(11-04-2016 12:11 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  Kees:

Asking me understand quantum physics is like asking an Eskimo to understand monsoon rains. But, yes, I do agree that any scenario re O'Laughlen's role in the assassination may be right, inasmuch as so little is known with certainty.

I did not know you are a physicist. Perhaps you can help me. I have long pondered the origin of the universe and of life on earth and, in fact, have written an essay on both subjects. Forget the second for now. Please share your thoughts on the origin of the universe. I am an agnostic precisely because I cannot imagine how the universe could have created itself out of nothing, but nor can I imagine the origin of a god or gods from nothing. I read Steven Hawking (A Brief History of Time) and Lawrence Krauss (A Universe From Nothing) and was not satisfied with either author's explanation. I wrote to Krauss at length, expressing my objections to his analysis and conclusions, but never received a response. I know this subject is beyond the scope of this Symposium; nevertheless, I am most interested in your thoughts.

John

(11-04-2016 12:11 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(11-04-2016 05:24 AM)loetar44 Wrote:  KEES:

YOUR SCENARIO IS POSSIBLE, ONLY IN THE SENSE THAT ALMOST ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE, BUT IT IS UNLIKELY. THE SCENARIO I HAVE LAID OUT SEEMS TO ME TO BE MORE LIKELY, INDEED MUCH MORE LIKELY.

JOHN

---

John,
I feel that we almost have reached a consensus. Almost anything is possible, there is no final “absolute truth”. It reminds me of the “many-worlds interpretation” in quantum physics, which states that there is an infinite web of alternate possibilities (in physics we speak of “wavefunctions”). Many-worlds implies that all possible scenario’s are real, each representing an “actual world”. Everything that could possibly have happened in our past has occurred in “another world”. A scenario (wavefunction) collapse (becomes the only scenario) only by “observation”, scientifically said it reduces to a single eigenstate. In other words: your scenario could be true, my scenario could be true, all possible other scenario’s could be true. Everything could possibly have happened. Each scenario is subjective. If you “observe” your scenario, your scenario (wavefunction) collapse (reduces to an eigenstate), and becomes suddenly the only scenario and is therefore true, because it is the only scenario that is left. This does not mean that that scenario is the absolute truth (correct at any moment), or near the absolute truth, it's only true (correct for one moment). The same goes for my scenario and all other possible scenario’s, when they collapse. As said, we live in a many-worlds world. I know that it's a serious claim, that carries some rather serious scientific, philosophical, and existential baggage. But as a physicist I believe in quantum physics and can live with a many-worlds scenario. Do we agree?

(11-04-2016 02:17 PM)Gene C Wrote:  

---

(11-04-2016 12:11 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  Kees:

Asking me understand quantum physics is like asking an Eskimo to understand monsoon rains. But, yes, I do agree that any scenario re O'Laughlen's role in the assassination may be right, inasmuch as so little is known with certainty.

I did not know you are a physicist. Perhaps you can help me. I have long pondered the origin of the universe and of life on earth and, in fact, have written an essay on both subjects. Forget the second for now. Please share your thoughts on the origin of the universe. I am an agnostic precisely because I cannot imagine how the universe could have created itself out of nothing, but nor can I imagine the origin of a god or gods from nothing. I read Steven Hawking (A Brief History of Time) and Lawrence Krauss (A Universe From Nothing) and was not satisfied with either author's explanation. I wrote to Krauss at length, expressing my objections to his analysis and conclusions, but never received a response. I know this subject is beyond the scope of this Symposium; nevertheless, I am most interested in your thoughts.

John

IF you can't imagine, and you haven't found an answer through nature you are satisfied with,
the alternative is to consider an answer that is beyond your imagination and above the laws of nature.

(11-04-2016 05:41 PM)loetar44 Wrote:  

(11-04-2016 12:11 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(11-04-2016 05:24 AM)loetar44 Wrote:  KEES:

YOUR SCENARIO IS POSSIBLE, ONLY IN THE SENSE THAT ALMOST ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE, BUT IT IS UNLIKELY. THE SCENARIO I HAVE LAID OUT SEEMS TO ME TO BE MORE LIKELY, INDEED MUCH MORE LIKELY.

