The Reason Lincoln Had to Die

[mikegriffith1]

(12-09-2018 04:06 PM)AussieMick Wrote:  Mike wrote "And, no, scholars do not agree that Custer was the "most accountable" for the Little Big Horn. Where in the world do you get that? Mainstream Custer scholarship has overwhelmingly rejected that canard."

I wrote "most accountable" because Custer was the officer in command. I am willing to admit an error if you or anyone can else can show me I'm wrong.

You can't apply the military "accountable" standard in a case like this. I suggest you read at least one of the following recent books on the case:

Custer's Trials (2015), by T. J. Stiles (you really only need to read his long chapter on the Little Big Horn battle)

The Last Days of George Armstrong Custer (2015), by Thom Hatch

The Last Stand (2013), by Nathan Philbrick

A Terrible Glory (2009), by James Donovan

(12-09-2018 04:06 PM)AussieMick Wrote:  I know Wikipedia isnt always 100% correct but , according to you, it needs considerable correction regarding the battle.

Yes, it most certainly does. That article represents the views of maybe 10% of active Custer scholars. I'd be curious to know who wrote the article. I belong to the Friends of the Little Bighorn Battlefield and am a member of the Little Big Horn Associates Message Board. Here's my website on the issue:

http://miketgriffith.com/files/custer.pdf

Quote:I guess many of those mainstream scholars that you mention would agree with your views on the JFK assassination.

The JFK assassination research community is dominated by scholars who reject the lone-gunman theory, and probably the majority of them doubt that Oswald even fired a shot. Here are some of the reasons that so many JFK assassination scholars doubt that Oswald fired a shot:

WHERE WAS OSWALD FROM 11:50 to 12:35 P.M. ON THE DAY OF THE ASSASSINATION?
http://miketgriffith.com/files/wherewasoswald.htm

FYI, the last official investigation into the JFK case--the House Select Committee on Assassinations--concluded that there was a "probable conspiracy," that more than three shots were fired (Oswald could have fired no more than three), that the Warren Commission suppressed Jack Ruby's Mafia ties, and that one of the shots came from the grassy knoll (see http://miketgriffith.com/files/hsca.htm , for starters).

(12-09-2018 04:06 PM)AussieMick Wrote:  Now please answer Warren's question: "Where is it in the 1977 FBI report on the diary examination that the 86 pages were removed after the diary came into possession of the War Department?

I could have sworn I already addressed this question. The report itself does not say when the alteration occurred, but the alteration documented in the report could only have been done after the War Department obtained the diary.

Where in the world would Booth have had the time and equipment to do the kinds of alterations documented in the report? Upstairs in Mudd's house while he was groaning in pain? During his six days in the woods near Cox's house? In Stuart's barn? During the few hours he spent resting in Rollins' house? And, if you believe he was the James Boyd who went to Garrett's farm, the Garretts saw the man writing in a black diary, but Booth's diary was red, and no one saw him take hours to take his diary apart, cut and move several sections, surgically remove pages and partial pages, and then glue the whole thing back together, much less do any laminating.