Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

mikegriffith1 · 12-04-2018, 05:38 AM

(12-03-2018 09:35 PM)Gene C Wrote:
(12-03-2018 08:22 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote: I've read Thomas Jones' account. He never mentions seeing binocs/field glasses. This is, admittedly, an argument from silence.

When I wrote my reply, I had not read your (Laurie's) comments about the binocs being seen by the Garretts. If your comments on this issue are factual and credible, I would agree that I was incorrect to say that no one saw the field glasses after the stop at the tavern.

Would you mind presenting your sources for Garretts' statements on this?

Vaughan Shelton's "Mask For Treason" , pages 277-278

(12-03-2018 08:22 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote: Would you care to explain why the theory that Booth was poisoned is "abject nonsense"? Simply declaring something does not make it true. I have reviewed the evidence that supports Shelton's theory that Booth was poisoned. It is a matter of record. It is not definitive, but is consistent with his theory. However, it is also consistent with Booth simply catching a flu bug or something. So it is not "abject nonsense" by any rational standard. You might disagree with the theory, but there is evidence that supports it.

I think Shelton makes some valid points to support part of his theory--mainly, the part about Booth showing sudden signs of severe illness shortly after drinking with Herold...

Well, you see, I follow this concept called "critical thinking." I'm also a big fan of logic and reason. That means I do not blindly accept everything an author says, even if think highly of him and agree with him on many/most issues.

Now, to answer your questions:

One, as I've said, I am not certain that Booth was poisoned. I think he might have been, but that's as far as I think the evidence can be pressed.

You may have presented evidence that Booth became ill after the assassination, but you have not produced any evidence it was from being poisoned, you have only presented a theory.
I am a little critical of your "critical thinking.

(12-03-2018 03:51 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote: The whole poisoning scenario is too convoluted and requires too much raw speculation. It is certainly true that there are many cases in history where conspirators killed one of their own, and poison would be a good way to do it, but I see too many problems with Shelton's theory to believe it. I don't absolutely rule it out, but I don't believe it either.

Your inconsistency is amazingly consistent

You know, I hate to be blunt, but this is really just sheer ignorance. You clearly have never cracked the pages of a logic or critical thinking textbook. I have not been the least bit inconsistent. I have, unlike you, shown myself to be entirely willing to critically examine sources with which I agree and willing to reject friendly theories that I find to be too problematic.

Now, Shelton theorized that Booth was poisoned. He never claimed to prove it as a fact. He presented it as a theory that fit a great deal of evidence, as a theory that was supported--not proved--by considerable evidence. What evidence?

* Herold had training as a druggist.

* Booth appears to have been in good health right up until he drank with Herold at the tavern.

* Booth quickly became ill after he drank with Herold at the tavern.

* Some aspects of the body's appearance on the Montauk are consistent with poisoning, i.e., they could have been caused by poisoning. Shelton never said they absolutely must have been, but that they could have been.

* Throughout history, it has not been unusual for conspirators in a plot to try to kill one or more of their fellow conspirators, especially if they feared that the person or persons could prove to be a problem later on.

By any standard of textbook logic and critical thinking, Shelton's theory that Booth was poisoned is not "abject nonsense." It is a theory that is consistent with several items of evidence. It cannot be summarily brushed aside because you don't think it fits with your flat-earth-like defense of the military commission's version of events.

But, even though the theory does have some evidence to support it--not "prove" it, but "support" it--I don't happen to believe it for the reasons I have already given.

When I find too many problems with a theory from a non-traditionalist source, I say so in no uncertain terms.

You, on the other hand, slavishly follow the military commission's tale to the point of laughable absurdity, to the point that you can't even bring yourself to admit that the targeted editing and huge redaction of the diary were done to remove information and were clearly done after the War Department received the diary.