Ruth Killing
Killing,s
Desease: It,s seems like eveyone who dies in the mountains dies of heat and dust and thirst. The killing,s that I talked about happen in 1972. They sentenced the man to life in prison who killed the 7 people. He appealed the sentence and bingo after about 10 years a federal court, said they had to set him free because the life sentence was too vague and said it only amounted to 21 years. So the judge begain to sentenceing them to natural life instead. He got out and in a months time was caught trying to kidnap a woman in Tulsa at a mall. They sentenced him right this time. He will not get out again. bill
robbery& killings
Joe: People do not rob you for what you have they rob and kill you for what they think you have and they get mad when you do not produce it. I too think the death autopsy,s were very strange report,s, seems like everyone who dies out there in the hills, dies from heat and thirst. The reports should have read of causes unkown. By the way joe Napoleon standerdize the weights and measure systems and opened the first public schools in the world in france when he came to power. You were talking about the mile verses the league. bill
robbery& killings
Joe: People do not rob you for what you have they rob and kill you for what they think you have and they get mad when you do not produce it. I too think the death autopsy,s were very strange report,s, seems like everyone who dies out there in the hills, dies from heat and thirst. The reports should have read of causes unkown. By the way joe Napoleon standerdize the weights and measure systems and opened the first public schools in the world in france when he came to power. You were talking about the mile verses the league. bill
Desease and Joe: I just remembered a story I read several years ago, it might have been by Ramus or Ramos or Cox about the lost dutchman mine. He claimed that he had Herman Petrashes gun. It seems at the time of Ruth,s killing that Herman,s gun was borrowed for several days without Herman knowing about where it had gotten off to. He said that it may very well be the gun used in the killing. When Herman died he got the gun. I can,t remember if he gave the caliber. bill
-
dutch elm disease
- Part Timer
- Posts: 241
- Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2003 1:06 pm
joe
you say dr hrdlicka had no axe to grind ...well perhaps in the usual sense he didnt.but ..and im merely assuming here that hrdlickas examination was a private one asked for by erwin ruth and presumabley in return for a fee.now im not suggesting that hrdlicka was bribed but obviously erwin didnt forward the skull to recieve a negative finding ..i suggest erwin was allready converted. as for reputations and themasks of respectability andexcellence some individuals are given...i would assume the coroner and his advisors andfor that matter too the police depts also were regarded as respected and competent persons. so that aspect reallymeans very little. odd halseth was also a man at the heights ofhisprofession yet wasnt his initial description of ruths skull as being the skull of an indian andvery ancient?
actually sims ely himself related the meeting 12 years later with hrdlicka. again i ask the question why didnt he mention these"facts" in his original report?
you atate that hrdlicka didnt positively report that ruth died from a bullet in the head because he couldnt be certain that it was cause of death.i guess nothing is certain in this world but surely that is taking reasonable doubt to extremes.you say the authorities motives or lack of for "lying" is a dead end. on the contrary its the opening .its a thorny issue to the conspiracy theorists isnt it? why would they lie? one side says yep bullet holes ....the other side says nope nobullet holes.the implication is plain...one side is lying....which one and why? the why is the big issue surely/?
i quote here from dep sherif jeff adamsletter to haydn which im sure you have read.
2"so far as the officers here are concerned we have no reason to believe that mrruth came to hisdeath by the criminal act of any person"..."it is more thanprobable that the fractures in the skull were produced being rolled against therocks etcetc"2 now im sure adamswouldrecognise abullet hole when hesaw one. so was adams lying? the county attorney agreed with him was he lying too? if so again i ask why?
cravey.....you suggest i reread the story...unfortunately as you know there has been very littlewritten abiout him(at least compared to ruth) but the titbits that haverelatethese ingredients.a guy with supposed secret info...body foundafter 7 months.... supposedly beheaded....head some distance from skeleton ( in some books skull placed up right on a rock) remains on a well travelled trail but not previously seen....cravey murdered elsewhere and killers transporting body to diff location to throw mine seekers off thetrail. does it sound at all familiar? in fact i wouldhazard to say theres moresimilarities than differnces in the 2 cases.
that was my reason i said why is one more notorious than the other.
bill
im glad he got life.... but was he a liberal?
you say dr hrdlicka had no axe to grind ...well perhaps in the usual sense he didnt.but ..and im merely assuming here that hrdlickas examination was a private one asked for by erwin ruth and presumabley in return for a fee.now im not suggesting that hrdlicka was bribed but obviously erwin didnt forward the skull to recieve a negative finding ..i suggest erwin was allready converted. as for reputations and themasks of respectability andexcellence some individuals are given...i would assume the coroner and his advisors andfor that matter too the police depts also were regarded as respected and competent persons. so that aspect reallymeans very little. odd halseth was also a man at the heights ofhisprofession yet wasnt his initial description of ruths skull as being the skull of an indian andvery ancient?
actually sims ely himself related the meeting 12 years later with hrdlicka. again i ask the question why didnt he mention these"facts" in his original report?
you atate that hrdlicka didnt positively report that ruth died from a bullet in the head because he couldnt be certain that it was cause of death.i guess nothing is certain in this world but surely that is taking reasonable doubt to extremes.you say the authorities motives or lack of for "lying" is a dead end. on the contrary its the opening .its a thorny issue to the conspiracy theorists isnt it? why would they lie? one side says yep bullet holes ....the other side says nope nobullet holes.the implication is plain...one side is lying....which one and why? the why is the big issue surely/?
i quote here from dep sherif jeff adamsletter to haydn which im sure you have read.
