Michael 5260 for Joe
Re: Seeing
Mon Jun 10, 2019 11:39
24.185.60.218

The first thing we have to determine about the "pox soap" entry is whether Hauptmann was writing in German, English, or a combination of both.

We can see the second word is obviously "s-o-a-p" so this word is in English. The German word for soap is "seife" and there are a number of ways that Hauptmann could have notated the word, in German, with one word describing the type or kind of soap that he bought.

laundry soap- Waschseife
soap powder- Seifenpulver
liquid soap- Flussigseife
bar of soap- Seifenstuck
bath soap- Badeseife
mild soap- Milde Seife
hand soap- Handseife

So, we move to the preceding word.

If Hauptmann wrote the entry in German there would be a few different possible ways he could spell the word "pot."

Pot
Topf
Pott
Kanne
Kessel

Obviously we can eliminate Topf, Kanne, and Kessel. We can also eliminate "Pot" because there are twin writing structures appearing in the upper zone at the end of the questioned word and "Pot" has only one writing structure in the upper zone at the end of the word.

In order for the word to be "pott" instead of "pox" there should be t-bars appearing that cross the double t's. Either a single horizontal crossbar passing across both of the t's (American style) or two independent T-bars, one for each "t", that come up from the bottom of their vertical stems (German style).

Joe, please go on the internet and examine the way a crossbar is made on a small "t" in the Kurrentschrift alphabet. This is the alphabet that Hauptmann was taught in Germany when he first learned to write. It was not the Sutterlin alphabet because Hauptmann learned to write and left school before the Sutterlin alphabet was introduced into the German common schools.

While you are looking at the Kurrentschrift alphabet small "t" take the time to compare it to the Sutterlin alphabet (also on the internet) small "t." You will see how different the small "t" letter designs are from each other.

So, we do not have double "t's" at the end of the word "pox." We only have 25 other letter forms in the alphabet to consider and it is very easy to eliminate 24 of them by examining the letter form at the end of the word.

When the peculiar "x" in "pox" is compared to the other distinctive "x's" that Hauptmann wrote in the Lindbergh ransom notes, his automobile documents, and in his notebooks it is easy to see they all fit the same "master pattern" for Hauptmann's small "x."

I also found in Hauptmann's notebook where he wrote Alexander Begg's name and address. When he wrote Alexander he wrote "Alex ander" with the name divided. Once again Hauptmann wrote the unique "x" in "Alex." A person would have to have a few burned brain cells to conclude that Hauptmann wrote "Alett" with double "t's." This is not what the handwriting evidence shows us.

Is there such a thing as "Pot Soap?" Sure. I found a company that manufactures it. On the label is printed "Pot Soap" not "Pott Soap.

When you think about it how many different ways can you package soap. A container, wrapped in paper, a jar, basket, pouch, sack, kettle, etc. I know damn well it comes in a "box." I have a box of "Tide" down in my basement and I'm sure a few million other people have boxes of soap.

Hauptmann spelling the word "box" as "pox" exactly the same way it is spelled in the second Lindbergh ransom note, line 3, word 1 is some heavy duty incriminating evidence. The same "p"/"b" confusion, the same "x" like two "e's" back to back. This cannot be explained or excused away as some kind of accident or just a coincidence.





  • Re: SeeingJoe for Michael 5260, Sun Jun 9 21:26
    From his California trip memo book entry for July 13, 1931, that is an excellent find, Michael. I've seen that strange looking word before and although I wasn't sure, I thought perhaps he was writing ... more
    • Re: Seeing — Michael 5260 for Joe, Mon Jun 10 11:39
      • Re: SeeingMichael For Joe, Tue Jun 11 09:45
        You're right Joe. The word is "Pott Soap." That's a double "t" not an "x." Just look for yourself and ask why an "Expert" can't see what you are seeing. Also notice "Camp Milk" which is also in line... more
        • Re: SeeingJoe for Michael, Tue Jun 11 11:10
          Michael, I originally thought it was "Pott Soap" but I now lean much more to Hauptmann having intended to write "Box" here, simply having screwed up, as he has demonstrated on countless occasions in... more
          • Re: SeeingMichael For Joe, Tue Jun 11 11:42
            First of all I am convinced that "Pott Soap" was written by Hauptmann. It's what they obviously used to wash out their pots and pans. I highlighted this by my point about the "Camp Milk." It's this... more
            • Re: SeeingJoe for Michael, Tue Jun 11 12:14
              I have no idea how you've managing to draw some kind of comparison with brief expense notations made in a memo book, written by two different people, ie. "Camp Milk" and "Po-- Soap." And of course... more
              • Re: SeeingMichael For Joe, Tue Jun 11 13:38
                Okay great. In an attempt to neutralize what I've written you have me doing two things: Speculating and having an Ulterior Motive. Let's see how this shakes out. YOU WROTE: I believe what's happened... more
                • Re: SeeingJoe for the Michaels, Sun Jun 16 09:37
                  Reflecting back to my original point about the cost of this entry, "Po-- Soap" in Hauptmann's memo book, and considering his exemplified letter "t" and "x" formations, I think I would have to agree... more
Click here to receive daily updates