Unwanted Facts, blah, blah, blah

[L Verge]

Since the computer informed me that the original title to this thread was too long (imagine that!) and I could not post the following there, I have taken the liberty of shortening the title. Hopefully Roger can merge the two threads into one.

Mr. Griffith - Once again, please cite your sources (primary ones preferred) for many of these off-the-wall statements that you make. I am especially interested in reading the exact information on the mysterious letter found floating in a harbor or the similar paper that survived in a saloon fireplace. Most of your other statements don't even deserve a response, imo.

[mikegriffith1]

(11-28-2018 11:05 AM)L Verge Wrote:  Since the computer informed me that the original title to this thread was too long (imagine that!) and I could not post the following there, I have taken the liberty of shortening the title. Hopefully Roger can merge the two threads into one.

Mr. Griffith - Once again, please cite your sources (primary ones preferred) for many of these off-the-wall statements that you make. I am especially interested in reading the exact information on the mysterious letter found floating in a harbor or the similar paper that survived in a saloon fireplace. Most of your other statements don't even deserve a response, imo.

With as many times as I have caught you in rather egregious errors and mischaracterizations, I am getting to the point where I rarely bother to respond to your replies, as you might have noticed, although I still try to read them.

By the way, you have almost never cited primary sources the few times you have even bothered to cite sources. Usually your replies consist of a bunch of dismissive rhetoric mixed with appeals to authority.

Just a few days ago, in the thread on Vaughan Shelton's book Mask for Treason, you emphatically announced that the documentation on the field glasses was ironclad, and you cited a few sources to back up your claim. But, once again, as with several other issues, when I checked your sources and did more reading on the issue, I discovered that your representation of the state of the evidence was erroneous, simply erroneous, and that you had failed to mention the enormous problems with the evidence on the field glasses (possibly because you were simply not aware of them).

The sources on the field glasses, far from being ironclad and straightforward, are riddled with contradictions and problematic statements, not to mention the fact that the guy to whom Mary Surratt allegedly gave the field glasses pointedly refused to identify them as the ones he saw when he was shown what were alleged to be Booth's field glasses in the John Surratt trial, and he noted distinct differences between the ones he saw and the ones entered into evidence at the trial.

[Gene C]

I thought you didn't believe Mary gave the field glassed to Lloyd?
Here you are discussing his testimony, not about whether or not she gave Lloyd the field glasses, but about him identifying the ones presented to him by the court not being the same ones she gave him.

Not sure what this has to do with the sources regarding the letter found floating in the harbor or the paper that survived in the saloon fireplace (mentioned above),
other than you are trying to change the subject.

[GustD45]

(12-06-2018 04:12 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  

(11-28-2018 11:05 AM)L Verge Wrote:  Since the computer informed me that the original title to this thread was too long (imagine that!) and I could not post the following there, I have taken the liberty of shortening the title. Hopefully Roger can merge the two threads into one.

Mr. Griffith - Once again, please cite your sources (primary ones preferred) for many of these off-the-wall statements that you make. I am especially interested in reading the exact information on the mysterious letter found floating in a harbor or the similar paper that survived in a saloon fireplace. Most of your other statements don't even deserve a response, imo.

With as many times as I have caught you in rather egregious errors and mischaracterizations, I am getting to the point where I rarely bother to respond to your replies, as you might have noticed, although I still try to read them.

By the way, you have almost never cited primary sources the few times you have even bothered to cite sources. Usually your replies consist of a bunch of dismissive rhetoric mixed with appeals to authority.

Just a few days ago, in the thread on Vaughan Shelton's book Mask for Treason, you emphatically announced that the documentation on the field glasses was ironclad, and you cited a few sources to back up your claim. But, once again, as with several other issues, when I checked your sources and did more reading on the issue, I discovered that your representation of the state of the evidence was erroneous, simply erroneous, and that you had failed to mention the enormous problems with the evidence on the field glasses (possibly because you were simply not aware of them).

The sources on the field glasses, far from being ironclad and straightforward, are riddled with contradictions and problematic statements, not to mention the fact that the guy to whom Mary Surratt allegedly gave the field glasses pointedly refused to identify them as the ones he saw when he was shown what were alleged to be Booth's field glasses in the John Surratt trial, and he noted distinct differences between the ones he saw and the ones entered into evidence at the trial.

Firstly in defense of the lady you should not cast aspersions upon her intelligence or abilities. Laurie is much more knowledgeable and, as stated in other posts, is quite sick of your line of argument.

As to your argument you are attaching much importance to the field glasses. The Military Commission did not have the field glasses so Mr. Lloyd did not have to identify them. Two years later at Surratt's trial Lloyd did not feel he could accurately identify the field glasses, but the prosecution pressed the issue. Once again I believe you are reading too much into something that isn't there.