2"so far as the officers here are concerned we have no reason to believe that mrruth came to hisdeath by the criminal act of any person"..."it is more thanprobable that the fractures in the skull were produced being rolled against therocks etcetc"2 now im sure adamswouldrecognise abullet hole when hesaw one. so was adams lying? the county attorney agreed with him was he lying too? if so again i ask why?
cravey.....you suggest i reread the story...unfortunately as you know there has been very littlewritten abiout him(at least compared to ruth) but the titbits that haverelatethese ingredients.a guy with supposed secret info...body foundafter 7 months.... supposedly beheaded....head some distance from skeleton ( in some books skull placed up right on a rock) remains on a well travelled trail but not previously seen....cravey murdered elsewhere and killers transporting body to diff location to throw mine seekers off thetrail. does it sound at all familiar? in fact i wouldhazard to say theres moresimilarities than differnces in the 2 cases.
that was my reason i said why is one more notorious than the other.
bill
im glad he got life.... but was he a liberal?
Ruth
Joe and Desease: According to the Barkley story, Ruth had his head on his shoulders when he found him. He was laying on his side with a bullet hole through his head. Head looked like he was sitting on the rock, when he was shot and just fell over on his side on the ground. Desease: You asked me if old anderson was a liberal? I really don,t know for sure But I expect he was. His dad was on welfare, him and his brother was raised on welfare. The only time they worked was when they were out of cigarette and drinking money. He killed his 2 wino buddies with a concret block after drinking with them all evening. He went home and went next door and killed one man with an axe and chopped his mother in the head with it. He then took her old daughter, old enough to be his mother , Out back into some johnson grass and raped her. He then took off from there and went about 1/2 mile southeast from there and Killed an old man and his wife who were in their 80,s. All of this took place within 2 blocks east of my house--4 blocks west of my house--and about 4 blocks south of my house. So being on welfare and non-worker--no work ethic, I think he might be a liberal. Never drawing enough money you know. bill
-
dutch elm disease
- Part Timer
- Posts: 241
- Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2003 1:06 pm
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Preconceived Notions
DED,
You need to slow down a little and go over the available information again.
Dr. Halseth is the one who sent the skull to Science Service in Washington,
D.C. Page 59 of "A Ride Through Time", "It was this same Dr. Ales Hrdlicka who examined the Ruth skull, sent to him by Halseth. Hrdlicka obviously enjoyed a national reputation at the time of being the leading authority on physical anthropology in this country, and Halseth wanted no room for doubt in his theory that Ruth had been shot."
(emphasis in bold is Joe's)
Dr. Halseth did not say the skull was "an indian andvery ancient". What he said was "Skull may be Indian or Caucasian old or fresh." (emphasis in bold by Joe) Dr. Halseth believed the skull to be Dr. Ruth's.
You seem to have a preconceived notion of what took place here and that may have caused you to misread the evidence to conform to your ideas. There is no evidence that would suggest that Dr. Hrdlicka or Dr. Halseth said or did anything that would taint their reputations. Quite the opposit seems obvious to me.
The evidence that is available indicates that Dr. Hrdlicka did not know Earl A. Ruth. Dr. Hrdlicka received the skull in mid-December and wrote his report some time in January. My guess as to why he did not mention the caliber of the weapon used, was because he did not take, or have the time, to compare the size of the holes in Dr. Ruth's skull to other skulls with known caliber holes in them. Once he took the time needed to compare other skulls, he came to an educated guess on the caliber of the gun used.
[DED]
"you atate that hrdlicka didnt positively report that ruth died from a bullet in the head because he couldnt be certain that it was cause of death.i guess nothing is certain in this world but surely that is taking reasonable doubt to extremes."
Not at all. Many people have been shot in the head after they were dead.
Dr. Ruth may have been beaten to death, or stabbed or even scared to death. It is possible that he was shot after death occurred. Because it is "possible", without personal knowledge, Dr. Hrdlicka would not state that he did die from the shot to the head. Pretty standard stuff actually.
This is interesting, but it leads nowhere. I repeat, it is a dead end.
Respectfully,
Joe Ribaudo
You need to slow down a little and go over the available information again.
Dr. Halseth is the one who sent the skull to Science Service in Washington,
D.C. Page 59 of "A Ride Through Time", "It was this same Dr. Ales Hrdlicka who examined the Ruth skull, sent to him by Halseth. Hrdlicka obviously enjoyed a national reputation at the time of being the leading authority on physical anthropology in this country, and Halseth wanted no room for doubt in his theory that Ruth had been shot."
(emphasis in bold is Joe's)
Dr. Halseth did not say the skull was "an indian andvery ancient". What he said was "Skull may be Indian or Caucasian old or fresh." (emphasis in bold by Joe) Dr. Halseth believed the skull to be Dr. Ruth's.
You seem to have a preconceived notion of what took place here and that may have caused you to misread the evidence to conform to your ideas. There is no evidence that would suggest that Dr. Hrdlicka or Dr. Halseth said or did anything that would taint their reputations. Quite the opposit seems obvious to me.
The evidence that is available indicates that Dr. Hrdlicka did not know Earl A. Ruth. Dr. Hrdlicka received the skull in mid-December and wrote his report some time in January. My guess as to why he did not mention the caliber of the weapon used, was because he did not take, or have the time, to compare the size of the holes in Dr. Ruth's skull to other skulls with known caliber holes in them. Once he took the time needed to compare other skulls, he came to an educated guess on the caliber of the gun used.