JOHN

---

John,
I feel that we almost have reached a consensus. Almost anything is possible, there is no final “absolute truth”. It reminds me of the “many-worlds interpretation” in quantum physics, which states that there is an infinite web of alternate possibilities (in physics we speak of “wavefunctions”). Many-worlds implies that all possible scenario’s are real, each representing an “actual world”. Everything that could possibly have happened in our past has occurred in “another world”. A scenario (wavefunction) collapse (becomes the only scenario) only by “observation”, scientifically said it reduces to a single eigenstate. In other words: your scenario could be true, my scenario could be true, all possible other scenario’s could be true. Everything could possibly have happened. Each scenario is subjective. If you “observe” your scenario, your scenario (wavefunction) collapse (reduces to an eigenstate), and becomes suddenly the only scenario and is therefore true, because it is the only scenario that is left. This does not mean that that scenario is the absolute truth (correct at any moment), or near the absolute truth, it's only true (correct for one moment). The same goes for my scenario and all other possible scenario’s, when they collapse. As said, we live in a many-worlds world. I know that it's a serious claim, that carries some rather serious scientific, philosophical, and existential baggage. But as a physicist I believe in quantum physics and can live with a many-worlds scenario. Do we agree?

Kees:

Asking me understand quantum physics is like asking an Eskimo to understand monsoon rains. But, yes, I do agree that any scenario re O'Laughlen's role in the assassination may be right, inasmuch as so little is known with certainty.

I did not know you are a physicist. Perhaps you can help me. I have long pondered the origin of the universe and of life on earth and, in fact, have written an essay on both subjects. Forget the second for now. Please share your thoughts on the origin of the universe. I am an agnostic precisely because I cannot imagine how the universe could have created itself out of nothing, but nor can I imagine the origin of a god or gods from nothing. I read Steven Hawking (A Brief History of Time) and Lawrence Krauss (A Universe From Nothing) and was not satisfied with either author's explanation. I wrote to Krauss at length, expressing my objections to his analysis and conclusions, but never received a response. I know this subject is beyond the scope of this Symposium; nevertheless, I am most interested in your thoughts.

John

(11-04-2016 02:17 PM)Gene C Wrote:  

---

(11-04-2016 12:11 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  Kees:

Asking me understand quantum physics is like asking an Eskimo to understand monsoon rains. But, yes, I do agree that any scenario re O'Laughlen's role in the assassination may be right, inasmuch as so little is known with certainty.

I did not know you are a physicist. Perhaps you can help me. I have long pondered the origin of the universe and of life on earth and, in fact, have written an essay on both subjects. Forget the second for now. Please share your thoughts on the origin of the universe. I am an agnostic precisely because I cannot imagine how the universe could have created itself out of nothing, but nor can I imagine the origin of a god or gods from nothing. I read Steven Hawking (A Brief History of Time) and Lawrence Krauss (A Universe From Nothing) and was not satisfied with either author's explanation. I wrote to Krauss at length, expressing my objections to his analysis and conclusions, but never received a response. I know this subject is beyond the scope of this Symposium; nevertheless, I am most interested in your thoughts.

John

IF you can't imagine, and you haven't found an answer through nature you are satisfied with,
the alternative is to consider an answer that is beyond your imagination and above the laws of nature.

(11-01-2016 12:49 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  To do only what he most probably did: case out Stanton's home, to get the lay of the land and to find out, if possible, Stanton's and Grant's planned whereabouts the following evening. (How did Booth know Grant would be at Stanton's home that night? He had sources inside the Federal government, probably including the White House.

(11-04-2016 09:59 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  Kees:

Thank you for your offering. Frankly, I cannot make sense of it. That leaves two possibilities: either it doesn't make sense or I am not equipped to understand it. How can "potential", which is an abstraction, i.e. not material, be "dense and hot". Further, I do not understand what "spark points" are; I do not know where the "space" came from; and, according to Sagan, nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Still further, Sagan says that the laws of nature, as we know them, must be the same everywhere. Please send your metaphor, etc., to 3420 South Smith Rd., Fairlawn, Ohio 44333. Thank you in advance.

As for O'Laughlen, yes, your theory is possible, but I believe it is highly unlikely. I find it hard to believe that Booth's friend from childhood, who enjoyed a special relationship with Booth, would betray him or do anything that was contrary to his interests, including trying to talk him out of his mission. Booth was boss; the leader of his immediate action team. O'Laughlen was merely a subordinate. If he wanted to talk him out of it, he would have done so in Baltimore when Booth came there on the 13th to fetch him. The fact that he went to Washington and then, while there, went twice to the National, proves, to me, that he was still playing Booth's game.

John

(11-05-2016 04:00 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 12:49 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  To do only what he most probably did: case out Stanton's home, to get the lay of the land and to find out, if possible, Stanton's and Grant's planned whereabouts the following evening. (How did Booth know Grant would be at Stanton's home that night? He had sources inside the Federal government, probably including the White House.