[RJNorton]

(12-07-2018 12:31 PM)GustD45 Wrote:  Firstly in defense of the lady you should not cast aspersions upon her intelligence or abilities. Laurie is much more knowledgeable

You nailed it, Gust. All one has to do is look at the enormous number of Lincoln assassination books with Laurie's name in the "Acknowledgments," and one can then easily discern the enormous respect there is for her knowledge on the topic.

[L Verge]

Thank you both for those unsolicited words of kindness. I have had a wonderful team of mentors and friends over the years who have really earned me those accolades.

To add some fuel to the fire regarding depending on Eisenschiml's "contributions" to the study of the Lincoln assassination, I would like to quote several passages that I ran across today while looking for something else. In a 1990 issue of the Surratt Courier, we carried excerpts from an article entitled "The Historian vs. Gamesman" which ran in Civil War History, Vol. XXXVI, No. 1, published by Kent State University.

...Eisenschiml craved wealth, recognition, acceptance. But because he was both brighter and more self-assertive than other people, he craved something else. He explained it in his autobiography, indeed in the book's title. As a youth and as a chemist, the periods of his life with which the work principally concerned, he was "Without Fame." Eisenschiml longed obsessively for fame.

Why Was Lincoln Murdered? made him famous, but its dismissal by most historians as an advocate's brief, rather than a judicious effort to discover truth, infuriated him, and he retaliated by denouncing the historical profession. Like professional chemists, historians lacked imagination and curiosity...

Historians rejected the Eisenschiml thesis because it was unreasonable and wrong. Eisenschiml freely admitted that there was no evidence of the kind admissible in court to establish a relationship between Stanton and the assassination conspiracy, thus protecting his incessant pretensions of scientific objectivity. But by implication and innuendo and by the raising and phrasing of questions ... he insinuated throughout his book that such a relationship had existed. When reviewers observed that that was what he had done, he became indignant...

...Eisenschiml thrived on controversy and cultivated the role of outsider, of maverick, of non-conformist, for it was one sure way to prove that he was what he most admired - an original...

...Yet, the Eisenschiml thesis was a deliberate falsification of the American past. It dishonored the reputation of a great secretary of war and true friend of Lincoln and distorted the nature of political controversy in the wartime North. In short, it misrepresented the history of the country's most traumatic incident, Lincoln's murder, and of its most profound experience, the Civil War. Further, it helped condition Americans to assume the existence of sinister conspiracies behind other events, past and present, great and small, and thus encouraged irrationality and the simplistic search for villains upon whom to blame all difficulties...

I urge readers here to pay special attention to the last paragraph and to understand the lasting effects that speculative and spurious historical writing can have on history.

[Gene C]

Thanks Laurie, I'm going to print that off and place it in my Eisenschiml book.

[JMadonna]

(12-07-2018 12:31 PM)GustD45 Wrote:  

(12-06-2018 04:12 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  

(11-28-2018 11:05 AM)L Verge Wrote:  Since the computer informed me that the original title to this thread was too long (imagine that!) and I could not post the following there, I have taken the liberty of shortening the title. Hopefully Roger can merge the two threads into one.

Mr. Griffith - Once again, please cite your sources (primary ones preferred) for many of these off-the-wall statements that you make. I am especially interested in reading the exact information on the mysterious letter found floating in a harbor or the similar paper that survived in a saloon fireplace. Most of your other statements don't even deserve a response, imo.

With as many times as I have caught you in rather egregious errors and mischaracterizations, I am getting to the point where I rarely bother to respond to your replies, as you might have noticed, although I still try to read them.

By the way, you have almost never cited primary sources the few times you have even bothered to cite sources. Usually your replies consist of a bunch of dismissive rhetoric mixed with appeals to authority.

Just a few days ago, in the thread on Vaughan Shelton's book Mask for Treason, you emphatically announced that the documentation on the field glasses was ironclad, and you cited a few sources to back up your claim. But, once again, as with several other issues, when I checked your sources and did more reading on the issue, I discovered that your representation of the state of the evidence was erroneous, simply erroneous, and that you had failed to mention the enormous problems with the evidence on the field glasses (possibly because you were simply not aware of them).

The sources on the field glasses, far from being ironclad and straightforward, are riddled with contradictions and problematic statements, not to mention the fact that the guy to whom Mary Surratt allegedly gave the field glasses pointedly refused to identify them as the ones he saw when he was shown what were alleged to be Booth's field glasses in the John Surratt trial, and he noted distinct differences between the ones he saw and the ones entered into evidence at the trial.

Firstly in defense of the lady you should not cast aspersions upon her intelligence or abilities. Laurie is much more knowledgeable and, as stated in other posts, is quite sick of your line of argument.

