek words in their speech or writing? I can't think of any in routine use in English, other than eureka, agape, molon labe, and a few related to food or drink, like spanokopita and ouzo)

After which, you disdain his opinion

I wasn't disdaining his opinion, I was disdaining your suggestion that a word's Greekness isn't something inherent to the word, but is determined by the opinion of another.

The post wasn't an estimate of Olsson's work. In fact, I was taking him at his word. In comparison to Erdnase, I was showing that Gallaway's writing does not have a paucity of words of Greek origin; ergo, Gallaway's use of words of Greek origin makes him very un-Erdnase-like.

(FWIW, Erdnase does use a few words of Greek origin -- hypocritical, sophistry, paragraph, parallel, acrobatic, acme, axiom, sympathy/sympathetic, symptoms, "philosophy of the stoic", atmosphere, neophyte (which he spells both "neophyte" and "neophite"), elephant, phase)

[jkeyes1000]

jkeyes -- The entire passage:
"some writers will tend to use longer words than other writers, or words with a more latinate or germanic or hellenic origin. In Expert, for example, there is a paucity of words of Greek origin (we see very few prefixes such as anthro-, bio-, morph-, demo, philo-, etc);"

If he meant, as you said earlier, "actual Greek words", this is an extraordinarily imprecise way of saying so. While I do have a few problems with Olsson's work, I think his writing is relatively clear and straightforward, and if he says "words of Greek origin", then the rational interpretation of them is "English words the etymology of which is from the Greek", and not "Greek words". (and who, besides actual Greek people, uses actual Greek words in their speech or writing? I can't think of any in routine use in English, other than eureka, agape, molon labe, and a few related to food or drink, like spanokopita and ouzo)

After which, you disdain his opinion

I wasn't disdaining his opinion, I was disdaining your suggestion that a word's Greekness isn't something inherent to the word, but is determined by the opinion of another.

The post wasn't an estimate of Olsson's work. In fact, I was taking him at his word. In comparison to Erdnase, I was showing that Gallaway's writing does not have a paucity of words of Greek origin; ergo, Gallaway's use of words of Greek origin makes him very un-Erdnase-like.

(FWIW, Erdnase does use a few words of Greek origin -- hypocritical, sophistry, paragraph, parallel, acrobatic, acme, axiom, sympathy/sympathetic, symptoms, "philosophy of the stoic", atmosphere, neophyte (which he spells both "neophyte" and "neophite"), elephant, phase)

You might be correct in your interpretation of Olsson's remark, Bill. He does seem to be speaking rather broadly. But so far, he is only making a general observation, which is technically true--that EATCT has few words of Greek derivation as opposed to Latin. I can't fault him for noting the fact in passing, but I see virtually no significance in it.

None of us, I trust, chooses his words based on their etymology. We choose them from amongst all the vocabulary at our disposal, in accordance with the subject of our discussion. For instance, Erdnase uses the word "card" quite frequently because it is required in order to explain his techniques. Whereas neither Sanders not Gallaway employ the term nearly so often in any of their books, articles or letters, merely because it would have been unnecessary to to do frequently resort to it.

[jkeyes1000]

jkeyes -- The entire passage:
"some writers will tend to use longer words than other writers, or words with a more latinate or germanic or hellenic origin. In Expert, for example, there is a paucity of words of Greek origin (we see very few prefixes such as anthro-, bio-, morph-, demo, philo-, etc);"

If he meant, as you said earlier, "actual Greek words", this is an extraordinarily imprecise way of saying so. While I do have a few problems with Olsson's work, I think his writing is relatively clear and straightforward, and if he says "words of Greek origin", then the rational interpretation of them is "English words the etymology of which is from the Greek", and not "Greek words". (and who, besides actual Greek people, uses actual Greek words in their speech or writing? I can't think of any in routine use in English, other than eureka, agape, molon labe, and a few related to food or drink, like spanokopita and ouzo)

After which, you disdain his opinion

I wasn't disdaining his opinion, I was disdaining your suggestion that a word's Greekness isn't something inherent to the word, but is determined by the opinion of another.

The post wasn't an estimate of Olsson's work. In fact, I was taking him at his word. In comparison to Erdnase, I was showing that Gallaway's writing does not have a paucity of words of Greek origin; ergo, Gallaway's use of words of Greek origin makes him very un-Erdnase-like.

