Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

L Verge · 11-28-2018, 06:38 PM

(11-28-2018 04:38 PM)GustD45 Wrote: I just did a google search of Don Thomas and found nothing except a link to this thread and Amazon and Barnes & Noble links to buy the book. I just joined this list about a week or so ago and am jumping in to a fairly hot discussion I see. Ms Verge is, rightly so, jumping on this. I have not yet read anything that Mr. Thomas has written, but have seen a video on YouTube.

(11-06-2018 07:06 PM)L Verge Wrote: And, Mr. Griffith, once again you refuse to answer a question put to you.

As for me, I am who I am, and I do not have to convert to your way of thinking or gain your acceptance. I believe that I have the experience, the knowledge, and the background in working with scores of very knowledgeable people in our field to express myself logically. I sense frustration on your part in having to deal with me, but live with it...

Ms Verge I will say I agree he will have to live with it as you have been with the Surratt Society for so long and have worked with many luminaries in this field.

Thank you for the kind remarks. I have been addicted to the assassination story for 65+ years and never dreamed that I would turn my avocation into my vocation. So glad that I did, however, because I have met many wonderful and knowledgeable people, who have taught me so much more than what I learned in college and post-graduate work.

mikegriffith1 · 11-29-2018, 04:20 PM

(11-28-2018 04:38 PM)GustD45 Wrote: I just did a google search of Don Thomas and found nothing except a link to this thread and Amazon and Barnes & Noble links to buy the book. I just joined this list about a week or so ago and am jumping in to a fairly hot discussion I see. Ms Verge is, rightly so, jumping on this. I have not yet read anything that Mr. Thomas has written, but have seen a video on YouTube.

In reading through the replies in this thread to Thomas's first book, I see that they fail to address the vast majority of his arguments and documentation.

I am nearly finished with his first book. A good chunk of it is simply irrefutable. One might not like the facts he documents, but they are facts nonetheless.

Quote:Ms Verge I will say I agree he will have to live with it as you have been with the Surratt Society for so long and have worked with many luminaries in this field.

The "luminaries" in this field have been writing in an echo chamber for decades, oblivious to the mountain of facts that destroy the military tribunal's tale. This field is one of the worst echo chambers I've ever seen. There is no reasoned, critical peer review. As long as a book toes closely enough to the military commission's story, it is applauded and approved. If it does not, it is either ignored or summarily rejected with appeals to authority and with nit-picking that avoids dealing with most of the evidence the book presents.

The Pearl Harbor case used to be like the Lincoln assassination case still is. For about 30 years, all "mainstream" authors on the subject followed the story spun by the Joint Committee on the Investigation of the Pearl Harbor Attack (1945-1946) and its apologists. The committee's majority concluded that the local commanders in Hawaii, Admiral Kimmel and General Short, were almost entirely to blame, that they failed to make adequate preparations and to take adequate precautions, and that the Roosevelt administration did nothing seriously wrong in the months leading up to the assassination. For a good two or three decades, numerous books were churned out that heaped scorn and blame on Kimmel and Short and that exonerated FDR from all blame. The few books that challenged this position were scorned as "revisionist" and were deemed to be "outside the mainstream of Pearl Harbor scholarship."

But this began to change when a slew of admirals and other military experts, citing declassified files and other disclosures, began to challenge the standard view. These authorities were high-ranking and/or distinguished and credentialed enough that their arguments could not be brushed aside with appeals to authority and summary dismissals.

Nowadays, most Pearl Harbor scholars reject the attacks on Kimmel and Short and place a great deal of blame on the Roosevelt administration for withholding an enormous amount of intelligence from Kimmel and Short.

A similar event happened in the George Custer/Battle of the Little Big Horn (LBH) field. For many decades, the standard, dominant view was that Custer acted recklessly and irresponsibly and that Reno and Benteen (his two ranking subordinates) performed capably. For at least the last 30 years, this view has been thoroughly rejected by the vast majority of Custer/LBH scholars. In fact, the last several major and acclaimed books on the case all vindicate Custer and argue that Reno and Benteen shirked their duties and failed to support Custer the way they should and could have.

