Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Laurie Verge · (This post was last modified: 05-25-2013 12:19 PM by Laurie Verge.)

I just have to ask Mr. Cowan if he has read any or all of the books that we previously listed on this thread in response to the request for the best books on the subject for libraries to acquire? Also, has he availed himself of the primary source materials at NARA or the Library of Congress and other major repositories? How long has he seriously studied the Lincoln assassination story?

Just a quick note in regards to Herold's absence from the Garrett home the first day. I believe the original purpose for him staying with the Confederate soldiers was to find shoes FOR HIMSELF, not Booth. James O. Hall pointed out to me years ago a mention about Herold's feet hurting him because of poorly fitting shoes. In addition, there is mention somewhere of Herold having serious blisters on his hands from rowing that boat so much. Poor Davey obviously suffered for his crimes before the hangman's noose even became part of the picture...

BettyO · 05-25-2013, 01:33 PM

Also, Laurie -

Didn't Mr. Hall also state that Herold, in addition to an attempt to find proper foot wear also spend the night at "The Trap" with Jett, Ruggles and Bainbridge?

Laurie Verge · 05-25-2013, 03:00 PM

I believe that Davey went to the home of the Clarkes for the night.

Dave Taylor · 05-25-2013, 03:18 PM

Well then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, Troy. I feel your last post completely supports what I said. The Carneal letter is in complete disagreement with every other written account regarding when and how Davy Herold got to Garretts: It was not under the cover of night but in the middle of the day that Herold arrived. Davy was dropped off by Bainbridge and Ruggles but walked by himself to the house and met up with Booth. It wasn't until AFTER Davy was at the Garretts that Bainbridge and Ruggles came back to warn them. Davy went into the woods with Booth, came back and chatted with Jack Garrett, then retrieved Booth once the cavalry had passed. AFTER this, Herold and Booth had dinner with the Garrett family that night. I have quotes from the Garretts as to some of the discussions Davy had with them after dinner. I could go on and on. The Carneal letter is a completely fabricated story. It contradicts every Garrett account including the account William Garrett actually gave, on his own accord, to Confederate Veteran Magazine in 1920, just before he died.

While I find the escape theory, particularly the mummy part, entertaining as pseudo history, it is easily disproven at practically every turn with the truth.

Jim Garrett · 05-27-2013, 07:55 AM

When I was a young man, I went to see that fine Sun Classic movie, "The Lincoln Conspiracy". I bought the book and subsequently bought Otto Eisenshemel's book. I wanted to believe that Stanton was behind it in the worst possible way. I read everything I could find contrary to the accepted history. I questioned everything. One of the lynchpins was the missing pages. The next was the telegraph lines being down. We can't overlook the eye witness accounts that the body in the barn had red hair.

However they all fall apart. An impartial study shows that the "evidence" of either a grand conspiracy or a cover up, just doesn't hold up. Dave Taylor and I have a good friend who is one of the most esteemed historians, and he is convinced Stanton was behind it. He has had access to all the original documents and evidence on the highest levels, yet he has no evidence of a grand conspiracy or cover up. We just have to honestly and earnestly disagree with him. It is strictly his opinion and he offers no smoking gun.

Today we have a plethora of experts. We are fortunate to be able to turn to people like Betty Ownsbey, Tom Bogar, Wes Harris, Kathy Canavan, and of course, Dave Taylor, who have a passion to learn every facet of a very defined area, and are also incredibly knowledgeable on the complete history of the Assassination. Yet, with every aspect of the Assassination being put under the microscope, the proof of an alternate history does not exist. While some offer that the evidence has long ago been destroyed, I can only respond that it doesn't exist and their is no evidence that it ever existed. There have been too many pieces of debunked fabricated evidence to allow a veteran investigator to accept the sub standard.

As I often say, "I would love it, if Booth had escaped and died in Enid, India, England or even Uraguay with Josef Mengele. I would love to see history as we know it, turned upside down." I just don't see any credible evidence. However, the Kennedy Assassination, now that's different.......................

Bill Richter · 05-27-2013, 08:38 AM

After writing 4 volumes in three titles based on the Come Retribution thesis, I must confess that I agree with your unnamed esteemed historian. One needs but to study the Radical Republicans and Stanton's own lack of character to get a gut reaction that he was behind it. One day I looked at all my work and said loud to myself, "this is all BS, Stanton did it." I have believed that since 1960 despite all the evidence that point other ways.

