Checks and History: Similarities/Differences

Similarities:

• You never have all the information
• There is always ambiguous information; information that is not related to what you are trying to discover
• There is always Misleading info
• There is always a measure of uncertainty
• There is the deadline which restricts your scope of inquiry
• There is always information that doesn't survive or is never recorded in the first place

Differences:

• In actual historical investigations you look at other sources; not just one
• You can't put all your faith in one source, because there is always the chance it is unreliable
• In historical investigations you usually have more time to investigate, not 2 days; usually months
• In actual historical investigations, you have time to confirm the information you have gathered
• You usually have the chance to actually visit the historical sites if you're actually seriously investigating a historical event
• You actually have the capability of going out and interviewing witnesses, if any are still alive

Throughout historical investigations, in the end it is the investigator who decides what is in their book, and to a lesser extent their publisher. What they are convinced of becomes their historical record. Their work is shaped by their perceptions and their perceptions shape the way the see the facts they are presented with and effects how they interpret theses facts. This in the end determines the course of the book, as what they believe is true is what the will try to convince you of.