I'm putting this on MotU because this is NOT a reference to any Current Event, and certainly not a Flame, or a Left/Right controversy. But it isn't exactly OffTopic either. This is about anomalism, which used to be a hot issue around the Zone when I first started posting, but now seems to have subsided somewhat, both from a lack of anomalists, and a toning down of anti-anomalist rhetoric. HZ used to be mostly about science and space, and anomalists were treated harshly by most of the participants, particularly if the anomalies were scientific in nature. They have mostly left, but I must confess, I miss them.

By anomalism, I mean what most people call "conspiracy theories", and I think we are all familiar enough with them to make a formal definition from me unnecessary. The archetype of conspiracy theories (but by no means the first) is, of course, the assassination of JFK. To this day, there are multiple intricately plotted and documented scenarios proving beyond any doubt that Kennedy was shot by the Right, the Left, the Mafia, Fidel, the Anti-Fidel Cubans, the Russians, the CIA, LBJ, and a host of other contradictory suspects. Not only is the official motive and suspect at issue, but the forensic details of the crime itself are disputed. Even the number of shots fired remains in question.

Of course, no one can say with total certainty that any of these theories is true or false, even the official Warren Report. However, I think it can be pretty safely stated that no more than one, and maybe none, can be true.

My point is that this is how history is written. Consider if the story of the JFK assassination is being reconstructed by some far future historian, and the only sources available are a random 100 books about the shooting in an ancient library; the only bookshelf that survived intact when the library was buried by volcanic ash. With no other material from the time period available to the historian, he has to try and reconstruct an ancient event from contradictory sources, many of which cite each other, or footnote references which no longer survive.

We can sympathize with his task, but can the job of a modern day historian be any easier? Many of us were alive when Kennedy was shot, the event was engraved in our memory from press reports, but look at the competing theories which flourish today. Our future archaeologist actually has the easier job.

To make things worse, not only do we need to deal with patently false histories deliberately fabricated by unscrupulous people to further their private agendas, but we have perfectly reputable, competent, and conscientious observers and analysts who simply interpret the same data in different ways. History is clearly a collaborative enterprise, and the truth is merely a consensus, shaped by academic fashion, which often evolves as each succeeding generation of historians re-evaluates the data with fresh eyes.

I'm getting old enough now to see "official" versions of past events which I observed and even participated in which do not coincide with my own recollections. And to be fair, many of my contemporaries might have honest disagreement with me about events we both witnessed simultaneously.

That's enough for now, but for your home work, I suggest you Google "John McCain", "Manchurian Candidate". Bon appetit.