ERDNASE

Discuss general aspects of Genii.
Bob Coyne
Posts: 604
Joined: January 26th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Charlies
Location: New York, NY

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Bob Coyne » February 15th, 2020, 3:11 pm

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?

PavelTheGreat

Re: ERDNASE

Postby PavelTheGreat » February 15th, 2020, 3:18 pm

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.



His 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.
Posts: 1487
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Roger M. » February 15th, 2020, 3:25 pm

Bob Coyne wrote:What are the main points for Benedict connecting him with Erdnase?


He's Peter Zenner's candidate, and Peter has done a quality job of presenting his candidacy.
Look over "Zenner's" past posts, he lays out the case very clearly:
search.php?author_id=3311&sr=posts

Key point is that he was a well known magician who is confirmed to have had dealings with McKinney and was in very close proximity (the same office building) as M.D. Smith.
If the recent, multiple efforts to describe Erdnase as a magician (rather than a gambler) in any way feeds your own personal narrative on Erdnase, then Benedict becomes a strong candidate.

Roger M.
Posts: 1487
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Roger M. » February 15th, 2020, 3:53 pm

PavelTheGreat wrote:
His (Gallaway's) relevance is:

1) He was there (at McKinney)


confirmed, but so were lots of other people

2) 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 counter

3) 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 conjecture

5) And if Benedict was desperate, he might take petty cash.


Pure conjecture lacking any evidence whatsoever

6) 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 whatsoever

6) "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 "+" column

8) 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 neighbours

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.


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.

User avatar
Paco Nagata
Posts: 239
Joined: July 3rd, 2019, 6:47 am
Favorite Magician: Juan Tamariz

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Paco Nagata » February 15th, 2020, 5:09 pm

Paco?
No, no! It wasn't me!
I'm just a humble initially Rotemberg voter (^_^)
"The Passion of an Amateur Card Magician"
https://bit.ly/2lXdO2O
"La pasion de un cartómago aficionado"
https://bit.ly/2kkjpjn
Latest erratum corrections and improvements update, 10/05/2020.

PavelTheGreat

Re: ERDNASE

Postby PavelTheGreat » February 15th, 2020, 5:36 pm

Roger M. wrote:
PavelTheGreat wrote:
His (Gallaway's) relevance is:

1) He was there (at McKinney)


confirmed, but so were lots of other people

2) 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 counter

3) 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 conjecture

5) And if Benedict was desperate, he might take petty cash.


Pure conjecture lacking any evidence whatsoever

6) 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 whatsoever

6) "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 "+" column

8) 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 neighbours

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.


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.


Do you doubt that I could say "pure conjecture" about your points? Who here is not conjecturing?

By the way-:here is another piece of evidence to support 'partnership" between author and somebody else:

10) Smith recalls that Erdnase' had cold hands. He had to "warn up" before he could demonstrate moves. If Benedict was author (and worked in same building), he could have just walked down hall FROM HIS OWN OFFICE. Why come in from the cold and waste time warning up? Impression we get from Smith is that Erdnase walk in from outside. He would have to be in great rush to go straight to Smith's office. But Smith does not say he looked rushed. Just man coming from some other part of town to have meeting.

You ask, what is relevance?

Relevance is making solid case for Benedict. Without giving good answers for these discrepancies, theory is flawed.

Roger M.
Posts: 1487
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Roger M. » February 15th, 2020, 5:54 pm

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.

PavelTheGreat

Re: ERDNASE

Postby PavelTheGreat » February 15th, 2020, 6:50 pm

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.


Good to know it was not office building where they met, but there are still some serious problems with trying to make Erdnase both the writer of the book and the man that Smith met.

Your response to my point about why would Benedict need a pseudonym, now that is conjecture, Mr. Hypocrite. Is too easy to say, maybe he was worried about exposing methods. The facts are that Benedict exposed tricks in print under his own name. This is very problematic.

And I don't think you are advocating Benedict. Rather I think you are wanting the Benedict theory to be as flawed as your own. You seem to be most vehemently opposed to idea that challenges yours.

PavelTheGreat

Re: ERDNASE

Postby PavelTheGreat » February 15th, 2020, 6:50 pm

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.


Good to know it was not office building where they met, but there are still some serious problems with trying to make Erdnase both the writer of the book and the man that Smith met.

