GDG- Killing Lincoln

[CWMHTours at aol.com]

Is there a difference between evidence and facts?
 
I've always regarded evidence of a subset of  facts.
 
Yes I stand by my statement that historical events can be  pinpointed and  
measured.
 
The perception of the facts can be faulty and difficult to get  accurately 
but not to get the  perception right in no way alters the  facts.
 
Two people can witness the same traffic accident and give  different 
stories of it.  The different stories in no way alters the events  of the 
accident. 
 
 
"Just  the facts, ma'am." 

Your Most Obediant Servant  
Peter
 
In a message dated 1/15/2012 8:50:42 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
bob at segtours.com writes:

Esteemed  GDG Member Contributes:
>> Bob-  Real simpole....

History  is only simple if you utterly dismiss any author/source who is 
so  supremely arrogant as to claim 147 years later that he knows the 
"facts"  yet disagrees with you -- since, 147 years later, YOU know the  
"facts."

To those who understand that the only thing that can be  evaluated 147 
years later is evidence, not facts, history is not so  simple.

>> Good history is a record of events.

Yes, you  keep repeating that so it must be true. I can see that I wasted 
my  time.

-Bob

----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
  -to unsubscribe
http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for  Archives