(FWIW, Erdnase does use a few words of Greek origin -- hypocritical, sophistry, paragraph, parallel, acrobatic, acme, axiom, sympathy/sympathetic, symptoms, "philosophy of the stoic", atmosphere, neophyte (which he spells both "neophyte" and "neophite"), elephant, phase)

You might be correct in your interpretation of Olsson's remark, Bill. He does seem to be speaking rather broadly. But so far, he is only making a general observation, which is technically true--that EATCT has few words of Greek derivation as opposed to Latin. I can't fault him for noting the fact in passing, but I see virtually no significance in it.

None of us, I trust, chooses his words based on their etymology. We choose them from amongst all the vocabulary at our disposal, in accordance with the subject of our discussion. For instance, Erdnase uses the word "card" quite frequently because it is required in order to explain his techniques. Whereas neither Sanders not Gallaway employ the term nearly so often in any of their books, articles or letters, merely because it would have been unnecessary to repeatedly resort to it.

[performer]

This semantic stuff and comparison to writing styles seems very tenuous to me. I would like some REAL evidence!

In other words you want to see a smoking gun. Sure, folks here have been looking for that for quite some time. The trail is too obscure for that to be easy. What seems tenuous to you is actually circumstantial evidence that are signposts to help guide the researcher.

The comparison of writing styles helped researchers determine that Milton Franklin Andrews was likely not Erdnase. His poor writing abilities and other factors like not physically meeting Smith's recollections no longer justified his position in the list of possible candidates. Without that smoking gun yet, researchers have to momentarily settle for high degree of probability.

In other words you are never going to find out who it is! Perhaps it is time to discuss double lifts once again!

[Jonathan Townsend]

In other words you are never going to find out who it is! Perhaps it is time to discuss double lifts once again!

It's fun to watch legends take shape. Recounted story as told by Vernon based upon ...
Look at item 5
https://www.wikihow.com/Write-Gothic-Fiction

[Jonathan Townsend]

Working backwards - is there some evidence of the magic patter/presentations offered in Expert being used about the time of publication?

[Bill Mullins]

Working backwards - is there some evidence of the magic patter/presentations offered in Expert being used about the time of publication?

I don't think so. There is very little mention of Erdnase at all in the magic literature up until the 1920s, and I don't think any of it mentions someone using the tricks or patter.

[lybrary]

7) Matches physical stature and age reported by Marshall Smith
8) Smith said he remembered his name had a W. (Wilbur has a W)

Unless I am reading a completely different Gardner-Smith correspondence than you, these two are obvious mismatches with what Smith said. Here are the quotes from Gardner's notes:

Andrews was a very small man of slight build. Not over 5’ 6".

Sanders wrote in his own bio that he is 5'9". How exactly does that match what Smith said?

Before I mentioned Andrews as the name, he said that Erdnase didn’t sound right, and he recalled it as a name with a W. When I said Andrews, his face lighted up and he was sure that was it. Does not recall first name or initials.

Smith clearly states that he does not recall initials. So the W can only be from the second name. Sanders has no W in his second name. Blatant lies that you are trying to promulgate, Bob.

[Leonard Hevia]

The most unreliable recollections in my mind are the ones about the name. Letters are abstract. They don't mean anything. Smith will have heard and read literally many tens of thousands of names in 60 years. The likelihood that the name of Erdnase is still lodged in his mind is pretty much zero, because he did not remember it. I simply don't buy his prompted recollections regarding the name.

This was what Chris thought about Smith's recollection on the name. A bit later on when he discovered Gallaway, he did an about turn on Smith's ability to remember names:

"You might also want to add that the only information Smith volunteers regarding the real name of Erdnase was that it had a 'W' somewhere. Gallaway fits."

Your thoughts about Smith's recollections are not clear as evidenced by your previous posts. At first you were convinced that his memory was unreliable, then when you discovered Gallaway you apparently changed your mind. How do you reconcile both of these conflicting points of view? And where is your source that Sanders wrote he was 5' 9? According to Alexander, Sanders wrote in his diary at the age of 14 that he was 5 feet tall. He was running out of time to grow another 9 inches.

Sanders' diaries evidently contain fascinating material. They show a special interest in African-Americans, which would account for the colored attendant in The Expert. Sanders also noted in his diaries and letters that he regularly frequented the Silver Bow Club in Butte, Montana. Lots of poker and other card games for money were played there before gambling was eventually outlawed in the western states in 1910. I consider this more compelling evidence of gambling than merely having gambling books sitting on the shelf.