Your response to my point about why would Benedict need a pseudonym, now that is conjecture, Mr. Hypocrite. Is too easy to say, maybe he was worried about exposing methods. The facts are that Benedict exposed tricks in print under his own name. This is very problematic.

And I don't think you are advocating Benedict. Rather I think you are wanting the Benedict theory to be as flawed as your own. You seem to be most vehemently opposed to idea that challenges yours.

Roger M.
Posts: 1487
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Roger M. » February 15th, 2020, 7:02 pm

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

Re: ERDNASE

Postby PavelTheGreat » February 15th, 2020, 9:03 pm

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.


You appear to be gloating over a very minor point. Which is your way of deflecting the broader argument. Most of your critical remarks about my hypothesis are subjective opinions, such as "Gallaway is irrelevant", or "that is conjecture". 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. You will merely sweep it aside with glib condescension. It was you (was it not?) that flatly stated that advocates of Gallaway promulgated "series of lies". I ask you to explain, but I got no answer.

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 (perhaps those who cite Smith's recollections think it irrelevant).

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.

Is the reason for meeting in hotel explained by Smith, or just matter-of-fact?

Roger M.
Posts: 1487
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Roger M. » February 15th, 2020, 9:50 pm

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 interested

Your 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.

PavelTheGreat

Re: ERDNASE

Postby PavelTheGreat » February 15th, 2020, 11:04 pm

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 interested

Your 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.


You say that you have no candidate, and yet you are vehemently defensive (that is to say, offensive) in your arbitrary judgement of what is relevant and what is not.

I am guessing that you have a candidate, but that you have learned to keep silent in order to shield yourself from the very kind of criticism that you dish out.

But even without mentioning a candidate, your excuse for logic and your disdain for objectivity shows in every syllable you utter.

It is not reasonable to accuse me of not doing the research on account of a single oversight. If, as you suggest, I had not done a great deal, you would have more than this trivial error to belabour
Last edited by PavelTheGreat on February 15th, 2020, 11:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Jonathan Townsend
Posts: 8298
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Westchester, NY
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Jonathan Townsend » February 15th, 2020, 11:14 pm

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
Which sources of fact beyond the printer, the book, and the artist do you believe to be relevant?
Mundus vult decipi -per Caleb Carr's story Killing Time

PavelTheGreat

Re: ERDNASE

Postby PavelTheGreat » February 15th, 2020, 11:47 pm

:twisted:
Jonathan Townsend wrote:
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
Which sources of fact beyond the printer, the book, and the artist do you believe to be relevant?


I take all into consideration, and only after giving each its due, do I determine its relevance. Unlike Roger, I do not exclude ideas that do not appeal to me or serve my purpose.

But to answer your question directly--I regard the principles as most important. They being the book, the artist, and the printing company.

I would not include anagrams or nick-names or anecdotal references to how many packs of playing cards a man takes with him on a camping trip in the first rank of significance.

I ask, what sort of man was the author? He would seem to have been outgoing and loud-spoken-:a barker and a showman. Which disagrees with Smith's description of a soft-spoken sort. It also disagrees with what I know of card players. They tend to be quiet and expressionless, not excitable, enthusiastic, or chatty as Erdnase seems to be.

I conclude (as others have done) that the author was likely a stage performer, a professional magician.

This leads me to favour Mr. Zenner's candidate. And so it goes.

Bill Mullins
Posts: 5348
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Bill Mullins » February 16th, 2020, 2:09 am

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.

PavelTheGreat

Re: ERDNASE

Postby PavelTheGreat » February 16th, 2020, 7:07 am

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.


You know what I am saying, Bill. I should not have to repeat that "Erdnase" being literally "earth-nose" could easily be translated as "dirt nose" because in any language, earth and dirt are same thing. It is disingenuous to suggest that they were (or are) distinctly different.

As you may have noticed, Mr. Zig Zagger has conceded this. He simply cannot imagine anyone using "dirt nose" as a term of endearment, whereas I can surely suppose that Gallaway's German-speaking wife might teasingly use this expression.

Now this is the major point I am making here--that 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. We could have one that was a quiet gambler and another who was loud speaking entertainer. If EATCT was a collaboration this would explain.

And why dismiss the possibility? To say "no evidence" is again disingenuous. The evidence is the disparity, the divergence within the book itself. If you can leap to conclusion that Erdnase is anagram, I fail to see why you will not consider notion that more than one man night have hand in creation of EATCT. To me this is far more sensible inference.

