Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [WarOf1812] "Let's assume".

Expand Messages
  • PEGGY Mathews
    And yet any and all research must begin with a hypothesis or an assumption. i.e. Assuming there was a battle fought at Lundy s Lane... So to nitpick over
    Message 1 of 4 , Dec 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      And yet any and all research must begin with a hypothesis or an assumption.
      i.e. "Assuming there was a battle fought at Lundy's Lane..." So to nitpick
      over establishing a parameter (standard length of musket) is just, well,
      nitpicking IMHO.

      Calling it as I see it, your friend,

      Michael

      (snip)
      >From: "John-Paul Johnson" <jpjohnsn@...>
      >
      >Let's assume assume a a perfect musket with a barrel length
      >of 48 in (1.2 m) accelerating .........
      >
      >..........
      >
      >Mr Johnson et al,
      >
      > The operative words are "Let's assume".
      >Thus
      >
      >From: "Ray Hobbs" <ray.hobbs@...>
      >
      >
      >"One of the ways of finding out is to listen to those who were actually
      >hit by musket balls during the conflict. One, George Ferguson,(Light
      >Company, 100th Regt. of Foot) was wounded .."
      >
      >As Mr. Williams has stated, assuming does not count, we must go to
      >original documents if we want to know what really happened.
      >
      >Yrs,
      >Larry
      (snip)

      _________________________________________________________________
      Say �goodbye� to busy signals and slow downloads with a high-speed Internet
      connection! Prices start at less than $1 a day average.
      https://broadband.msn.com (Prices may vary by service area.)
    • Larry Lozon
      From: PEGGY Mathews ... assumption. ... nitpick ... .......... Mon Ami Assuming is good, but if Original Documentation is avail re:
      Message 2 of 4 , Dec 1, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        From: "PEGGY Mathews" <ciefranche21e@...>



        > And yet any and all research must begin with a hypothesis or an
        assumption.
        > i.e. "Assuming there was a battle fought at Lundy's Lane..." So to
        nitpick
        > over establishing a parameter (standard length of musket) is just, well,
        > nitpicking IMHO.
        ..........

        Mon Ami'

        Assuming is good, but if Original Documentation is avail re:
        Lundy's Lane,
        assuming is not necessary ...... as if would of, could of, ..... well you
        know.

        Example: "What uniform is needed"

        "Archives reports-" Returns for the Regt. state they wore
        ....

        Your friend

        Larry
        (Wore out the movie yet?)
      • John-Paul Johnson
        Mr Lozon, Relying entirely on documentation, even first person accounts, is a sloppy research technique as even the most reliable sources can contradict
        Message 3 of 4 , Dec 1, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Mr Lozon,

          Relying entirely on documentation, even first person accounts, is a
          sloppy research technique as even the most "reliable" sources can
          contradict one another. One only has to look at a more recent conflict
          - The Battle of Britain - to see an example of this. Neither side were
          able to keep accurate records of victories and losses - even their own.
          According so some German sources, the RAF Fighter Command had losses
          enough to wipe it out several times over.

          George Ferguson might have scarcely noticed his wound (adrenaline is
          funny stuff) but Shadrach Byfield certainly felt his neck wound. The
          impact knocked him down with force enough to make others think he'd been
          killed outright (not to mention accidently bayoneting a fellow soldier)
          and, even after regaining his senses, had to crawl and his hands and
          knees back to find help. He'd complained about the loss of use of his
          arm and shoulder as well. But even this is a first person account that
          was written well after the event.

          On the other hand, in conversations I've had with the much maligned
          Gord Laco, he talked about firing cannon down at a range in the States
          in preparation for the movie and how some of the "common knowledge"
          about how bar and chain shot turned out to be wrong. While not
          intentionally an experiment, situations like that can add to our
          understanding of "how they did it".

          Look at a series like "Battlefield Detectives" where that use modern
          scientific methods as well as supporting documents to confirm or debunk
          what we think we know about famous battles. The episode last night
          about "The Charge of the Light Brigade" for example, showed that some
          parts of what we think is true actually is, but other things like far
          from the Brigade being decimated but rather less that 100 casualties out
          of "The Six Hundred" were discovered. Or how, in the episode on
          Agincourt, it was discovered that the much celebrated archers would have
          had little effect on the French Knights as the iron bodkin arrows could
          not have penetrated plate armour. This could have only been discovered
          through hands on research.

          Now my little back of the envelope calculations relied on certain
          conditions that are less than real world. Fine. My intent was to get a
          handle on whether a character in a movie reacted properly after being
          shot. Do my assumptions approach reality, maybe, maybe not. If you
          think I'm wrong, show me why you think so. Just don't sit there and
          criticize without bringing anything to the table except a need to feel
          superior through putting others down (and an insatiable need to have the
          last word)

          I, remain, Sir, Your Humble and Obedient Servent,

          J-P Johnson
          Bulger's Co, RNR

          Larry Lozon wrote:

          >From: "John-Paul Johnson" <jpjohnsn@...>
          >
          >Let's assume assume a a perfect musket with a barrel length
          >of 48 in (1.2 m) accelerating .........
          >
          >..........
          >
          >Mr Johnson et al,
          >
          > The operative words are "Let's assume".
          >Thus
          >
          >From: "Ray Hobbs" <ray.hobbs@...>
          >
          >
          >"One of the ways of finding out is to listen to those who were actually
          >hit by musket balls during the conflict. One, George Ferguson,(Light
          >Company, 100th Regt. of Foot) was wounded .."
          >
          >As Mr. Williams has stated, assuming does not count, we must go to
          >original documents if we want to know what really happened.
          >
          >Yrs,
          >Larry
          >
          >PS: The verdict is out whether your cousin's boyfriend's uncle's barber's
          >descriptions can be used as documentation! :^)
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >The War of 1812: In Europe, thousands fought over the fate of hundreds of square miles: in North America, hundreds determined the fate of THOUSANDS of square miles...
          >
          >Unit Contact information for North America:
          > ---------------------------------
          >Crown Forces Unit Listing:
          >http://1812crownforces.tripod.com
          >
          >American Forces Unit Lisiting
          >http://usforces1812.tripod.com
          >
          >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.