Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

L Verge · 05-09-2019, 01:53 PM

(05-09-2019 01:31 PM)Gene C Wrote: That's impressive.

One day I'd love to come and spend a week looking through things.

We may be a small museum, but we've got a lot of appropriate research materials just on our area of interest. The Hall Papers are the backbone of the collection, but there are lots of contributions of other donors - some of whom are members of this forum.

P.S. The Lauinger Library at Georgetown University and others were a tad disappointed when Mr. Hall turned his collection over to us.

Steve · 05-09-2019, 01:59 PM

Who is "Hugh B. Ryan"? And why does he have an alias?

L Verge · 05-09-2019, 05:05 PM

(05-09-2019 01:59 PM)Steve Wrote: Who is "Hugh B. Ryan"? And why does he have an alias?

I don't know, but will ask Colleen to check that listing.

L Verge · 05-10-2019, 09:44 AM

My I dare to mention that Mr. Lincoln's assassin's 181st birthday would be today? May 10, 1838. Of course, if you believe the mummy myth, that makes it 181 years old, too.

L Verge · 05-10-2019, 12:07 PM

(05-09-2019 05:05 PM)L Verge Wrote:
(05-09-2019 01:59 PM)Steve Wrote: Who is "Hugh B. Ryan"? And why does he have an alias?

I don't know, but will ask Colleen to check that listing.

Here's the response from Colleen after checking the David E. George file (which takes up an entire drawer of the Hall Papers). Notice that she has quoted a note that Mr. Hall taped to the front of the Hugh B. Ryan file:

Mr. Hall must have anticipated this question because a file summary is typed up and taped to the front of the file as follows:

On Dec 31, 1902 David E. George made a will in Enid, OK Territory. In this he left a bartender, Isaac Bernstein, the proceeds of an insurance policy George alleged he had in the Knights of Pythias, Lodge #70, Dallas- $3,000 he said. No such person belonged to this lodge, as can be seen from the membership lists. But this led to an investigation of the possibility that Hugh B. Ryan, who did belong, was an alias for George- or conversely. The papers in this file cover my investigation. I am inclined to believe that the Ryan name was an alias- but the proof is a bit thin. JOHall.

Steve · 05-10-2019, 02:54 PM

(05-10-2019 12:07 PM)L Verge Wrote: Here's the response from Colleen after checking the David E. George file (which takes up an entire drawer of the Hall Papers). Notice that she has quoted a note that Mr. Hall taped to the front of the Hugh B. Ryan file:

Mr. Hall must have anticipated this question because a file summary is typed up and taped to the front of the file as follows:

On Dec 31, 1902 David E. George made a will in Enid, OK Territory. In this he left a bartender, Isaac Bernstein, the proceeds of an insurance policy George alleged he had in the Knights of Pythias, Lodge #70, Dallas- $3,000 he said. No such person belonged to this lodge, as can be seen from the membership lists. But this led to an investigation of the possibility that Hugh B. Ryan, who did belong, was an alias for George- or conversely. The papers in this file cover my investigation. I am inclined to believe that the Ryan name was an alias- but the proof is a bit thin. JOHall.

I checked and Hugh B. Ryan was not an alias and he was not David E. George

Hugh B. Ryan
born c.1856 Culpeper Co. Virginia
son of painter Albert G. Ryan and his wife Susan J. Fletcher

In the 1880 census Hugh is living with his parents in Washington DC with occupation listed as painter.

Hugh appears in 1888 Dallas city directory as Hugh Ryan, bartender.

Hugh appears in 1889 Dallas city directory as Hugh B. Ryan, painter.

Hugh's parents place this notice in the 04 Nov. 1895 Washington Evening Star, informing of Hugh's death in Indian Territory. It also mentions that he used to live in Dallas:

L Verge · 05-10-2019, 07:35 PM

(05-10-2019 02:54 PM)Steve Wrote:
(05-10-2019 12:07 PM)L Verge Wrote: Here's the response from Colleen after checking the David E. George file (which takes up an entire drawer of the Hall Papers). Notice that she has quoted a note that Mr. Hall taped to the front of the Hugh B. Ryan file:

Mr. Hall must have anticipated this question because a file summary is typed up and taped to the front of the file as follows:

On Dec 31, 1902 David E. George made a will in Enid, OK Territory. In this he left a bartender, Isaac Bernstein, the proceeds of an insurance policy George alleged he had in the Knights of Pythias, Lodge #70, Dallas- $3,000 he said. No such person belonged to this lodge, as can be seen from the membership lists. But this led to an investigation of the possibility that Hugh B. Ryan, who did belong, was an alias for George- or conversely. The papers in this file cover my investigation. I am inclined to believe that the Ryan name was an alias- but the proof is a bit thin. JOHall.

I checked and Hugh B. Ryan was not an alias and he was not David E. George

Hugh B. Ryan
born c.1856 Culpeper Co. Virginia
son of painter Albert G. Ryan and his wife Susan J. Fletcher

In the 1880 census Hugh is living with his parents in Washington DC with occupation listed as painter.

Hugh appears in 1888 Dallas city directory as Hugh Ryan, bartender.