[DED]
"you atate that hrdlicka didnt positively report that ruth died from a bullet in the head because he couldnt be certain that it was cause of death.i guess nothing is certain in this world but surely that is taking reasonable doubt to extremes."
Not at all. Many people have been shot in the head after they were dead.
Dr. Ruth may have been beaten to death, or stabbed or even scared to death. It is possible that he was shot after death occurred. Because it is "possible", without personal knowledge, Dr. Hrdlicka would not state that he did die from the shot to the head. Pretty standard stuff actually.
This is interesting, but it leads nowhere. I repeat, it is a dead end.
Respectfully,
Joe Ribaudo
-
dutch elm disease
- Part Timer
- Posts: 241
- Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2003 1:06 pm
i will answer your post more fully tomorrow as the wife is now in process of cleaning my study etc and she would not take kindly to me searching through at this time. so any exact sources must i fear wait till then however....halseth was REPORTED as saying the skull was of indian and ancient in his initial opinion. he wished to have it privately examined but was unable to due to lack of funds (reportedly).
preconcieved ideas? it seems this affliction is not confined to myself.i am erely asking questions which no one can or will answer effectively. your response when asked why so many people supposedly lied to hide the fact that ruth was murdered is to say its a dead end. it might well be in one sense i.e we will never know for sure what happened but nevertheless to embark on a conspiracy theory one must at least have a believable answer for the critics (or critic) for the purpose of keeping the theory alive. so far it hasnt been available.
its true ruth COULD have been shot after death (highly unlikely but possible granted)its also possible he could have died as the OFFICIAL verdict states AND then shot( again highly unlikely but POSSIBLE)
YOU have yet to offer any kind of explanation (even in a theoretical way) why any or all of the authorities lied as they must undoubtedly have done if your(and others) preconcieved ideas are tobe countenanced.
respectfully yours
preconcieved ideas? it seems this affliction is not confined to myself.i am erely asking questions which no one can or will answer effectively. your response when asked why so many people supposedly lied to hide the fact that ruth was murdered is to say its a dead end. it might well be in one sense i.e we will never know for sure what happened but nevertheless to embark on a conspiracy theory one must at least have a believable answer for the critics (or critic) for the purpose of keeping the theory alive. so far it hasnt been available.
its true ruth COULD have been shot after death (highly unlikely but possible granted)its also possible he could have died as the OFFICIAL verdict states AND then shot( again highly unlikely but POSSIBLE)
YOU have yet to offer any kind of explanation (even in a theoretical way) why any or all of the authorities lied as they must undoubtedly have done if your(and others) preconcieved ideas are tobe countenanced.
respectfully yours
Ruth
Joe and Desease: You have to remember that neither the corner at the hearing and dr Hdlicka ever seen the complete body. So they couldn,t say for sure. Later after dr Hdlicka had time to compare the holes and such, he formed a more complete opinion. I haven,t seen anywhere that the corner ever saw the head? Dr Hdlicka never saw the body. I have seen what the sheriff and his deputy have said and some of the other so called officials said and they all seem rather mute on the subject, like they didn,t want to talk about it. They just seemed to want the death to be blamed on the mountains and for the talk to die down. Almost like they were afraid to talk out loud about it. I can not understand why the ANTS didn,t stripe the skull of everything? The finders said there was some dried skin left on it, ANTS usually clean everything up to where it,s very clean, Now days foresentic scientist used ANTS to clean the bones and skulls up when they need them to. 
DESEASE: MAYBE old anderson wasn,t acomplete liberal, BUT he did act like one . He didn,t used a gun until he broke into the old man and lady,s house they both went to combat with him and he got the old man,s .25 caliber gun from him and shot the old lady and the man. The old man continued to fight him and the old lady ran next door for help where she died. The liberal killed off the old man and left up the street and went into the old folks home and ran into an 80 year old woman,s room , got her out of bed and got in the bed, pulled the covor,s over his head yelling don,t let them kill me. Mrs Michell was one of the 1st person,s that he killed,s moma. It,s kind of ironic story all the way around. bill
DESEASE: MAYBE old anderson wasn,t acomplete liberal, BUT he did act like one . He didn,t used a gun until he broke into the old man and lady,s house they both went to combat with him and he got the old man,s .25 caliber gun from him and shot the old lady and the man. The old man continued to fight him and the old lady ran next door for help where she died. The liberal killed off the old man and left up the street and went into the old folks home and ran into an 80 year old woman,s room , got her out of bed and got in the bed, pulled the covor,s over his head yelling don,t let them kill me. Mrs Michell was one of the 1st person,s that he killed,s moma. It,s kind of ironic story all the way around. bill-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Conspiracy?
DED,
It is a dead end because even if you can prove someone lied, it is highly unlikely you can prove why they lied. Not wanting to get involved in an investigation that would create mountains of paper work, countless hours on a cold crime scene in a harsh invironment with little chance of success might be a reason for accepting the easy way out.
Maybe there were some "familiar" connections to the "perps". Dr. Ruth was from "back east". Who knows?
I am fairly familiar with the Dr. Ruth story. If you can come up with some "facts" that don't agree with what I have said, I will be happy to aknowledge my mistake and give you credit for pointing it out. Won't be the first time, or the last, I am sure.
I find so many aspects of this story more important than what happened after his body was discovered. Who, why or how he was killed, has no value in finding out what he discovered (if anything) for me. I can assume every conspiracy theory that has ever been floated in this case is true, and it would make no difference in my own personal search. I have no problem with anyone else playing "cold case detective" here, but you should (at least) make sure your statements are historically correct when you present that case to the public.
