How does the Internet effects history writing, from the point of view of 50 years in the future?

When a historian writes a book we must ask should that book please the audience? If research brings something new but uncomfortable things about the well-known person, should that thing keep secret? Or should that thing tell to the whole world? Even if that thing is breaking the myth or legend the historian should uncover those things. But there are always people who are not accepting something. 

Should the researcher tell only things that people want to hear? Or should they uncover also other things? Those things are sometimes hidden from a great audience because they are uncomfortable. And what would you think about the cases like some respected statesman changing the land area of the homeland to the half-liter whiskey bottle? Should people know about that kind of thing? That thing is an example and not basing the real case. In some cases, the people who were the close comrades of some great person are covering the myths very sharply. 

And if something is against the public image of some person that thing causes anger. The criticism is a nice thing. But it doesn't mean that the researcher should lynch. Because the text that this person would not please somebody. If some text causes a violent reaction that means it has mean. Meanless texts don't bring cat-size letters on the front page of the newspapers. 

What historians will write about us 50 years later? What kind of sources do they use? Today researchers are researching the people. Those who lived about 50 years ago use their diaries as the source. When we are thinking about things like Facebook and other social media. Things what those people wrote on social media meant to publish. In social media, people want to introduce themselves from the best point of view. 

And that's why some people say that social media is not a trustworthy source about the things how people are handling things and how people think about something. But is diary or old fashion paper writing the objective port to the mind of people? The thing is that diaries are always the window to thoughts about people. 

But still, there is one thing, that we must remember. The writings that are written in diaries are the things that people want to read later. So diaries are also offering a window to the mind of the person. But when a person writes things like diaries there is still the opinion of how the writer wants to handle things. When we are writing diaries there is always the possibility that the diary is not introducing all truth. 

X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X

Should researchers write only things that the audience wants to read? Or should they also write about things that might be uncomfortable for somebody? 

The meanless looking things can be great things of the private life of the person whose biography is written. And should that kind of thing also bring in the front of the eyes of the readers? 

X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X

The person who writes the diaries might remember that some other person can read it. So there might be only things, what the writer of diary wants to handle. But how trustworthy diary is anyway? The thing is that there are many types of diaries. And some diaries meant for supporting the decisions. 

The project diaries are meant to tell the project team what is done in the project. But when we are thinking about personal diaries, which are not meant for a public audience, we must remember that they might involve things that are not nice to read. 

So should the historian remove things like the drinking problem from the research which object is the person who died a couple of tens of years ago? This is a good question. The fact is that the heirloom of the person might not want to handle that kind of thing in public. 

But when we are thinking about the things like the statesmen or very public people. That kind of thing affects the decisions. When we are thinking of some people as idols or national heroes, we want to see them as the "pure boys". We don't want to hear things like alcoholism because it breaks the myth in front of our eyes.

That is one problematic thing in the research of history we always offend somebody's emotions. There is always somebody who doesn't like that personal life of some respected person hides tragedies. And that thing is problematic. If the historian writes only things that are supporting the myths that means the research is meanless. 

The purpose of research is to bring new points of the way to those topics. If the researcher just repeats the mantras that are told before. Or refer to some other texts that thing would not bring new things in the topics. Those texts and tales can be very nice to read.

But they are not research. The writer can make some research for the book. But we must remember that they are not meant for study books. Maybe there are some historical characters. But they are novels or fiction. Those books are sold in the bookstore. Some of them are found in Christmas gifts. But their place is on the fiction shelf. 

https://thebrightchronicle.blogspot.com

Dragons part II and one I hope a fictional story

Dragons part II and one I hope a fictional story

Could the famous "Jersey Devil" be an attempt to create some kind of dragon?

Sometimes I have thought that could dragons simply be some kind of hybrid species? In this scenario, some kind of natural thing or ancient scientists would create a hybrid animal by connecting some kind of snake as an example viper or cobra and birds like the goose, and that might be the reason, why those creatures would seem "a little bit different" than the normal animal. If those creatures would have behaved, that they would spit the poison, that would explain the flaming breath.

