I just saw an alert for a program on the Travel Channel about the Lincoln Assassination for tonight at 9 PM. Who knows - it might include a bit on our favorite Maryland museum. We'll see.

Thanks, John. We have the show here, too, but it's on a week from tonight (January 11).

Finally! If it's the one I'm thinking of, it was taped around March of 2017, and then we heard nothing more. Mike Kauffman does the final segment over the Booth escape route. Not sure I get the Travel Channel, so everyone please critique for me.

It is not on until Janary 11 here as well (at least not on Cox Cable in Fairfax County).

(01-04-2018 05:52 PM)wpbinzel Wrote:  It is not on until Janary 11 here as well (at least not on Cox Cable in Fairfax County).

Also on January 11 in Maryland suburbs. Look for program called Mysteries at the Museum.

(01-04-2018 06:49 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 05:52 PM)wpbinzel Wrote:  It is not on until Janary 11 here as well (at least not on Cox Cable in Fairfax County).

Also on January 11 in Maryland suburbs. Look for program called Mysteries at the Museum.

You all may very well be right. I wasn't paying much attention. It surprised me. This gives us time to prepare. Pass the word.

I thought the episode was awful. Reminded me of Robert Stack's Unsolved Mystery TV show in the 1990's. Booth escaping, Phineas Bates, JWB deathbed confession, similarities of the mummy to Booth, etc.
Surprised M. Kaufmann would be part of the program.

I should have just stuck to watching the NBA on TNT

Very poorly done. Non-watchers missed nothing. Full of factual holes. Sensationalist TV. Attempted to revive Booth escape theory. Lots of time devoted to that. I am surprised that legitimate historians participated. Waste of time.

I must say that I agree with the comments above! I was totally disappointed and disgusted in several spots, and I will probably open myself up to slander and/or libel when I cite my reasons for feeling this way.

Let me begin by saying that Surratt House was not involved in any of the planning except to give approval for filming at the site. We heard nothing further until they called to schedule the shoot. You may have noticed that none of my staff or volunteers participated. We did not even know when the program would run until John Stanton alerted us on this forum. That is Step One in how to irritate both a museum director (who has worked with some wonderful media people) and a Lincoln assassination "nut" who strives for perfection.

Step Two (and this is strictly me being opinionated): Don't open with a talking head who is a Lincoln scholar, but who was/is (?still) rather condescending to those who are intrigued with the assassination studies. I will flat out state that the National Park Service has a ranger by the name of Eric Martin assigned to Ford's, and Eric would have been an excellent spokesperson for that part of the program.

Step Three: Don't let several errors pop up unedited in the first few minutes of the presentation. I could see things going downhill from the moment that the talking head said that John Wilkes Booth was the youngest child in the family. Obviously, he overlooked Joseph Adrian Booth (perhaps because he has never studied the assassination in-depth?).

Step Four: When you finally turn the narration over to one of the foremost scholars in the assassination field - Michael Kauffman - let him do the talking! It irritated me no end that Mike's information on the escape route was cut to short sound bites that were almost disjointed when put into final format. Mike narrated our Surratt Society tours over the route for decades before retiring, and he could have dispensed so much knowledge...

Step Five: If you want to watch this old broad have a stroke, fade to a commercial by showing a brief glimpse of an upcoming segment that showed the back of a familiar head and headwear. I knew what was coming next and wanted to turn off the TV - but, I didn't. I then suffered through what appeared to be the longest portion of the whole darn program. I have spent a good portion of my 43 years at Surratt House dealing with the misinformation given by this next talking head. There has been so much research done by reputable scholars in the field to refute his claims that it literally hurt to see the "topic" of Booth escaping from Garrett's farm come to the surface again. I will say that the gentleman has expanded his theory a bit. I do not recall that he ever contended that Andrew Johnson was the mastermind of the plot against Lincoln, but he does now -- right down to Booth having conversations with the Vice President.

A final comment about the Mudd and Surratt history: Mike Kauffman did a good job of "hedging" the history of Mudd with a single statement to the effect that the doctor's guilt or innocence is one of the contentious parts of the story, but I think a few more pros and cons would have been appropriate. As for Kate Larson's portions on Mary Surratt and the trial and execution, they were adequately done, but definitely anti-Mary. Most of you know that I happen to believe that Mary had knowledge of something being afoot, especially in the early plotting, and I understand how the government found grounds to try her. Therefore, I agree with what Kate said, but I do think some words were needed as to how deeply Mary was/was not involved. Maybe I was being touchy, but Mary really came off as appearing to be the controller of the conspiracy. It also irritated me that, when discussing our Surratt House, they would show it today and then flash up (several times throughout the show) the 1901 photo of the building. In 1865, it looked nothing like what it had been transformed into in 1901. It would have been better to show the 1867 engraving of Surrattsville that appeared in national newspapers when John, Jr. was returned for trial. The way it came across to me was that we had inaccurately restored the house -- it was supposed to look like the old photo in 1865. And yes, that's how picky I can be.

