Quote:It is just amazing to watch you folks preparing your talking points against something that will challenge your echo-chamber myths, and to watch you talk yourselves into dismissing whatever evidence is about to be presented before you have even seen one second of the documentary or read one line of the article. Obviously, you are not going to consider this evidence with anything approaching an open mind, but you're going to strain and reach to find any excuse to dismiss it and/or ignore it.

As you are the emperor of closed minds, that's rich.

(04-13-2019 03:23 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  OIC. And did the project include a recognized expert in facial scanning analysis who has years of experience with a major police department?

It is just amazing to watch you folks preparing your talking points against something that will challenge your echo-chamber myths, and to watch you talk yourselves into dismissing whatever evidence is about to be presented before you have even seen one second of the documentary or read one line of the article. Obviously, you are not going to consider this evidence with anything approaching an open mind, but you're going to strain and reach to find any excuse to dismiss it and/or ignore it.

What talking points? Most of the previous posts are all about trying to figure out when this documentary is to be broadcast, within a few days per your earlier announcement:

(04-12-2019 02:45 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  I can't go into many details, but I will say this: In a few days a major TV network is going to broadcast a documentary that will present scientific evidence that Booth did not die in April 1865. The evidence involves a computer-assisted facial scanning analysis done by a recognized expert in the field.

The facial scanning analysis was conducted on photos of Booth and of another person. The photos of the other person were taken long after April 1865. The expert who conducted the analysis was very skeptical going into the study; in fact, the expert expected the scanning analysis to prove that the two persons were not the same individual.

The expert was so astounded by the results that they ran the analysis numerous times to ensure the software and the equipment were not malfunctioning. According to the expert and their team, the comparison scanning results show that it is virtually certain that the two sets of photos are of the same person. If these results are valid, they mean that Booth could not have died in April 1865.

This scientific evidence will also be published in an article in a major publication, but I'm not at liberty to say more about the article. I have not read the article but have been given a general summary of it.

Once the documentary is broadcast and the article is published, I will come back and post links to them.

Usually tv channels promote/schedule a program weeks in advance before it airs, lest they end up with too low viewership. If the Mummies Unwrapped program isn't the one you were referring to, then at least some people on the forum who might be interested in the program, and have cable, are now aware of it if they want to see it. Thank you for your promise to give the broadcast details before the program airs so all interested parties can evaluate the quality of evidence.

I have no knowledge of what specific photograph is being analyzed or the quality of the evidence linking the photograph to the known photographs of Booth. For the sake of argument, supposing they are able to prove that it's a new previously unknown photograph of Booth, that doesn't necessarily prove that image comes from after Booth's death.

Mike, it was nice of you to sort of inform us of the upcoming TV show.

Did you sincerely believe we wouldn't be some what skeptical about the information in the show, especially when you are so evasive in telling us who, when and where the show will be broadcast?

Many of us have been disappointed by "documentaries" in the past.

Note: When sharing secret talking points, be sure to use the secret code words, "secret talking points".
And keep it a secret.

(04-13-2019 03:23 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  

(04-13-2019 09:09 AM)L Verge Wrote:  I noticed that it is produced by Fight or Flight Studios, the same company that contacted me for Surratt House participation.

OIC. And did the project include a recognized expert in facial scanning analysis who has years of experience with a major police department?

It is just amazing to watch you folks preparing your talking points against something that will challenge your echo-chamber myths, and to watch you talk yourselves into dismissing whatever evidence is about to be presented before you have even seen one second of the documentary or read one line of the article. Obviously, you are not going to consider this evidence with anything approaching an open mind, but you're going to strain and reach to find any excuse to dismiss it and/or ignore it.

I just tuned back in to this announcement and found your sarcastic remarks about those of us who have experienced years of these so-called documentaries (that go nowhere except to screen credits at the end) rather humorous coming from you of a very closed mind. Sorta like the pot calling the kettle black, wouldn't you say?

Someday, when you have nothing else to do but challenge documented facts, I'll tell you about my forty years of experience dealing with these types of "history lessons" -- starting with Unsolved Mysteries, numerous History Channel, Discovery Channel, A&E, Nat Geo, History Decoded, and even The Conspirator film -- as both a historian adviser and a talking head.

(04-13-2019 07:49 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(04-13-2019 03:23 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  

(04-13-2019 09:09 AM)L Verge Wrote:  I noticed that it is produced by Fight or Flight Studios, the same company that contacted me for Surratt House participation.

OIC. And did the project include a recognized expert in facial scanning analysis who has years of experience with a major police department?

It is just amazing to watch you folks preparing your talking points against something that will challenge your echo-chamber myths, and to watch you talk yourselves into dismissing whatever evidence is about to be presented before you have even seen one second of the documentary or read one line of the article. Obviously, you are not going to consider this evidence with anything approaching an open mind, but you're going to strain and reach to find any excuse to dismiss it and/or ignore it.

I just tuned back in to this announcement and found your sarcastic remarks about those of us who have experienced years of these so-called documentaries (that go nowhere except to screen credits at the end) rather humorous coming from you of a very closed mind. Sorta like the pot calling the kettle black, wouldn't you say?

