[Ravensfort] Fwd: [Ansteorra] Historical Interpretation (and an out of period aside for an example)

[L T]

FYI...thought ya'll might be interested in this 

L

--- Marc Carlson <marccarlson20 at hotmail.com> wrote:

> From: "Marc Carlson" <marccarlson20 at hotmail.com>
> To: ansteorra at ansteorra.org
> Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 11:46:49 -0500
> Subject: [Ansteorra] Historical Interpretation (and an out of period aside
> 	for an example)
> 
> After one of my responses to this list last week, it was suggested to me 
> that I might want to explain where I’m coming from conceptually on things, 
> since honestly, in my stridence I *was* seeming a smidgen dogmatic (not to 
> mention far more condescending than was called for, for which I apologize).
> 
> In history we have facts, assumptions, evidence, interpretation, 
> speculation, and made up stuff.
> 
> Facts are items of inviolable reality.  There are *very few* of these, and 
> really there is a great philosophical debate about whether there are any, or 
> if we can ever really know them.  For the sake of argument, though, I’m 
> inclined to say that that they do exist, and that trying to find out what 
> they are is really the point of history.
> 
> Assumptions are things we hold to be true.  Because of this, the line 
> between facts and assumptions is really obscure, and may not actually exist. 
>    Many people confuse assumptions for facts.  For example, I maintain that 
> the scientific method of gathering data, constructing and testing 
> hypotheses, etc is a valid historical research tool.  So it Occams’s Razor, 
> which in brief suggests that the least complex is most likely to be the 
> correct one.  To me these are as certain as any fact.   But they are just 
> assumptions.
> 
> Sometimes it’s fun to step back, change your assumptions and hit a problem 
> from a different angle (note – if you try this, you may find it a good idea 
> to keep track of where you parked your original assumptions for later).
> 
> Evidence is that pile of data bits, the puzzle pieces of history – many of 
> which are missing.
> 
> Interpretation is what we do when we filter the evidence through our 
> assumptions.
> 
> Speculation is an attempt to fill in the gaps in the evidence with our 
> assumptions.  Note that sometimes what appears to be a gap in the evidence 
> is actually an artifact of your assumptions.
> 
> Then there’s made up stuff.
> 
> Let me give you an example (an out of period example, since a) most I think 
> people will already have had some exposure to the evidence, and b) it 
> removes it from the earlier conversation so I can’t be accused of being even 
> meaner) :  Evidence suggests that on 22 November 1963, then President 
> Kennedy was shot in Dallas.  Certainly it’s generally accepted that it 
> happened, even among the conspiracy theorists, although it’s possible that 
> it might have been an imposter, an alien hologram, mass hallucination, or 
> whatnot.  –Probably- this is a fact, it’s definitely an assumption.
> 
> Around this event, we have numerous assumptions:  he was killed; he wasn’t 
> killed; the film evidence is accurate; the film evidence can’t be accurate; 
> Oswald acted alone; Oswald couldn’t have done it; the government is the 
> enemy; the only way two people can keep a secret is if one of them’s dead, 
> etc
.
> 
> The evidence includes the number of shots people heard, the angle that they 
> appeared to be coming from, various people in the crowd, the timing of the 
> events in the various films – as historical events go, this is one of the 
> most completely documented events ever.  There is possibly *too much* 
> evidence, and too many assumptions to ever actually know what was going on 
> around the events in Zapruder frames 312-313.
> 
> So we take the evidence and filter it through our assumptions to come up 
> with the lone gunman theory, the government cover-up theory, the multiple 
> shooter theories, the “oops” theory, and so on.
> 
> Speculation is when we step outside the actual evidence and try to piece it 
> together, and have to fill in some gaps.  All of the JFK theories have some 
> speculation in them – some more than others.  For instance, the gunman on 
> the grassy knoll is speculation to explain what people heard.  Something 
> being speculation doesn’t automatically mean that it didn’t happen that way, 
> it just means that this puzzle piece is an illusion.
> 
> Closely related to speculation is “made up stuff” (one could argue that they 
> are just the light and dark sides of the same thing).  Speculation, however, 
> to be valid, has to stay within the restrictions imposed by the evidence.  
> Made up stuff ignores those restrictions, and often tried to force the 
> evidence to do kinky and inappropriate things.
> 
> For instance, the gunman on the grassy knoll is speculation, based on the 
> sound of a rifle shot coming from that area, and the assumption that the 
> “ear witnesses” who heard that shot weren’t mistaken or confused.  Whether I 
> agree with it or not, it’s valid speculation.
> 
> Postulating that there were other gunmen on the overpass, or in storm drains 
> is made up stuff since there’s *no* evidence to support their existence.  
> Other suggestions, like aliens, time travelers, a spontaneously generated 
> quantum black hole at just the wrong time and place
  All of these postulate 
> things that have no evidence, and moreover can not leave recognizable 
> evidence – but in order to accept them you frequently have to discount some 
> of the actual evidence.  (n.b.: An assumption you can make is that any time 
> someone says “oh, the government destroyed that” or “I have secret documents 
> that no one has ever heard or otherwise can’t be verified” they may be 
> pushing a “made up stuff” agenda).
> 
> >From that, you might assume that I’m inclined to accept the Lone gunman 
> theory, and you’d be right.  I don’t *believe* it, but I accept it as a 
> working hypothesis (among other things, I don’t love the needed angle for 
> the head shot, but without jumping way out into speculation, it is the least 
> complex possibility).  For aesthetic reasons, I actually prefer the “oops” 
> theory, since it actually answers most of the extraneous evidence, but I’m 
> not going to tell you that I believe that’s how it happened either 
> (”Oops”.theory, short form: taking only the evidence we actually have 
> available, and minimizing speculation, there was a weapon in Dealy plaza 
> that could have fired the shot, and that’s the AR-15 carried by the secret 
> service agent in the second car.  A tumbling AR-15 round in a head shot 
> could have easily done what we see in the film.  Events.  The first shot is 
> fired and hits JFK, and the car speeds up – like it’s supposed to.  The car 
> behind him also speeds up, and the secret service agent with the AR-15 
> stands up to look for a shooter to fire back at.  Second shot misses, and 
> the first car brakes slightly causing the second car to slow also.  The 
> secret service agent stumbles slightly. At this point, JFK is hit in the 
> head.  All of this is in the photographic evidence.  The “oops” theory 
> suggests that when the agent stumbled, the AR-15 discharged.  According to 
> the photo, it was aligned more or less through JFK’s head to the grassy 
> knoll.  The tumbling round hits him and the sound echoes back from the 
> knoll.  I should note that there may be contrasting evidence to this in the 
> Bronson film, which I have not seen.  Understandably, the agent in question 
> is deeply offended by this theory and sued the author and publisher of 
> _Mortal Error_, the work that first published this theory for slander in 
> 1995, although the case was tossed out.  I suggest that if this were to be 
> the way it happened, the agent might not have even known his weapon 
> discharged in the heat of the moment, with stumbling, and the noise around 
> him, since an AR-15 is a really easy weapon to fire).
> 
> ---------------
> So, in conclusion, it is appropriate to re-examine historical events and 
> theories with a new eye, new assumptions, and when new evidence comes up   
> In fact, I encourage it.  But ultimately you *are* still stuck with the old 
> evidence as well.  And if a new “hypothesis” can not adequately cover all 
> the old evidence as well, it’s flawed.
> 
> Marc/Diarmaid
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ansteorra mailing list
> Ansteorra at ansteorra.org
> http://www.ansteorra.org/mailman/listinfo/ansteorra
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com