Hey Jim, I think our positions are really not that far apart. My objection was to what seemed like setting an impossible standard. Your reponse filled out your thinking on the York subject and, thus, I believe I can safely say we are both dedicated to finding the objective truth (or as close as we can get) while having fun torturing every detail in the process.

Since you gave a personal example, allow me one. York's son's lack of knowledge about miltary weapons reminded me of my experience as a volunteer at a local Civil War museum/library. I would consider my knowledge as advanced. Visitors often come in with family stories concerning their ancestor's Civil War service. These people have no more than a very general knowledge of the history and totally lack any detailed knowledge about weapons, tactics, or military organization. It's amazing how often these family stories have a kernel of truth embedded in them - though the details tend to be fuzzy or distorted. These kernels of truth relate to details way beyond their appreciation, but in many cases these details can help flesh out the story. That sort of phenomenon is what I saw in Andrew York's telling of his father's tale. Instead of being disqualified by his lack of firearms knowledge, it could cut the other way - that a partial memory recalled for reasons even he couldn't explain - that Springfield was also a Tennessee town 100 miles away, that the '03' spoken aloud sounded funny - who knows. But, as in the example I gave, an innocent, with opportunity and without obvious bias, can preserve an important clue.

Does that make the case for the '03? No, of course not. But when we can't get to the answer we seek, sometimes we can get to a better questions - and that next question evolved from hypotheses, educated guesses, and what-ifs oftentimes does ultimately lead to our answer. I'm sure I'm not telling you anything you haven't already experienced. Here's to the quest - and to that elusive 'AHAH!' moment.