New Book By Simon Options

I just wanted everyone to know there is a new book coming out by our old friend Simon. Yes the same author of the Necronomicon.

The title of the new book which is Dead Names : The Dark History of the Necronomicon has been out for awhile and it is still not released as of yet BUT they have finally released a picture of the book and a quick overview.

Here is the picture of the new book:

(IMG:http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v235/Frater_Nero/newbook.jpg)

and here is the Book Description:


The most feared, fascinating, and dangerous book in the history of humankind . . . Necronomicon

An ancient Arabic text -- a powerful book of spells that could, in the wrong hands, create unimaginable and irreversible devastation -- the Necronomicon featured prominently in the stories of legendary horror writer H.P. Lovecraft. For many generations, few believed it to be anything other than pure fiction.

But in 1972, a young man who, for his own protection, must be known simply as "Simon," stumbled upon an old, handwritten manuscript that ultimately proved to be an authentic edition of the unholy work.

Dead Names is the startling true account of the dark and violent history of this most fearsome of books: from its Middle Eastern origins to its reemergence centuries later; its role in pivotal events of the twentieth century, from the JFK assassination to the Son of Sam murders; and the terrible fates that befell those who helped bring the Necronomicon out of the shadows and into the light of day.

One of the most controversial topics in The Necronomicon Files is the Necronomicon's role in two murder cases. While we leave open the exact role that the book played in the crimes, we nonetheless suggest that it should be examined. Simon responds to us at a number of points, of which I have selected one:

Page 250:

Gonce focuses on the Necronomicon because it supports his thesis. He could have easily focused on The Witches Bible, The Satanic Bible, or even Queen of the Damned in the Ferrell case, and any one of a dozen satanic volumes available to Glen Mason, as books that contributed to the killers’ “murderous insanity.” The fact that both son and Ferrell were disturbed youths from broken homes with a history of antisocial acting out is ignored in favor the more sensationalistic claim that somehow the Necronomicon was responsible for their crimes. That the killers ignored the general themes of all of these books and instead ransacked them for anything that would fuel their own perverse delusions is mirrored in Gonce’s own approach when he singles out the Necronomicon when it comes time to point fingers and utter pious condemnations.

Based on Simon's reporting, our claim does seem ridiculous. That is because Simon doesn't tell you the whole story.

What Simon does not mention in his book is that, in both cases, the Necronomicon was singled out for attention. News reports and subsequent books indicate that both killers had a deep interest in the Necronomicon, and that both sought to open the Gates of Hell, or to call up subterranean demons, in exchange for personal power. All of this is a matter of public record, and is included in our book.

This concept - that power can be obtained by blood sacrifice that allows the Underworld access to the earth - is not something you'll find in The Lion King, or The Witches' Bible, or the other sources that these individuals owned and that Simon mentions as possible avenues. Further, unlike many of those sources, the Necronomicon is not presented as a work of fiction, but as an honest-to-goodness ancient text that provides the user with power, for good or for evil.

Sure, we could have dressed up a list of crimes where a copy of the Necronomicon was found in somebody's locker or room afterward, as Simon claims we did. We've got the data for that. In fact, we once had a reporter contact us about a case where the [/i]Necronomicon was owned by a perp. We looked at the facts and told him that we didn't think it was important. He never called us back. For the book we took two cases that we felt were relevant and discussed them, giving people room to consider the evidence for themselves.

Simon has had access to the same resources John and I have. If he claims that he doesn't believe the Necronomicon caused these crimes, he's free to express that opinion. If he wants to say that he's not responsible for the actions of deranged individuals, he can certainly say so. If he claims that most people who have the book don't commit such crimes, I'd agree with him. This board alone is proof of that. I find it odd that Simon can disclaim that the Necronomicon is linked to violence in Dead Names and hype its "role" in the Son of Sam killings and JFK's assassination on the back cover, but perhaps there's a good explanation for that.

Nonetheless, in Dead Names, Simon has not to include evidence given in The Necronomicon Files, evidence that might point to a possible motive for these crimes. Simon, I'd like to know why, given the amount of space devoted to the topic of the Necronomicon's danger, none of this is included.

[What Simon does not mention in his book is that, in both cases, the Necronomicon was singled out for attention. News reports and subsequent books indicate that both killers had a deep interest in the Necronomicon, and that both sought to open the Gates of Hell, or to call up subterranean demons, in exchange for personal power. All of this is a matter of public record, and is included in our book.]

What other books and sources, Dan? Where has it been expressly and explicitly mentioned that the Necronomicon was itself "singled out for attention" and by whom? The media or the perps themselves? As far as I can tell, the only ones who singled out the Necronomicon for attention were ...you and John.

[This concept - that power can be obtained by blood sacrifice that allows the Underworld access to the earth - is not something you'll find in The Lion King, or The Witches' Bible, or the other sources that these individuals owned and that Simon mentions as possible avenues. Further, unlike many of those sources, the Necronomicon is not presented as a work of fiction, but as an honest-to-goodness ancient text that provides the user with power, for good or for evil.]

The Necronomicon does not state "that power can be obtained by blood sacrifice that allows the Underworld access to the earth", thank you very much!

[Simon has had access to the same resources John and I have. If he claims that he doesn't believe the Necronomicon caused these crimes, he's free to express that opinion. If he wants to say that he's not responsible for the actions of deranged individuals, he can certainly say so. If he claims that most people who have the book don't commit such crimes, I'd agree with him.]

I do, and I have ... in Dead Names.

