Dear Friends,
If my memory serves me well, the British writer of the Oswald conspiracy book went on talk shows to promote his book, and soon there were those who called for an investigation. The state of California took up the call and launched an investigation, and the state of Texas even jumped in. A legal battle soon ensued. And yes, believe it or not, after going to court action was taken that no one thought would ever happen.
Published: October 5, 1981
And yes, if my memory serves me right, when the author was confronted about the lies in his book, and was asked how he felt about costing taxpayers so much money to have Oswald exhumed, he said words to the effect"I was only selling books."
And believe it or not, the repudiated Michael Eddowes book, "The Oswald Files" is still on sale today. Yes, it's perfect for any conspiracy theory nutcase out there.
Friends, that's my point. When researching history, or actually any subject, we should be concerned with printing the truth. We should look at what took place with an unbiased open mind and an unjaundiced eye. Investigators do just that. Investigators ferret out facts. They seek things that are truly indisputable. Not just said to be "indisputable" but are based on reality, actuality, and certainty. Yes, truly indisputable.
For me, every piece of information used as evidence or as part of an article should be factual. That means I double-check every detail, every piece of information, every fact. And frankly, because some writers are more interested in selling books than diving in and really researching things without being influenced by other writers, pro or con, it seems they don't fact-check or double-check their information and just go with the flow.
Knowing this, as for those of you who are writing to ask me about how I pick my research material, all I can say is "beware of your research sources." After all, no one likes to be embarrassed and come away with an egg on their face after posting something.
And yes, that's the way I see it.
Tom Correa
A few nights ago, a conversation with a real live conspiracy nutcase started me thinking about what people write and where their information comes from. And frankly, this all sort of relates to the "fake news" we hear so much about today.
And since a few readers have written to ask about my research when writing about Old West history and other subjects, I thought I'd answer the question that I'm asked the most regarding my research. While most of you like the fact that I do my own fact-checking, and double-checking, and like that I hate regurgitating what others put out in their books, there are those who question "why not use the information in so-and-so's book?"
My answer is simple, I trust very little of what I read. I try to verify things that other writers put out, and I can't sometimes. That's why I don't trust everything I read. And yes, I do go through a lot to verify what I write.
Like most of us, I grew up in a time when people read newspapers and magazines and simply went with the information provided to us. We did so because we would have never thought writers for newspapers or magazines would lie to us. Most of us would never ever have thought that newspaper reporters or magazine writers would have a bias, especially over a political affiliation. And frankly, especially when I was younger, I never suspected my local newspaper of attacking a political party or group -- especially because they didn't like them out of pure self-interest. But as we know, they do.
As for newspapers, they has been partisan forever. Yes, even our founding fathers had problems with lies coming from newspapers. And yes, in the Old West, some newspapers took on the mantle of crusader and attacked others for a number of reasons -- including businesses who did not advertise with them.
The Tombstone Epitaph of the 1880s has to be read with skepticism because they were pro-Earp faction. The same goes for reading the Tombstone Nugget because they were pro-Clanton.
My lesson, the moment where I learned that I couldn't believe what author's said in there books came in 1981. Yes, I can pinpoint it to a time and an event. While the time was 1981, the event was over a book about the assassin Lee Harvey Oswald.
I had been off of the active duty from the Marine Corps and in the inactive reserves for a few years. I was working in the private security industry doing crowd control, strike actions, and investigations, when I decided to go back to school. I attended a community college near my home at the time. And yes, since I wanted to either climb the ladder in the security business or possibly be available for civilian law enforcement job if one appealed to me, I studied Criminal Justice. Actually, the Administration of Justice.
In October of 1981, in an Evidence Class, we were discussing "best evidence" when our instructor brought up a recent book by a British author, Michael Eddowes, who made his fortune with a chain of restaurants.
In Eddowes' book, ''The Oswald Files,'' he stated that Lee Harvey Oswald defected to the Soviet Union in 1959 after his dishonorable discharge from the Marine Corps. He contended that Oswald had never returned and that instead a Soviet spy named Alek James Hiddell had assumed the identity of Oswald -- and that he killed President Kennedy on November 22nd, 1963.
Eddows contended that two days after the President was killed, Oswald was shot in full view of television cameras by a Dallas nightclub owner, Jack Ruby. And yes, according to the author, there was indisputable proof that Lee Harvey Oswald is not in his grave, that the man buried there is a Russian assassin, a Russian spy.