[lybrary]

You completely distort my view of Smith's recollections. I have merely mentioned that the bit with the W fits Gallaway, but it does not factor into my case for Gallaway. What I think about Smith is clearly stated in my ebook. Very briefly, I only believe Smith when we either have independent confirmation of a fact through something else, or when we can assume that it was a unique experience which has more chance to survive 45 years in his mind. Names in particular are highly unreliable because they can very easily be replaced by other names and the person remembering them wouldn't even know it.

And where is your source that Sanders wrote he was 5' 9? According to Alexander, Sanders wrote in his diary at the age of 14 that he was 5 feet tall. He was running out of time to grow another 9 inches.

It is right there in his bio from the 25th Anniversary book. 5 feet 9 inches. Sanders is not Erdnase.

[Leonard Hevia]

We can't be sure that Sanders did not exaggerate his height by three inches in the anniversary bio. And that is what is at issue here--3 inches. He speaks of "in(co)herent modesty" preventing him from describing himself with "higher superlatives." Since he was "full of himself" as you noted, adding three more inches to his height would not be surprising.

The height in Houdini's different passport applications kept changing throughout the years. He kept growing taller as the years went by.

[Bill Mullins]

Still waiting to learn the origins of the quotes mentioned here.

Do they appear in works bylined by Gallaway? Or are they from the earlier book from Lanston that holds some of the same lines, which you seem to have assumed is also by Gallaway, but could be by a separate person, whom Gallaway copied?
Secret data isn't really data for the purposes of these discussions.

[Bill Mullins]

Blatant lies that you are trying to promulgate, Bob.

Here's a blatant lie, from Chris's ebook: "The formula is simple. Find an Andrews, preferably an E.S. Andrews, who is related to Louis Dalrymple, and who meets the basic age and gender requirements of Erdnase. Nobody has been found to this date." [blatant lie italicized]

Chris conveniently forgets the discussion starting here, which he even participated in.

[lybrary]

Blatant lies that you are trying to promulgate, Bob.

Here's a blatant lie, from Chris's ebook: "The formula is simple. Find an Andrews, preferably an E.S. Andrews, who is related to Louis Dalrymple, and who meets the basic age and gender requirements of Erdnase. Nobody has been found to this date." [blatant lie italicized]

Chris conveniently forgets the discussion starting here, which he even participated in.

As you very well know, that was written before you posted your findings on E.S. Andrews. I have not yet updated my ebook with these findings. Not a lie, simply additional information that came to light later. The only lie is you trying to make it look like I lied.

[Bill Mullins]

Chris -- you've made a huge issue of the fact that ebooks are wonderful because you can update them when new information comes along. You've updated the book at least 3 times since this discussion, and the point involved is a pretty big one, and extraordinarily relevant. It's one of the few FACTS about Erdnase that can be investigated -- not suppositions, or opinions.

If we were talking about the book as it stood a few days after the information about Dalrymple was released, you'd have a point. But now, when you deliberately leave bad information when it is so easy to correct, for over six months, you have no excuse.

Bob made a mistake, you called him a liar. You are actively suppressing information. Who's being dishonest?

Still waiting to learn the origins of the quotes mentioned here.

[lybrary]

Chris -- you've made a huge issue of the fact that ebooks are wonderful because you can update them when new information comes along. You've updated the book at least 3 times since this discussion, and the point involved is a pretty big one, and extraordinarily relevant. It's one of the few FACTS about Erdnase that can be investigated -- not suppositions, or opinions.

If we were talking about the book as it stood a few days after the information about Dalrymple was released, you'd have a point. But now, when you deliberately leave bad information when it is so easy to correct, for over six months, you have no excuse.

My focus is Gallaway, as the title of my ebook should make clear. There are many things that need updating, and many things that need to be added, which I have not yet done. They will be added and updated as I have time and as my progress with my Gallaway research slows down. My research on Erdnase is a side project and I can only spend so much time on it. You will have to excuse that updates on new information about other candidates is on a lower priority and happens less frequently than my updates on stuff related to Gallaway. To call those delayed updates lies is absurd. Shame on you.

[Leonard Hevia]

7) Matches physical stature and age reported by Marshall Smith
8) Smith said he remembered his name had a W. (Wilbur has a W)

Blatant lies that you are trying to promulgate, Bob.

I don't believe Bob was blatantly lying. Sanders was 40 years old and possibly short. We know he was only 5 feet tall at the age of 14. A nine inch growth spurt by the age of 18 is a bit of a stretch.

As for the name, Chris wrote:
"Smith clearly states that he does not recall initials. So the W can only be from the second name. Sanders has no W in his second name."