Rogerm · 05-27-2013, 09:07 AM

(05-27-2013 07:55 AM)Jim Garrett Wrote: When I was a young man, I went to see that fine Sun Classic movie, "The Lincoln Conspiracy". I bought the book and subsequently bought Otto Eisenshemel's book. I wanted to believe that Stanton was behind it in the worst possible way. I read everything I could find contrary to the accepted history. I questioned everything. One of the lynchpins was the missing pages. The next was the telegraph lines being down. We can't overlook the eye witness accounts that the body in the barn had red hair.

However they all fall apart. An impartial study shows that the "evidence" of either a grand conspiracy or a cover up, just doesn't hold up. Dave Taylor and I have a good friend who is one of the most esteemed historians, and he is convinced Stanton was behind it. He has had access to all the original documents and evidence on the highest levels, yet he has no evidence of a grand conspiracy or cover up. We just have to honestly and earnestly disagree with him. It is strictly his opinion and he offers no smoking gun.

Today we have a plethora of experts. We are fortunate to be able to turn to people like Betty Ownsbey, Tom Bogar, Wes Harris, Kathy Canavan, and of course, Dave Taylor, who have a passion to learn every facet of a very defined area, and are also incredibly knowledgeable on the complete history of the Assassination. Yet, with every aspect of the Assassination being put under the microscope, the proof of an alternate history does not exist. While some offer that the evidence has long ago been destroyed, I can only respond that it doesn't exist and their is no evidence that it ever existed. There have been too many pieces of debunked fabricated evidence to allow a veteran investigator to accept the sub standard.

As I often say, "I would love it, if Booth had escaped and died in Enid, India, England or even Uraguay with Josef Mengele. I would love to see history as we know it, turned upside down." I just don't see any credible evidence. However, the Kennedy Assassination, now that's different.......................

I would like to know how the Kennedy Assassination is any different. I think that Vincent Bugliosi has proven that it isn't.

Jim Garrett · 05-27-2013, 10:43 AM

(05-27-2013 09:07 AM)Rogerm Wrote:
(05-27-2013 07:55 AM)Jim Garrett Wrote: When I was a young man, I went to see that fine Sun Classic movie, "The Lincoln Conspiracy". I bought the book and subsequently bought Otto Eisenshemel's book. I wanted to believe that Stanton was behind it in the worst possible way. I read everything I could find contrary to the accepted history. I questioned everything. One of the lynchpins was the missing pages. The next was the telegraph lines being down. We can't overlook the eye witness accounts that the body in the barn had red hair.

However they all fall apart. An impartial study shows that the "evidence" of either a grand conspiracy or a cover up, just doesn't hold up. Dave Taylor and I have a good friend who is one of the most esteemed historians, and he is convinced Stanton was behind it. He has had access to all the original documents and evidence on the highest levels, yet he has no evidence of a grand conspiracy or cover up. We just have to honestly and earnestly disagree with him. It is strictly his opinion and he offers no smoking gun.

Today we have a plethora of experts. We are fortunate to be able to turn to people like Betty Ownsbey, Tom Bogar, Wes Harris, Kathy Canavan, and of course, Dave Taylor, who have a passion to learn every facet of a very defined area, and are also incredibly knowledgeable on the complete history of the Assassination. Yet, with every aspect of the Assassination being put under the microscope, the proof of an alternate history does not exist. While some offer that the evidence has long ago been destroyed, I can only respond that it doesn't exist and their is no evidence that it ever existed. There have been too many pieces of debunked fabricated evidence to allow a veteran investigator to accept the sub standard.

As I often say, "I would love it, if Booth had escaped and died in Enid, India, England or even Uraguay with Josef Mengele. I would love to see history as we know it, turned upside down." I just don't see any credible evidence. However, the Kennedy Assassination, now that's different.......................

I would like to know how the Kennedy Assassination is any different. I think that Vincent Bugliosi has proven that it isn't.

I would have to say the difference is in the loose ends. If their was a grand conspiracy or cover up in the Lincoln Assassination, the evidence has well been buried to the point that 150 years later, there is no solid proof. Seems like their are more loose ends going in many more directions in the Kennedy Assassination.

Gene C · (This post was last modified: 05-27-2013 12:17 PM by Gene C.)