As to your argument you are attaching much importance to the field glasses. The Military Commission did not have the field glasses so Mr. Lloyd did not have to identify them. Two years later at Surratt's trial Lloyd did not feel he could accurately identify the field glasses, but the prosecution pressed the issue. Once again I believe you are reading too much into something that isn't there.

This entire discussion on field glasses is superfluous. They were just a ruse to get Mary Surratt to scout the road for soldiers on the way to the tavern. (Which she did)

[Steve]

Here's a link to the "The Historian as Gamesman" article mentioned above by Laurie:

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/420534/summary

Although, I'm confused as to how one would actually be able to download or read the article.

[L Verge]

(12-07-2018 05:48 PM)JMadonna Wrote:  

(12-07-2018 12:31 PM)GustD45 Wrote:  

(12-06-2018 04:12 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  

(11-28-2018 11:05 AM)L Verge Wrote:  Since the computer informed me that the original title to this thread was too long (imagine that!) and I could not post the following there, I have taken the liberty of shortening the title. Hopefully Roger can merge the two threads into one.

Mr. Griffith - Once again, please cite your sources (primary ones preferred) for many of these off-the-wall statements that you make. I am especially interested in reading the exact information on the mysterious letter found floating in a harbor or the similar paper that survived in a saloon fireplace. Most of your other statements don't even deserve a response, imo.

With as many times as I have caught you in rather egregious errors and mischaracterizations, I am getting to the point where I rarely bother to respond to your replies, as you might have noticed, although I still try to read them.

By the way, you have almost never cited primary sources the few times you have even bothered to cite sources. Usually your replies consist of a bunch of dismissive rhetoric mixed with appeals to authority.

Just a few days ago, in the thread on Vaughan Shelton's book Mask for Treason, you emphatically announced that the documentation on the field glasses was ironclad, and you cited a few sources to back up your claim. But, once again, as with several other issues, when I checked your sources and did more reading on the issue, I discovered that your representation of the state of the evidence was erroneous, simply erroneous, and that you had failed to mention the enormous problems with the evidence on the field glasses (possibly because you were simply not aware of them).

The sources on the field glasses, far from being ironclad and straightforward, are riddled with contradictions and problematic statements, not to mention the fact that the guy to whom Mary Surratt allegedly gave the field glasses pointedly refused to identify them as the ones he saw when he was shown what were alleged to be Booth's field glasses in the John Surratt trial, and he noted distinct differences between the ones he saw and the ones entered into evidence at the trial.

Firstly in defense of the lady you should not cast aspersions upon her intelligence or abilities. Laurie is much more knowledgeable and, as stated in other posts, is quite sick of your line of argument.

As to your argument you are attaching much importance to the field glasses. The Military Commission did not have the field glasses so Mr. Lloyd did not have to identify them. Two years later at Surratt's trial Lloyd did not feel he could accurately identify the field glasses, but the prosecution pressed the issue. Once again I believe you are reading too much into something that isn't there.

This entire discussion on field glasses is superfluous. They were just a ruse to get Mary Surratt to scout the road for soldiers on the way to the tavern. (Which she did)

Don't be shocked, Jerry, but I actually agree with you that the subject of the field glasses is superfluous, especially here and now. However, I do think that Booth felt that he had a need for them in order to watch his back during his escape into the wilds of Southern Maryland and the Northern Neck of Virginia -- just like we often see portrayals of Lee, Jackson, and others astride their horses with field glasses up to their eyes to monitor the situation. If Booth could have picked up a drone in Surrattsville, he would have been delighted.

[Gene C]

The field glasses are now stored in a secret underground facility at Fort AP Hill. Removed for safekeeping in the late 1960's after they were they were found in a box, carefully packed and wrapped in paper torn out from an old civil war era journal, buried at the former site of the Garrett Farm when HWY 301 was expanded to a four lane road.

What's my source? I'm glad you asked.
Just the other night, with a small group of friends, who wish to remain anonymous, we got out an old deck of cards and started to play Old Maid. For some unexplained reason, as the cards were dealt, we somehow channeled the spirit of a of an old medicine woman who lived over a 100 years ago. She started to give some love advice to the lady sitting next to me, and was warning her about some guy named John with a broken leg. She told us where we could find this box buried that would tell her all about his philandering ways, going as far to say he was dating some important politicians daughter and was using her for her social connections. She even mentions the death card. It was uncanny. When we finished our card game, we did a quick internet search, and I believe we have uncovered who was communicating with us. She now seems to be the contact for a present day spiritualist who has a video on you tube, who was giving almost the exact same advice that she gave to my friend sitting next to me. See for yourself - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INiiQsN0T_U

Read all about it, and more. It's all in my upcoming book titled, The Mask of Reason"

[L Verge]

Love the title of your book!