Yes, it was typical conspiracy stuff for the conspiracy nuts out there. You know them, they are the people who will swear up and down that they know a friend of a friend who is related to a cousin of a man they met once at a diner who told them that he once worked for the CIA or he knew someone who did according to a reliable source.
Yes, to them everything is a conspiracy. Yes, to those folks, the Rockefellers and the Kennedys and the Bushs control the world, were in Dallas to kill JFK, got us in World War II, and so on and on and on, you name it! To them, nothing is as it appears.
And of course, as my Evidence instructor warned our class, watch out for conjecture in statements, books, and newspaper articles. Beware of those that state any of the following: the subject "could have," "possibly," or "maybe" did such and such. And of course, beware of sources that say "if this took place then we know for certain," "suppose," and "we can assume by this."
None of those terms point to proven fact. Those terms are used in conjecture. As a noun, conjecture is defined as "an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information." It is synonymous with speculation, guesswork, surmise, presumption, assumption, theory, and supposition to name a few. As a verb, conjecture is defined as "to form an opinion or supposition about something on the basis of incomplete information." Yes, synonymous with guess, speculate, infer, imagine, believe, think, suspect, presume, assume, hypothesize, suppose.
As my instructor once said, "Conjecture is the exercise of a fool because he's always jumping to conclusions not supported or proven by evidence."
And since a few readers have written to ask about my research when writing about Old West history and other subjects, I thought I'd answer the question that I'm asked the most regarding my research. While most of you like the fact that I do my own fact-checking, and double-checking, and like that I hate regurgitating what others put out in their books, there are those who question "why not use the information in so-and-so's book?"
My answer is simple, I trust very little of what I read. I try to verify things that other writers put out, and I can't sometimes. That's why I don't trust everything I read. And yes, I do go through a lot to verify what I write.
Like most of us, I grew up in a time when people read newspapers and magazines and simply went with the information provided to us. We did so because we would have never thought writers for newspapers or magazines would lie to us. Most of us would never ever have thought that newspaper reporters or magazine writers would have a bias, especially over a political affiliation. And frankly, especially when I was younger, I never suspected my local newspaper of attacking a political party or group -- especially because they didn't like them out of pure self-interest. But as we know, they do.
As for newspapers, they has been partisan forever. Yes, even our founding fathers had problems with lies coming from newspapers. And yes, in the Old West, some newspapers took on the mantle of crusader and attacked others for a number of reasons -- including businesses who did not advertise with them.
The Tombstone Epitaph of the 1880s has to be read with skepticism because they were pro-Earp faction. The same goes for reading the Tombstone Nugget because they were pro-Clanton.
My lesson, the moment where I learned that I couldn't believe what author's said in there books came in 1981. Yes, I can pinpoint it to a time and an event. While the time was 1981, the event was over a book about the assassin Lee Harvey Oswald.
I had been off of the active duty from the Marine Corps and in the inactive reserves for a few years. I was working in the private security industry doing crowd control, strike actions, and investigations, when I decided to go back to school. I attended a community college near my home at the time. And yes, since I wanted to either climb the ladder in the security business or possibly be available for civilian law enforcement job if one appealed to me, I studied Criminal Justice. Actually, the Administration of Justice.
In October of 1981, in an Evidence Class, we were discussing "best evidence" when our instructor brought up a recent book by a British author, Michael Eddowes, who made his fortune with a chain of restaurants.
In Eddowes' book, ''The Oswald Files,'' he stated that Lee Harvey Oswald defected to the Soviet Union in 1959 after his dishonorable discharge from the Marine Corps. He contended that Oswald had never returned and that instead a Soviet spy named Alek James Hiddell had assumed the identity of Oswald -- and that he killed President Kennedy on November 22nd, 1963.
Eddows contended that two days after the President was killed, Oswald was shot in full view of television cameras by a Dallas nightclub owner, Jack Ruby. And yes, according to the author, there was indisputable proof that Lee Harvey Oswald is not in his grave, that the man buried there is a Russian assassin, a Russian spy.
Yes, it was typical conspiracy stuff for the conspiracy nuts out there. You know them, they are the people who will swear up and down that they know a friend of a friend who is related to a cousin of a man they met once at a diner who told them that he once worked for the CIA or he knew someone who did according to a reliable source.