(05-27-2013 08:38 AM)william l. richter Wrote: After writing 4 volumes in three titles based on the Come Retribution thesis, I must confess that I agree with your unnamed esteemed historian. One needs but to study the Radical Republicans and Stanton's own lack of character to get a gut reaction that he was behind it. One day I looked at all my work and said loud to myself, "this is all BS, Stanton did it." I have believed that since 1960 despite all the evidence that point other ways.

I disagree Bill. While Stanton may have had his minor faults, I think he admired Lincoln to much (in spite of disagreeing with him) to take the drastic step of conspiring to kill Lincoln. If he was going to want anyone out of the way, it would have been McClellan. Of coarse most of what I know about Stanton is from Benjamin Thomas

Jim Garrett · 05-27-2013, 05:00 PM

I have to agree with Gene on Stanton. Grant was a highly charged, highly emotional man. While he was quick to display his temper, he got over it quickly. I also think Stanton was highly intelligent and realized that if it wasn't for Lincoln, he would not have reached the high rank that he obtained. I believe Stanton understood that Lincoln was his greatest supporter.

Troy Cowan · 05-27-2013, 06:47 PM

(05-27-2013 12:15 PM)Gene C Wrote: I disagree Bill. While Stanton may have had his minor faults, I think he admired Lincoln to much (in spite of disagreeing with him) to take the drastic step of conspiring to kill Lincoln. If he was going to want anyone out of the way, it would have been McClellan. Of coarse most of what I know about Stanton is from Benjamin Thomas

Gene
Stanton considered Lincoln uncouth, awkward, and ignorant. He once said that Du Chaillu was a fool to go to Africa to look for gorillas when he might have got an excellent specimen in Springfield, Illinois. (John Spencer Bassett, Abraham Lincoln, p5)

Stanton also said that "no one in Washington had any respect for him, had not even faith in his candor and sincerity." Henry Whitney, Life on the Circuit with Lincoln, p7)

Stanton slowed recruiting, interfered with the delivery of supplies and hampered the movement of reinforcements. General McCellan said that Stanton "unnecessarily prolonged the war at least two years and at least tripled its cost in blood and treasure. (George B. McCellan, McClellan's own story, p229)

05-27-2013, 07:18 PM

Two points:

1. I absolutely agree with Dave (for what that is worth!)

2. Jim, you know that I have the UTMOST admiration for you and your knowledge, but there is no more reputable evidence that Oswald didn't fire all 3 shots at JFK than there is that Booth survived the Garrett farm barn fire. Major historical events invite conspiracy theories (e.g., Lincoln, JFK, 9/11) but each of these - I believe - are based upon the idea that something SO monumental could not have happened without a grand governmental/powerful interest involvement. When, in truth, there is simply evil and mistaken devotion in this world.

Oswald fired 3 shots at JFK. The first missed, hit sidewalk and sprayed witnesses, the second went through his neck and into Connelly, the third took his head off. MANY witnesses saw/heard Oswald fire 3 shots, just as many witnesses saw Booth jump to the stage and flee after shooting Lincoln.

Heath

ps - Jim is still the best, although mistaken in this one area.
Smile

I invite anyone who doubts the Oswald murder of JFK to read "Case Closed" by Gerald Posner and then present a logical argument to the contrary. It is most impossible.

J. Beckert · 05-27-2013, 07:54 PM

Case Closed is a masterpiece. I've heard Bugliosi's book is better, but I haven't read it. Posner's book erased any doubt for me.

Gene C · (This post was last modified: 05-27-2013 08:40 PM by Gene C.)

Troy, I might agree with you if it was 1861. Bless your heart, but you have given me the impression of someone who likes to disagree for the sake of disagreeing, and stiring things up for the attention it brings you. I'm not taking the bait.

We both know (or at least one of us does) that Stanton changed his mind about Lincoln, and that McClellan and Stanton grew to intensly dislike each other.

05-27-2013, 10:14 PM

(05-27-2013 07:54 PM)J. Beckert Wrote: Case Closed is a masterpiece. I've heard Bugliosi's book is better, but I haven't read it. Posner's book erased any doubt for me.

I've read both books and agree with them 100%!!
Oswald took 3 shots, got 2 hits, end of story.

And as (reputed) mobster Johnny Roselli said, "A psychotic loner (Oswald) and a blabbermouth (Ruby)?? I wouldn't have hired either one to kill a [expletive deleted] dog!"