GDG- Killing Lincoln

[CWMHTours at aol.com]

Bruce-
 
Sir-
 
My point is not MINOR and probably accidental errors of fact  but when 
pretentious phony "history" writers deliberately fill their  works with utter 
falseshoods such as the "new" old chestnut that Lincoln and  Grant met in the 
Oval Office. 
 
To the annoyance of some people I keep referring to Swanson's  "Manhunt".  
His book is full of them.  One day out of aggravation I  took a pencil and 
started going through it page by page underlining  fabrications that he made 
up.  I got so annoyed that after about 20 pags I  threw the book at the wall 
and took out my hostility by petting my cat until he  also got annoyed.
 
My favorite "petty" thing about Swanson was when Booth and  Herold are at 
the Samuel Cox home waiting to be led by Thomas Jones to the pine  thicket.  
Swanson describes Jones as when he was confronted by the  Lincoln Assassins 
he "widened"  his eyes.
 
Is there some obscure hard-to-find reference online or  otherwise to the 
size of Jones's eyes when confronted by Booth and Herold?   I tend to think 
not.  If Jones was later being questioned by people did he  make a point of 
saying his eyes "widened"?
 
 
Now just how did Swanson know  that?   How did he not know that Jones did 
not squint or narrow his eyes when confronted  by them?  Or, perhaps his eyes 
did not change at all.  Is there a  record of what Jones's eyes did that 
night?  If so, let's see  it.
 
History is either TRUE-
 
Or a fiction.
 
"Just the facts, ma'am."  Sgt. Joe Friday.   "Dragnet"    
 
Your  Most Obedient Servant,
Peter  

 
In a message dated 1/14/2012 8:13:55 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
Batrinque at aol.com writes:

Esteemed  GDG Member Contributes:


In a message dated 1/14/2012 6:35:48 P.M.  Eastern Standard Time,  
CWMHTours at aol.com writes:

I   mean... It is either true or false.

Historical events are black  and  white.

Maybe the recording of them may be faulty but it is  either  in  the end 
black or white.  Fact is truth.   Fiction  is  false.


You mean a work of history can  contain no errors of fact?  If  so, then I 
have darned few books  of history on my shelves.

Of late I have been reading a number of books  dealing with the Amarna  
Period of Ancient Egypt and the books are  filled with speculation, best 
guesses, 
and reconstructions made from wisps  of straw and cobwebs -- and most of 
these  books are considered  pretty solid scholarly works of history.



Bruce   Trinque
Amston,  CT
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
  -to unsubscribe
http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for  Archives