the ruth tale

Discuss information about the Lost Dutchman Mine
don
Part Timer
Posts: 403
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2002 12:17 pm
Location: united kingdom

the ruth tale

Post by don »

hello, at the fear of being thought repetitive,i have a question or issue to put forward...an issue which to me at least has never being convincingly answered (for me anyway)(and ive talked to many people about this)....the ruth murder/natural death theory. notwithstanding the circumstances involved i.e the discovery of the body,the location etc etc etc......why is it that when hrdlicka made his announcement regarding the 2 bullet holes(supposed) an immediate reopening of the case wasnt ordered....quite apart from the fact it didnt need an opinion from a man of his position and expertise(though some have nt thesame opinion of hrdlickas "expertise") to ascertain whether the holes were bullet holes or not.....almost any physician or coroner could have given a definitive opinion on that issue.
reasons given to me include ..the relevant police depts couldnt be bothered......new yorkers werent liked etc..seem to fly in the face of reason...i donrt believe the local police depts would have had any other choice than to reopen the case.... it wouldnt have been soley their decision..unless of course they genuinely believed death WAS by natural causes and had good reason to believe so.
there are a great many preconcieved notionsregarding several issues....ill name one to illustrate.....keenan and his friend couldnt have done the deed.....barkley couldnt done the deed...why? cos they were all somewhere else when ruth met his end.....its a preposterous pair of statements....cos the FACT is NOBODY KNOWS THE ACTUAL DATE WHEN RUTH DIED! so how can anyone be exonerated? but this nonsense keeps being reported over and over.
i believe much has been added to this tale to add "spice "to the legend ......the ruth letter to his wife for example,does the writing of a letter to his wife make any real sense in those circumstances? prob only to someone who for whatever reason wanted to make it appear that ruth was alive at the time the letter was dated.......
ok another point id like to make is.....the supposed killer(s) killed ruth for info he was supposed to have....fair enough ...so after shooting him in the head ,what do they do? they proceed to hack his head off.....ill suggesrt that those actions wouldnt be those of a frustrated treasure hunter, but a psychotic,blood thirsty maniac...someone along the lines of jeffrey dahmer or bundy.theres so many holes in the murder theory and so very many questions that theorists cant answer ,so the questions are swept under the carpet,ignored treated as irrelevant in favour of the more sensationalist solution.
im not expecting this post to find much sympathy on here,but its posted anyway lol
Don update your email address
Joe Ribaudo
Expert
Posts: 5453
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm

Dr. Hrdlicka

Post by Joe Ribaudo »

Don,

Dr. Hrdlicka was from back EAST.........

Dr. Ruth was in the habit of jotting off short "notes" to his wife, whenever he was away from home. It is likely he planned on sending the letter to her when fresh supplies were brought to his camp.

At the time, the story had fairly short legs, once his remains were found.
The tale has been "developed" a bit, since then. Considering the way the
"evidence" played out, this was a crime that was not going to be solved....
short of a confession.

You are "spot-on" with a number or with your "preposterous pair of statements" comments, as well as your overall assessment of the story.

Just opinions on my part.

I trust you are doing well and hope to see you posting often. While I may not always agree with you, you do make me think.

Take care,

Joe
don
Part Timer
Posts: 403
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2002 12:17 pm
Location: united kingdom

Post by don »

