My Journey on Lincoln's Assassination

[mikegriffith1]

(10-30-2018 12:21 PM)Gene C Wrote:  What makes you so sure these events were not caused by Confederate operatives instead of some vast Federal Gov't conspiracy?
Booth and Paine claimed more were involved than just the ones put on trial. We know about Jones and Smoot. There could have been others.

One, it would not have needed to be a "vast" federal government conspiracy. In most conspiracies throughout history, there were lots of people who aided the plotters but had no idea that they were doing so--they just did what they were told.

Two, given the fact that by April 14 the Confederate government did not exist in any functioning form, and that its leaders were scattered to the four winds, I have trouble believing that authorized Confederate operatives played a role in the shutdowns of the lights and the commercial telegraph. I could believe that rogue Confederates who were involved in the plot outlined by Neff and Guttridge might have done so, but this would have made them operatives of the Radicals. However, I think circumstantial evidence points toward a federal role in these actions.

(10-30-2018 12:23 PM)L Verge Wrote:  You have yet to answer the one critical question in my mind. Why do you believe that, 150+ years after the assassination, very learned scholars are still attempting to cover up what you believe is a major U.S. government conspiracy. What is your purpose here?

Humm, well, I don't know that I would say that all of them are "attempting to cover up." I think it's more the effect of a herd mentality, group think, the Emperor's New Clothes effect. I do think that a few scholars have intentionally misled their readers about the available evidence on the matter, but I think they are the exception, not the rule.

I can understand the resistance that most scholars feel toward the idea that Booth escaped. Until literally a few months ago, I thought the idea was crazy talk, especially when I saw that Eisenschiml rejected it.

(10-30-2018 12:23 PM)L Verge Wrote:  BTW: (1.) Since you just mentioned the so-called shutdown of the commercial telegraph lines, it seems obvious that you are not aware of the great research done by Art Loux at least 30-40 years ago on this subject. Perhaps someone else should fill you in since you obviously won't believe anything that I (and several others) might say. (2.) I work for a living also and check this forum when my workday allows -- just like many others here. I am lucky, however, in that my job as director of Surratt House Museum entails spreading good history to support the institution and its mission statement.

Ah, I see: you're spreading "good history." "Good history." Humm, you mean the history that you like, the history that you believe. You see, if I were in charge of books sold at that museum, I would ensure that it offered at least a few of the better books that present the minority position, such as the books by Arnold, Neff and Guttridge, Roscoe, Eisenschiml, and Dewitt. I mean, if the majority position is so airtight and persuasive, what would be the harm in carrying just two or three books that espouse the minority view, especially since two of those authors rejected the Booth-escaped theory?

Regarding your implication that I have not dealt with replies to my arguments in this forum, I beg to differ. I have not answered every reply, but I have answered plenty, and I think I have provided effective rebuttals to those replies. Indeed, I would say that your camp has failed to touch most of my key arguments, and that many of the replies I've seen have relied heavily on appeals to authority, ad hominem jibes, and illogical and inconsistent assertions and reasoning.

As for Loux's research on the shutting down of the telegraph lines, I'd be glad to look at it. I have been willing to obtain and read every source you have mentioned to me so far.

You indicated to me that I needed to read Kauffman's book to get all the facts on the identification of the body on the Montauk, yet Kauffman's treatment is superficial and does not even address the major problems with the traditional story of Booth's fate. You cited sources like William Pegram's and Seaton Munroe's articles to support your view on the body identification, yet those articles are plastered with dubious claims and demonstrable errors, as I have documented. So it's not that I automatically reject what you say, it's just that so far the arguments and sources you have put forward have been sorely deficient.