I have said it many times and it is a pet peave with me. History is changed one word at a time, and in time it will bear no resemblence to the truth of what happened.
Remember this: When coming up with "any exact sources", that your source may have used an incorrect source for their "facts". I would remind you of the "shotgun" which has been used by numerous very well respected authors. If one word is changed every five years (not inconceivable), at what point will you end up in Nevada with the skull of an orangutan?
[DED]
"your response when asked why so many people supposedly lied to hide the fact that ruth was murdered is to say its a dead end."
Was that my response?
Respectfully,
Joe
It is a dead end because even if you can prove someone lied, it is highly unlikely you can prove why they lied. Not wanting to get involved in an investigation that would create mountains of paper work, countless hours on a cold crime scene in a harsh invironment with little chance of success might be a reason for accepting the easy way out.
Maybe there were some "familiar" connections to the "perps". Dr. Ruth was from "back east". Who knows?
I am fairly familiar with the Dr. Ruth story. If you can come up with some "facts" that don't agree with what I have said, I will be happy to aknowledge my mistake and give you credit for pointing it out. Won't be the first time, or the last, I am sure.
I find so many aspects of this story more important than what happened after his body was discovered. Who, why or how he was killed, has no value in finding out what he discovered (if anything) for me. I can assume every conspiracy theory that has ever been floated in this case is true, and it would make no difference in my own personal search. I have no problem with anyone else playing "cold case detective" here, but you should (at least) make sure your statements are historically correct when you present that case to the public.
I have said it many times and it is a pet peave with me. History is changed one word at a time, and in time it will bear no resemblence to the truth of what happened.
Remember this: When coming up with "any exact sources", that your source may have used an incorrect source for their "facts". I would remind you of the "shotgun" which has been used by numerous very well respected authors. If one word is changed every five years (not inconceivable), at what point will you end up in Nevada with the skull of an orangutan?
[DED]
"your response when asked why so many people supposedly lied to hide the fact that ruth was murdered is to say its a dead end."
Was that my response?
Respectfully,
Joe
-
dutch elm disease
- Part Timer
- Posts: 241
- Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2003 1:06 pm
well put joe ...the problems with sources is one i accept and of course who do or can we believe?we just have to take whats available and form an opinion.
id like first of all to take issue with you over what halseths comments were regarding skull and to use that as a counter argument to your assumption that neither he or hrdlicka said or did anything that would dent their presumed level ofexcellence in their professions.
"another member of the expedition odd halset wanted to examine the skull. after studying it halseth announced the skull WAS INDIAN and appeared to be VERY OLD.......halseth continued to deny this skull could be that of the aging prospector" "odds halseth continued to disagree with the 3 doctors and claimed the skull"
"ruths remains found"
james colten(tom kollenborn)
superstition mountain journal vol 1 issue3 pgs 16-17
"the trained professional(halseth) fingered the object stating it was head of indian andvery old" rather apologetically quotedfrom curse dutchmans gold ...h.corbin p200
also hrdlickas telegram tohalseth dec 18 1931 "skull of aged man recently shot POSSIBLY" MY CAPITALS that message (to me anyway) doesnt necessarilly relate the "possibly" to the issue ofwhether the cause ofdeath was gunshot as you declare but rather the "possibly" relates to whether or not hed been shot.
also on the sbject ofprofessional competence another ecxample
under headline pathologists undecided
"the consensus was that skull had enough determinable points ofsimilarity to ruthspictures to be his. yet conditionswere such that it might be ofconsiderabley more age than could be possible to be that of ruth" arizonarepublic dec14 1931
now as to whether hrdlicka orerwin ruth sent skull to hrdlicka i agree thereare conflicting versions. i quote here first from adamsletter to haydn
"the only portion of skeleton that even is claimed to show evidence of violence is in possession of deceaseds son in washington"
then from ely p15
"mystifyed by presence of 2 unnatural holes in skull the ruth brothers submitted it for further examination to dr ales hrdlicka of the smithsonian...."
and againon the presence of bullet holes
"he (halseth)also quietly but PROVOCATIVELY declared that ruth had PROBABLEY been shot.it seems to me that no one was sure of ANYTHING back then too many possiblys and ptrobabilities for me im afraid.
just 1 more quote from ariz repub jan 10 1932
"officers have abandoned their murder theory in connection with ruths death declaring he died from thirst and starvation or weakness"
for me the onus is on the conspiracy theorists to prove their case and in my opinion that has never been done.
thanks for lisrening
id like first of all to take issue with you over what halseths comments were regarding skull and to use that as a counter argument to your assumption that neither he or hrdlicka said or did anything that would dent their presumed level ofexcellence in their professions.
"another member of the expedition odd halset wanted to examine the skull. after studying it halseth announced the skull WAS INDIAN and appeared to be VERY OLD.......halseth continued to deny this skull could be that of the aging prospector" "odds halseth continued to disagree with the 3 doctors and claimed the skull"
"ruths remains found"
james colten(tom kollenborn)
superstition mountain journal vol 1 issue3 pgs 16-17
"the trained professional(halseth) fingered the object stating it was head of indian andvery old" rather apologetically quotedfrom curse dutchmans gold ...h.corbin p200
also hrdlickas telegram tohalseth dec 18 1931 "skull of aged man recently shot POSSIBLY" MY CAPITALS that message (to me anyway) doesnt necessarilly relate the "possibly" to the issue ofwhether the cause ofdeath was gunshot as you declare but rather the "possibly" relates to whether or not hed been shot.