tks for kind words joe,maybe im being humoured :lol:
it might be interesting to know where the idea "ruth was in habit of sending off short notes etc" came from...now im not suggesting he wasnt in the habit of doing that,but just wondering if thats become part of the folklore to explain it away. its one thing sending a letter every day,another to write a different letter every day or so then presumabley package them all together and send as 1 letter? it really makes little sense to me,unless it "surfaced " to show at least he was alive on the date in question.but i guess maybe the letter is a minor point....maybe.
the fact that no-one can give a viable reason as to why the official view remained as death by natural causes doesnt really surprise me....what does surprise me is that nobody even asks the question.
nobody mentions any more that halseth first identified the skull as "that of an aged indian" ,nobody has to my knowledge ever challenged holmes ridicolous statement that he recognisedruths skull from his previous meeting with him.....and ive read that several times on here ,repeated as just another piece of corroborating evidence.
are there official documents relating to hrdlickas examination of ruths skull? official documents relating to the identigfication by ruths dentist etc etc? or is that all just a figment ,first of erwins ruths and later by dutchman enthusiasts fevered imaginations?....if there are documents to this end then why no change in the verdict? or was it as hrdlicka wrote "ruth PROBABLEY " was shot etc etc (note the word probabley (or was it possibley)..........
now i dont presume to know the truth ,im just asking questions that have never been answered to my satisfaction....praps scotts words can speak more eloquently
I cant say what the truth may be
I can only tell it as twas told to me
joe im glad to see its quietened down for you here,maybe there will be a settling down period for while then hopefully return to normal.what id like to see is the "silent" members return now and voice opinions,views tales..its what these forums are about...no need for any one upmanship or animosity....we are all clueless in truth :lol:
take care joe
Don update your email address
novice
Expert
Posts: 544
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 5:53 pm
Location: Lake St. Louis, Missouri

Unanswered questions

Post by novice »

Don for your info. (This is a letter from Dr. Hrdlicka, that was published by Greg Davis in the Superstition Mountain Journal, Volume 20, 2002). The Journal has copyright restrictions or I would post it in it's entirety. [Greg Davis has now contacted me and has said that posting the complete text is acceptable and I have therefore edited my previous post to include the complete letter.]

It depends on the person's perception of the event as to how they will interpret it. The credentials of both Halseth and Hrdlicka have been questioned and we do find the word probably used.

I believe the whole letter has been carefully crafted and each word considered. You will have to answer how strong Dr. Hrdlicka felt about the gunshot yourself. My "opinion" is that he believed VERY STRONGLY that it was a bullet that caused the holes in the skull.
To whom it may concern;

On December 19, 1931, I received a human skull shipped from Phoenix, Arizona by Odd S. Halseth who stated that he had found it in the Superstition Mountains of Arizona, and that it was possibly that of Adolph Ruth of Washington D. C. who disappeared in those mountains during the month of June, 1931.

My examination positively determined that it is the skull of an aged white man. Holes in the skull, one over an inch in diameter on the left side and a much larger one on the right side, indicates a strong probability that the man was shot to death by a shotgun or a large caliber rifle and that the shot or bullet passed somewhat downwardly from the left. I have examined such wounds before and have examined skulls with bullet wound holes found on battlefields. I hold a degree as Doctor of Medicine, have had medico-legal instructions, and have been engaged in anthropological work for many years. At present I am curator of Physical Anthropology for the National Museum.

On December 21, 1931, Earl A. Ruth, son of Adolph Ruth, presented three large photographs and three stereoscopic photographs of his father. The stereoscopic photographs were viewed through a stereoscope which revealed the shape of the head in three dimensions. A Comparison of the aforementioned skull with these photographs showed that the high forehead, position of the cheek bones, and comparatively frail features of the face correspond. The long nose, the short distance between the mount had nose, and the general contour of the head and face correspond. The upper jaw of the skull revealed that the person had been without teeth for years, and showed new bone tissue such as would be caused by pressure from a dental plate. Earl A. Ruth states that his father had nearly all of his upper teeth extracted many years ago and that all of his remaining teeth were removed seven years before his disappearance. He further states that his father wore an upper plate for many years and both upper and lower false teeth for the last seven years of his life.

I am informed that since the finding of this skull a headless skeleton has been identified as that of Adolph Ruth by the presence of his watch, papers, and other personal belongings.

The condition of the skull indicated that death occurred not more than a few months ago. My examination discloses that all the features of this skull closely correspond with the aforementioned photographs and information, and not a single feature fails to correspond. Furthermore, the mere fact that the skulls of different individuals greatly vary, in view of the aforementioned close correspondence, indicates that this skull is in all probability that of Adolph Ruth.

A consideration of all the evidence presented to me which is related in detail above, discloses with reasonable certainty that the aforementioned skull is that of Adolph Ruth. Furthermore, it is my opinion, as stated above, that Adolph Ruth probably met his death by means of a shot from a gun.

Ales Hrdlicka
(I believe this is probably as close as your going to come to finding something official that suggests death by unnatural causes.) Since the officials in Arizona ignored Dr. Hrdlicka findings in 1932, it certainly won't be hard for people to ignore them in 2006.

