Neither Skousen or Allen did any seminal research of their own into other archival material pertaining to their subject matter. Instead, they both just make extensive use of secondary sources, i.e. they both just repeat assertions made by other persons.
Bill McIlhany (a Birch Society author) has correctly pointed out the limitations of using secondary sources in his article entitled Evidence of a Master Conspiracy at: http://home.earthlink.net/~whm/download.txt“The trouble with secondary sources is that they really are no stronger than the primary or contemporary documentation they contain. If you're reading a book written by someone today about the French Revolution of over two hundred years ago, and it says that it was caused by some particular historical force or movement, you have no way of knowing whether that is true unless you can examine the evidence put forth for the claim.
The fact that a secondary source makes a statement about something only proves one thing: that that book or article made that statement. If you want to be critical in your thinking (it's always good, as the Bible says, to prove all things and hold fast to that which is good), you certainly need to test anything which you encounter. One way of doing that is to know whether or not the secondary source has any documentation. When you get a secondary historical account what's the first thing you do? You can look to see if it has any footnotes or bibliography…Is the book quoting simply from people who already agree with the thesis that the book is presenting or is it going back to more primary material?”
2. Second, if you check a representative sample of books authored by conspiracy proponents, there are two remarkable anomalies, as follows:
(a) IF there are any bibliographic footnotes, they often are secondary sources instead of primary sources. In addition, the secondary sources often merely express personal opinions or interpretations.
Sometimes the footnotes turn out to be editorials, opinion columnists, letters-to-the-editor, or gossip columns in newspapers. In many other cases, the footnotes consist of material inserted into the Congressional Record without the author ever checking the accuracy of the original source! [See, for example, John Stormer’s classic, None Dare Call it Treason.]
(b) Genuine scholars and researchers routinely include "acknowledgements" and "notes" pages in their books.
By contrast, conspiracy advocates almost never include such pages. In fact, before writing this article I quickly reviewed a couple dozen conspiracy books in my collection. NONE have an acknowledgements page. There is a reason for this!
Why is that omission significant?
What is the purpose and significance of acknowledgements and/or notes pages?
(i) First, they summarize the institutions and persons upon whom the author relied for research assistance. This gives the reader an idea of the extent, nature, and quality of the author's research, i.e. was he/she cognizant of the work done by other researchers and scholars plus was he/she aware of (and did he/she use) the major primary sources which exist? If not, why not?
(ii) Did the author consult any NEW sources which have never been previously utilized --- thus producing fresh insights?
Example: During the past 10-15 years there has been a major upsurge in books which have explored the history of the postwar conservative movement in the U.S. (many started out as doctoral dissertations) and those books have often utilized new sources which never previously informed the judgments of other authors.Frequently, for example, scholars have done extensive research into never previously used oral histories and/or archives of private papers of persons and organizations which directly bear upon whatever topics are being discussed. In other cases, the author has interviewed, for the first time, key players in controversial matters--and has obtained unique insights from those interviews. In yet other instances, the author has obtained first-time-released documents via FOIA requests.
(iii) Acknowledgment and notes pages often identify persons whom the author asked to review first drafts of the book (or perhaps specific chapters) in order to correct errors and suggest avenues for further research which the author may have overlooked.
Why is this important?
Because genuine scholars and independent researchers value critiques by knowledgeable independent sources. Such evaluations (before publication) help to reduce errors of fact, interpretation, and judgment.
