Thanks and a Comment

This is a ‘card of thanks’ to those who recently contributed to my research fund. Your contributions allowed me to acquire some rare material, including a book that was available to me only as a partial and poorly done photocopy. Originals are fragile and rare, and they’re not available through Inter-Library Loan because of that. The last one I saw for sale cost four hundred dollars. With some considerable negotiation and by selling something to add to the fund, I was able to acquire this book for just under one hundred dollars. Yes, original research is expensive.

If I live long enough to write it, research for a book on the World War One era will entail massive expense. But that’s way in the future. Two other multi-volume books will come between Separate Identity and that. Probably, given my age, this simply will not happen.

Someone recommended A. Vandenberg’s article printed in the January 1986 Western Pennsylvania Historical Magazine. I am aware of it. Before I comment further, I should disclose that I knew Al Vandenberg. We worked for the same school district, and we discussed Witness history. My view of him is colored by our history, and, while I will be as fair as possible with my comments, you should know this. I saw him, despite his ‘awards,’ as a sloppy teacher and worse researcher. He declined access to original material that would have changed what he wrote. His personal behavior was questionable, and later he was convicted of child-rape and sent to prison. Not at all a good companion.

This does not mean I will not reference this article at some point. But his article is based on personal opinion and shallow research. It is based on secondary, faulty, and misleading sources, and though it is not as obvious, it is a Catholic apologetic. I won’t analyze his article in detail. But you should know that using it as authoritative perils your own research.

Vandenberg cites interviews with then living opposing clergy. None of them were authorities; they just said what he liked, what he wanted to hear. Similar interviews may put you on the right trail, but they do not and cannot prove anything. If one stops there, breathes a sigh of satisfaction, and uses the material, one provides to his readers very faulty work. It is similar to cutting out a photo of ice cream and trying to serve it as desert.