User avatar
Zenner
Posts: 135
Joined: September 30th, 2008, 8:49 pm
Favorite Magician: Al Koran
Location: Derbyshire, England

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Zenner » February 16th, 2020, 9:58 am

I did say that I was going back into hibernation but I feel that I must respond to a few of Mr Mullins' comments.

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.

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. I don't know why he picked on that name; it was probably an "in" joke.

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; he was a magician who wanted to sell a book. As a seller of books, he knew what it took to sell books.

Bill Mullins wrote: I don't think the case for him is particularly strong.

You are entitled to an opinion. In my opinion, a magician who performed sleight of hand with cards and who was a customer of McKinney makes a very good candidate: in fact the only one worth bothering with! You can claim that Smith had dementia and made it all up, but those two facts earn him a place at the top of the list ;)
Peter Zenner

User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 25453
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Richard Kaufman » February 16th, 2020, 11:28 am

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.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

Leo Garet
Posts: 370
Joined: March 14th, 2015, 9:14 am
Favorite Magician: Nobody In Particular

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Leo Garet » February 16th, 2020, 11:35 am

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.


Well said and well put. Though it's always nice to have it confirmed that Bill, and, presumably everybody else is entitled to an opinion.
:)

Bill Mullins
Posts: 5348
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Bill Mullins » February 16th, 2020, 11:56 am

Zenner wrote:Somebody had to distribute Expert and the fact that Benedict was by then a professional distributer of books is, I believe, pertinent.

This actually works against Benedict. Who ever distributed Expert wasn't very good at their job. It was remaindered soon after publication.

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".

Don't forget, Peter, that you're talking to the guy who found that signature.

And as I posted here, Benedict didn't know E. C. Andrews early enough to adopt a corruption of his name for a pseudonym.

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?


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.

Still looking for any reason to think that Benedict and Karr's Andrews are the same person.

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.

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: 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;

He told Smith that he was a reformed card shark. This is better evidence than just about anything you use to support his case.

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.

Bill Mullins
Posts: 5348
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Bill Mullins » February 16th, 2020, 12:30 pm

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."

PavelTheGreat

Re: ERDNASE

Postby PavelTheGreat » February 16th, 2020, 1:07 pm

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."


Citing newspaper articles from 1902 will not give accurate understanding of colloquial speech. Newspapers print stories about regional and global issues. Not likely that headline will read, Man Called by Spouse 'Etdnase' Due to Ink Stain. Such personal matters would not be reported by The Press.

You can (and should) eliminate all references to planet Earth (capital E) as this is not what I am talking about. I mean earth as in soil/ground/land/dirt. These all mean precisely same thing. Only distinction between them is different etymology. As such, we may choose to interpret "erdnase" in English as "earth nose", "soil nose", "ground nose" or "dirt nose'. There is no rule that says is STRICTLY "earth nose". This is arbitrary choice of whoever coined term.

Indeed, if term were coined in 1902, it would be "earth nose" because that was the preferred word for dirt. I have suggested to you to look up in your newspapers the word "dirt" to prove to us all how frequently it occurs. For some reason you are either not motivated to seek this information, or you do not wish to share it.

Another point is this: that colloquial phrases tend to be adopted largely because they sound good, or are easy to say. If you wonder why somebody would not say "drecknase" or 'schmutznase", it is probably because they are not as euphonious as "erdnase".

I think if is very sad that you question my interpretation of this word (which is essentially a literal one), while you advance the notion that "earth nose" may be interpreted as someone who "sniffs the ground" in search of mineral deposits. Are you not aware that this is MORE OF A STRETCH?

You say there is no evidence for "erdnase" to mean "dirt nose", but where is evidence that it mean "sniffer of earth"? If we define the term solely as topographical feature, this gives us little connection to any of the candidates, including Sanders.

Jack Shalom
Posts: 883
Joined: February 7th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Brooklyn NY

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Jack Shalom » February 16th, 2020, 1:25 pm

not excitable, enthusiastic, or chatty as Erdnase seems to be.


Whether Erdnase is all these things is impossible to know from a book. They're words. Writers are not their characters.