With careful reading of the article, I believe it also refutes some other details passed down in popular accounts.

Garry
don
Part Timer
Posts: 403
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2002 12:17 pm
Location: united kingdom

Post by don »

garry (novice) thanks for the reply and yes ill pm you....as for the hrdlicka letter....i think from how the letter reads there seems plenty of room for doubt . "PROBABLEY met his death by the means of a shot from a gun" well...so at best he wasnt sure? i dont see how that can be read any other way to be honest. and of course the difference between a gunshot,rifle and /orSHOTGUN wound i would imagine would be quite significant (im no expert on ballistics) but a shotgun wound! wouldnt the skull after shotgun blast be in fragments?
the identification of the skull .again seems a bit "iffy" doesnt it? i was always told ,or read that ruths skull was POSITIVELY identified by means of dental xrays etc...now judging by hrdlickas letter,it seems thatthe author at least wasnt 100% certain...it seems (again by the contents of the letter) the identification was based on the facts that ruth had no teeth -the skull had no teeth.....a headless skeleton was found-a skull was found....the time frame was about right....although one could be a bit picky about the "few months" timescale,most people refer to afew as 2-3.....maybe to hrdlicka a few meant 6 or so. reading hrdlickas statement it seems that ruths skull was identified by the 3 issues he relates as he says "the evidence presented to me which is related in detail above" .almost a kinda "the skulls more likely to be ruths than anybody elses" attitude....and of course the statement "with reasonable certainty that the aforementioned skull was that of adolph ruth" means there was doubt ,however small...
thanks again for the fascinating document
Don update your email address
don
Part Timer
Posts: 403
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2002 12:17 pm
Location: united kingdom

Post by don »

i answered between your first posting and your edit,andonly read the skull examination part after id replied.its hard to know just how accurate a comparison could be judged from a skull and photos in 1931 maybe "in all probabillty"was as far as he could say, i dont know.....
thanks
Don update your email address
don
Part Timer
Posts: 403
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2002 12:17 pm
Location: united kingdom

Post by don »

novice..id be interested to hear your personal opinion on why the authorities ignored the hrdlicka report.....and likewise any other members opinion on this issue
thanks
Don update your email address
buscar
Part Timer
Posts: 148
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2005 8:36 am
Location: Mohawk Valley

Post-mortem Skull Reconstruction

Post by buscar »

There are two different methods of post-mortem skull reconstruction that could solve the mystery; the first type is three dimensional reconstruction, where the face is recreated on the skull with clay; the second type is two-dimensional, where the face is drawn over the skull. Skull reconstructions can be used by historians or scientists as well as criminologists.

buscar :)
Joe Ribaudo
Expert
Posts: 5453
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm

Not So Sure?

Post by Joe Ribaudo »

Don,

Hrdlicka's answer was as good as it gets in his field. That's because, without his being an eyewitness to the bullet passing through Ruth's skull,
there is not 100% certainty that he was shot. He gave the only answer he could.

Take care,

Joe
don
Part Timer
Posts: 403
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2002 12:17 pm
Location: united kingdom

Post by don »

joe,
im not trying to be pedantic but,with respect hrdlicka didnt have to be an eyewitness to the event to determine whether they were bullet holes or not.....they either were or they werent...if they were then obviously he was shot...if they werent then plainly the opposite was true. so it follows that (judging from the letter) there was doubt whether they were bullet holes or not..i.e they probabley were, but they may not have been. strong probability is an odd phrase to use if you are certain about something......i could think of a few phrases he might have used if he was certain....."no doubt in MY mind"......even "almost certain" for example. he wasnt offering his findings from a cursory glance at a photo-he had the skull to ponder over probabley for as long as he needed it,but still the best he could do was offer the verdict "strong probability"....also one wonders about the overall quality of the content when it seems he couldnt distinguish the difference between a rifle shot and a shotgun wound...does that seem a little strange?..now i dont know whether letter was written some years after the event or not, but if it was and certain things are gonna be put down as lapses of memory on hrdlickas part becos of the passing of the years, then it must render the WHOLE testimony as questionable?
maybe im answering my own question as to why the authorities didnt reopen the case.....too many probalities and possibilities and striong probabilities maybe to warrant it?
Don update your email address
novice
Expert
Posts: 544
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 5:53 pm
Location: Lake St. Louis, Missouri

Blows on the skull or a bullet?

