I wish they explained this in some level of detail that makes it remotely believable.
I wish they explained this in some level of detail that makes it remotely believable.
I have to agree that the evidence in the article seems flimsy at best. Maybe the book makes a better case for it, but I'd be concerned that it isn't one of those things where someone who is 100% convinced about something doesn't attribute every tiny little coincidence as concrete proof of their theory.
Rackstraw served under Sherwood in two classified units, and Sherwood was familiar with his writing style having deciphered some of his earlier messages. When he saw the fifth and sixth typewritten letters, he immediately thought the “odd letter and number combinations” were indicative of the type of coded message that Rackstraw would send.
or something