But the Lincoln assassination field is still a vast echo chamber, an echo chamber (1) that rejects any and all books that seriously challenge the official story, no matter how well documented and persuasive those books might be (and many of them are very good), and (2) that uncritically and automatically repeats even the silliest myths put forward by the military tribunal.

RJNorton · 11-29-2018, 04:36 PM

(11-29-2018 04:20 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote: I am nearly finished with his first book. A good chunk of it is simply irrefutable.

In his first book Don Thomas writes, "A clue to how Stanton recruited Booth is revealed in the hidden confession given by George Atzerodt." (from p. 73)

Mike, you seriously think it is irrefutable that Edwin Stanton recruited John Wilkes Booth?

Dr. William Hanchett's closing sentences in The Lincoln Murder Conspiracies are as follows: "Lincoln would not have enjoyed the extravagant and pseudoreligious praise being offered in his name by so many Americans. Possibly he would have been reminded of some anecdote by which to deflate the absurdities of such exaggerations. But one suspects that if he could learn of the slush written about the suggested involvement of his secretary of war in his own death he would simply become angry."

IMO, Dr. Hanchett nailed it.

AussieMick · (This post was last modified: 11-29-2018 06:30 PM by AussieMick.)

Mike, to state the blinding obvious ...

Its pointless writing a long screed about Pearl Harbour and Little Big Horn. Most (all ?) of us know the backgrounds and that they were events which involved mistakes by various people. The possibility of deliberate cover-ups is well-known. I'm glad you resisted the temptation to mention JFK. I'm sure we will never know all the pertinent facts about any of these events. Its quite possible that people told lies and omitted important facts. The main issues are generally accepted. Oswald killed JFK. Japan attacked Pearl Harbour without declaring war within a reasonable time. FDR was warned by reliable sources that an attack was very likely. Little Big Horn ? I know the background and have visited the site. There would have been many many people with various agendas commenting immediately after the battle. The person most accountable was Custer.

None of which (IMO) assists in a review or discussion of a book about 'The Reason Lincoln Had To Die'.

Warren · 11-30-2018, 02:51 PM

I had asked Mr. Griffith the question before, but I'd still like an answer to - 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?

GustD45 · 12-04-2018, 12:38 PM

(11-28-2018 06:38 PM)L Verge Wrote:
(11-28-2018 04:38 PM)GustD45 Wrote: I just did a google search of Don Thomas and found nothing except a link to this thread and Amazon and Barnes & Noble links to buy the book. I just joined this list about a week or so ago and am jumping in to a fairly hot discussion I see. Ms Verge is, rightly so, jumping on this. I have not yet read anything that Mr. Thomas has written, but have seen a video on YouTube.

(11-06-2018 07:06 PM)L Verge Wrote: And, Mr. Griffith, once again you refuse to answer a question put to you.

As for me, I am who I am, and I do not have to convert to your way of thinking or gain your acceptance. I believe that I have the experience, the knowledge, and the background in working with scores of very knowledgeable people in our field to express myself logically. I sense frustration on your part in having to deal with me, but live with it...

Ms Verge I will say I agree he will have to live with it as you have been with the Surratt Society for so long and have worked with many luminaries in this field.

Thank you for the kind remarks. I have been addicted to the assassination story for 65+ years and never dreamed that I would turn my avocation into my vocation. So glad that I did, however, because I have met many wonderful and knowledgeable people, who have taught me so much more than what I learned in college and post-graduate work.

The trigger to my addiction had to be when I first perused Roger's website which led me to purchase a book by Ed Steers jr titled "Blood on the Moon" and I noted his use of primary source materials. I can only imagine digging through the National Archives for all of that. I subsequently purchased books by Terry Alford, Kate C Larsen and even delved into Finis Bates' book which is as terrible as everyone says it is.

mikegriffith1 · (This post was last modified: 12-09-2018 12:22 PM by mikegriffith1.)

(11-29-2018 06:01 PM)AussieMick Wrote: Mike, to state the blinding obvious ...

