I was ambushed by a Dogma Patrol

dunhamfixI’ve been studying spooks for thirty years, but never got around to the Civil War variety until late in life. After I viewed a Robert Redford film called The Conspirator on Netflix, I became a fanatic Lincoln assassination researcher for many months because that movie shredded the official story and made it clear Mary Surratt was railroaded by a kangaroo court in a failed attempt to close the assassination files forever.

It quickly became obvious the pro-war cabal of the Republican Party (as well as a mysterious unknown entity in New York City working with some double agents), fomented the evil deed and Booth merely a pawn in their game. This case is the most investigated murder in history, and most of the primary documents are available free online. The problem is not there is not enough evidence, but there’s too much evidence. And the haystack has been seeded with fake needles.

The Lincoln-Assassination Forum is a wonderful repository of information and includes a wealth of links and insightful commentary. However, I did notice a strong disposition against the inside job theories, so I knew my book was not likely to please those guarding the inner sanctum, but when I saw my book blurb appear and receive jabs from the dogma patrol, I registered and introduced myself, knowing I’d be crossing an open field under fire.

Here’s the problem with the dogma patrol: when those who hold the view of an inside job are immediately ganged up against, abused, ridiculed and treated worse than idiots….just for holding that view…..you’re not creating a healthy environment for real research. Those are the weapons of propagandists, not the legitimate tools of honest researchers.

The Lincoln case is not difficult to crack, and many books will appear soon enough to express my views. The JFK case was far more difficult and took thirty years, but that case is now fully cracked as well. And both were inside jobs, which only makes sense, and the proof is the way they’re so heavily guarded by a priesthood of insiders who refuse to allow a fair hearing of evidence. Anyone who supports an inside job will simply not be welcome at their websites, no matter what evidence they marshal. On the other hand, honest researchers just let the chips fall.

I had a fun time during the few days I was on the forum defending my reputation, while enduring all sorts of hippie bigotry. When asked why I hadn’t arrived earlier for guidance before publishing, I replied my evidence had been posted on my blog for months before the book came out. Of course, that just provoked another attack on the idea of anything worthwhile ever appearing on a blog, as if the perjured testimony from the official trial is more valid.
The trial only tells you what not to believe, and the most important evidence is anything the War Department tried to destroy that slipped through and survived. Unfortunately, Robert Todd Lincoln seems to have played clean-up patrol, and may have even incarcerated his mother after she realized who killed her husband and wouldn’t stop talking about it.
Wake up. Let freedom ring and justice prevail. No matter where the chips may fall.

If you want to chortle over my encounters with the dogma patrol, you can find the thread here:

21 Replies to “I was ambushed by a Dogma Patrol”

  1. Glad you enjoyed your time on the forum, I enjoyed coresponding with you. Sorry you feel the victim, but I’m not surprised. You couldn’t clearly and specifically answer questions, especially regarding your sources (you were to vague) You didn’t pay attention to prior posts (mine in particular where I stated I agreed with you about a certain writer and that I was being sarcastic about him), but in the very next post you just complain about me suggesting you review his research papers. You did that twice. Mine wasn’t the only one. You want to be the poor victim. You complained about a comment made about crack pots, but here on your own blog you mentioned making your own crackpot video. Which reminds me, Do you have a “credible and reliable” source for your following statementt you just made “Unfortunately, Robert Todd Lincoln seems to have played clean-up patrol, and may have even incarcerated his mother after she realized who killed her husband and wouldn’t stop talking about it”. I don”t claim to be a “professional journalist”, but you do, so if you want to be taken seriously by people who appreciate history, you’re going to have to do a more professional job. We expect that.,

    1. There you go Gene, attacking some detail of me spouting off the top of my head. Are you saying you are unaware of the allegations of Robert confessing to burning papers involving a member of his father’s cabinet? It is certainly remarkable detail that Robert rose to head the War Department and got control of the secret files. Was his mother institutionalized by him because she refused to give up solving the crime and began to muster evidence against Stanton, who had worked for years to ingratiate himself with Robert, having his son play with him? These are not issues I really want to run around and look up right now as I have two more books to publish, but if you google the essential names, the documentation will appear I am sure.