Smith did not recall a first name or initials--but he did recall the letter "W." The "W" certainly could have come from the first name as well as the second name. The fact that he did recall a "W" could very well imply the "W" is from the name "Wilbur." Either way, no one can be certain whether the "W" came from the first or last name--especially since Chris puts very little veracity in Smith's recollections.

I find it interesting that Smith remembered "Andrews" which has a similar ring to "Sanders."

[lybrary]

I don't believe Bob was blatantly lying. Sanders was 40 years old and possibly short. We know he was only 5 feet tall at the age of 14. A nine inch growth spurt by the age of 18 is a bit of a stretch.

You might want to check when that bio was published. The title 25th Anniversary should give you a hint.

[Leonard Hevia]

I don't believe Bob was blatantly lying. Sanders was 40 years old and possibly short. We know he was only 5 feet tall at the age of 14. A nine inch growth spurt by the age of 18 is a bit of a stretch.

You might want to check when that bio was published.

I know what year that bio was published. I'm also aware that developing physically into an adult takes 2 to 5 years. Most boys will stop growing taller by age 16 and will usually have developed fully by 18. The average height of a 14 year old male is 5 feet 4 and a half inches. Sanders was already behind that curve at the age of 14 by 4 and a half inches. He had 2 to 4 years left to roughly grow 9 inches. Not likely--which you know perfectly well.

[lybrary]

I know what year that bio was published. I'm also aware that developing physically into an adult takes 2 to 5 years. Most boys will stop growing taller by age 16 and will usually have developed fully by 18. The average height of a 14 year old male is 5 feet 4 and a half inches. Sanders was already behind that curve at the age of 14 by 4 and a half inches. He had 2 to 4 years left to roughly grow 9 inches. Not likely--which you know perfectly well.

I was afraid you wouldn't figure it out yourself. Sanders wrote this bio when he was about 50 years old. He was 5'9" when he was 50. If he would have been Erdnase he would have met Smith when he was about 40 years old. Since we know most humans don't grow taller between ages 40 and 50 we can safely assume Sanders was 5'9" when he would have met Smith, who remembered somebody no taller than 5'6". Consequently Sanders can't be Erdnase.

BTW, many boys continue to grow after age 16. I am also sure the averages you cite are recent numbers, not the numbers from the 19th century where folks were generally speaking shorter than people are today. Sanders would have been considered tall with 5'9" end of the 19th century.

[Leonard Hevia]

I was afraid you wouldn't figure it out yourself. Sanders wrote this bio when he was about 50 years old. He was 5'9" when he was 50. If he would have been Erdnase he would have met Smith when he was about 40 years old. Since we know most humans don't grow taller between ages 40 and 50 we can safely assume Sanders was 5'9" when he would have met Smith, who remembered somebody no taller than 5'6". Consequently Sanders can't be Erdnase.

BTW, many boys continue to grow after age 16. I am also sure the averages you cite are recent numbers, not the numbers from the 19th century where folks were generally speaking shorter than people are today. Sanders would have been considered tall with 5'9" end of the 19th century.

I already pointed out that Sanders' height in that bio could have been exaggerated given his own immodesty. I was afraid you would not comprehend that. You don't have any medical records to verify that Sanders was 5 9'--only what he wrote in that bio. And you made my point even further when you noted that folks in the 19th century were generally shorter. Precisely. The average height of a 15 year old male roughly 100 years ago was 5 2' and 3/4 inches. A five foot tall 14 year old boy in 1875 was pretty short, and that's still 9 inches left to go with only 2 to 4 years of growth left. Not likely.

[lybrary]

I will let somebody else explain it to you. I sincerely hope you have somebody who takes care of you.

[Leonard Hevia]

I will let somebody else explain it to you. I sincerely hope you have somebody who takes care of you.

You should be sincerely hoping to reveal the source of those Gallaway quotes that Bill has repeatedly requested from you. As he pointed out, secret data is considered nonexistent in the context of a discussion here.

[jkeyes1000]

Leonard: Chris makes a very sharp point here, and it ought not to be dismissed by anyone.

If Smith recalled a man that was about 5'6, he was basically saying "of average height". If he told Gardner (or whoever) that the man was approximately 5'9, he meant that the author of EATCT was taller than most, which would have been quite memorable, and therefore should be considered a fairly reliable clue. More so perhaps, than his vague suggestion of the fellow's name.

And if you are going to virtually accuse poor Sanders of exaggerating his physical stature, how will you defend his other claims? Might we not question any boast? Doesn't look like a good course to take.