When we are thinking about this kind of hypothesis, we must realize that kind of people might test to hybridize many types of species by creating the perfect solution. And in the hypothesis of "Jersey Devil" is that things might be a result of this kind of hybridization. And if that kind of creature has been someday created, that means that the creator of that kind of thing could be sent to the hang because of witchcraft.

if we are thinking about this kind of hypothesis more careful, we must understand that there are not any official documents about things like "Jersey Devil". So we don't know how long those creatures would be living or how successful those attempts were, and that thing means that those things are a pure hypothesis, nothing else.

But we know that the world is full of little bit "different" people, who want to create things like hybrid animals, and there are also many people, who have money to make that kind of thing. If we want to hybridize two animals, we must take the genomes together, and that thing has put the limits for genetic engineering before.

Those ancient people had no change to operate on a genetic level, and that's why the hybridization between species was very difficult. But modern researchers have an ultimate tool, what is known as nanotechnology, and that thing allows us to connect the parts to the DNA precise in the right point. And that thing will make possible to make things, which has been impossible earlier, and this thing makes this kind of thing dangerous.

One horror-story for the end of this text.

At the end of this text, I'd like to introduce one very scary tale from the German Concentration camps. When we are reading horror stories, we might have heard the tale that the testis of Adolph Hitler has been transferred to the dog. The idea was that the sperm of that man was taken, and that is used to fertilize the egg, which is taken from Eva Braun.

We must remember that this kind of person is causing many tales, and that's why we must practice little kind of skepticism and critics with them. But somebody might make some kind of novel about that kind of thing. There is not proves about that kind of operation has been done, but they are interesting topics for some kind of movie. That is a similar story, with a story that the SS-officers turned to wolves and continued the persecution of Jews in the form of an animal.

The story is about nightmares that the SS-officers transformed into wolfs or dogs. In this scary tale, the neurons of the fanatic servants of Nazis have been transferred to the neural channel of the fetuses of dogs.

I don't know how seriously this kind of tales must be taken, and I don't know would those dogs live after that kind of thing. But if you like bizarre and hardcore horror stories, this kind of thing would be interesting. So is this kind of thing possible? The answer is that this kind of thing might be examined, but the results might not succeed.

Is the mythic Avalon really mean some kind of island or was it an optical illusion?

Is the mythic Avalon really mean some kind of island or was it an optical illusion?

1. Was the Avalon the tidal island like Mont-Saint-Michel?

There is a possibility, that the mythic Avalon is the tidal island like some kind of Mont Saint-Michel on the coast of France, but if that thing is true, the island itself would exist only in the memories and myths. When we are thinking about this part of the story of this island, where the bodies of dead kings were taken that island might be on the drylands because there have been made many dams in Southern England after the written of Beowulf chronicles. The thing is that if the Avalon was the tidal island, there could be some kind of underwater ridge, what connects the island to the land, and the witches have used that ridge to walk on that island.

And if the Avalon was on the drylands rest of the time, that place was easy to cover from the people, who were not allowed to see the ancient rituals. The position of that place could be hidden by many ways, and sometimes I have thought, that this island might be in the middle of an artificial pond, what was made by damming the river, maybe especially for this kind of rituals, where a remarkable man was buried.

2. Was the Avalon caused by some kind of Fata morgana?

But there is another explanation for that place, and that is that entire Avalon was on the drylands. The thing is that there could be fata morgana or some kind of optical trick, what made people believe, that the king was taken to the island. That optical trick might be that there would be some hill, what rises above the fog, and that would be thought of as an island.

Or the thing where the sun is shining in a certain corner would cause an effect, where people is hard to recognize, where the line of the clouds is beginning because the entire world is red. And that optical effect would cause that something, what is not physically existed can be believed as the island.

There is a possibility that the men, who took the body of the king to the place, where the boat was waiting, were really tired because that ritual must, of course, be made in the certain night. And they would not recognize that the boat was pulled on the mud, and of course the persons, who are called as "witches" would cause fear by using horns, what mission was too afraid those people, who were chosen to that ritual. And of course, one demand for those people was that the person was really superstitious. What happened at that place is a different story.