Your story reminds me of a legend that Roger can elaborate on. It's about the missing pages of the diary being buried in a crock somewhere on Mrs. Quesenberry's farm on the banks of the Potomac???

[RJNorton]

(12-08-2018 10:54 AM)L Verge Wrote:  Love the title of your book!

Your story reminds me of a legend that Roger can elaborate on. It's about the missing pages of the diary being buried in a crock somewhere on Mrs. Quesenberry's farm on the banks of the Potomac???

Laurie, I am not sure if this is what you are referring to or not. I received the following "information" in an unsigned email back in 2009.

*************************************


"I know what happened to Lincoln.

He wasn't shot.

He was stabbed through the right eye by a dagger.

Those who stood in the shadows of Booth were the Vatican.

I know where this dagger is hid.

He (Booth) gave it to Elizabeth Quesenberry.

The dagger ended up in Ohio.

It is buried beside a house 6 ft down in a clay pot.

The dagger has 3 Jewels. A red one at the end of the handle and 2 blue ones off the grips extensions."

[L Verge]

(12-08-2018 01:45 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(12-08-2018 10:54 AM)L Verge Wrote:  Love the title of your book!

Your story reminds me of a legend that Roger can elaborate on. It's about the missing pages of the diary being buried in a crock somewhere on Mrs. Quesenberry's farm on the banks of the Potomac???

Laurie, I am not sure if this is what you are referring to or not. I received the following "information" in an unsigned email back in 2009.



*************************************


"I know what happened to Lincoln.

He wasn't shot.

He was stabbed through the right eye by a dagger.

Those who stood in the shadows of Booth were the Vatican.

I know where this dagger is hid.

He (Booth) gave it to Elizabeth Quesenberry.

The dagger ended up in Ohio.

It is buried beside a house 6 ft down in a clay pot.

The dagger has 3 Jewels. A red one at the end of the handle and 2 blue ones off the grips extensions."

That is exactly what I was thinking of, but definitely got the story wrong. Thanks for straightening out the details -- interesting, yet weird tho' they may be.

[GustD45]

(12-07-2018 05:48 PM)JMadonna Wrote:  

(12-07-2018 12:31 PM)GustD45 Wrote:  

(12-06-2018 04:12 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  

(11-28-2018 11:05 AM)L Verge Wrote:  Since the computer informed me that the original title to this thread was too long (imagine that!) and I could not post the following there, I have taken the liberty of shortening the title. Hopefully Roger can merge the two threads into one.

Mr. Griffith - Once again, please cite your sources (primary ones preferred) for many of these off-the-wall statements that you make. I am especially interested in reading the exact information on the mysterious letter found floating in a harbor or the similar paper that survived in a saloon fireplace. Most of your other statements don't even deserve a response, imo.

With as many times as I have caught you in rather egregious errors and mischaracterizations, I am getting to the point where I rarely bother to respond to your replies, as you might have noticed, although I still try to read them.

By the way, you have almost never cited primary sources the few times you have even bothered to cite sources. Usually your replies consist of a bunch of dismissive rhetoric mixed with appeals to authority.

Just a few days ago, in the thread on Vaughan Shelton's book Mask for Treason, you emphatically announced that the documentation on the field glasses was ironclad, and you cited a few sources to back up your claim. But, once again, as with several other issues, when I checked your sources and did more reading on the issue, I discovered that your representation of the state of the evidence was erroneous, simply erroneous, and that you had failed to mention the enormous problems with the evidence on the field glasses (possibly because you were simply not aware of them).

The sources on the field glasses, far from being ironclad and straightforward, are riddled with contradictions and problematic statements, not to mention the fact that the guy to whom Mary Surratt allegedly gave the field glasses pointedly refused to identify them as the ones he saw when he was shown what were alleged to be Booth's field glasses in the John Surratt trial, and he noted distinct differences between the ones he saw and the ones entered into evidence at the trial.

Firstly in defense of the lady you should not cast aspersions upon her intelligence or abilities. Laurie is much more knowledgeable and, as stated in other posts, is quite sick of your line of argument.

As to your argument you are attaching much importance to the field glasses. The Military Commission did not have the field glasses so Mr. Lloyd did not have to identify them. Two years later at Surratt's trial Lloyd did not feel he could accurately identify the field glasses, but the prosecution pressed the issue. Once again I believe you are reading too much into something that isn't there.

This entire discussion on field glasses is superfluous. They were just a ruse to get Mary Surratt to scout the road for soldiers on the way to the tavern. (Which she did)

I must agree with you sir. Superfluous.