User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 25453
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Richard Kaufman » February 16th, 2020, 1:55 pm

Pavel the no-so-great was Mr. Keyes, should there have been any doubt, and he has been banned again.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

MagicbyAlfred
Posts: 1406
Joined: June 7th, 2015, 12:48 pm
Favorite Magician: Bill Malone
Location: Myrtle Beach, SC

Re: ERDNASE

Postby MagicbyAlfred » February 16th, 2020, 2:17 pm

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...

Tom Gilbert
Posts: 830
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: NH
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Tom Gilbert » February 16th, 2020, 3:04 pm

Thank you Richard.

Roger M.
Posts: 1487
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Roger M. » February 16th, 2020, 3:33 pm

Thanks Richard. I can't believe I got sucked into a back and forth with him (again).

User avatar
Zig Zagger
Posts: 391
Joined: March 20th, 2008, 6:59 pm
Favorite Magician: Aldo Colombini
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Zig Zagger » February 16th, 2020, 3:48 pm

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...

Good misdirection!
For a while he had me thinking he was an overeager newbie fellow from Eastern Europe... :)
Tricks, tips, news, interviews, musings and fun stuff: Have a look at our English-German magic blog! http://www.zzzauber.com
Advancing the art in magic one post at a time (yeah, right!)

User avatar
Paco Nagata
Posts: 239
Joined: July 3rd, 2019, 6:47 am
Favorite Magician: Juan Tamariz

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Paco Nagata » February 16th, 2020, 5:27 pm

I was finding kind of suspicious how incredible good he was improving his English!
I didn't dare to add anything to the conversation because of some inferiority complex about my English!
By the way, do you think it was also "misdirection" when he said that he didn't know how to show partial quotes?
"The Passion of an Amateur Card Magician"
https://bit.ly/2lXdO2O
"La pasion de un cartómago aficionado"
https://bit.ly/2kkjpjn
Latest erratum corrections and improvements update, 10/05/2020.

MagicbyAlfred
Posts: 1406
Joined: June 7th, 2015, 12:48 pm
Favorite Magician: Bill Malone
Location: Myrtle Beach, SC

Re: ERDNASE

Postby MagicbyAlfred » February 16th, 2020, 6:40 pm

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.

performer
Posts: 3510
Joined: August 7th, 2015, 10:35 pm

Re: ERDNASE

Postby performer » February 16th, 2020, 8:19 pm

Oh, that is a surprise! He certainly fooled me! I thought that English was not his native language!
I wish I had known it was him because if I did I would have been delighted to inform him that Victor Farelli agreed with his assertion in another thread that a magician should not tell lies when performing. I think he mentioned it in "the Odin Rings"

User avatar
Paco Nagata
Posts: 239
Joined: July 3rd, 2019, 6:47 am
Favorite Magician: Juan Tamariz

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Paco Nagata » February 17th, 2020, 5:38 am

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.

Muchas gracias, Alfred, for your encouraging words!
Let me say that you don't have to feel bad at all about your level in other language, not any English native speaker, since you don't have the so special motivation I have had to learn English being the most useful language in the world.
And I appreciate a lot the kindness and patience of native speakers with non natives, in addition to improve my English thanks to all of you guys!
Sorry for ignoring the subject of the thread; but having more than 7400 posts I'm pretty sure that we will be on track immediately ; - )
"The Passion of an Amateur Card Magician"
https://bit.ly/2lXdO2O
"La pasion de un cartómago aficionado"
https://bit.ly/2kkjpjn
Latest erratum corrections and improvements update, 10/05/2020.

User avatar
AJM
Posts: 1229
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: ERDNASE

Postby AJM » February 17th, 2020, 4:43 pm

A bit quiet on this thread today.

Then again, maybe I should just keep my erde-nase out of other folk’s business...

Andrew
Corner-person Begrudger

Jonathan Townsend
Posts: 8298
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Westchester, NY
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Jonathan Townsend » February 17th, 2020, 5:45 pm

Is there something like the google search for phonetically related phrases? https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph works for words but how about 'sounds like' - transliterations or mondegreens?
Mundus vult decipi -per Caleb Carr's story Killing Time

User avatar
Zenner
Posts: 135
Joined: September 30th, 2008, 8:49 pm
Favorite Magician: Al Koran
Location: Derbyshire, England

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Zenner » February 18th, 2020, 6:06 am

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.


You hadn't even heard of E.C. Andrews before I introduced him to the Forum. I already had that book downloaded into my files. You are the one who posted the link, but only after you had been chasing around checking up on me.