[Leonard Hevia]

And if you are going to virtually accuse poor Sanders of exaggerating his physical stature, how will you defend his other claims? Might we not question any boast? Doesn't look like a good course to take.

Sanders' accomplishments, apart from any possible connection to The Expert, are known. What he wrote in that bio is humor and exaggeration.

Mr. Keyes--Bill Mullins urged you to read the relevant material on Erdnase before continuing to post your uninformed opinions here.

[jkeyes1000]

And if you are going to virtually accuse poor Sanders of exaggerating his physical stature, how will you defend his other claims? Might we not question any boast? Doesn't look like a good course to take.

Sanders' accomplishments, apart from any possible connection to The Expert, are known. What he wrote in that bio is humor and exaggeration.

Mr. Keyes--Bill Mullins urged you to read the relevant material on Erdnase before continuing to post your uninformed opinions here.

"Uninformed opinions"? I pointed out the relevance of the height discrepancy (agreeing with Chris's very well informed research) and suggested the folly of casting aspersion on the credibility of your own candidate.

Was it you, or Bob, that warned me about making facile insinuations a while back?

[lybrary]

If Smith recalled a man that was about 5'6, he was basically saying "of average height". If he told Gardner (or whoever) that the man was approximately 5'9, he meant that the author of EATCT was taller than most, which would have been quite memorable, and therefore should be considered a fairly reliable clue. More so perhaps, than his vague suggestion of the fellow's name.

The reasons why the height question is so critical are following:

1) It is impossible to change one's apparent height by much. A man can increase his apparent height by perhaps an inch or so using shoes with higher heels. But it is practically impossible to reduce it. It is what it is. This is very different to the age question where you can have people who look a lot older or younger than they really are.

2) Smith had a direct and natural measuring stick - himself. He wrote to Gardner: "I would have had to look up to him and I’m certain I looked down." That is why Smith can give an accurate upper boundary of 5'6".

3) We have an independent corroboration of Erdnase's height. Following an idea by Marco Pusterla, one can measure the length of the illustrated hand in Expert, and then with that derive an estimate of Erdnase's height. Using illustration 79 for the back palm, where the hand is straight, one can use the length of the card, which is 88 mm, to derive the length of Erdnase's hand. I have done that and I get 163 mm as the length of his hand. Using DaVinci's human proportions (Vitruvian man) we get the height by multiplying the length of the hand by 10. That means the height per DaVinci would be 163 cm or 5'4". Of course, not every human will exactly conform to these averages, but most will fall somewhere close to those proportions. The important thing for us is that the estimate from the illustrated hand matches Smith's recollections. This is a case where we can independently verify something Smith said.

Richard Kaufman commented a while ago on the Genii forum:

The illustrations almost uniformly depict someone with small chubby hands.

Height removed M.F. Andrews as a potential candidate for Erdnase. Height also removes Sanders from being a potential Erdnase. 5'9" is just too tall.

[Bob Coyne]

Leonard: Chris makes a very sharp point here, and it ought not to be dismissed by anyone.

If Smith recalled a man that was about 5'6, he was basically saying "of average height". If he told Gardner (or whoever) that the man was approximately 5'9, he meant that the author of EATCT was taller than most, which would have been quite memorable, and therefore should be considered a fairly reliable clue. More so perhaps, than his vague suggestion of the fellow's name.

And if you are going to virtually accuse poor Sanders of exaggerating his physical stature, how will you defend his other claims? Might we not question any boast? Doesn't look like a good course to take.

According to this, Smith didn't say or imply Erdnase was of average height. He described him as "well-spoken and gentlemanly, short of stature, with a pleasant, smooth tone."

https://geniimagazine.com/wiki/index.php?title=Erdnase

I would expect the son of a senator, educated at prep schools and university to be well-spoken and gentlemanly.

What claims of Sanders are you referring to that need to be defended in the "if he exaggerates his height, then let's doubt everything that he says" theory you're proposing? That mine shafts require a certain type of timber?

Anyway, back to Sanders' height....

5' 9" vs 5' 6" is surely within the margin of error. He could easily have been exaggerating his height, or rounding up, or counting it with boots on etc. (It's rare that people understate their own height.) Also, Smith can't possibly have it down to the inch 40 years later. The main thing is that Sanders was relatively short. And his stated height of 5'9" seems well within the margin of error (including margin of exaggeration and margin of memory). And since he was 5' at 14, there's additional reason to think his adult height was on the short side.