also on the sbject ofprofessional competence another ecxample
under headline pathologists undecided
"the consensus was that skull had enough determinable points ofsimilarity to ruthspictures to be his. yet conditionswere such that it might be ofconsiderabley more age than could be possible to be that of ruth" arizonarepublic dec14 1931
now as to whether hrdlicka orerwin ruth sent skull to hrdlicka i agree thereare conflicting versions. i quote here first from adamsletter to haydn
"the only portion of skeleton that even is claimed to show evidence of violence is in possession of deceaseds son in washington"
then from ely p15
"mystifyed by presence of 2 unnatural holes in skull the ruth brothers submitted it for further examination to dr ales hrdlicka of the smithsonian...."
and againon the presence of bullet holes
"he (halseth)also quietly but PROVOCATIVELY declared that ruth had PROBABLEY been shot.it seems to me that no one was sure of ANYTHING back then too many possiblys and ptrobabilities for me im afraid.
just 1 more quote from ariz repub jan 10 1932
"officers have abandoned their murder theory in connection with ruths death declaring he died from thirst and starvation or weakness"
for me the onus is on the conspiracy theorists to prove their case and in my opinion that has never been done.
thanks for lisrening
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Abandoned
DED,
"officers have abandoned their murder theory in connection with ruths death declaring he died from thirst and starvation or weakness"
At what point did the "officers" have a theory of murder? Did they ever make a statement concerning a belief of murder? That would not equal a conspriacy in my mind, but it could be an indication of too much work and too little manpower.
[DED]
"he (halseth)also quietly but PROVOCATIVELY declared that ruth had PROBABLEY been shot.it seems to me that no one was sure of ANYTHING back then too many possiblys and ptrobabilities for me im afraid."
There were two theories being floated at this time. The local officials were all stating that Dr. Ruth died of "natural" causes, and the scientist
who had seen hundreds of skulls with bullet holes in them, not heads with such holes, but skulls, and believed Dr. Ruth had been shot in the head.
It would be a good idea to consider who had something to gain from their theory.
Since no one is interested in talking about anything else at this time, we should not be offending anyone with this exchange.
Respectfully,
Joe
"officers have abandoned their murder theory in connection with ruths death declaring he died from thirst and starvation or weakness"
At what point did the "officers" have a theory of murder? Did they ever make a statement concerning a belief of murder? That would not equal a conspriacy in my mind, but it could be an indication of too much work and too little manpower.
[DED]
"he (halseth)also quietly but PROVOCATIVELY declared that ruth had PROBABLEY been shot.it seems to me that no one was sure of ANYTHING back then too many possiblys and ptrobabilities for me im afraid."
There were two theories being floated at this time. The local officials were all stating that Dr. Ruth died of "natural" causes, and the scientist
who had seen hundreds of skulls with bullet holes in them, not heads with such holes, but skulls, and believed Dr. Ruth had been shot in the head.
It would be a good idea to consider who had something to gain from their theory.
Since no one is interested in talking about anything else at this time, we should not be offending anyone with this exchange.
Respectfully,
Joe
-
dutch elm disease
- Part Timer
- Posts: 241
- Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2003 1:06 pm
joe
i know you are done with this subject (almost) and for me too its reached dead end. but a last post on the ruth"murder" from me anyway id like to add this last comment (s)
you stated that it was halseth who sent skull to ruth now im not certain who did but judging from evidence(sources) it would appear it was ruth. ive allready given you a reliable source colten (kiollenborn) i now add another( i tink corbins although corroborating that it was ruth might be safer to ignore )
northcutt ely 400 pm meeting 1439 fortnightly club of redlands california
"there was no trace of the rest of the body.the skull was sent to dr erwin ruth who by that time had returned to washington. on examination by family dentist it was identified as skull adolph ruth.dr hrdlicka examined it reported skull pierced by bullet"
now while it does not say ruth sent it to hrdlicka the inference is clear. unless one suggeststhe skull was flying to and fro between halseth to hrdlicka to ruth and back again.i dont believe this to be the case.
you stated that if proved wrong on any of your "facts"you would happily apologise. no need for that i will accept graciously your "apology" on behalf of odds halseth and his contemporaries
i know you are done with this subject (almost) and for me too its reached dead end. but a last post on the ruth"murder" from me anyway id like to add this last comment (s)
you stated that it was halseth who sent skull to ruth now im not certain who did but judging from evidence(sources) it would appear it was ruth. ive allready given you a reliable source colten (kiollenborn) i now add another( i tink corbins although corroborating that it was ruth might be safer to ignore )
northcutt ely 400 pm meeting 1439 fortnightly club of redlands california
"there was no trace of the rest of the body.the skull was sent to dr erwin ruth who by that time had returned to washington. on examination by family dentist it was identified as skull adolph ruth.dr hrdlicka examined it reported skull pierced by bullet"
now while it does not say ruth sent it to hrdlicka the inference is clear. unless one suggeststhe skull was flying to and fro between halseth to hrdlicka to ruth and back again.i dont believe this to be the case.
you stated that if proved wrong on any of your "facts"you would happily apologise. no need for that i will accept graciously your "apology" on behalf of odds halseth and his contemporaries
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
As I Was Saying
DED,
"you stated that if proved wrong on any of your "facts"you would happily apologise. no need for that i will accept graciously your "apology" on behalf of odds halseth and his contemporaries" (emphasis in bold by Joe)
[Joe]
"I am fairly familiar with the Dr. Ruth story. If you can come up with some "facts" that don't agree with what I have said, I will be happy to aknowledge my mistake and give you credit for pointing it out. Won't be the first time, or the last, I am sure."