Hugh appears in 1889 Dallas city directory as Hugh B. Ryan, painter.

Hugh's parents place this notice in the 04 Nov. 1895 Washington Evening Star, informing of Hugh's death in Indian Territory. It also mentions that he used to live in Dallas:

Thank you so much for this info. It will be included in the George file and attributed to you.

Gene C · (This post was last modified: 05-21-2019 05:08 PM by Gene C.)

(04-12-2019 03:45 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote: I can't go into many details, but I will say this: In a few days a major TV network is going to broadcast a documentary that will present scientific evidence that Booth did not die in April 1865. The evidence involves a computer-assisted facial scanning analysis done by a recognized expert in the field.

The facial scanning analysis was conducted on photos of Booth and of another person. The photos of the other person were taken long after April 1865. The expert who conducted the analysis was very skeptical going into the study; in fact, the expert expected the scanning analysis to prove that the two persons were not the same individual.

The expert was so astounded by the results that they ran the analysis numerous times to ensure the software and the equipment were not malfunctioning. According to the expert and their team, the comparison scanning results show that it is virtually certain that the two sets of photos are of the same person. If these results are valid, they mean that Booth could not have died in April 1865.

This scientific evidence will also be published in an article in a major publication, but I'm not at liberty to say more about the article. I have not read the article but have been given a general summary of it.

Once the documentary is broadcast and the article is published, I will come back and post links to them.

Mike G hasn't posted for a while so that gave me the opportunity to think about something that many of you have shared your concerns about.
I know for a lot of you this stuff about Facial Recognition Analysis Software is interesting but confusing.
As many of you have told me, Gene I would love to install some Facial Recognition Software on my computer, but it looks so complicated and expensive.

Your worries are over.
Inspired by the conversations here at the Lincoln Discussion Symposium, I have found an inexpensive and easy to use Facial Recognition Analysis Kit, which does not require any special, expensive computer software.
In fact is doesn't require any separate software or even a computer at all. It so easy to use, even a child can do it.
And it's inexpensive, less than $5.
So now you can have your very own Facial Recognition Analysis Kit.
You can't afford not to own it.
Available on Amazon and at other fine retail stores, here is the web site to order yours today, don't delay. ...

https://www.amazon.com/PlayMonster-Magne...0530900368

L Verge · 05-21-2019, 07:28 PM

(05-21-2019 05:07 PM)Gene C Wrote:
(04-12-2019 03:45 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote: I can't go into many details, but I will say this: In a few days a major TV network is going to broadcast a documentary that will present scientific evidence that Booth did not die in April 1865. The evidence involves a computer-assisted facial scanning analysis done by a recognized expert in the field.

The facial scanning analysis was conducted on photos of Booth and of another person. The photos of the other person were taken long after April 1865. The expert who conducted the analysis was very skeptical going into the study; in fact, the expert expected the scanning analysis to prove that the two persons were not the same individual.

The expert was so astounded by the results that they ran the analysis numerous times to ensure the software and the equipment were not malfunctioning. According to the expert and their team, the comparison scanning results show that it is virtually certain that the two sets of photos are of the same person. If these results are valid, they mean that Booth could not have died in April 1865.

This scientific evidence will also be published in an article in a major publication, but I'm not at liberty to say more about the article. I have not read the article but have been given a general summary of it.

Once the documentary is broadcast and the article is published, I will come back and post links to them.

Mike G hasn't posted for a while so that gave me the opportunity to think about something that many of you have shared your concerns about.
I know for a lot of you this stuff about Facial Recognition Analysis Software is interesting but confusing.
As many of you have told me, Gene I would love to install some Facial Recognition Software on my computer, but it looks so complicated and expensive.

Your worries are over.
Inspired by the conversations here at the Lincoln Discussion Symposium, I have found an inexpensive and easy to use Facial Recognition Analysis Kit, which does not require any special, expensive computer software.
In fact is doesn't require any separate software or even a computer at all. It so easy to use, even a child can do it.
And it's inexpensive, less than $5.
So now you can have your very own Facial Recognition Analysis Kit.
You can't afford not to own it.
Available on Amazon and at other fine retail stores, here is the web site to order yours today, don't delay. ...

https://www.amazon.com/PlayMonster-Magne...0530900368

I do think you should take your act on stage when you retire. You are quite clever and quite funny.

wpbinzel · 05-21-2019, 08:05 PM

(05-21-2019 05:07 PM)Gene C Wrote:
(04-12-2019 03:45 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote: I can't go into many details, but I will say this: In a few days a major TV network is going to broadcast a documentary that will present scientific evidence that Booth did not die in April 1865. The evidence involves a computer-assisted facial scanning analysis done by a recognized expert in the field.

The facial scanning analysis was conducted on photos of Booth and of another person. The photos of the other person were taken long after April 1865. The expert who conducted the analysis was very skeptical going into the study; in fact, the expert expected the scanning analysis to prove that the two persons were not the same individual.

