I certainly would not want to ask you to waste valuable time explaining what you find wrong with my comments and why they have no practical value, but I am lost as to exactly which comments you find so offensive. Therefore, I cannot offer any defense for my seeming ignorance.
I have no real objection to your response as these exchanges of viewpoints are what this forum is usually about unless I misunderstand; but I wish to make clear that I do NOT belittle the extensive efforts of research put forth by so many in this field, both far more dedicated and certainly more highly educated than myself. I am trying only to present an argument from the other side based on reason, logic, and life experience.
Can you honestly say that those of you who support the Earp side of these accounts are not biased as well? Do you not favour stories put forth by that faction when you have to recognize that they are not always 'gospel' in the true sense of the word? Are we never to question, to compare accounts and examine them against logic and reason?
A short example I might offer is in reference to the additional arguments below against my saying in my article that the hat found at the site of the attempted assassination did not establish that Ike Clanton or necessarily any of the cowboys or ranchers were the guilty parties.
You are a researcher and so you know that the hat found was determined in a courtroom to be of no importance. Ike's name was not in it, no one knew how long it had been there or anything else about it. It was just a lost hat.
So I simply presented logic based on life experience. I was a ranch wife over sixty years ago and knew a lot of hard-core cowboys who were not far removed from the time period we are talking about. There were unwritten rules of conduct among them; you never touch a man's horse and you never touch his hat. Both were personal and marks of respect. No cowboy would leave his hat behind even if it was risky to go back after it. This is my knowledge, not air-headed bias. You may be more experienced in the print on paper, but BOTH have their value, and put together, they present a much clearer understanding of what actually MIGHT be the case.
As always, your priority is to preserve the valor of the Boys and not to contribute to meaningful, objective conversation. This bias makes it impossible to take your comments seriously and is at time... more
We all know what Wyatt THOUGHT, but what is the actual evidence? Most of Wyatt's THOUGHTS didn't demonstrate any real support and usually the names he used to back himself up were people who w... more
Besides Wyatt's testimony, McMaster testified that he had a conversation with Ike in Charleston the night of the shooting in which he (Ike) said he'd "have to go back and do the job over". Also, Parso... more
Well, from my side of the coin, one can only imagine Ike's disappointment over the failed success of the attempt to finish off an Earp after his brother's killing. Not unusual to make such ... more
Joyce, We could go back and forth on this for days and never agree. I honestly believe that the McLaurys were ranchers, but I believe the Clantons, at least the "Old Man" and Ike, were as my mother wo... more
Hi there, Eddie
Thank you for the kind invitation. I would love to attend TTR next time but I have been afraid I'd be shot at some point so have stayed home and tried to keep my mouth shut. You hav... more
Have you read Roy Young's WWHA Journal article Who Killed Morgan Earp? or seen the WWHA YouTube video on the same topic? It is more than just" Wyatt's Thoughts". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiW... more
I have to admit I have not read the article or if I had it is so long ago I had forgotten the details. I will follow your suggestion and look it up as there is always more to examine on th... more
I did watch the video and enjoyed it very much. It was a very pleasant presentation, very reasonable.
However, it really doesn't answer the question as to who tried to assassinate Virgil, wh... more
If that hat had belonged to Ike Clanton, it would NOT have been left behind no matter what the consequences. I am not suggesting Ike was some sort of hero; just that he, like all cowboys, would not be... more
Ike was likely too busy skeedaddling from the crime scene to be worrying about his hat. I Figure he had at aleast a pint of See-it-Through in him before the ambush. What we know about Ike's actions at... more
Are you just bored or need someone to pick on?
You have to know by now that Ike had witnesses for the Virgil thing, one was McMasters, an Earp buddy. Ike was in Charleston at the time. During Morga... more
Well, as you've pointed out, the allegations against Ike were dismissed due to the lack of evidence. A found hat, Ike's or not, is evidence of only one thing: a lost hat.
But we can be fairly cert... more
...to a point. I don't know if you wish me 'good luck' in defending my viewpoint or if you are dismissing me because you've had enough of me. Who could blame you? Everyone knows I don't give up too ea... more
I never suggested any such idea, but why do you think the hat was Ike's? In a courtroom it was established no name was on the hat; no one knew how long it had been there, what type of hat it ... more
in Charleston when the attack on Virgil took place. One of the seven was later a friend of the Earps--McMasters.
If the hat had Ike's name on it why wasn't it offered as evidence in court so all c... more