Either way, the point is that his uncertain height is compatible with Smith's uncertain recollection...unlike Milton Andrews who was clearly too tall. Here's another relevant data point. Sanders was the bow position on the rowing team. That's typically the smallest person on the boat. So that also points towards him being relatively short.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boat_posit ... ort_rowing)
"Boats that are bow coxed rely on communication between the bowman and the cox - as the cox cannot see boats coming up from behind. Bowmen tend to be the smallest of the rowers in the boat."

[Bill Mullins]

It is impossible to change one's apparent height by much. A man can increase his apparent height by perhaps an inch or so using shoes with higher heels. But it is practically impossible to reduce it. It is what it is.

Oh really?

[Bill Mullins]

FWIW, Gallaway's 1918 Passport application says his height was 5' 8-1/2".

You will have to excuse that updates on new information about other candidates is on a lower priority and happens less frequently than my updates on stuff related to Gallaway.

It bears directly on the Gallaway case. It weakens it. And it makes your fantasy that the actual artist involved was "Gallaway", look even sillier. It's one thing to forget a name. For your theory to make sense, though, Smith heard Gallaway introduce himself as "Gallaway", heard Gallaway mention the artist named "Gallaway", then forgot the writer Gallaway's name altogether, forgot the artist Gallaway's name, but then misremembered it as Dalrymple. Not likely.

But this is par for the course for you -- when something adds to Gallaway's case, you claim it is highly relevant and important (even when it isn't). Things that are hugely unlikely, you treat as certainties. But if something detracts from Gallaway, you ignore it, misrepresent it, or deny its significance.

To call those delayed updates lies is absurd. Shame on you.

I've done nothing to be ashamed of. I didn't release, under my own byline, a book with the known-to-be-wrong statement multiple times over the last six months. You just admitted to doing so -- that calls into question the overall accuracy (and integrity) of the whole book ("Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus"). I didn't say "Add to this that Gallaway had magic books in his library." (Hint -- he didn't. Is that a blatant lie, or just a lie?). I didn't say, as you did in the ebook, that Roterberg, Hilliar and C. H. Wilson are "favorite" candidates. Who has seriously claimed that any of these are Erdnase? I didn't take Olsson's assessment that "Gallaway is the likeliest candidate of the candidates presented", and say that Olsson showed "an authorship identity is very likely." This grossly mischaracterizes Olsson's conclusion. I didn't say "Olsson has looked at several people with obvious card skills and none writes even remotely like Erdnase." Again, not true -- Olsson said "in several instances Roterberg’s results also represent a close match to that of Expert."

I've made mistakes of fact here several times. When I do, I admit it. I've backed off from speculation when data has demanded that I do so. You always double down. When I find out something relevant, I share the data. You conceal your sources. Your own ebook has material that I discovered and posted here, or gave to you directly, and you claim credit. You reproduce and discuss in detail the copyright form, but don't credit Richard Hatch for obtaining it, which he did years ago, at personal expense, and made freely available to the community.

Shame? I have no shame about calling you and your methods out.

[lybrary]

It is impossible to change one's apparent height by much. A man can increase his apparent height by perhaps an inch or so using shoes with higher heels. But it is practically impossible to reduce it. It is what it is.

Oh really?

Bill is the king in taking a statement to its ridiculous extreme. No common sense that guy. Ok, Bill, so there was a freak who could change his height. But even he couldn't reach down to 5'6". He had to stop at 5'10".

[Bob Coyne]

7) Matches physical stature and age reported by Marshall Smith
8) Smith said he remembered his name had a W. (Wilbur has a W)

Unless I am reading a completely different Gardner-Smith correspondence than you, these two are obvious mismatches with what Smith said. Here are the quotes from Gardner's notes:

Andrews was a very small man of slight build. Not over 5’ 6".

Sanders wrote in his own bio that he is 5'9". How exactly does that match what Smith said?

Before I mentioned Andrews as the name, he said that Erdnase didn’t sound right, and he recalled it as a name with a W. When I said Andrews, his face lighted up and he was sure that was it. Does not recall first name or initials.

Smith clearly states that he does not recall initials. So the W can only be from the second name. Sanders has no W in his second name. Blatant lies that you are trying to promulgate, Bob.

Smith's recollections are obviously pretty vague on this, and Wilbur matches what he first said. He then revised his account after Gardner led him there. I see no reason to give that more credence than his original statement. In fact, I think it's likely to be less reliable. You can choose to believe his revised/coerced account, and that's fine too, but that's just one evaluation of what's pretty murky and ultimately unresolvable.