Post by novice »

Don,

Greg Davis doesn't have a date the letter was written but I'm "Almost Certain" that is was around the time of the events.

Probably = 90% certain
Strong Probability 99% certain
Almost Certain = 99.9% certain
No doubt in my mind = 100% certain.

You are certainly correct in raising questions about Hrdlicka's investigation and the "probably" conclusions. Certainly the gun account. In Ely he even tries to pick a caliber.

Conversely I believe you should also apply the same rigorous standards to the official account that the holes were punched in the skull by bouncing off of boulders in a flooded streambed. When I consider this scenario, I begin to have trouble. I don't know how heavy the skull was or the velocity of the stream but I just question whether the mass and velocity would be sufficient to generate enough energy to pierce a skull. I might want to add a log or something else to the mix?

Jeff Adams used the term "more than probable". Still not quite 100%! I think we know what Hrdlicka thought and perhaps what Adams thought. I guess what's really important is what each one of us thinks. I am still taking a cowardly approach and sticking with I'm not sure.

Why did officials ignore Hrdlicka's report? In my opinion, this was a case that was going absolutely nowhere. There just wasn't any hard evidence or solid suspects, so why not just put it to bed and leave the solution to twenty-first century Dutch Hunters. (That solution has worked out pretty well!)

Garry
Joe Ribaudo
Expert
Posts: 5453
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm

Shotgun Versus Rifle?

Post by Joe Ribaudo »

Don and Garry,

I don't know how many shotgun wounds to the head Hrdlicka might have seen, but the likelyhood of his examining many that were made with a slug seems small.

A shotgun used against a man, is normally loaded with buckshot. No need to list the reasons, but that has been my own experience. Hrdlicka did not dwell on the shotgun statement, but did flesh out (so to speak) the "gun" theory.

I have tried to get some highly respected archaeologist/anthropologist's to give me a positive statement on some well know and accepted "facts"...........
Forget about it! It just ain't gonna happen. :lol:

As I said, Hrdlika gave as positive a statement as you can get from the breed. :?

Take care,

Joe
zentull
Expert
Posts: 1039
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2002 11:15 am
Location: Surprise, Arizona

Post by zentull »

I for one would like to believe that Adolph Ruth was a nice elderly gentleman who bit off more than he could chew, after becoming dehydrated he took a fall or had a heart attack and died on the side of Black Top Mesa. No controversy or conspiracy, just simple and neat.

It is unfortunate that even if that scenario ran true(which I very much doubt), there was a bit of monkey business afterwards.

Shotgun slug to me is remote and very unlikely, that is a midwest or eastern thought process. Very few slug guys in the West. I do not believe I know a single person out here who uses slugs, though many relatives back East do. Shotgun too close and there would be just skull fragments and there is no pitting that it came from a distance. A handgun from a slightly downward angle seems to fit very well though.

Garry,
I like this and will keep it in mind for the Wifey.........
Probably = 90% certain
Strong Probability 99% certain
Almost Certain = 99.9% certain
No doubt in my mind = 100% certain.
don
Part Timer
Posts: 403
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2002 12:17 pm
Location: united kingdom

Post by don »

