Post Reply 
Robert Arnold's Book The Conspiracy Between John Wilkes Booth and the Union Army
10-25-2018, 07:48 PM (This post was last modified: 10-25-2018 07:55 PM by mikegriffith1.)
Post: #16
RE: Robert Arnold's Book The Conspiracy Between John Wilkes Booth and the Union Army
(08-20-2018 05:20 PM)L Verge Wrote:  
(08-20-2018 03:56 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  Dr. Arnold also argues that the description of the man in the barn's injured ankle could not have been describing the appearance of the kind of injury that Booth had. Dr. Arnold, a retired Navy surgeon and former coroner, contends that there would not have been the described amount of bruising and swelling from an ankle fracture.

Has Dr. Arnold ever treated, or experienced himself, a broken leg bone that has been subjected to twelve days of riding horseback (which included mounting and dismounting); spending a lot of time on the ground, which was cold and damp during April in Southern Maryland; and jostling around in a wagon? Bet not...

Apparently you have not read Dr. Arnold's book. He discusses the ankle injury in detail.

Booth spent much of his time sitting or lying down. Cox gave him extra blankets. The weather was mild during the day most of the time. It only got chilly at night. He had Herold to help him mount any horse he rode.

The ankle injury was not that all that bad. You might want to read Dr. Arnold's analysis on the issue.

(08-20-2018 05:20 PM)L Verge Wrote:  We rec'd a review copy of Dr. Arnold's book several years ago and decided not to get it for our gift shop.

So you don't trust your customers to use their own judgment and to reach their own conclusions about his research? That's unfortunate. If I operated a book store and carried books on this kind of subject, I would ensure that my customers had a balanced, wide-ranging selection of books, not just the ones that I liked.

"Several years ago"? Arnold's book came out in 2016.

(08-16-2018 03:27 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  Finished Arnold's book today. A lot of information to take in. Arnold seems to make a solid case that Stanton, Baker, Holt, and some other Army officers were involved.

I had been skeptical of the theory that Booth escaped, mainly because I trusted the government's identification of the body and the family's later identification. But Arnold presents good reasons to doubt those identifications.

Another thing I find fascinating about Arnold's book is his medically based commentary on the wound described in the autopsy report and on the injury to Booth's ankle. A former Navy surgeon, Arnold shows that the government's version of the shooting of the man in the Garrett barn could not have happened, that there is no way the man could have been standing up and walking toward the barn door when he was shot, because the bullet entered the man's head at about a 25-degree angle. Arnold also seems to make a good case that the bullet must have been a rifle bullet, not a pistol bullet.

(08-20-2018 05:20 PM)L Verge Wrote:  The best description that I have ever heard as to how Corbett's pistol shot entered Booth through the back of his neck came from expert researcher, historian, and author Michael W. Kauffman.

You mean the same Michael Kauffman who uses Seaton Munroe's error-riddled collection of tall tales as a source and who even cites Munroe's story about seeing Keene virtually covered in blood? The same Michael Kauffman who uses Sgt. Hartley's unbelievable tale as "evidence" that the JWB initials were seen on the body, without mentioning a single one of the glaring holes in Hartley's account? The same Michael Kauffman who approvingly cites Willie Jett's (of all people's) claim that he noticed the JWB initials on Booth? (In his notes, Kauffman cites sources that claim that Booth even pointed out the initials while supposedly at Garrett's farm!) The same Michael Kauffman who tries to use Barnes's statement about the scar looking like a burn scar as "evidence" of the identification? (Kauffman mentions none of the obvious problems with the scar identification.) That Michael Kauffman?

Kauffman does not touch the fact that the bullet was--twice--initially described as a rifle bullet.

Again, you might want to read Dr. Arnold's book. Dr. Arnold, a genuine expert in such matters, discusses the evidence that the damage to the spine clearly indicates the bullet was a rifle bullet, not a pistol bullet. Furthermore, following up on the 1993 AFIP analysis, Dr. Arnold shows beyond dispute that the bullet traveled at a downward angle of 25 degrees below the horizontal.

(08-20-2018 05:20 PM)L Verge Wrote:  When Mike used to narrate the Surratt Society's Booth Escape Route Tours, he would carefully explain that Corbett was actually aiming at Booth's shoulder in an attempt to get him to drop his rifle. However, because of the broken leg, as Booth advanced towards the door to escape the increasing flames, he limped on his injured left leg causing the bullet to hit him in the neck instead of the shoulder.

But Conger said the man in the barn dropped his weapon (he clearly used "arm" as "gun/weapon") before he started walking toward the door and before the shot was fired. Again, Corbett could not have fired the shot because he only had a pistol, and claimed that he shot the man in the barn with his pistol. And are you going to explain how anyone standing on the ground could have fired a bullet that transited the target body at a 25-degree downward angle? Kauffman doesn't even mention these issues, probably because he was unaware of them, or could not explain them.

Quote:Have you read Dr. John K. Lattimer's detailed ballistic account of the shooting? I think it's still available on the secondary market. I knew John for forty years, and he was researching and experimenting in the ballistics field long before that. He was also expert in the Kennedy assassination and was the first civilian outside of the family to be allowed to study the autopsy and ballistic details re: JFK.

As a published author and recognized authority on the JFK assassination in the JFK research community, I am quite familiar with Dr. Lattimer. I don't know about his research on other cases, but his work on the JFK case was awful. He misrepresented his own ballistics tests and never stopped defending the absurd single-bullet theory. A few sources on his JFK-related research:

Mike Griffith
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 

Messages In This Thread
RE: Robert Arnold's Book The Conspiracy Between John Wilkes Booth and the Union Army - mikegriffith1 - 10-25-2018 07:48 PM

Forum Jump:

User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)