Anne,

If evidence found and supported by science or other provable historical
records then I would consider that "historical information." On the
other hand, if the researchers were "caught with their hand in the till"
as I have found with people around the TJ/Sally controversy and their
reports were biased/one sided and denied and HID a Minority Report and
the head researcher had been hired to complement the study with their
owned preconceived outcome........THEN I would say, "it's revisionist
garbage."

I would hope that your own highly advertised organization on these
(state/commonwealth) supported pages, is not misrepresenting real
research to purchasers of your material. You do ask for proof do you
not?  

Herb Barger


 


Herbert,

I believe I am correct in saying that most historians of the last
century 
were in agreement that Sumer (Sumeria) was the earliest civilization.

Then, if I am reading a book that dates evidence of cities with public 
buildings and agriculture in Peru to at least as far back as 3500 BC
based 
on evidence discovered in this century, would you consider that new 
historical information, or "revisionist history"????

Anne

Anne Pemberton
[log in to unmask]
http://www.erols.com/apembert
http://www.educationalsynthesis.org 

______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html