(10-29-2018 04:07 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(10-29-2018 03:11 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  You are supposing that it is just a cosmic coincidence that the gas lights got shut off along Booth's escape route in Washington just after he shot Lincoln.

Mike, I do not think I have read about the gas lights before. Can you cite your source please.

I second Roger's request for a source of your statement regarding street lights being shut off to assist Booth in his escape. If you read the history of the Washington Gas Light Company (which was founded in the 1840s), you find that Pennsylvania Avenue was the first and only full street to have outside gaslights and remained so for decades. Even then, the lights were shut off on nights when the moon was full.

Some upper class neighborhoods later got outside lights, which served more to "show off" the residences. The majority of the city was in the dark when the Civil War began, and needless to say, the military had first grabs at what gaslights could be generated. Washington City did not really become a City of Lights until electricity came along ca. 1880s.

And while we are on the subject of heating and lighting generated from the oils within coal, I need to mention (and will post again elsewhere) that Dr. Arnold made a boo-boo in his book by stating that the soldiers set the Garrett barn on fire by pouring down kerosene and lighting it (page 230).

Kerosene (coal oil) had really just been "discovered" before the Civil War, and during the war, the military got most of it that could be produced. It is really illogical to think that Conger and crew carried along even one pint of the flammable liquid on the slight chance that they would need it to flush out the fugitives.

So, we are then left to imagine that Conger confiscated it from the Garretts when he needed to light the little parcel of straw/hay that he used to start what would become a conflagration. There is very little chance that a defeated Virginia family out in the boondocks would have had kerosene around -- even before the war. During the 1850s and 60s, the standard form of lighting in homes was candle power or camphene-burning lamps -- the latter being a volatile mixture of turpentine and alcohol. Given their circumstances in Caroline County, Virginia, in April of 1865, I would bet that the Garretts depended chiefly on candles.

It is so important for good historians to understand the people and times of which they write... Susan Higginbotham of this forum has mastered that art and should teach it to beginning history writers!

I just returned to the forum and noticed that you switched back to your usual method of changing the subject after both Roger and I asked for your source regarding the streetlights being turned off to assist Booth in his escape. Back you went to the same old same old about the identification of Booth on the Montauk.

Dear readers, I would strongly advise you to also switch back and forth between this Journey thread and the Identification thread to make sure you don't get tricked into missing something...

(10-29-2018 08:36 PM)L Verge Wrote:  I just returned to the forum and noticed that you switched back to your usual method of changing the subject after both Roger and I asked for your source regarding the streetlights being turned off to assist Booth in his escape. Back you went to the same old same old about the identification of Booth on the Montauk.

My "usual method of changing the subject"? Really? I know this might come as a surprise to you, but some of us do not live on this forum. I do not always read every reply within hours of its being posted, nor do I always get around to answering every reply, but I do try to answer as many as I can.

And I have to wonder how you do not already know about the gas lights being turned off. I suppose your See the Emperor's New Clothes books have not mentioned this. Anyway, my source is Guttridge and Neff, Dark Union, pp. 145 and 263.

As for the "same old same old" about the ID of the body on the Montauk, why don't you provide a substantive, credible explanation for the evidence I've presented on the subject? "Livormortis" is not going to magically cause the face to become heavily freckled. And 10 days of flight (not 12 like you claimed) when the person has food and water every day, ample blankets, and spends three nights indoors is not going to cause an alien-like transformation of the body that is so drastic that the body bears "no resemblance" to how it looked in life. And transporting a partially covered corpse in mild weather is certainly not going to cause a body to "bear no resemblance" to how it looked in life after less than 24 hours.

Speaking of unanswered replies, I'm still waiting for you or anyone else to respond to my repeated request that you find me a documented case in the history of forensic science where a body in even partially similar circumstances underwent such a drastic change in appearance. If this astonishing change occurred, it must have been after Conger showed a photo of Booth to people the day before Booth was allegedly killed, since the people were able to identify Booth as the man in the photo.

I might also ask how all the hawk-eyed decades-belated JWB-initials witnesses, whom you uncritically accept, would have failed to notice or mention a single one of the scars on the body, if it was Booth's body. They amazingly zeroed in on the "pale" initials that were so small you had to take a close look to see them, but they didn't mention seeing any of the scars, nor did they mention seeing the tattoed cross on the other hand, not to mention the fact that they couldn't tell the difference between the arm, the wrist, and the hand. H. C. Young saw the scars and realized they were important for identification, but not one of your hawk-eyed belated JWB-initials witnesses said a word about them. In fact, not one of the Montauk witnesses who saw the body mentioned seeing any of these scars--not when they were interviewed that same day and not later on.

And while you're at it, perhaps you could explain why the body at Weaver's funeral parlor only had one filling in the mouth, whereas Booth was known to have had at least two fillings, especially given the fact the teeth were supposedly well preserved. So, then, uh, where was the other filling? They had a dental chart that was supposed to be Booth's, and no one mentioned a tooth being missing. So where was that other filling? Could this be why Merrill's presence on the Montauk and his findings are nowhere to be found in the official records? Because he came and noted that the body should have had two fillings but that it only had one?