The expert was so astounded by the results that they ran the analysis numerous times to ensure the software and the equipment were not malfunctioning. According to the expert and their team, the comparison scanning results show that it is virtually certain that the two sets of photos are of the same person. If these results are valid, they mean that Booth could not have died in April 1865.

This scientific evidence will also be published in an article in a major publication, but I'm not at liberty to say more about the article. I have not read the article but have been given a general summary of it.

Once the documentary is broadcast and the article is published, I will come back and post links to them.

Mike G hasn't posted for a while so that gave me the opportunity to think about something that many of you have shared your concerns about.
I know for a lot of you this stuff about Facial Recognition Analysis Software is interesting but confusing.
As many of you have told me, Gene I would love to install some Facial Recognition Software on my computer, but it looks so complicated and expensive.

Your worries are over.
Inspired by the conversations here at the Lincoln Discussion Symposium, I have found an inexpensive and easy to use Facial Recognition Analysis Kit, which does not require any special, expensive computer software.
In fact is doesn't require any separate software or even a computer at all. It so easy to use, even a child can do it.
And it's inexpensive, less than $5.
So now you can have your very own Facial Recognition Analysis Kit.
You can't afford not to own it.
Available on Amazon and at other fine retail stores, here is the web site to order yours today, don't delay. ...

https://www.amazon.com/PlayMonster-Magne...0530900368

I just about sprayed my chardonnay on my computer screen when I opened the link... Gene, you should preface such comments with "Sprayler Alert."

GustD45 · 05-22-2019, 10:39 AM

Gene, I love it. My wife always tries to tell me groan worthy puns and now I can show her this exact thread to make her groan too, thank you Gene and your magnetic personality

Steve Whitlock · 06-20-2019, 05:52 PM

(05-08-2019 05:06 AM)RJNorton Wrote: Thanks to Steve for sending this article. Steve writes that the article is "from page 2 of the 23 Jan. 1903 edition of the Wichita Daily Eagle which quotes an article from The Oklahoman. This Oklahoman article quotes a man named C. M. Clark who claims to have known David E. George since he young in Mississippi. However, I'm skeptical of a good bit of what Clark describes of George's earlier life, so I'm not sure if we should believe anything Clark says."

Roger,

Your skepticism for the C. M. Clark article is well founded. There is no David George in MS for 1850 and 1860 census. Nathan Bedford Forrest is said to have married David E. George's sister; however, Forrest m: Mary Ann Montgomery who is neither a sister or step-sister of David E. George.

Mr. George is said to have killed Ben Thompson in San Antonio, Bexar, TX. That event happened in 1884 when Ben Thompson and King Fisher, who was with Thompson, were both killed by Joe Foster, Jacobo Coy and William H. Simms, none of them an alias, and accounted for as not being David E. George.

Mr. Clark says David E. George was a fine architect, which is not true. He attempted to be a painter, and has a City Directory entry in 1903 El Reno, OK where he is identified as a painter. According to some other articles it seems he only ever had one job as a painter, given by a man who wanted to prove he wasn't a painter.

The key to the Clark account is at the end when he says David E. George had said he would leave Clark a portion of his property, but he had none. Others tried to claim inheritances as well, including an actress born 10 years after George died. She confirmed he was John Wilkes Booth and he was very rich, she being his sole heir. He had no money.

Junius Booth III, who was just a few months old when JWB was killed, but he is said to have come to Enid and identified David E. George as his uncle. But nobody from the Booth family claimed the body. They knew where the real JWB was buried in the family plot.

In an attempt to identify George as Booth they checked his fingers and found a faint scar which they thought Booth also had. If they were checking his hands so closely one would suppose they might notice the initials of John Wilkes Booth tattooed between his thumb and forefinger, if they existed, or some indication they had been removed.

There are many other indications which show David E. George was a man with serious mental issues, and not John Wilkes Booth.

Meanwhile, as with Abraham Lincoln's heritage, there was money to be had with books, speculation and a mummified corpse for those who want to believe alternative facts.

RJNorton · 06-20-2019, 06:02 PM

(06-20-2019 05:52 PM)Steve Whitlock Wrote: Your skepticism for the C. M. Clark article is well founded.

Thanks, Steve, for posting this information. However, the other Steve should be credited with the "skepticism" quote, not me. I was quoting Steve's email in my post.

JMadonna · 06-20-2019, 06:19 PM

I used to enjoy 'The hunt for confederate gold' on the History Channel until last week when they brought in some 'expert' who was spouting off the Boyd in the Barn theory and how Stanton covered it up and somehow linking him to the lost gold. I turned it off immediately. I mean if you can't trust the History Channel......

Steve Whitlock · 06-20-2019, 06:41 PM

(06-20-2019 06:02 PM)RJNorton Wrote:
(06-20-2019 05:52 PM)Steve Whitlock Wrote: Your skepticism for the C. M. Clark article is well founded.

Thanks, Steve, for posting this information. However, the other Steve should be credited with the "skepticism" quote, not me. I was quoting Steve's email in my post.

Sorry, Steve. Your skepticism was well founded.

Also, when I mentioned the actress being born 10 years after George died, that should have been 10 years after JWB was presumed killed at the Garrett farm.