This has nothing to do with promulgating lies; at worst it's a disagreement about how to interpret Smith's statements. So please stick to the issues and assume good faith arguments.

[lybrary]

Smith's recollections are obviously pretty vague on this, and Wilbur matches what he first said. He then revised his account after Gardner led him there. I see no reason to give that more credence than his original statement. In fact, I think it's likely to be less reliable. You can choose to believe his revised/coerced account, and that's fine too, but that's just one evaluation of what's pretty murky and ultimately unresolvable.

Smith's first statement on height to Gardner was: "Andrews was a very small man of slight build. Not over 5’ 6"."

[Bill Mullins]

Chris and Olsson both try to suggest that Sanders is not a "book person". Olsson says, "I could not find a single reference to a book that he read . . . . He refers occasionally to reading, but only in general terms." Chris says "So far we have not found a single mention in his notebooks about a particular book or author." and "He is not a bookish person".

Part of the problem is that the only writings of Sanders they consider are his juvenile diaries and two of his Mine Timbering articles. Odd, since other, better work is easily available and was known (or should have been known) to Chris, since they have been discussed on this forum several times since 2007 and 2011 -- specifically, his long essay about the origins of "Montana" as a name for the territory and state, and his extensive work in the 25th Reunion book of his class at Columbia.

About the diaries, Olsson even says "Sanders’ diary is dated between 1876 and 1881 when he was still very young – 14 in 1876 and 19 years of age in 1881. Significant changes will occur in a person’s use of language as they mature, more so than at other stages of life." And indeed, the Mine Timbering articles are pretty dry (like much of Gallaway's writing -- the "interesting" parts of his works appear mostly in the introductory material, which is lacking in Sanders' essays.)

Regardless, there are multiple reasons that we know that the characterization of Sanders not being a "bookish person" is wrong.

1. His education. I linked earlier to a curriculum for the Columbia School of Mines, to show that Sanders would have been fluent in German. The same document shows that to gain admission, he would have had to have read a number of serious works of literature, and to have been able to write seriously about them. Further, he attended prep school at Phillips Exeter, which had (and has) a rigorous academic program. An 1880 newpaper ad says, "Classical Department prepares for colleges that set the highest standard for admission." Sanders could not have completed the program there without reading a great deal.

2. His career aside from mining. In the 1890s, Sanders spent some time as a librarian at the Montana Historical Society. Chris has said, "Also printers have traditionally been some of the most informed people in society, because they get to read a lot. " [A statement which is undocumentable, I suspect.] Chris, surely you don't think printers are more well-read than librarians?

3. Literary and historical allusions in his own writing. The Montana naming article and the Reunion book are full of allusions to and quotations from literary works. Sanders was obviously quite well-read, and his writing demonstrates that much more so than anything Gallaway ever wrote. Some examples:

From "The Word Montana, its significance, derivation and historical use." Mont. His. S. 7: 15-60, 1910.

"Then came the hunter tribes. . . " p. 15. quoted from William Cullen Bryant, "A Walk at Sunset" (1821)
"trend of pioneers" p. 16. Probably a misquote of "tread of pioneers" from John Greenleaf Whittier, "On Receiving an Eagle's Quill from Lake Superior" (1849)
"to gain the wealth of Ormus and the newer Ind." p. 17. From John Milton, Paradise Lost.
"The days of old, the days of gold, the days of Forty-nine" p. 18. Title of a folk song, from no later than 1860.
"Sunt loca montana . . ." p. 23. Pliny the Elder, The Natural History
"loca montana et . . ." p. 23. Titus Livius, The History of Rome
"Exsurgens autem . . ." p. 23. Luke 1:39, from the latin vulgate Bible
"Inter montana" p. 24. Deuteronomy 1:7, from the latin vulgate Bible
"Perventum inde ad . . ." p. 24. Titus Livius, The History of Rome
"homines asperi et montani" p. 26. Julius Caesar, Commentarii de Bello Civili (ca. 40 BC)
"Many other examples of the metal . . . " p. 30. Miguel Salvedra, "Trafalgar -- From a Spanish Point of View" in Grand Magazine, Nov. 1905
"Beyond all titles . . ." p. 60. Alfred Lord Tennyson, Idylls of the King (1869)

- passing reference to the Argonauts, the Golden Fleece, Aladdin's lamp. p. 17; the Battle of Trafalgar (1805); and numerous quotations from and references to various contemporary histories of Rome.
- numerous quotes from and references to documents concerning the history of Montana, including books, letters from historians and pioneers, and the Congressional Record of 1863 regarding the establishment of the government of the Territory of Montana.
- numerous translations of and discussions of relevant Spanish, Latin and Native American words.
- extensive discussions of the first Europeans to explore the region over the previous two centuries, and their writings.

