My Journey on Lincoln's Assassination

[Rob Wick]

That this nonsense has lasted to this point is definitely testament to the persistence of Mr. Griffith, and that's fine. We are all free to believe what we choose and to tenaciously hold onto that belief despite all reasonable counterarguments. And I have the sneaking suspicion that no matter what else one brings out, it won't make a difference to Mr. Griffith about being taken seriously among serious scholars. James G. Randall once said of Otto Eisenschiml that what bothered him the most was how he "rode a theory." It angered Randall that Eisenschiml turned historianship as Randall practiced it upside down in order to simply sell more books by flouting the widely-accepted rules of good scholarship. Yet Randall knew that the only thing that can drive bad history out of the arena is for good history to be introduced. After all, the battle is won not in changing the mind of the person doing the fighting. The battle is won in convincing those on the sidelines, and those who come to study the battle later on, that your opponent, no matter how adamant. remains purely and simply wrong.

That said, there is one thing I'd love to know. What purpose would modern day historians have for withholding the "truth?" It doesn't take a Rhodes Scholar to grasp why those involved during the conspiracy needed to stay together. But why would a historian in the year 2018 find it necessary to suppress the government's role in this charade? I don't ask this to Mr. Griffith, as I know he won't care to answer it, but rather it's for someone reading this post who might be in danger of believing Mr. Griffith to be correct.

Best
Rob