Its pointless writing a long screed about Pearl Harbour and Little Big Horn. Most (all ?) of us know the backgrounds and that they were events which involved mistakes by various people. The possibility of deliberate cover-ups is well-known. I'm glad you resisted the temptation to mention JFK. I'm sure we will never know all the pertinent facts about any of these events. Its quite possible that people told lies and omitted important facts. The main issues are generally accepted. Oswald killed JFK. Japan attacked Pearl Harbour without declaring war within a reasonable time. FDR was warned by reliable sources that an attack was very likely. Little Big Horn ? I know the background and have visited the site. There would have been many many people with various agendas commenting immediately after the battle. The person most accountable was Custer.

Uh, actually, a majority of active JFK researchers doubt that Oswald shot Kennedy. I'm a published author on the JFK case and still maintain a heavily visited website on the case.

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. Did you just not believe my previous reply when I stated that the last several major Custer books have all exonerated him and placed the blame squarely on Reno and Benteen and that for decades now Custer scholarship has rejected the Grant-Reno Court of Inquiry version of the battle? Ok, go to Amazon, order the last several books written on the battle, and come back and tell me what you find.

Quote:None of which (IMO) assists in a review or discussion of a book about 'The Reason Lincoln Had To Die'.

Only if you make the erroneous assumptions that you have made about the cases I mentioned. You seem to have totally missed the point. Yes, NOW most Pearl Harbor scholars are willing to allow that FDR received warnings, etc., but for a long time that view was summarily dismissed by Pear Harbor scholars, as was the view that FDR withheld huge amounts of intel from Kimmel and Short. Those other research fields have outgrown their echo chamber phase, but the Lincoln assassination field has not--even though there are plenty of good scholars who reject the military commission's version.

Gene C · (This post was last modified: 12-09-2018 04:41 PM by Gene C.)

(12-09-2018 12:04 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote: Ok, go to Amazon, order the last several books written on the battle, and come back and tell me what you find.

the Lakota - Cheyenne coalition are the ones responsible for Custer's defeat, although Custer contributed.

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?

AussieMick · (This post was last modified: 12-09-2018 04:14 PM by AussieMick.)

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.

I know Wikipedia isnt always 100% correct but , according to you, it needs considerable correction regarding the battle. I guess many of those mainstream scholars that you mention would agree with your views on the JFK assassination.

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?

mikegriffith1 · (This post was last modified: 12-11-2018 08:50 PM by 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.

RJNorton · 12-12-2018, 05:06 AM

(12-11-2018 08:45 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote: Where in the world would Booth have had the time and equipment to do the kinds of alterations documented in the report?

In Right Or Wrong, God Judge Me: The Writings of John Wilkes Booth the editors deduce that Booth probably purchased the datebook from stationer James M. Crawford in January 1864 in St. Louis. That would have given Booth roughly 15 months to fiddle around with the diary's pages before the time he was on the run. Mostly I think he tore out pages to write notes on. Why do you assume all the changes were made in April 1865?

L Verge · 12-12-2018, 10:26 AM

(12-12-2018 05:06 AM)RJNorton Wrote:
(12-11-2018 08:45 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote: Where in the world would Booth have had the time and equipment to do the kinds of alterations documented in the report?

In Right Or Wrong, God Judge Me: The Writings of John Wilkes Booth the editors deduce that Booth probably purchased the datebook from stationer James M. Crawford in January 1864 in St. Louis. That would have given Booth roughly 15 months to fiddle around with the diary's pages before the time he was on the run. Mostly I think he tore out pages to write notes on. Why do you assume all the changes were made in April 1865?

Because the basis for most of his "dissertations" are based solely on assumptions??? Just like there is the St. James version of the Bible, it seems that there is a St. Griffith version of history.

Gene C · 12-12-2018, 10:31 AM

I love it Mike.
You have difficulty directly answering many questions regarding your statements on the Lincoln Assassination, so you misdirect the topic to Custer's Last Stand, and the JFK assassination with a few comments thrown in about Pearl Harbor.

