Read on Twitter
I love all of the stuff people share with us, but the fact that for some of these events, so few primary sources of real quality info exist should be a real wake up call for historians and media alike. Once these storms are over with and surveys/studies done it is on us. (1/5)
That is to be taken in a sense of telling the story and properly putting it all in context for future generations. What good is a secondary source 50 years from now if it is error prone or agenda filled? The secondary should lean on the primary, not erase it or twist it. (2/5)
This is why I seem like a HS football player getting an offer from a P5 coach when someone offers something or a decent lead on something like Prague or Blackwell. This makes it extremely difficult to conduct thorough research. That and in my experience, people of (3/5)
a purely historical inclination and people of a purely scientific inclination sometimes (not throwing shade) don't play well with each other, and egos grow too large to do any good. Fame/notoriety is a strong opiate for some and that, too, has gotten in the way I feel. (4/5)
This is not aimed at ANYONE that follows me, it really isn't aimed at ANYONE at all! Just a PSA. Before you toss that old film or paper clipping, or box up great great grandma's journal; check it. Not just for tornado history, but any history! (5/5)