novice,thanks for your reply, im not sure i agree with the percentages youve allocated to "strong probability" i dont personally think the letter implies a 0.01 level of doubt as your percentages would indicate(100%-99.9%) and im afraid the "level of doubt" involved rapidly multiplies when the actions of the CONTEMPORARY police force are added to the issue with respect i cant accept the notion that the police wouldnt/ didnt bother to reopen the case becos"there were no hard suspects,etc" i believe the authorities would have been duty bound to at least change verdict to t an open verdict,possible murder, possible suicide or whatever the wording might be.UNLESS of course the new evidence wasnt sufficient (i.e doubtful) to warrant it. the "official" verdict has always been a thorny issue as regards the murder viewpoint,and i dont believe it can easily be explained away.
as regards the shotgun issues ,slugs or buckshot etc,i admit i have no clue on that issue,but i would have thought hrdlicka would or should have known all the variants ,if he didnt.....welll again it puts things into perspective maybe.maybe the "slipshod" description aimed at hrdlickas methods by some (not as yet relating to this issue i might add) might be worth considering. i admit i dont know.
without trying to labour the point if hrdlicka couldnt be certain about rifle shot/gun shot/shotgun blast...if hrdlicka could only offer that the skull was "in all probabilty" that of ruth..if hrdlicka could not make up his mind whether the shot came from a rifle or a shotgun,but then a few paragraphs later opts for the "shot from a gun" (probabley) option...then i suggest theres considerable doubt in his findings.....could you imagine a witness being called to testify in a murder case and offering that testimony?hed be ripped to shreds by any attorney. frankly if that testimony was the only new evidence offered to maricopa/pinal authorities then it would be a surprise if they had reopened the case (inmo)
i doubt if its possible at thois late stage to ascertain what happened, and does it matter? and i certainly have no answers....thanks
Don update your email address
novice
Expert
Posts: 544
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 5:53 pm
Location: Lake St. Louis, Missouri

Gun Shot or Boulders?

Post by novice »

Don,

I'm certainly not implying that the gunshot theory is 99.9% probable. What I'm saying is that Dr. Hrdlicka was 99.9% sure in "his mind" that it was true.

Another interesting thing to ponder is the evolution of the "official story".

On December 13 The Arizona Republic carried these words:
"Holes in the skull,........ pointed to the logical conclusion that a high-powered bullet had entered the head from the left side.

During the many weeks of search for Dr. Ruth , officers never strongly considered the possibility that he had met foul play. They operated almost exclusively on the assumption that he had wandered from his base camp and had become confused in the labyrinth-like canyons of the forbidding range."

On December 14, 1931 the Phoenix Gazette carried these words:
"Deputy Adams and W. A. "Tex" Barkley, Mesa cattleman whose stock range includes the Superstition mountain, made futile searches for Mr. Ruth during July and came to the conclusion at that time that he had been murdered.

They believe that someone followed Mr. Ruth into the mountains when he began his hunt for the legendary mine and murdered him either for the map he was known to have possessed of the location of the treasure trove or else waited until he discovered it and then killed him to seal the secret for themselves.

Identification of the skull as that of Mr. Ruth would substantiate the murder theory as there are jagged holes in both sides of the skull, it is reported, believed to have been made by a bullet."

On December 20, 1931, Harvey Mott, an eyewitness to the discovery of the skull, wrote in the Arizona Republic:

"Second glances showed two holes in the skull, and at once the thought was suggested that the man the skull represented had died by violence."

I don't know how to explain the discrepancy between the Gazette's assertion that Jeff Adams and Tex Barkley had concluded in July that Ruth had been murdered while the Arizona Republican stated that law officers had never strongly considered the possibility of foul play. I suspect the Arizona Republic may just have been a bit more responsible but I do believe that after the skull was discovered it was generally accepted (among those who had seen the skull and officials) that Ruth had been shot. Dr. Hrdlicka was not alone. I have certainly not read anything where it was suggested that the flood waters carrying the skull has caused the two holes in this time period. That theory would not be put forward until much later when the remains were found. (I have not read many of the accounts in the newspapers in the time span leading up to the remains discovery, so I could be wrong in this assertion?)

I believe this view (gunshot caused the two holes) continued to hold sway until the remains of Ruth were found in early January, 1932.

When the remains were found. there was no evidence of foul play nor was any motive discovered. (Ruth's belongings were apparently intact). An empty canteen, a handicapped older man 3 miles (depending on how you calculate the distance) from his camp in a hot Arizona desert? At this point I believe officials could see their chances of developing a provable case were slim and none, but they still had to account for the two holes in the skull. I think it was probably at this time the story of skull tumbling down the canyon and having the two holes punched was introduced?

If someone has an earlier reference to the boulder theory or a date when it was first put forward, I would appreciate their sharing.