      1. I’m aware, I read Jason Emerson’s very good book about Robert Lincoln. But you didn’t answer my question. What is your reliable source? If you’re just goiing to spout off, don’t expect people to take your seriously and become dissapointed because they don’t. When you are serious, they might not believe you.. By the way she was institutionalized because she was unable to properly take care of herself, especially in financial matters. Regarding burning papers, I believe that’s addressed in the same book. I can try to find page numbers and his refertences if you like, right now I don’t have the book handy.
        But then I’d be doing your resource for you, so you can look it up youself.

        1. I seem to recall the initial report on this came from the President of the University of Columbia 14 years or so after the fact. Gene, I am aware you have the official record and its manufactured “facts.” But my thesis is built on stone, yours on sand. The tidal wave will break for the anniversary and the hoodwink finally exposed, if not by me by someone else. I just stumbled into this thanks to Redford opening this door, and I give him full credit for inspiring me to look into this.

        2. One more thing…sorry, but I don’t know you well enough yet to tell when your spouting and when your serious, So I make the mistaken assumption that your serious. So if your Lincoln book is suppose to be serious, expect a serious review (and comments) of your statements

          1. What initial report? Your source, and please be specific. Your making the claim, not me. Back it up with your source. I at least gave you a respected historian and authors book titled – Giant In the Shadows .
            Sorry if you don’t like it,and this “massive conspiracy coverup” is getting to be a bit of a tiresome excuse.

          2. Meanwhile, I have two Stanton heirs, one in NY one in Arizona who believe my thesis, and one says Stanton’s involvement was known inside the family. If his own family believes he was involved, why do you cling so hard to the illusion he wasn’t?

  2. This is my blog, and not your interrogation room. I will debate quotes from my book provided you actually buy one. And further attempts to bait me, will only succeed in you being banished from this universe forever. I have around a hundred blogs on this subject and if you want to argue over details, leave your evidence wherever you please. The nice thing about this is eventually the shit stinks and the real research rises to the top….still time to abandon the sinking ship…..

    1. Spouting or serious?????
      Didn’t mean to offend, just asking an honest question. I’ve read a little about Mary Lincoln, she is an interesting historic figure. Just wanted another source of where I could learn a little more about her.

      1. If I say something in discussion like this, be assured it’s off the top of my head, as opposed to what is printed in my book. And I don’t believe a word of anything you have ever said to me, but there it is…..

        1. Sorry you feel that way, but its best to get it out there. Hopefully our conversations have been interestng to yourr blog readers. I know its been interesting and enjoyable to me. However, like you said it is your blog. Would youl like for me to go away?

          1. Not necessarily, although I would like to have your bio, CV and credentials on the table as my life is an open book and I know nothing about you.

          2. I’m flattered. What I might write about myself might prejuce you or cause you to think oh, he’s one of those, because I am. I am about your age, enjoy history, just a wonderful person to me around and I’m mosest..

  3. I must insist you stop playing games and reveal your credentials and background. I cannot understand why anyone would devote so much energy to debunking Stanton’s involvement in the plot when his own family members admit it. What is your dog in this fight anyway? If Atzerodt’s real confession had been available to the Congressional Committee or to the first researcher who got to see the files in 1938, this case would have been easily cracked back then. Until you tell us who you really are, please stop posting here, and if you want to do it confidentially, just email me the info.

    1. Thank you for the interest Steven, but I’m really quite ordinary, You’d be dissapointed to know more, besides you have already stated above you don’t believe a word of anything I’ve ever said to you.
      There is quite a bit of difference between famlly members and descendents of a person who lived 150 years ago.
      You keep changing the subject. Back to my original question and your quote. Do you have a specific reference or source for your comment about Mrs Lincoln? She is such an interesting person, I’ve enjoyed learnig a little about her. By your responses, I can only conclude you don’t have one. If you don’ have one, that’s OK, if you were spouting off or your playing games. I am new to your blog, and still can’t tell when to take you seriously or when your just “spouting off.”

      1. Ok, let’s just end it here if you won’t reveal yourself and even the playing field, and I’m not about to engage in useless debates over a passing comment on a blog. Robert had his mother committed. What the true reason is we do not know, but we can speculate. No need to get all bent out of shape over my speculations, and someday maybe you’ll take the blinders off and start considering the possibility of an inside job, not just for this case, but for JFK and 9/11 as well. Meanwhile, without a CV or true identity, I really wish no more further contact or questions on my blog and will remove your entire presence should you continue to bait me. In the words of Roger Norton, Good bye and good luck.
        and have a happy holiday season

          1. I meant a “Merry Christmas” too!
            I told you I’m a bad speller – you can believe that .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.