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:
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.
Still looking for any reason to think that Benedict and Karr's Andrews are the same person.


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)

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.


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.
Peter Zenner

Bob Coyne
Posts: 604
Joined: January 26th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Charlies
Location: New York, NY

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Bob Coyne » February 18th, 2020, 9:06 am

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.

Marty Demarest found a connection between Sanders and Dalrymple, mentioned in his Montana Magazine article and summarized in this thread a few years ago:

Sir John Dalrymple is a prominent a surname in and around the same areas occupied by Sanders and their kin and at a minimum the families new, traded, bought and sold property to and from each other and in one instance have likely produced offspring together from legitimate unions. On 18 Feb 1790, Elizabeth Dalrymple, of Stair, Cumberland, England married Sir. Myles Sandys of Edinburgh, Midlothian, Scotland. This is significant because the likelihood of this being a direct family link to today's Sanders and Dalrymple is fairly high.

Bill Mullins
Posts: 5348
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Bill Mullins » February 18th, 2020, 3:18 pm

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!

You are correct; my mistake (and apologies). I was confusing Benedict and Thompson.

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.

This falls into the "I don't have a real reason so I'm making stuff up" category -- like Erdnase = dirty nose.

Bill Mullins wrote:
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.
Still looking for any reason to think that Benedict and Karr's Andrews are the same person.

I am still working on that; you will have to bear with me.

We await with bated breath (but, since even Todd has abandoned this guy as being relevant, I'm not sure what good it does).

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)

Thanks for reminding me of this (I see I commented on the information right after you first posted it in Mar 2018, so all I can say is the thread is long and I don't remember all of it).

On other hand, maybe he wasn't that good after all . . .
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."

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."

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."


Edward D. Benedict is the only candidate to have his name linked to the name Dalrymple.

I suppose I'm not the only one to have forgotten things previously posted in the Erdnase thread.

User avatar
Zenner
Posts: 135
Joined: September 30th, 2008, 8:49 pm
Favorite Magician: Al Koran
Location: Derbyshire, England

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Zenner » February 19th, 2020, 7:36 am

Bill Mullins wrote:Edwin S. Andrews was related (by marriage) to Louis Dalrymple.

Credit to Richard Hatch for much of this research.


I must admit that I don't remember that particular post, but I do have a copy of Erdnase Unmasked, which contains Richard's essay 'Reading Erdnase Backwards'. On page 27 we get the paragraph, "Based on what we know, Edwin was the right age, in all the right places at precisely the right times, with a history of CARD PLAYING activity and a POSSIBLE family relationship (by marriage) to Louis Dalrymple."

If you are reading this, Richard, would you mind confirming that you eventually found evidence that Andrews was actually related (by marriage) to Louis Dalrymple. If you did then I shall apologise to both Bill and yourself for suggesting that Benedict was the only candidate with a link to the name Dalrymple.

Whatever your answer is, Benedict is the only current candidate who was both a customer of McKinney and also a performer of sleight of hand with cards. To my mind, at least, those two facts indicate that he was Erdnase; all the rest is icing on the cake.
Peter Zenner

User avatar
Zenner
Posts: 135
Joined: September 30th, 2008, 8:49 pm
Favorite Magician: Al Koran
Location: Derbyshire, England

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Zenner » February 19th, 2020, 9:46 am

Bill Mullins wrote: On other hand, maybe he wasn't that good after all . . .


Who says he was? We all know poor performers who write books; indeed, even non-performers write books!

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."


We can all have a bad night. Do you, or did you ever, perform Bill? If so, you will know that.

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."


Couldn't find that quote. All I got on page 3 of that newspaper was "Benedict the famous prestidigitator at the opera house tonight" and "We can assure the public that Benedict is a magician of more than ordinary reputation."

I don't recall E.D. Benedict ever claiming that he was from Australia, but others in show business have claimed to be from where they weren't. Who was it that claimed to have been born in the same place as whoever he was talking to?

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."


E.D. Benedict was always billed as "Benedict the Magician", or just Benedict. I have come across references to Nathan Benedict but he always seemed to use his full name. When searching through The Sphinx for references to "our" Benedict, I also found references to British magician, 'Professor' Hugall Benedict, and Dr. Francis G. Benedict of Wisconsin. It was always clear which Benedict was which.
Peter Zenner


Return to “General”