Yes, to them everything is a conspiracy. Yes, to those folks, the Rockefellers and the Kennedys and the Bushs control the world, were in Dallas to kill JFK, got us in World War II, and so on and on and on, you name it! To them, nothing is as it appears.
And of course, as my Evidence instructor warned our class, watch out for conjecture in statements, books, and newspaper articles. Beware of those that state any of the following: the subject "could have," "possibly," or "maybe" did such and such. And of course, beware of sources that say "if this took place then we know for certain," "suppose," and "we can assume by this."
None of those terms point to proven fact. Those terms are used in conjecture. As a noun, conjecture is defined as "an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information." It is synonymous with speculation, guesswork, surmise, presumption, assumption, theory, and supposition to name a few. As a verb, conjecture is defined as "to form an opinion or supposition about something on the basis of incomplete information." Yes, synonymous with guess, speculate, infer, imagine, believe, think, suspect, presume, assume, hypothesize, suppose.
As my instructor once said, "Conjecture is the exercise of a fool because he's always jumping to conclusions not supported or proven by evidence."
If my memory serves me well, the British writer of the Oswald conspiracy book went on talk shows to promote his book, and soon there were those who called for an investigation. The state of California took up the call and launched an investigation, and the state of Texas even jumped in. A legal battle soon ensued. And yes, believe it or not, after going to court action was taken that no one thought would ever happen.
OSWALD'S BODY IS EXHUMED
OSWALD'S BODY IS EXHUMED; AN AUTOPSY AFFIRMS IDENTITY
Special to the New York TimesPublished: October 5, 1981
DALLAS, Oct. 4— The body resting in Lee Harvey Oswald's coffin was removed from its grave today, and a team of examining pathologists said that the remains were indeed Oswald's. The finding appeared to end speculation that the corpse might have been that of a Russian agent sent here to kill President Kennedy in 1963.
''We, both ind ividually and as a team, have concluded beyond any doubt, and I mean beyond any doubt, that the individual buried under the name Lee Harvey Oswald in Rose Hill cemet ery is Lee Harvey Oswald,'' said Dr. Linda Norton, head of the team of pathologists whoexamined the remains today at Baylor University Medical Center here.
The pathologists were said to have determined the body's identity mainly by comparing its teeth with Oswald's Marine Corps dental records. They also found on the body the scar of a childhood mastoid operation mentioned in the military records. ...
Mrs. Porter, her lawyer and a lawyer for Mr. Eddowes were on hand today. According to Mr. Eddowes's lawyer, the coffin contained ''just skeletal remains'' that ''could not be removed in one piece.''
The pathologists here were reported to have taken 150 X-rays. They identified, in the skull, the scar made by surgeons in a mastoid operation when Oswald was 6 years old, in 1945. They said that rings that Mrs. Porter had put on the body just before burial were still there.
-- end of New York Times article.
And believe it or not, the repudiated Michael Eddowes book, "The Oswald Files" is still on sale today. Yes, it's perfect for any conspiracy theory nutcase out there.
Friends, that's my point. When researching history, or actually any subject, we should be concerned with printing the truth. We should look at what took place with an unbiased open mind and an unjaundiced eye. Investigators do just that. Investigators ferret out facts. They seek things that are truly indisputable. Not just said to be "indisputable" but are based on reality, actuality, and certainty. Yes, truly indisputable.
For me, every piece of information used as evidence or as part of an article should be factual. That means I double-check every detail, every piece of information, every fact. And frankly, because some writers are more interested in selling books than diving in and really researching things without being influenced by other writers, pro or con, it seems they don't fact-check or double-check their information and just go with the flow.
Knowing this, as for those of you who are writing to ask me about how I pick my research material, all I can say is "beware of your research sources." After all, no one likes to be embarrassed and come away with an egg on their face after posting something.
And yes, that's the way I see it.
Tom Correa
What you also need to worry about is online privacy. Don't wanna get a virus or have your identity stolen. That would be pretty bad on your end. So I agree with Tom. Beware of your search history. Because once it's posted, it's posted. And you can never delete it.
ReplyDeleteAlso wanna mention the numerous scammers, sites, and people you meet on there. And that one Nigerian prince you should NEVER, I repeat, NEVER give your money to. For all I know, he might not even be a prince or a Nigerian. But what I will say is this. You should be careful what you post. With all of the threats and the hoaxes as well as the random spam, there's no telling what's been on your browser history or mine. Just thought I'd get that out of the way.
ReplyDelete