Historians or Conspiracy Theorists?

[Steve Ulman]

I'm not sure that John and Andy will agree with placing this thread here in Political Conspiracies - but the problem I want to discuss generally appears when someone asks proponents of various Conspiracy Theories (CT) for backup of their claims.

For example - my requesting information (several times) from Jack White to provide verification of one of his claims generated this response -

Jack White' date='Dec 9 2005, 06:14 AM' post='48114'

Like a child repeating "Are we there yet, daddy?" Mr. Uhlman keeps asking the

same infantile question without bothering to find out for himself.

{clip}

Please do your own research and quit hassling me to do it for you.

Jack

Being a forum for educators, I want to ask the following question -

Isn't it the responsibility of the person making a claim based on research to provide source material to back up their claim?

I was always thought that I had to provide and cite sources in my research. Am I wrong?

I know the answer most CT proponents give - what do real educators and researchers think?

[Guest Stephen Turner]

I'm not sure that John and Andy will agree with placing this thread here in Political Conspiracies - but the problem I want to discuss generally appears when someone asks proponents of various Conspiracy Theories (CT) for backup of their claims.

For example - my requesting information (several times) from Jack White to provide verification of one of his claims generated this response -

Jack White' date='Dec 9 2005, 06:14 AM' post='48114'

Like a child repeating "Are we there yet, daddy?" Mr. Uhlman keeps asking the

same infantile question without bothering to find out for himself.

{clip}

Please do your own research and quit hassling me to do it for you.

Jack

Being a forum for educators, I want to ask the following question -

Isn't it the responsibility of the person making a claim based on research to provide source material to back up their claim?

I was always thought that I had to provide and cite sources in my research. Am I wrong?

I know the answer most CT proponents give - what do real educators and researchers think?

Will I do, or do my sometime C/T tendecies prevent me from answering in some way??

The correct proceedure is that the person making the claim (entering evidence if you will) provides backing evidence for thier claim, then, hopefully debate ensues, during which further evidence, both pro and con may be entered..

[Steve Ulman]

Stephen -

I've always found you to be forthcoming with info when you have it and honest when you don't.

Even though I may not always agree with you, you always try to have a civil pro/con dialog - something I respect.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Stephen -

I've always found you to be forthcoming with info when you have it and honest when you don't.

Even though I may not always agree with you, you always try to have a civil pro/con dialog - something I respect.

Thanks Steve BACKATCHA.

[John Simkin]

I'm not sure that John and Andy will agree with placing this thread here in Political Conspiracies - but the problem I want to discuss generally appears when someone asks proponents of various Conspiracy Theories (CT) for backup of their claims.

Being a forum for educators, I want to ask the following question -

Isn't it the responsibility of the person making a claim based on research to provide source material to back up their claim?

I was always thought that I had to provide and cite sources in my research. Am I wrong?

I know the answer most CT proponents give - what do real educators and researchers think?

This is an interesting point. Most historians are reluctant to speculate. They therefore tend to stick rigidly to the documents available. This is normally the right approach. However, it becomes a different issue when you are writing about the intelligence services. They of course do what they can to make sure that the relevant documents are never released. Therefore, historians working in this area of research have to rely heavily on inside, unnamed sources. They also have to speculate in order to join up the dots. It is a difficult business and understandably most historians are reluctant to work in this area. As with the assassination of JFK, most people who publish books on the subject are journalists rather than historians.