In defense of those who did narrate various portions, anyone who has worked with the media knows that you are at the mercy of both the reporter/director and the final copy editor, so the public never knows what was actually said in total that could likely have been better than what the amateurs who control the program end up putting together. That's what happens when you let the uninformed shape your way of thinking.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln....

One more error that I caught and failed to mention - One old photo of "Surratt House" was actually of the Bryantown Tavern. This is where a knowledgeable historian on the subject would have come in handy in final production.

I agree fully with all that is said here. I felt I was watching an ad to buy Bates Book. But - that's "Mysteries at the Museum".

If you watch other programs on that channel, they are all about UFO's and Extraterrestrial visitors. They present that hokum as facts and everyday events. I don't believe a word they say, but it is entertainment.

I felt bad for Laurie and Mike Kauffman. They were "Used" to create authenticity in an otherwise "UFO Story". It didn't work.

When Laurie comes out from under the bed - where she is hiding, tell her we love her and understand her position - she was "used".
I promise not to say another word about the whole mater.

As usual, a tough crowd, with good reasons.

What I think would be interesting would be to get a copy of the presentation and in place of the commercials - have someone who knows that part of the story intimately, point out the flaws of the previous segment. Then put it on YouTube.

Its better to let the right people admit what we don't know about the assassination and leave those 'mysteries' up to another generation rather than some guy in a faux leather jacket.

(01-12-2018 05:13 PM)SSlater Wrote:  I agree fully with all that is said here. I felt I was watching an ad to buy Bates Book. But - that's "Mysteries at the Museum".

If you watch other programs on that channel, they are all about UFO's and Extraterrestrial visitors. They present that hokum as facts and everyday events. I don't believe a word they say, but it is entertainment.

I felt bad for Laurie and Mike Kauffman. They were "Used" to create authenticity in an otherwise "UFO Story". It didn't work.

When Laurie comes out from under the bed - where she is hiding, tell her we love her and understand her position - she was "used".
I promise not to say another word about the whole mater.

Thank you for the support, John. At my age, however, I can no longer crawl under the bed - well, maybe I could get down, but I don't think I would ever get up.

Unfortunately, in my old age, I have developed a worse, mouthy attitude than I used to have. I generally say what I think, and those in the field of writing and also films should know that their work is up for review. I feel that is what I did with this program, and I place the blame for its inadequacies right at the feet of the production staff. I know that there are media groups out there who can do excellent work with our subject matter. One that comes immediately to mind is the old Greystone Productions. They did a great TV show and subsequent video on the assassination back in the late-80s or early-90s and were fantastic to work with. Sorry, I can't remember the title of the show.

Believe it or not, in the past decade I have survived three attempts by one person (with a vested interest in the assassination) to get me fired as well as a full-blown law suit that failed and then was appealed (and failed again) and finally was moved to Maryland where it died. All this caused by another individual over a photo. If anyone thinks loving history is easy, guess again.

(01-12-2018 06:40 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(01-12-2018 05:13 PM)SSlater Wrote:  I agree fully with all that is said here. I felt I was watching an ad to buy Bates Book. But - that's "Mysteries at the Museum".

If you watch other programs on that channel, they are all about UFO's and Extraterrestrial visitors. They present that hokum as facts and everyday events. I don't believe a word they say, but it is entertainment.

I felt bad for Laurie and Mike Kauffman. They were "Used" to create authenticity in an otherwise "UFO Story". It didn't work.

When Laurie comes out from under the bed - where she is hiding, tell her we love her and understand her position - she was "used".
I promise not to say another word about the whole mater.

Thank you for the support, John. At my age, however, I can no longer crawl under the bed - well, maybe I could get down, but I don't think I would ever get up.

Unfortunately, in my old age, I have developed a worse, mouthy attitude than I used to have. I generally say what I think, and those in the field of writing and also films should know that their work is up for review. I feel that is what I did with this program, and I place the blame for its inadequacies right at the feet of the production staff. I know that there are media groups out there who can do excellent work with our subject matter. One that comes immediately to mind is the old Greystone Productions. They did a great TV show and subsequent video on the assassination back in the late-80s or early-90s and were fantastic to work with. Sorry, I can't remember the title of the show.

Believe it or not, in the past decade I have survived three attempts by one person (with a vested interest in the assassination) to get me fired as well as a full-blown law suit that failed and then was appealed (and failed again) and finally was moved to Maryland where it died. All this caused by another individual over a photo. If anyone thinks loving history is easy, guess again.

Laurie, just read this article about Mike Rowe and how he handled the situation of someone trying to get him fired. Hope you find comfort in it.
http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/12/mike-r...servative/