Someday, when you have nothing else to do but challenge documented facts, I'll tell you about my forty years of experience dealing with these types of "history lessons" -- starting with Unsolved Mysteries, numerous History Channel, Discovery Channel, A&E, Nat Geo, History Decoded, and even The Conspirator film -- as both a historian adviser and a talking head.

Your 40 years of experience have led you to believe that Mary Surratt was guilty, that Lincoln had no firm Reconstruction policy, that Stanton cared deeply for Lincoln, etc., etc. As for your objectivity, I notice that your museum's bookstore carries very few titles that challenge your views. One would think that someone who has long been making their living off the name of Mary Surratt would at least have enough fairness to carry the best books that present her side of the story.

(04-14-2019 09:34 AM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  

(04-13-2019 07:49 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(04-13-2019 03:23 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  

(04-13-2019 09:09 AM)L Verge Wrote:  I noticed that it is produced by Fight or Flight Studios, the same company that contacted me for Surratt House participation.

OIC. And did the project include a recognized expert in facial scanning analysis who has years of experience with a major police department?

It is just amazing to watch you folks preparing your talking points against something that will challenge your echo-chamber myths, and to watch you talk yourselves into dismissing whatever evidence is about to be presented before you have even seen one second of the documentary or read one line of the article. Obviously, you are not going to consider this evidence with anything approaching an open mind, but you're going to strain and reach to find any excuse to dismiss it and/or ignore it.

I just tuned back in to this announcement and found your sarcastic remarks about those of us who have experienced years of these so-called documentaries (that go nowhere except to screen credits at the end) rather humorous coming from you of a very closed mind. Sorta like the pot calling the kettle black, wouldn't you say?

Someday, when you have nothing else to do but challenge documented facts, I'll tell you about my forty years of experience dealing with these types of "history lessons" -- starting with Unsolved Mysteries, numerous History Channel, Discovery Channel, A&E, Nat Geo, History Decoded, and even The Conspirator film -- as both a historian adviser and a talking head.

Your 40 years of experience have led you to believe that Mary Surratt was guilty, that Lincoln had no firm Reconstruction policy, that Stanton cared deeply for Lincoln, etc., etc. As for your objectivity, I notice that your museum's bookstore carries very few titles that challenge your views. One would think that someone who has long been making their living off the name of Mary Surratt would at least have enough fairness to carry the best books that present her side of the story.

We have gone down this road of personal insults before, sir, and I have no intention of boring our readers any further by responding to your snips and snarls at me. You have already gone off the original topic by posting this jab at me. If you can stay on the documented historical facts and come up with important things that you have not repeatedly posted about here, I think we might have more meaningful dialogues for our members to participate in.

As I have stated before, I am not the gift shop manager nor buyer for Surratt House Museum (a long-time student of the assassination is, however). There are not that many recent and well-documented books devoted to the innocence of Mary Surratt - and we do carry the most significant one, An American Tragedy, by my deceased friend Elizabeth Steger Trindal.

And, I would like to think that I have made my living off of sound research on my own as well as that of many in the field over the past 50+ years who are/were more trained, more objective, and certainly more knowledgeable than both you and I. Too bad that you did not spend the money to come to the recent Surratt Conference where you could have met and learned from some of the current stars in our field, especially since you live so close... Sayonara

(04-14-2019 09:34 AM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  Your 40 years of experience have led you to believe that Mary Surratt was guilty, that Lincoln had no firm Reconstruction policy, that Stanton cared deeply for Lincoln, etc., etc. As for your objectivity, I notice that your museum's bookstore carries very few titles that challenge your views. One would think that someone who has long been making their living off the name of Mary Surratt would at least have enough fairness to carry the best books that present her side of the story.

What a disappointing and petty comment

Is it the mystery show, "Mummy's Unwrapped," on the Discovery Channel?

I picked up The Escape and Capture of John Wilkes Booth at the recent Surratt Conference. Dr. Steers debunks the recurring tales about Booth's (life) and death in Chapter 9: "Life After Death."

FYI for anyone concerned; the Booth mummy is no longer in Silver Springs, MD. It was sold about 1 year ago.

(04-15-2019 06:03 AM)Rsmyth Wrote:  FYI for anyone concerned; the Booth mummy is no longer in Silver Springs, MD. It was sold about 1 year ago.

If the former owner's neighbors ever found out about his collection, I am sure they are glad to know that mummy is gone (although the owner said he hid it elsewhere long years ago). Dr. Lattimer always had grave fears about the contamination levels it was likely giving off due to the old methods of embalming - and that mummy was embalmed a number of times before even leaving Enid.

Wow, I've forgotten how petty this guy is. Laurie I've seen the Unsolved Mysteries one where James O. Hall was their expert. He really wasn't having any of that conspiracy theory nonsense. I've read Finis Bates' book and I'll just say if it were a pair of trousers it would be so full of holes as to be unwearable.

Poor David E. George! Falsely claimed to be Booth and his body turned into a curio.

There's a story about this here:

https://www.philly.com/news/john-wilkes-...MFeVb_rN3o

The software may think that these are the same man, but the human eye tells a different story.

I have to agree with Susan. Just looking at the photographs side by side the shape of the eyes is markedly different; even the shape of the mouth and jaw are different to a significant degree.

Thanks Susan. This human's eye agrees with you.

Also, it's important to read and understand what Robert D'Ovidio is saying in this article.