You see how history gets changed "one word at a time"?
Page 58, "A Ride Through Time": "Odd Halseth, the archeologist, exhibited a keen interest in Ruth's death. The following is from a telegram dated December 13, 1931, sent to Science Service in Washington, D.C., from Halseth:
'Am sending skull found three miles from last camp of Adolph Ruth of Washington last June. Please get in touch with Ruth's son and Dr. Hrdlicka for identification.....'"
I will accept the alleged "telegram" as what actually took place, over any other verbal evidence that came after the event.
Respectfully,
Joe Ribaudo
"you stated that if proved wrong on any of your "facts"you would happily apologise. no need for that i will accept graciously your "apology" on behalf of odds halseth and his contemporaries" (emphasis in bold by Joe)
[Joe]
"I am fairly familiar with the Dr. Ruth story. If you can come up with some "facts" that don't agree with what I have said, I will be happy to aknowledge my mistake and give you credit for pointing it out. Won't be the first time, or the last, I am sure."
You see how history gets changed "one word at a time"?
Page 58, "A Ride Through Time": "Odd Halseth, the archeologist, exhibited a keen interest in Ruth's death. The following is from a telegram dated December 13, 1931, sent to Science Service in Washington, D.C., from Halseth:
'Am sending skull found three miles from last camp of Adolph Ruth of Washington last June. Please get in touch with Ruth's son and Dr. Hrdlicka for identification.....'"
I will accept the alleged "telegram" as what actually took place, over any other verbal evidence that came after the event.
Respectfully,
Joe Ribaudo
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Joe's Fan Club
Bill,
I appreciate your appointing yourself my cheerleader, but you must first join my fan club. For insurance reasons and possible exposure to liability and law suits, an official "Joe's Fan Club" application must be on file and approved by the personnel department before any public statements or endorsements can be made.
At this point in time, I am the only member and hold all official positions in the club. All "club" membership applications must be approved by the director of personnel....me.
You should know that any stupid, insensitive, moronic or assanine statements made by any applicant, automatically disqualifies said applicant from the coveted membership. The Club president (me) is the only member who is not affected by the above qualifications for being denied membership, as the president (I) was grandfathered into the club prior to said rules.
The membership has been limited by the club president's (me) reluctance to share the mental calculations and limited podium time with anyone else.
In the short amount of time you have been posting here, you have more than disqualified yourself from said coveted membership. If, after you return to your daily doses of Prozac, you wish to resubmit your application, and it makes it through the membership comittee (myself), I have been informed that the director (me) of the personnel department will (reluctantly) reconsider and reject said application.
You should be advised, the official cheerleaders uniform is: short skirt, hi rise panties and droopless pom-poms. Please send picture with next application, care of LDM forum.
Respectfully,
Joe Ribaudo
President, Joe's Fan Club
I appreciate your appointing yourself my cheerleader, but you must first join my fan club. For insurance reasons and possible exposure to liability and law suits, an official "Joe's Fan Club" application must be on file and approved by the personnel department before any public statements or endorsements can be made.
At this point in time, I am the only member and hold all official positions in the club. All "club" membership applications must be approved by the director of personnel....me.
You should know that any stupid, insensitive, moronic or assanine statements made by any applicant, automatically disqualifies said applicant from the coveted membership. The Club president (me) is the only member who is not affected by the above qualifications for being denied membership, as the president (I) was grandfathered into the club prior to said rules.
The membership has been limited by the club president's (me) reluctance to share the mental calculations and limited podium time with anyone else.
In the short amount of time you have been posting here, you have more than disqualified yourself from said coveted membership. If, after you return to your daily doses of Prozac, you wish to resubmit your application, and it makes it through the membership comittee (myself), I have been informed that the director (me) of the personnel department will (reluctantly) reconsider and reject said application.
You should be advised, the official cheerleaders uniform is: short skirt, hi rise panties and droopless pom-poms. Please send picture with next application, care of LDM forum.
Respectfully,
Joe Ribaudo
President, Joe's Fan Club
Ruth
Joe and DED: I am sorry if I hurt either one of your feeling. I didn,t mean what I said that way. When I said yah or boo I was talking about the agument not who likes who or anything like that. I don,t know either one of you. I,m sure you are both pretty good person,s as I like to think I am. If I see a person who is having a problem, I go out of my way and expense to help them, which I,m sure either one of you and DED would too. I was enjoying the argument and hope that it continues. NOW Joe you knew all the time that you had the telegram message and you used it to floor his argument. YOU notice I encouraged DED to come back, when he got a new train of thought. WHEN I say liberal I mean the commie,s who parade as liberals, they are not liberal,s or democrats or progressive moderats. NO Joe I am not your cheerleader nor with I ever apply for the position, and I have never been a cheerleader. I have encouraged people when I think that have done well of which you did with your argument with DED. I also think DED put up a pretty good argument for someone who hasn,t had all the material that some people have had available like YOU and some of the others on the forum. BUT are afraid to talk about scared they might let some little something slip. NO Joe I do not were any kind of paties or tutu,s or anything like that. I wear cotton boxers, I tried silk BUT I didn,t like them. I do not take any prosac or any drugs of that nature. I do get very tired of the Clintonoid bunch ashrieking on the T.V. and radio. I just listen to the nature shows on t.v. anymore. BUT I am sick of what some of our cetizen,s want to do with our country. Right now Joe we have foreioner,s who have come to our country and are demanding that we change to suit them and some of our politicens are going right along with them. NO I know that I have posted quit abit for someone new on the forum and I know I have been abit negative but I want to invite everyone right or wrong, dumb or smart to write in and tell us what you think about the dutch mine. HEY don,t let your feeling get hurt if someone scoff,s at you it,s his privlige after all this is america. WE are not forced to believe the same thing. REMEMBER THIS if you dangle your feelers all over the room someones is going to hurt them sooner or later so don,t be thin skinned. Joe you are not pretty enough for me to cheer for, sorry to disappoint you. BOYS and GIRLS tell us of some of your experiences in the mountain,s. when I was young I was all over the mountains everything had been killed out by then. BUT one time I did turn a corner one morning about 4:30 while rabbit hunting an did come upon the Biggest blackest panther you ever seen, He just walked off. So Joe you can quit hissing and spitting and DED I,m sorry if I offended you I,m sure you are a pretty fine man Don,t tell Joe BUT I never judge a man until I get to know him. I will never say anything bad about a man unless I know it to be true. I hope you 2 will tell us what became of BoB and his sneaking in hi-tech into the mountains??? Bill
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Help Wanted
Bill,
Thank you for the explanation of your thought process. It will be helpfull in considering any future membership applications.