John, I am fascinated by the possibility that Booth knew Grant would be at the Stantons' reception because there were sources either in the government or White House that told him. If it were the White House, can you possibly name a suspect? Did someone close to Lincoln meet with Booth and tell him? I am intrigued by that possibility. A mole in the White House?

(Was there a purpose to the Stantons' reception? Was it held specifically to honor Grant? If so, then Booth may not have needed "inside" information.)

(11-05-2016 12:40 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  Stringfellow wrote about a mission he undertook in Washington in March, 1865, at Davis's behest, in which, he said, he was in contact with an officer occupying an important position about Lincoln and that he made this officer a proposition. Mills believes the officer was Parker. I doubt it, but must at least acknowledge the possibility.

(11-05-2016 01:20 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(11-05-2016 12:40 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  Stringfellow wrote about a mission he undertook in Washington in March, 1865, at Davis's behest, in which, he said, he was in contact with an officer occupying an important position about Lincoln and that he made this officer a proposition. Mills believes the officer was Parker. I doubt it, but must at least acknowledge the possibility.

Thanks for replying to my questions, John.

Regarding Parker, the exact date he began duty at the White House is unknown (at least to my knowledge). Mr. James O. Hall wrote, "Parker must have been assigned to the White House in late March." So Mills' belief is conceivable. However, like you, I think unlikely.

(11-05-2016 09:28 AM)loetar44 Wrote:  

(11-04-2016 09:59 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  Kees:

Thank you for your offering. Frankly, I cannot make sense of it. That leaves two possibilities: either it doesn't make sense or I am not equipped to understand it. How can "potential", which is an abstraction, i.e. not material, be "dense and hot". Further, I do not understand what "spark points" are; I do not know where the "space" came from; and, according to Sagan, nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Still further, Sagan says that the laws of nature, as we know them, must be the same everywhere. Please send your metaphor, etc., to 3420 South Smith Rd., Fairlawn, Ohio 44333. Thank you in advance.

As for O'Laughlen, yes, your theory is possible, but I believe it is highly unlikely. I find it hard to believe that Booth's friend from childhood, who enjoyed a special relationship with Booth, would betray him or do anything that was contrary to his interests, including trying to talk him out of his mission. Booth was boss; the leader of his immediate action team. O'Laughlen was merely a subordinate. If he wanted to talk him out of it, he would have done so in Baltimore when Booth came there on the 13th to fetch him. The fact that he went to Washington and then, while there, went twice to the National, proves, to me, that he was still playing Booth's game.

John

John,
I did not say that potential was dense and hot. I said: “In our beginning there was nothing but infinite potential, dense and hot” ---- three things necessary for the creation of our universe: 1. infinite potential, 2. dense and 3. hot. Infinite potential is a concept from quantum mechanics. I think Sagan said that MATTER cannot travel faster than the speed of light (in a vacuum). BTW, it’s not from Sagan, but from Einstein. Quantum entanglement moves faster than light. Spacetime itself expand at a rate such that objects within it are separating faster than the speed of light. And indeed the laws of nature must be the same everywhere IN OUR UNIVERSE. But there are probably more universes with totally other laws of nature. It’s my pleasure to give you my opinion. Please send me your private E-MAIL address via the contact page of this forum, because (I think) this is not the place to discuss this and snail mail is too slow.

Back to O’Laughlen, Booth, Stanton, Grant

All is possible, but why was O’Laughlen still Booth’s “partner in crime”? Yes, he had (from childhood) a very special and close relationship with Booth. Booth was a “good friend”, BUT turned a bad friend, a toxic friend, who tried to manipulate him and others. He had bad intentions. That’s why O’Laughlen left the group after the meeting in Gautier’s and returned to Baltimore. Yes, it’s possible that Booth still wanted O’Laughlen in his team. He travelled to Baltimore on April 13, but maybe found O’Laughlen still unwilling to join again (why would he have changed his mind?). Maybe O’Laughlen warned Booth of the consequences of his actions; that he would end up on the gallows. Therefore, as a lifelong friend, O’Laughlen tried to change Booth’s mind. That’s are friends for. That’s also the reason he went twice to the National. In all honesty, I don’t think, O’Laughlen was Booth’s “subordinate”, and did not see Booth as his “boss”, who “ordered” him to go to the National.

Another thing. As far as I know Booth told Powell, Atzerodt and Herold of his plan to kill Lincoln c.s. at the final meeting in Herndon House, in the early evening of April 14. What was his reason to tell O’Laughlen his plan on April 13?

(11-06-2016 08:29 AM)Wild Bill Wrote:  Excellent, John. You got O'L down pat!