Digging deeper ....

Three life experiences and one narrator: that is the core of the storyline that you are now reading.

Three individual life experiences by three people whose lives collide in time and space, but because they are three individual and non-omnipotent human beings, none of these individuals collectively know what their two companions in life know, or think that they know, or have experienced in life, until the moment arrived when they began to work together. But even then, their collective life experiences are interpreted in three different ways according to the lives that they have lived and the previous knowledge that each of them has absorbed about life as individuals.

Perception is not reality.

Because perception is individualistic its take on reality varies from person-to-person, and for this reason eyewitness accounts of anything will vary from person-to-person. Perception is derived from observing life as it happens, and that form of observation is governed by the degree to which something is being observed.

The classic example of this process is demonstrated in classrooms where law students are following a lecture.

Suddenly, and without warning, the lecture is interrupted by a person who enters the lecture hall in full view of all of the students, and then grabs an item and exits. Students are then quizzed about what they just witnessed, or failed to witness, and the results are amazing. Some students didn't see the person enter, take anything or even leave the lecture hall because at that moment they were distracted by something else. Others saw someone enter, but did not pay any attention because they were focused upon what was being taught. Some were distracted by the intruder and followed their entry and departure, but not upon what was grabbed.

So much for the validity, or lack thereof, regarding the value of eye-witness accounts. Of the few who saw it all and took cognisance to store a me memory of the event, the reporting eye-witness reports will vary considerably within their accounts of what they individually perceived.

There have been many individuals throughout time who have been convicted and sent to prison - or worse - as a result of eye-witness testimony that has been used against them an accused person. However, coupled with forensic material evidence in all of its many forms, eye-witness testimony can be helpful, just as it can be a dangerous form of accusatory information when used with malice or even without due care.

First, a caveat:

This is not a work based upon 'guilt by association', or some sort of wild 'conspiracy' based upon a pre-determined uniformity of 'message', because their is no 'message' as such. This is an account of 'truth telling' by three individuals. For this reason we are not seeking 'peer approval' because in many instances, those who might be classified as 'peers' have a totally different and even contradictory preset belief in contemporary events, and their interpretation, even though they belong to the same time and space that are occupied by the three individuals in this storyline.

Therefore, this is not a melded account by 'historians' who are self-proclaiming their own custodial account of past events, these are the accounts of three self-proclaiming 'detectives' using a form of court-room methodology in order to introduce forensic evidence gained from personal investigations of cultural events. A new descriptive terminology was called for to replace the word 'historians', and it resulted in 'YesterTecs'.

YesterTecs, are the invention of 'The Trio'. They are detectives examining events of yesterday, as those events relate to cultural origins. This embraces the entire panorama of events created by human beings. 'The Trio' in this storyline use the 'YesterCode' called 'E+O3X'. Its meaning is explained in detail, elsewhere in this work.

E+O3X is the YesterTecs guide to their research methodology.

Now let's take a look at one individual who we referred to within the previous precursory chapter within the context of educating the person who is today known as Dr Habil Professor Eric Gilder. It should be noted of course, that this event took place long before 'The Trio' was formed. It was in one sense a momentary event when viewed within the context of the curriculum of Eric's higher education.

In the previous precursory chapter, Eric explained how he had briefly been taught the Russian language at UTA by Colonel J.D. Wilmeth. That was before Eric switched to Latin. On its own, as part of Eric's educational chronology, it is of little passing anecdotal interest, and in the context of Eric's own educational experiences of lasting value, it may be viewed as having no interest at all.

But the focus here is not upon Eric's interaction with Colonel J.D. Wilmeth, but upon the seventeen years of interaction that Colonel J.D. Wilmeth had on both the students attending UTA, and people outside of UTA that Colonel J.D. Wilmeth interacted with. In fact, the mention of Wilmeth is in many ways similar to other names that flit in and out of this combined storyline created by 'The Trio'.

Viewed on their own as personal interactions, they may seem to be unnoteworthy of attention or further comment. But sometimes, like Colonel J.D. Wilmeth, the mention of his name in a wider context can open-up a Pandora's Box of additional questions that have far-researching implications and ramifications.

In the instance of Colonel J. D. Wilmeth, his name was sufficient for the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to question a Mrs. Ruth Paine about what she knew about him. More questioning followed in the 'Warren Report' and a plethora of questions then arose from people who were privately investigating the assassination of President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963, in Dallas, Texas.

Next: Who was Colonel J.D. Wilmeth ....?