I don't think DED and I were having an "argument". The forum is a little stale right now and we were just trying to keep our fingers and minds limber. You never know when someone will start a conversation of real interest to the general membership.
I am not thin skinned at all. I have been "flayed" on this site on numerous occasions and still seem to be all in one piece. Many people, before they really get to know me, think I am a real asshole. Once we have spent a few moments of quality time together they realize they were right all along.
DED, myself and a few others got into a small political debate a while back, and the hall monitors sent us all back to our rooms.
It is not a good idea to stray too far from "all things Dutchman".
I had decided to just ignore you, but since you have revealed that you wear "cotton boxers" and have allegedly abandoned silk, for the present, I have decided to reconsider my one-man "Bill" boycott. You must be an "allright" guy.
I have examined my "feelers" and could find no cuts, abraisions, contusions or bruises. Usually it takes (at least) being called an SOB by more than one person to cause any lasting damage.
Any "BoB" information will need to emanate from the offiicial "Real BoB Fan Club", as I was denied membership years ago. Same stupid rules as the "Joe's Fan Club".
I have enjoyed our little talk, and feel much better now.
Thank you.
Respectfully,
Joe Ribaudo
P.S. The last two posts by Joe Ribaudo were his weak attempt at satirical humor and should not be construed as a serious comment on Mr. Bill or Mr. DED, or the site population in general. However, my comments on the "hall moniters" stands as written.
No one should attempt to understand my last two posts, without first consuming a minimum of two generous shots of Jack Danials or a suitable substitute. JCR
Thank you for the explanation of your thought process. It will be helpfull in considering any future membership applications.
I don't think DED and I were having an "argument". The forum is a little stale right now and we were just trying to keep our fingers and minds limber. You never know when someone will start a conversation of real interest to the general membership.
I am not thin skinned at all. I have been "flayed" on this site on numerous occasions and still seem to be all in one piece. Many people, before they really get to know me, think I am a real asshole. Once we have spent a few moments of quality time together they realize they were right all along.
DED, myself and a few others got into a small political debate a while back, and the hall monitors sent us all back to our rooms.
It is not a good idea to stray too far from "all things Dutchman".I had decided to just ignore you, but since you have revealed that you wear "cotton boxers" and have allegedly abandoned silk, for the present, I have decided to reconsider my one-man "Bill" boycott. You must be an "allright" guy.
I have examined my "feelers" and could find no cuts, abraisions, contusions or bruises. Usually it takes (at least) being called an SOB by more than one person to cause any lasting damage.
Any "BoB" information will need to emanate from the offiicial "Real BoB Fan Club", as I was denied membership years ago. Same stupid rules as the "Joe's Fan Club".
I have enjoyed our little talk, and feel much better now.
Thank you.
Respectfully,
Joe Ribaudo
P.S. The last two posts by Joe Ribaudo were his weak attempt at satirical humor and should not be construed as a serious comment on Mr. Bill or Mr. DED, or the site population in general. However, my comments on the "hall moniters" stands as written.
No one should attempt to understand my last two posts, without first consuming a minimum of two generous shots of Jack Danials or a suitable substitute. JCR
Last edited by Joe Ribaudo on Wed May 11, 2005 9:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
dutch elm disease
- Part Timer
- Posts: 241
- Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2003 1:06 pm
bill
thanks for your post.i found it sincere well ordered andas always straight to the point.no superflous information there! however i must question a few of your findings.
i am not "gutted" deflated or indeed even "sick as a parrot" and as far as im aware "my ass" is in the exact same position as it was before the postings. as for the assumption that joe held back the "telegram" to somehow trap me or gut me or watever.. how can this be the case? i knew of the item...how could i not? it was on the following pages in the book i had previously quoted from. as for the knowledge that joe possesses that i dont... i dont doubt that he has...but if so that telegram wasnt part of it ive never said joe wasnt knowledgeable in fact i once said the complete opposite.
as for your remark "dont tell joe but i dont judge a man till i know him" ok i wont tell joe but it seems at odds with your observation a few posts since regarding me when you said something after the fashion of "you ooze your poison wherever you go" and i believe there is now a $2 bounty on my protruding ears put there by your good self. of course i am now pleased that since then you have reconsidered your position on liberals and that its only commies who ACT like liberals who should be hunted down. i presume from that you will now withdraw the bounty on my ears as some forum members might have taken it a bit too seriously. i value my ears though sometimes it might be a blessing to be without them.
as an aside are you sure that anderson killed ALL the winos?