From Class of '85 School of Mines Columbia College Twenty-Fifth Anniversary Reunion (1911)

"We were monarchs of all we surveyed" p. 8. reference to "I am monarch of all I survey", a line from "Verses Supposed to be Written by Alexander Selkirk [inspiration for Robinson Crusoe]", by William Cowper, 1782
"How the mighty have fallen" p. 30. 2 Samuel 1:27
". . . laying up vast treasures on earth" p . 30. Matt. 6:19
"A brotherhood of venerable trees." William Wordsworth, "Composed at Neidpath Castle" 1803
". . . smile that won't come off" p. 30. Line from Quaker Oats advertising campaign of 1903.
"Build a mansion in the skies" p. 33. "To mansions in the skies" is a line from "The Struggles of Flesh and Spirit" by Branwell Brontë 1836
" . . . affairs spiritual and terrestrial" p. 36. Possible allusion to "The Modern Major General" by Gilbert and Sullivan (1879)? The final words in the ends of several lines of the G&S song have the same form and meter: "in orders categorical", "with matters mathematical", etc.
"Octopi" p. 49. Reference to a then-current term for monopolies, such as Standard Oil and the Southern Pacific Railway.
"wealth of Golconda" p. 63. Golconda was the 16th-17th capital of the Indian region responsible for producing many famous diamonds, and thus the name used as a symbol of wealth.
"Surveys Geological . . . lines chronological" p. 69. See comments re: p. 36.
"buds the promise of celestial worth" p. 74. Line in "The Last Day" by Edward Young (1713)
"a brave man struggling in the storms of fate" p. 76. Alexander Pope, "Prologue to Mr. Addison's Cato" (1713)
"Hail to thee, blithe spirit" p. 90. Percy Bysshe Shelley, "To a Skylark" (1820)
"Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them." p. 92 William Shakespeare, The Twelfth Night (1602)
"The worm, the canker, and the grief" p. 92. Lord Byron, "On This Day I Complete My Thirty-sixth Year" (1824)
"Oh, wad some power the giftie gie us . . . " Robert Burns, "To a Louse" (1786)

So let's put to bed this idea that Sanders didn't read much. He obviously did, and his own words make this very clear.

[Leonard Hevia]

Smith's first statement on height to Gardner was: "Andrews was a very small man of slight build. Not over 5’ 6"."

Then that would disqualify Gallaway since his 1918 passport application listed his height as 5' 8 and a half.

Bill--That was a mind boggling post of literary sources that Sanders mined (pun intended) for his written works. Marvelous!

[lybrary]

For your theory to make sense, though, Smith heard Gallaway introduce himself as "Gallaway", heard Gallaway mention the artist named "Gallaway", then forgot the writer Gallaway's name altogether, forgot the artist Gallaway's name, but then misremembered it as Dalrymple. Not likely.

This is not at all necessary. Gallaway may have introduced himself with something else than Gallaway. My theory explaining Smith's Dalrymple comment is simply a theory. I found it remarkable that there was a political illustrator working for the same magazines as Dalrymple, with the name Gallaway. That is something that needs to be mentioned and discussed for a Gallaway case. It could very well be that Erdnase never made such a comment and Smith created the false memory, perhaps conflating it with some other project.

I didn't take Olsson's assessment that "Gallaway is the likeliest candidate of the candidates presented", and say that Olsson showed "an authorship identity is very likely." This grossly mischaracterizes Olsson's conclusion.

Olsson read my ebook and I pointed out the various places I directly quoted him to make sure I did not misquote him or misrepresent his results. If I would have grossly misrepresented his opinion he would have let me known. He did not. You are not Olsson. Let him decide for himself.

I didn't say "Olsson has looked at several people with obvious card skills and none writes even remotely like Erdnase." Again, not true -- Olsson said "in several instances Roterberg’s results also represent a close match to that of Expert."

And again you completely misrepresent my statement. My statement is a summary statement that takes all tests together and summarizes them. You are looking at one or two individual tests. The significance of one individual test is not that great. Taken together they mean more. That is what my statement reflects.

[lybrary]

Then that would disqualify Gallaway since his 1918 passport application listed his height as 5' 8 and a half.

Gallaway is not 5'8 1/2". We have photos of him which allow a fairly good estimate which turns out to be somewhere around 5'3".