But, lest any readers get "tricked" into missing something, please answer these questions in the "Identification of Booth's Body" thread. I have posed these questions, or very similar questions, several times in that thread.

Quote:Dear readers, I would strongly advise you to also switch back and forth between this Journey thread and the Identification thread to make sure you don't get tricked into missing something...

"Tricked"? Really? "Tricked"? Wow, okay.

(10-30-2018 03:00 AM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  And I have to wonder how you do not already know about the gas lights being turned off. I suppose your See the Emperor's New Clothes books have not mentioned this. Anyway, my source is Guttridge and Neff, Dark Union, pp. 145 and 263.

Thanks. Here is what it says in Dark Union:

"For gas lamps going out, see the B.B. French Diary, LC; also affidavit of the lamplighter, Kauffman, May 11, 1876, Ford's Theatre Collection, Washington, D.C. They could have been extinguished by the closing of a valve in the city gasworks, then located just west of the Capitol."

I do not have access to either one of those sources. Can anyone post the pertinent text regarding the gas lamps from either one (or both) of these sources?

Actually, if I have the correct entry, French says the very opposite. His entry for Saturday, April 15, 1865, reads, "We went to bed about 10, & I slept well till about daylight, when I awoke and saw that the streetlamps had not been extinguished. I lay awake, perhaps 1/2 an hour, & seeing that they were still burning, I arose and saw a sentry pacing before my house. I thought something wrong had happened, so dressed & went down & opened the front door." (Witness to the Young Republic," ed. by Donald B. Cole and John J. McDonough, p. 469).

Thank you for your kind remark, Laurie!

---

Ah, here may be what the "Dark Union" author was referring to: "One very singular thing took place at the Capitol at about the hour of the attack, which was the sudden extinguishment of all the lights on the terrace of the Western front. The police discovered it immediately and caused them to be relighted. Nothing further occurred about the Capitol to excite suspicion." (Same entry, p. 471).

So not streetlights, but the Capitol lights, were briefly off.

Thanks, Susan!

(10-30-2018 08:35 AM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  Ah, here may be what the "Dark Union" author was referring to: "One very singular thing took place at the Capitol at about the hour of the attack, which was the sudden extinguishment of all the lights on the terrace of the Western front. The police discovered it immediately and caused them to be relighted. Nothing further occurred about the Capitol to excite suspicion." (Same entry, p. 471).

So Guttridge and Neff were correct.

Quote:So not streetlights, but the Capitol lights, were briefly off.

I was paraphrasing Guttridge and Neff. They actually say Capitol lights:

Quote:And within the same thirty minutes of the shooting at Ford's, someone at the gasworks on Maryland Avenue shut off the gas that fed the lights around the Capitol and westward along Pennsylvania Avenue. This was about the time Booth spurred his horse eastward along the same stretch. (p. 145)

So their point is valid. The only question is, Was this a coincidence or a deliberate act designed to help Booth get away? If it was a coincidence, it was an incredible coincidence. Ten o'clock at night on the night the president is shot and, poof, some Capitol lights just happen to get shut down at right around the same time that Booth was riding away.

And at around this same time, people here what sound like signal whistles near Booth's escape route, and a bit later that night the commercial telegraph lines just happen to go down for two hours. Amazing. Just amazing.

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.

Mr. Griffith, it appears that my comments are having the same effect on you that yours are having on me -- irritating and damaging to that last remaining nerve... Quite a number of knowledgeable and common sense folks on this forum have presented materials in opposition to your "conclusions," and their opinions come from years of studying very good research in the field as well as very bad research in the field -- as well as tricky twisting of facts to achieve an end. And yet, you constantly revert to the same stance over and over again.

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?

BTW: (1.) Since you just mentioned the so-called shut down 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.

(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.

(10-30-2018 03:22 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  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.

Mike, the late Art Loux wrote an article for the Lincoln Herald, and it is posted on this forum here.

I will only respond to your comment here regarding books that are carried in the museum's shop. We used to sell Dark Union - or let's say attempted to sell because no one bought it (literally and figuratively). I would love to sell Roscoe's Web (both versions are long out-of-print, I believe, and only available on the secondary market - not feasible for a retail store that needs multiple copies). We have sold several used copies of Eisenchiml that people have donated to us. We would also sell Dewitt, if we could get a reprint at wholesale costs. Other than that, you have been on our website and seen our listing of books and authors. It speaks for itself.

I should also educate you to the fact that our James O. Hall Research Center contains almost every one of the books that you seem to think that we "ban." Serious students are welcome to visit, or we also help electronically -- and we have many other research collections besides Hall, Tidwell, Brennan, etc. I believe you live in the D.C. region and are about a 40-minute drive to our complex.