thanks for your post.i found it sincere well ordered andas always straight to the point.no superflous information there! however i must question a few of your findings.
i am not "gutted" deflated or indeed even "sick as a parrot" and as far as im aware "my ass" is in the exact same position as it was before the postings. as for the assumption that joe held back the "telegram" to somehow trap me or gut me or watever.. how can this be the case? i knew of the item...how could i not? it was on the following pages in the book i had previously quoted from. as for the knowledge that joe possesses that i dont... i dont doubt that he has...but if so that telegram wasnt part of it
ive never said joe wasnt knowledgeable in fact i once said the complete opposite.as for your remark "dont tell joe but i dont judge a man till i know him" ok i wont tell joe but it seems at odds with your observation a few posts since regarding me when you said something after the fashion of "you ooze your poison wherever you go" and i believe there is now a $2 bounty on my protruding ears put there by your good self. of course i am now pleased that since then you have reconsidered your position on liberals and that its only commies who ACT like liberals who should be hunted down. i presume from that you will now withdraw the bounty on my ears as some forum members might have taken it a bit too seriously. i value my ears though sometimes it might be a blessing to be without them.
as an aside are you sure that anderson killed ALL the winos?
-
dutch elm disease
- Part Timer
- Posts: 241
- Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2003 1:06 pm
joe
as previously said to our mutual friend i was aware of the telegram or rather the reporting of it.in fact therewas better example maybe on following page which begins(from hrdlicka)
on december 19th 1931 i recieved a human skull shipped from pheonix arizona by odd s halseth......................
maybe you missed it or maybe you were "holding it back" as a second "gutting "wxercise?
of course im aware of the conflicting statements about who sent what to whom and in what order and on the face of it the telegrams would seem to be solid evidence.ive never stated i KNEW but then in this case it appears nobody does. if one was to be truly argumentative it could be asked was skull sent by halseth through ruth?i never thougt that before so theres not much point asking now.whether or not the belief that ruth sent skull to hrdlicka or not i guess is a minor thing but still an example of the conflicting testimonies.
the apology "crack " i made was not meant to be taken seriously as im sure it wasnt.
questions need to be asked in the ruth case as neither scenario (murder or natural causes) is entirely convincing( in my opinion.)
tks for listening
as previously said to our mutual friend i was aware of the telegram or rather the reporting of it.in fact therewas better example maybe on following page which begins(from hrdlicka)
on december 19th 1931 i recieved a human skull shipped from pheonix arizona by odd s halseth......................
maybe you missed it or maybe you were "holding it back" as a second "gutting "wxercise?
of course im aware of the conflicting statements about who sent what to whom and in what order and on the face of it the telegrams would seem to be solid evidence.ive never stated i KNEW but then in this case it appears nobody does. if one was to be truly argumentative it could be asked was skull sent by halseth through ruth?i never thougt that before so theres not much point asking now.whether or not the belief that ruth sent skull to hrdlicka or not i guess is a minor thing but still an example of the conflicting testimonies.
the apology "crack " i made was not meant to be taken seriously as im sure it wasnt.
questions need to be asked in the ruth case as neither scenario (murder or natural causes) is entirely convincing( in my opinion.)
tks for listening
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Not Serious?
DED.
I am shocked! Surely you realise that this is a serious format. While you may only be kidding, the rest of us are always serious and focused on whatever. Please consider developing and using some kind of code to inform the rest of us when you are not serious.
I always hold something back for future paybacks or humiliation. I just assumed everyone else did the same thing.
As for the Dr. Ruth skull, I prefer using physical evidence over the spoken word or the reports of what someone said. That might qualify as "best evidence" in some circles.
Respectfully,
Joe Ribaudo
I am shocked! Surely you realise that this is a serious format. While you may only be kidding, the rest of us are always serious and focused on whatever. Please consider developing and using some kind of code to inform the rest of us when you are not serious.
I always hold something back for future paybacks or humiliation. I just assumed everyone else did the same thing.
As for the Dr. Ruth skull, I prefer using physical evidence over the spoken word or the reports of what someone said. That might qualify as "best evidence" in some circles.
Respectfully,
Joe Ribaudo
-
dutch elm disease
- Part Timer
- Posts: 241
- Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2003 1:06 pm
look for the code
joe
in future my intentions will be indicated by the following:from now on in the bottom left hand corner will either the word pom pom or wino.... the implication of which (obviously known to us and us2 alone) will be as follows. pom pom = speaking in jest while wino means i am speaking in earnest
having said that if my application form isnt processed approved and stamped in the very near future i might withdraw the code from my ramblings.
p.s i agree with your decision to with hold membership from previous applicant.... if membership of this hallowed club is conferred upon anyone the value will be quickly eroded and what was once an envied and desirable position might easily become a mockery.
in future my intentions will be indicated by the following:from now on in the bottom left hand corner will either the word pom pom or wino.... the implication of which (obviously known to us and us2 alone) will be as follows. pom pom = speaking in jest while wino means i am speaking in earnest
having said that if my application form isnt processed approved and stamped in the very near future i might withdraw the code from my ramblings.
p.s i agree with your decision to with hold membership from previous applicant.... if membership of this hallowed club is conferred upon anyone the value will be quickly eroded and what was once an envied and desirable position might easily become a mockery.
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
CODELESS
DED.
I missed the code on your last post. Does that mean I am "codeless"? I think I have been accused of this before.
Respectfully,
Joe
I missed the code on your last post. Does that mean I am "codeless"? I think I have been accused of this before.
Respectfully,
Joe