(11-03-2018 11:22 AM)mikegriffith1 Wrote: (11-03-2018 10:53 AM)Steve Wrote: (11-03-2018 10:03 AM)Gene C Wrote: [quote='mikegriffith1' pid='73688' dateline='1541255172']
Sigh. . . . This is a theory of how Booth was placed out of harm's way. The theory is "consistent" with the evidence. The evidence does not disqualify the theory.
I'm sorry if I have overlooked this, but it's not clear to me, what "evidence"?
Did you read my entire reply? As I thought I made crystal clear, I was referring to evidence that Dr. Arnold's discusses in Chapter 4 of his book.
(11-03-2018 10:03 AM)Gene C Wrote: Otto Eisenschiml devotes an entire chapter in his book, In the Shadow of Lincoln's Death, that it was most likely John Wilkes Booth who was shot and killed at the Garrett farm, but Eisenschiml does leave himself a little wiggle room.
"In all probability, and giving due weight to all aspects of the case, Herold felt certain that it was Booth, and no one else, who had been shot" p.65
"Pending further developments, the contenders for the orthodox theory have by far the better case, although it does not stand proven" p.87.
I know how much you respect Eisenchiml's research, are you saying Herold thinks Boyd is Booth?
One, Eisenschiml notes that Herold initially said the man was Boyd. How did you miss that? Or were you quoting someone else's quotation of Eisenschiml?
Two, as I've said a few times, I simply disagree with Eisenschiml on this point, and I believe that if Eisenschiml were alive today and read the research on this issue that was published after he wrote his books, he would change his mind.
Three, if you are going to insist that the man in the barn was Booth, then you need to, finally, come up with medical evidence that a body's appearance, including its "lineaments," can become unrecognizable, and magically grow freckles on its face, after no more than 10 days under similar circumstances. That's the hard, science-based objection that you keep avoiding.
I do not have Arnold's book, and neither does my library. Perhaps you can quote a few passages from his book (including page number)to show what "evidence" you keep referring to.
next, you are taking Eisenschiml out of context in the discussion regarding Herold's statement about Booth. While Herold may have initially stated it was Boyd, he later states it was Booth. Eisenschiml explains reasons for this.
Three, there are enough people who identified Booth's body. Some claimed his body (face ?) appeared to have changed some, but still were able to identify the body as Booth. How many claimed they didn't recognize him at all?
I agree with Jim Garrett's post
Search
Member List
Calendar
Help
