According to the Idea of History by RG Collingwood, historians must concern themselves with the nature, object, method and value of historical thinking. After having had experience of historical thinking, the historian must reflect upon that experience. Thus, the historian becomes a philosopher as well.
All scientific inquiries begin with the knowledge of our own ignorance. What are the characteristics of the evidence and how are these documents to be interpreted? The purpose of these journeys of discovery is so that we humans might gain knowledge of what makes us human - the nature of humanity.
I was excited to see you approach this emotive subject of the JFK assassination with such a scientific approach.
Removed from the emotions that the assassination provoked ( I was 4 years old and remember sitting on the floor in front of the television, my mother in tears behind me.) the evidence can be examined in a calm, progressive manner, building the case from the available evidence.
This methodology is a very useful tool for anyone wishing to examine any event in the near or distant past. A lens providing the user with the ability to see events more clearly and disengage somewhat from the restrictive chains of indoctrination and conditioning.
Perhaps a handbook might be forthcoming to help others apply these techniques in their quest to better understand how they interpret information and furthermore, the nature and capabilities of our humanity?
Thank you, Yanagi! I'm glad you appreciate my approach to this subject. It's very much in alignment with what you describe. As I write the articles, I'm adding terms to the companion article "Narrative Fallacies and How to Avoid Them," which is somewhat of a handbook in the way you describe, although it only briefly summarizes the overall recommended reasoning approach and then lists and defines terns (with examples) that are relevant to the approach, arranged in alphabetical order.
It is my goal with this project to not only walk through the Kennedy case in a methodical way, but also to use it as a working example of this approach to competing historical narratives about what truly happened, narrow down those narratives as much as possible by eliminating impossibilities, and then draw conclusions about what must be true and inferences about possibilities of what else is likely true based on that narrowing process.
I commend you on your impressively thorough examination of the JFK assassination. I'm looking forward to reading your other pieces on the topic. I imagine you've been following the Trump administration's JFK files drop. Have you or do you plan on investigating some of the major players behind the assassination beyond the CIA and Cuban exiles?
Thank you! Yes, the arc of this article series will first continue to summarize the basics and narrow the frame comparison on the basis of the first two primary questions: 1. Single Gunman or Multiple Gunmen? And then 2. Oswald: Shooter? Innocent? Or conspirator but not a shooter?
Once that's established I'll get into the stuff that's more fun - what might actually have happened, and who was involved? A preview of my position on the caseiwhen it comes to the CIA is that a small number of high-ranking CIA officers were deeply involved in two parallel operations: setting up Oswald, and organizing the shooting itself: probably Angleton and David Phillips on the setting up side, and Bill Harvey on the shooting side, with Dulles as a coordinator between these folks and the oligarchic and military sponsors. Then there's the lower-level agents, assets, and sources who played their respective roles.
On that lower level, delineations between intelligence operatives, organized crime figures, mercenaries, and politically motivated radicals becomes blurry and somewhat arbitrary. I'm interested in the broad picture of this underworld network and it's branches in the Dallas operation (Ruby, Dallas PD, General Walker, Birchers) and how this network blended and overlapped with the Cuban exile/Mafia/mercenary/CIA black op side of things.
Identifying the shooters remains a question of informed speculation, but a number of on-the-ground operatives can be identified. It seems clear that plans to kill Kennedy were rumoured in the wind in this networked underworld, but probably very few people had specific knowledge of what was planned or participated wittingly.
Part of the reason I'm setting up this detailed approach of narrative frame comparison is not only to get precise on the basic facts of what did and didn't happen regarding Oswald and multiple shooters, but to aid in the more speculative process if identifying the participants and their likely roles, even though hard evidence is unavailable in those areas.
I'll also devote some attention to Oswald and his history, and this is an area if special interest for me!
Relendra,
According to the Idea of History by RG Collingwood, historians must concern themselves with the nature, object, method and value of historical thinking. After having had experience of historical thinking, the historian must reflect upon that experience. Thus, the historian becomes a philosopher as well.
All scientific inquiries begin with the knowledge of our own ignorance. What are the characteristics of the evidence and how are these documents to be interpreted? The purpose of these journeys of discovery is so that we humans might gain knowledge of what makes us human - the nature of humanity.
I was excited to see you approach this emotive subject of the JFK assassination with such a scientific approach.
Removed from the emotions that the assassination provoked ( I was 4 years old and remember sitting on the floor in front of the television, my mother in tears behind me.) the evidence can be examined in a calm, progressive manner, building the case from the available evidence.
This methodology is a very useful tool for anyone wishing to examine any event in the near or distant past. A lens providing the user with the ability to see events more clearly and disengage somewhat from the restrictive chains of indoctrination and conditioning.
Perhaps a handbook might be forthcoming to help others apply these techniques in their quest to better understand how they interpret information and furthermore, the nature and capabilities of our humanity?
Thank you and blessings on your work.
Thank you, Yanagi! I'm glad you appreciate my approach to this subject. It's very much in alignment with what you describe. As I write the articles, I'm adding terms to the companion article "Narrative Fallacies and How to Avoid Them," which is somewhat of a handbook in the way you describe, although it only briefly summarizes the overall recommended reasoning approach and then lists and defines terns (with examples) that are relevant to the approach, arranged in alphabetical order.
It is my goal with this project to not only walk through the Kennedy case in a methodical way, but also to use it as a working example of this approach to competing historical narratives about what truly happened, narrow down those narratives as much as possible by eliminating impossibilities, and then draw conclusions about what must be true and inferences about possibilities of what else is likely true based on that narrowing process.
I commend you on your impressively thorough examination of the JFK assassination. I'm looking forward to reading your other pieces on the topic. I imagine you've been following the Trump administration's JFK files drop. Have you or do you plan on investigating some of the major players behind the assassination beyond the CIA and Cuban exiles?
Thank you! Yes, the arc of this article series will first continue to summarize the basics and narrow the frame comparison on the basis of the first two primary questions: 1. Single Gunman or Multiple Gunmen? And then 2. Oswald: Shooter? Innocent? Or conspirator but not a shooter?
Once that's established I'll get into the stuff that's more fun - what might actually have happened, and who was involved? A preview of my position on the caseiwhen it comes to the CIA is that a small number of high-ranking CIA officers were deeply involved in two parallel operations: setting up Oswald, and organizing the shooting itself: probably Angleton and David Phillips on the setting up side, and Bill Harvey on the shooting side, with Dulles as a coordinator between these folks and the oligarchic and military sponsors. Then there's the lower-level agents, assets, and sources who played their respective roles.
On that lower level, delineations between intelligence operatives, organized crime figures, mercenaries, and politically motivated radicals becomes blurry and somewhat arbitrary. I'm interested in the broad picture of this underworld network and it's branches in the Dallas operation (Ruby, Dallas PD, General Walker, Birchers) and how this network blended and overlapped with the Cuban exile/Mafia/mercenary/CIA black op side of things.
Identifying the shooters remains a question of informed speculation, but a number of on-the-ground operatives can be identified. It seems clear that plans to kill Kennedy were rumoured in the wind in this networked underworld, but probably very few people had specific knowledge of what was planned or participated wittingly.
Part of the reason I'm setting up this detailed approach of narrative frame comparison is not only to get precise on the basic facts of what did and didn't happen regarding Oswald and multiple shooters, but to aid in the more speculative process if identifying the participants and their likely roles, even though hard evidence is unavailable in those areas.
I'll also devote some attention to Oswald and his history, and this is an area if special interest for me!