Paul Morphy's Rating>2638

You say we don't see sustained masterpieces by Morphy.  That's certainly true but we don't see them by any master in the history of chess.  Sustained means continuing for a long period without interruption.  We have only seen occasional masterpieces by brilliant masters.

Before Morphy went to Europe he beat two masters in New Orleans, the first one at mere 11 years old Rousseau and the other one and much stronger was Loewenthal, beating Loewenthal was like beating a GM at 12. Before these masters there no one at master caliber in New Orleans. Maybe you can't fathom this; there is only one word for this accomplishment; Extraordinary! A feat that will never be duplicate again; and why? Here is boy without any chess training, no chess coach or good chess books and he beat one master and the other a GM level; you can't name one player that accomplish what this mere boy did.

Which I did.

Your grammar is muddled here. 

A stronger player claims that another player is strong. Weaker players disagree. Whose judgement do you trust more?

We don't need to turn to SteamGear to tell us the wisdom of anything, that's true.

Though, we don't need to turn to kindaspongey to tell us the wisdom of anything, either.

Then who else do you turn to?  Oh yeah.  Me.

lol

I don't think FIDE was giving out FM and GM titles back then.

What about the fathom-ability of GM Fine, GM Franco, GM Beim, GM Ward, GM Marin, GM Bo Hansen, GM McDonald, Garry Kasparov (with Dmitry Plisetsky), and GM Gormally?

Do we see much in the way of modern GM opinion in favor of believing Fischer's assessment instead of that of GM Fine, GM Franco, GM Beim, GM Ward, GM Marin, GM Bo Hansen, GM McDonald, Garry Kasparov (with Dmitry Plisetsky), and GM Gormally? Wonder why?

Hey, you're right!  But he said, "beating Loewenthal was like beating a GM..."

Is there some specific assertion by me that you wish to question?

"... The titanic struggles of the kind we see today [Morphy] could not produce because he lacked the opposition. ... Anderssen could attack brilliantly but had an inadequate understanding of its positional basis. ..." - GM Reuben Fine (emphasis added)

".. Anderssen could attack brilliantly but had an inadequate understanding of its positional basis. Morphy knew not only how to attack but also when - and that is why he won. ..." - GM Reuben Fine

Think Loewenthal was better than Anderssen in this respect? How many international tournaments had there been when Morphy played Loewenthal in New Orleans?

"... Those who surrounded the American ... seemed to think that they flattered me most when they said, how high an opinion the American had of my play, and that he considered me the strongest of all opponents he had met till now. But to be reckoned stronger than a Lowenthal I consider next door to nothing!" - comment attributed to Anderssen after his match with Morphy

https://www.chess.com/blog/batgirl/max-lange-on-morphyanderssen

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/max-lange-on-morphy-anderssen

"... [Lowenthal] will never, we fear, in any sustained struggle with a powerful and practised player, do more than snatch a stray game. He has not a particle of self-reliance. ..." - Staunton (~1860)

I give my opinion and explain it.  I'll give you the reasons I have that opinion.  One of the reasons will never be "GM So-and-so says..."  That's a weak argument.  And it's lazy.  It relieves you of having to defend your opinion.  But it creates a problem for you.  It turns out that GM What's-his-name disagrees with GM So-and-so.  Since GM What's-his-name achieved greater success and a higher rating than GM So-and-so, you lose the argument.  And you deserve to lose because you dropped a name instead of making an argument.  

Extended discussions of Morphy have been written in books by GM Franco, GM Beim, GM Ward, GM Marin, GM Bo Hansen, GM McDonald, Garry Kasparov (with Dmitry Plisetsky), and GM Gormally. Anyone see any of them express the view that we should accept Fischer's conclusion about Morphy?

Do we see much in the way of modern GM opinion in favor of believing Fischer's assessment instead of that of GM Fine, GM Franco, GM Beim, GM Ward, GM Marin, GM Bo Hansen, GM McDonald, Garry Kasparov (with Dmitry Plisetsky), and GM Gormally? Wonder why?

When Morphy first arrived in England, he played Thomas Barnes a series of 26 games.  Out of the first ten games, they each won 5. Out of the remaining 16 games Barnes won only 2.   It seems reasonable to conjecture that either Morphy recovered from his 11 day trans-Atlantic voyage, indicating his problem was never with Barnes himself, or that he almost completely solved his so called problems with Barnes fairy quickly.   

We all have to agree tho that Magnus is the best player who has ever played chess and go down from there. I tend to lean that Paul Morphy might be in the low 2700's-high 2600's

Exactly. Morphy didn't produce titanic struggles because nobody in the world was strong enough to make him struggle.

"He lacked the opposition" is a true statement, and it's why, unfortunately, Morphy grew so disdainful of chess and moved on to other things.

He traveled the world looking for someone to give him a good match, but everyone crumbled against him. And then Staunton avoided him, robbing the world (and Morphy) of possibly the only player to truly test the American.

So here was Morphy, a guy of immense natural talent—stuck in an era where he had no equal rival.

It's frustrating, and lonely, at the top.

This was part of Morphy's ability that I find many detractors fail to acknowledge. Morphy's occasional losses (or rare blunders) are often pointed to as evidence that he wasn't such a talented player—but Morphy was human, like the rest of us.

He succumbed to laziness, or illness, or miscalculation—just as all the greats have. Yet he always adapted quickly and improved as a result.

Invariably, any time he made a mistake that cost him a game—the next time that same position would arise in the match, Morphy would continue in a new, improved way.

He learned immediately--semingly without the necessity of review--improving in strength throughout his matches. The longer things went on, the less chance any of his opponents seemed to have.

Here is one of the games that Morphy lost:

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1266586