As for your take on the work of Mike Kauffman, it's sad. You might also take into account something that anyone who has had a book published (by a reputable publishing house) should know: Final editing is often based on paring down the amount of pages - and thus, some excellent history has to go. I happen to know that this happened in both the case of American Brutus and also the seminal work done by Come Retribution. Mike tried to get around that by padding chapter notes with information removed from the main text. A lot can be learned from those chapter notes. Check them out.

I also remember Mr. Hall being so frustrated with his publisher that had agreed to do his original book - Murder at Ford's Theatre - when he was told to cut 400 pages out of his manuscript that he abandoned that book and worked with Tidwell and Gaddy on Retribution.

And finally, Surratt House Museum's staff, volunteers, and 1500 associates worldwide have spent 44 years clearing away cobwebs, theories, misinterpretations, and more in order to present a clear and factual account of all documentable details to the Lincoln conspiracy and are well-regarded for our work. Why in the world would we want to make money off of truly spurious and unprofessional books that tend to defeat our work?

You keep posting, and I'll keep posting, and never the twain shall meet in terms of agreement.

(10-30-2018 12:23 PM)L Verge Wrote:  BTW: (1.) Since you just mentioned the so-called shut down 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.

Wow, okay. I just read about 35 pages in chapters 8 and 9 in Loux's book John Wilkes Booth: Day by Day (McFarland & Company, 2014). You have once again recommended an author whose work is shot full of holes. I mean, good grief, Loux repeated Weichmann's and Lloyd's doubtful stories without saying a word about the evidence that their stories were obtained by coercion, much less about any of the problems with their stories. I mean, are you serious?

It is inexcusable that any author who wrote after the John Surratt trial would quote Weichmann and Lloyd as reliable witnesses. Did Loux just never read the John Surratt trial transcript? Did he never read Eisenschiml's demolition of Weichmann's and Lloyd's stories? Did the editors who published his book after his death not read Thomas Bogar's information on Weichmann's credibility in Backstage at the Lincoln Assassination?

Equally incredibly, Loux followed the military commission's line on Dr. Mudd. I guess Loux was not impressed by the fact that two modern U.S. Presidents and their staffs reviewed the evidence and concluded that Mudd was innocent, and that the ABMCR reviewed the case and unanimously concluded that Mudd's trial had been a gross miscarriage of justice. Was Loux just not aware that the military tribunal used bribed and coerced testimony and introduced several items of physical evidence that were clearly phony and fabricated?

Weichmann and Lloyd are unreliable, but Surratt isn't?
A man who stayed hidden while his mother was on trial for her life and could have given testimony to save her life is more credible?
I consider that incredible and inexcusable.

I mean, good grief, Loux repeated Weichmann's and Lloyd's doubtful stories without saying a word about the evidence that their stories were obtained by coercion, much less about any of the problems with their stories. I mean, are you serious?

I've heard the comment made before, but what "evidence' is there that their testimony was coerced?

(10-31-2018 03:04 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  

(10-30-2018 12:23 PM)L Verge Wrote:  BTW: (1.) Since you just mentioned the so-called shut down 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.

Wow, okay. I just read about 35 pages in chapters 8 and 9 in Loux's book John Wilkes Booth: Day by Day (McFarland & Company, 2014). You have once again recommended an author whose work is shot full of holes. I mean, good grief, Loux repeated Weichmann's and Lloyd's doubtful stories without saying a word about the evidence that their stories were obtained by coercion, much less about any of the problems with their stories. I mean, are you serious?

It is inexcusable that any author who wrote after the John Surratt trial would quote Weichmann and Lloyd as reliable witnesses. Did Loux just never read the John Surratt trial transcript? Did he never read Eisenschiml's demolition of Weichmann's and Lloyd's stories? Did the editors who published his book after his death not read Thomas Bogar's information on Weichmann's credibility in Backstage at the Lincoln Assassination?

Equally incredibly, Loux followed the military commission's line on Dr. Mudd. I guess Loux was not impressed by the fact that two modern U.S. Presidents and their staffs reviewed the evidence and concluded that Mudd was innocent, and that the ABMCR reviewed the case and unanimously concluded that Mudd's trial had been a gross miscarriage of justice. Was Loux just not aware that the military tribunal used bribed and coerced testimony and introduced several items of physical evidence that were clearly phony and fabricated?

You are so far off base now that I am not even going to dignify your diatribe with a point-by-point response.

Those on this forum who are far better versed than you in all aspects of the Lincoln assassination story (from 1864 until current events that still involve the study) have already recognized your style and your supposed purpose for continuing to spout misinformation, wrong assumptions, and so-called statements of "fact" that are half-truths - if you can even call them that. I appreciate the support that they have shown for documentable history and for me, both on the forum as well as PMs and emails to me, personally.

While I disagree with the conclusions of Dr. Neff and Len Guttridge, I found them to be polite gentlemen and not disrespectful in dealing with others. I think that's one lesson that you could learn from them.

P.S. Forgot to ask - have you even read the part about the shut-down of the commercial telegraph that caused me to recommend Art's work to you? If his book is too hard for you to digest, I believe that he wrote an article specifically on the telegraph issue for the Surratt Courier and at least one other Lincoln-related journal.