That theory, at least to me, seems to have its share of holes. Don, if you remove Dr. Hrdlicka's name and Arizona officials (Jeff Adams and Amos Hawkins) from the mix and simply go by the seat of your pants, would you go with one of their theories or come up with one of your own?

Dr. Glover's book provides some additional food for thought regarding the boulder theory.

I do believe the skull washed down the canyons but I'm just not sure how violent the ride was?

Garry
don
Part Timer
Posts: 403
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2002 12:17 pm
Location: united kingdom

Post by don »

novice, the newspaper articles of course would (and maybe do) appear to be impressive evidence.i think it would be unfair for me to sweep them aside and say something after the fashion of" well of course the papers would follow that line ,wouldnt they? murder is always more exciting than the alternative for its readers....it sells more copy"but im sure there would be an element of that in it anyway,murder or not. its interesting to read apparently that adams and barkley at least had made their minds up prior to any discovery of ruths remains ,that HE HAD BEEN MURDERED,and no doubt those opinions were spread from person to person,and one could wonder whether no matter what the papers might have cried murder.......i can recall reading somewhere that there was a bitter disagreement between halseth and maybe mott at some time during these events regarding halseths identification of the skull as that of an aged indian .the skull being from an earlier period ,long before the ruth era. no mention of "greenness" or for that matter bullet holes,so its hard to know what to make of that.
but that aside, if the bullet hole theory had substance ,if erwin ruth had trumpeted the hrdlicka findings to everyone,public and officials alike,if it was common knowledge that bullet holes fractured ruths skull,if the newspapers opinions were correct, then just how could the authorities remain with the natural causes verdict? (even if they wanted to) because surely questions would have been asked from higher levels than pinal/maricopa authorities ?as i said an open verdict could have been announced,how hard would that have been?
im not gonna say the boulder theory is convincing either,it isnt,but to me ,taking everything into consideration i would have the opinion that it would be a marginally better bet........maybe :lol:
Don update your email address
zentull
Expert
Posts: 1039
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2002 11:15 am
Location: Surprise, Arizona

Post by zentull »

I find Hrdlicka's statement concerning time of death very interesting. Does anyone know about the difference in decomposition between the hot and dry climate here as in comparison to a cooler and humid climate?

It seems that Dr Hrdlicka is putting the time of death in late September or early October. It seems the skull would have been in the least optimal conditions from June to September.

If his theory/guess/estimation of time of death is even fairly accurate, than accidental death seems very unlikely.
novice
Expert
Posts: 544
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 5:53 pm
Location: Lake St. Louis, Missouri

Post by novice »

Guys,

I'm getting way ahead of myself on this story and haven't really done anything much beyond the skull discovery. I have not gone past what has already been stated in books regarding the discovery of the remains. There are newspaper reports and other documents created by public officials that surely exist that I have not seen!

If you will indulge me, I will ask one more thing that seems to call into question the bullet theory and then move on for the time being. When I look at the picture of the remains of Ruth, I can see his hat and perhaps some clothing? There doesn't appear to be any holes in the hat and I would suspect they would have found some spots of blood on any clothes that survived? Are there any reports of this?

Zentull,

The time of death issue? "Not more than a few months" may have different meaning for some of us. Six months matches Hrdlicka's criteria in my eyes. :)

Garry
zentull
Expert
Posts: 1039
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2002 11:15 am
Location: Surprise, Arizona

Post by zentull »

All that I can see of the hat is there is some spotting on what could be the front or rear of the brim just off center. I do not recall ever seeing a picture of the underside of the hat.

Garry,

I am sure that Hrdlicka was told something of the back story. Supposedly we are told this was a big story nationally. I would think his conclusions would match the time frame he was aware of. I would think a body would decompose at a slower rate in cooler and humid conditions. I could be wrong and the dryness, regardless of the heat, could change things by a few months.
Joe Ribaudo
Expert
Posts: 5453
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm

Positive.....Maybe.

Post by Joe Ribaudo »

Don,

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"joe,
im not trying to be pedantic but,with respect hrdlicka didnt have to be an eyewitness to the event to determine whether they were bullet holes or not.....they either were or they werent..."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To the scientific community, it was a "positive" cause of death. To the rest of us.....it was a maybe. In dealing with anyone worthy of the name, (archaeologist/anthropologist), that's as "positive" an answer as you will get.