When you do give an answer, it frequently includes a disclaimer such as this one about the missing pages in Booth's diary.
" 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.

Some of your posts remind me of this old saying
"The more you know,
the more you think the less you know,
because you know that you don't know.
The less you know,
the more you think the more you know,
because you don't know that you don't know.

mikegriffith1 · (This post was last modified: 12-12-2018 03:10 PM by mikegriffith1.)

(12-12-2018 05:06 AM)RJNorton Wrote:
(12-11-2018 08:45 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote: Where in the world would Booth have had the time and equipment to do the kinds of alterations documented in the report?

In Right Or Wrong, God Judge Me: The Writings of John Wilkes Booth the editors deduce that Booth probably purchased the datebook from stationer James M. Crawford in January 1864 in St. Louis. That would have given Booth roughly 15 months to fiddle around with the diary's pages before the time he was on the run. Mostly I think he tore out pages to write notes on. Why do you assume all the changes were made in April 1865?

Have you ever in your life known anyone who edited their diary like that? I'm not sure you understand the nature and degree of the editing under discussion. Do you understand that the diary was taken apart and then glued back together? Do you understand that one of the chunks of removed pages was cut from right after the spot where Booth talks about possibly going back to Washington to clear his name? Do you understand that some sections were moved to other sections? Why on earth would anyone do that to their own diary?

And for the person who expressed an interest in sources on Custer's Last Stand, I unbelievably failed to mention Gordon Harper's book Fights on the Little Horn: Unveiling the Myths of Custer's Last Stand (2014).

L Verge · (This post was last modified: 12-12-2018 03:55 PM by L Verge.)

(12-12-2018 03:09 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:
(12-12-2018 05:06 AM)RJNorton Wrote:
(12-11-2018 08:45 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote: Where in the world would Booth have had the time and equipment to do the kinds of alterations documented in the report?

In Right Or Wrong, God Judge Me: The Writings of John Wilkes Booth the editors deduce that Booth probably purchased the datebook from stationer James M. Crawford in January 1864 in St. Louis. That would have given Booth roughly 15 months to fiddle around with the diary's pages before the time he was on the run. Mostly I think he tore out pages to write notes on. Why do you assume all the changes were made in April 1865?

Have you ever in your life known anyone who edited their diary like that? I'm not sure you understand the nature and degree of the editing under discussion. Do you understand that the diary was taken apart and then glued back together? Do you understand that one of the chunks of removed pages was cut from right after the spot where Booth talks about possibly going back to Washington to clear his name? Do you understand that some sections were moved to other sections? Why on earth would anyone do that to their own diary?

And for the person who expressed an interest in sources on Custer's Last Stand, I unbelievably failed to mention Gordon Harper's book Fights on the Little Horn: Unveiling the Myths of Custer's Last Stand (2014).

I believe that you owe this audience documented details (preferably exact quotes) from reputable sources (i.e. FBI Report) that back up what you just said about the "diary!" First, begin by acknowledging that it never started out as a diary. It was an appointment book from 1864. It ended up serving as Booth's only way to vent his frustrations at not being hailed a hero - and it didn't take a lot of pages to do that. And, do you really think that Booth was stupid enough to list his "backers" in the plot and then keep that list to the brutal end? If nothing else, while he was hiding in the woods for awhile at Garrett's, he must have realized that the trap was closing on him. I would have deep-sixed any evidence at that point at least.

Also, stop trying to change the subject to Custer to avoid the heat...

And one more point - I can find no reference to Booth and Herold being in the Rollins home. They tried to negotiate passage with William Rollins, but nothing was solved and Rollins left to go tend his nets. There is no mention of Betty Rollins being around until the troops showed up at the door and questioned the couple about the fugitives. Back at the ferry landing, the three Confederates rode up, and Herold engaged them in conversation and would end up announcing that they were the assassins of Lincoln. As soon as James Thornton got back with the ferry, all five (and maybe Mason?) crossed over to Port Royal. Ironically, Mrs. Rollins would later tell the forces to look for Willie Jett at the home of his girlfriend -- the romantic Mr. Booth was done in by a love affair.