Dr. Hrdlicka had no doubts......trust me. :)

Take care,

Joe
don
Part Timer
Posts: 403
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2002 12:17 pm
Location: united kingdom

no doubts

Post by don »

"dr hrdlicka had no doubts.....trust me :lol: "(joes quote)
well joe for a guy with no doubts-he sure used the words probabley,probability and maybe an awful lot! :cry:
take care
Don update your email address
don
Part Timer
Posts: 403
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2002 12:17 pm
Location: united kingdom

Post by don »

novice,
kearney makes the same point about about ruths hat in his article written for journal of arizona history some time ago,maybe youve read it....of course maybe the murderer(s) asked him to take it off before they shot him? along of course with his dentures,glasses,which also apparently showed no sign of damage.theres always an answer both pro and con for those 3 issues.....
Don update your email address
Joe Ribaudo
Expert
Posts: 5453
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm

Perhaps.....

Post by Joe Ribaudo »

Don,

You are not paying attention.

Those guys NEVER say 100% for sure. NONE of them.....EVER, on anything. It's a trait of the breed.

Do you understand what I am saying now? I know that you want them to say for sure, but it will NEVER happen.

I have explained why this is a number of times before on this Forum.
They will always leave themselves a little wriggle-room, because the next turn of a spade may change accepted history......and has.

If you know how they think, you would realize that Dr. Hrdlicka was being
positive......in his own way.

I have had conversations with a number of well respected members of the profession about "accepted facts". I always got the same kind of statements.....ALWAYS....FROM ALL OF THEM. :lol: I think they all take some kind of oath. :roll:

Take care,

Joe
don
Part Timer
Posts: 403
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2002 12:17 pm
Location: united kingdom

Post by don »

joe, i understand/understood what you are saying/said but dont accept it,however if as you say they /he always leave themselves some wriggle room, becos they dont know what the next turn of the spade will unearth then........yes you got it...by definition they aint certain.
maybe you might suggest then what hrdlicka would have wrote IF he wasnt certain? what phrase would he, do you think
have used instead of "strong probability"?
of course its easy if one wants to be petty to discuss the underlying meanings of each and every comma or apostrophe. i dont believe im doing that..im merely trying to assess the letter for what its worth ,im not putting words into anyones sentences,nor claiming the letter is in code.
if hrdlicka didnt have the confidence to say yes im certain/yes it is etc ,then notwithstanding any ethical protocols he might or might not employ,then he WASNT certain. no amount of semantic squirming can alter that....if you had read some of his statements regarding the larsen bay project for example you would realise he didnt in those cases speak or write in such a "middle of the road "manner. mind you i guess when you are defending yourself against accusations regardingunauthorised ,underhanded and POSSIBLY (lol) illegal removal of native american remains from a protected cemetery then its different?
lets imagine a court case
judge .....you have been accused of 1st degree murder,how do u plead?
defendant
well your honour,its like this, im trying to be as honest and as open as i possibly can be,in the circumstances...and my answer must be that theres a strong probality i am innocent
judge....now cmon, innocent or guilty you must know my good man!
defendant
why yes your honour,i think i can say in all probability im not guilty, but just in case anyone finds my fingerprints on the weapon,im leaving myself "wriggle room" in case in future im accused
of perjury.
judge -just answer the question yes or no
defendant - i cant your honour -im an anthropologist
judge -
an anthropologist? why on earth didnt you say?....ok your pleas accepted...proceed



:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
ok a caricature but many a true opinion is given in jest
take care
Don update your email address
novice
Expert
Posts: 544
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 5:53 pm
Location: Lake St. Louis, Missouri

Wiggle Room

Post by novice »

Since we're just blowing, I demand equal time for Jeff Adams. When he says it is "more than probable" that it wasn't foul play. this is my take. If the weatherman says that rain tomorrow is probable his percentage is about 70% so anything more than probable is above that but certainly not absolute certainty and he has included his own wiggle room. The question I will be pondering long into the night is who has the most wiggle room. Hrdlicka or Adams?

Sorry about this post but I just need some relief from this insanity. I was stupid not to just ignore the innuendos directed at me.

Garry
Post Reply