[This board alone is proof of that. I find it odd that Simon can disclaim that the Necronomicon is linked to violence in Dead Names and hype its "role" in the Son of Sam killings and JFK's assassination on the back cover, but perhaps there's a good explanation for that.]

The story of the Son of Sam case and the JFK assassination case is explained in the book; as is the fact that several of the principle personalities connected with the book died premature (and in some cases violent) deaths. But then, so did Jesus and many of his followers. And the defenders at Mosada. So did JFK. And RFK. And MLK. The fact of violent death may mean something other than "this book is evil" or "these teachings are evil". There is something deeper at work here, and anyone who grasps the entire thesis of Dead Names should be able to see that clearly. What I point out -- and, I think, quite clearly -- is that it is futile to make a case that somehow the Necronomicon was itself responsible for the crimes of Ferrell and the others when the evidence is so thin and so contaminated by other evidence. You focused on the one case you could actually use that actually mentions the Necronomicon in passing and blew it up into something ... other. So ... what are you saying, Dan? That the Necronomicon actually IS what Lovecraft purported it to be: a work of evil power? You guys want it both ways, it seems to me.

[Nonetheless, in Dead Names, Simon has not to include evidence given in The Necronomicon Files, evidence that might point to a possible motive for these crimes. Simon, I'd like to know why, given the amount of space devoted to the topic of the Necronomicon's danger, none of this is included.
[/quote]

I don't understand your question. I read the same book you did, the one on the so-called "Vampire Killers" (not the "Necronomicon Killers" by the way, which I think says it all) and it seems the motive, such as it was, was clear. What "evidence" did I miss in the Necronomicon Files?

You want to say that the Necronomicon is evil and somehow responsible -- a book, responsible -- for murder. You made that very clear in your book, forget the "let the readers make up their own mind" rhetoric. And then you say I am right when I say it can't be responsible for what some mentally-unbalanced person decides to do with it. Make up your mind. You can't have it both ways. "It's not logical, Captain." In any event, as I stated in Dead Names, there are crimes more hideous and more numerous committed every day by people who believe in the Bible, or the Quran. And there was a crime committed by someone who read John Fowles' "The Collector" ... where does it end, this blaming of books by people who want to remove responsibility from the criminals and put it between the covers of a book they don't like?

What other books and sources, Dan? Where has it been expressly and explicitly mentioned that the Necronomicon was itself "singled out for attention" and by whom? The media or the perps themselves? As far as I can tell, the only ones who singled out the Necronomicon for attention were ...you and John.

I refer you back to our book. Page 204:

According to seventeen-year-old Audrey Presson, a friend of Ferrell's at Eustis High School, Ferrell often discussed the Necronomicon with her over the telephone... Psychologist Wade Myers III testified that Ferrell "felt he was able to get powers from this book."

And how might he gain that power? Page 205:

John Goodman, a member of the Vampire Clan, said Ferrell "had become possessed with opening the Gates to Hell, which meant he would have to kill a large number of people in order to consume their souls. By doing this, Ferrell believed he would gain super powers."

That's three people connected with the case postulating a scenario that appears in your book.

The Necronomicon does not state "that power can be obtained by blood sacrifice that allows the Underworld access to the earth", thank you very much!

We have a rite that requires blood to unleash Tiamat, do we not? And does the Necronomicon not say that "these Cults rejoice in the slow spilling of blood, whereby they derive much power and strength in their Ceremonies" (pp. 213-14)?

You focused on the one case you could actually use that actually mentions the Necronomicon in passing and blew it up into something ... other. So ... what are you saying, Dan? That the Necronomicon actually IS what Lovecraft purported it to be: a work of evil power? You guys want it both ways, it seems to me.

We have two cases, actually. As to "wanting it both ways", we merely recognize different sorts of power - power that comes from ancient tradition, power that works as it should, and power that does not. Our contention is that the Necronomicon has much more of the latter than the other two.

You want to say that the Necronomicon is evil and somehow responsible -- a book, responsible -- for murder. You made that very clear in your book, forget the "let the readers make up their own mind" rhetoric. And then you say I am right when I say it can't be responsible for what some mentally-unbalanced person decides to do with it. Make up your mind. You can't have it both ways. "It's not logical, Captain." In any event, as I stated in Dead Names, there are crimes more hideous and more numerous committed every day by people who believe in the Bible, or the Quran. And there was a crime committed by someone who read John Fowles' "The Collector" ... where does it end, this blaming of books by people who want to remove responsibility from the criminals and put it between the covers of a book they don't like?

If you could point to the quote where the latter point is suggested, I could better respond to it.

As for the rest, let's start with page liv of the Necronomicon. The position below is not my own, but one that logically emerges from your statements:

Persons of unstable mental condition, or unstable emotional condition, should not be allowed, under any circumstances, to observe one of these rituals in progress. That would be criminal, and perhaps even suicidal. One of our colleagues was fearfully attacked by his dog directly following a fairly simple and uncomplicated formula from this book.

This is where the analogy with other books falls apart. If we take your word for it, you knew that the book could have effects that could be serious, even deadly, before it appeared. Every other book you have mentioned in Dead Names became involved in events that the author did not, and in most cases could not, anticipate. You do not have that luxury.

You knew there were risks. You knew that not everyone in the world was emotionally, spiritually, or mentally equipped to handle what was in the book. And you, so far, have had 800,000 copies of the book published and shipped to every chain bookstore in the country, where it was guaranteed to reach some of those people.

If someone accidentally performed a Necronomicon rite in front of the wrong person, that magician would be criminally responsible, according to you, for taking that course of action. In fact, by your own statement, someone could easily be killed in such a situation. Nonetheless, you are completely blameless. After all, it's just a book - well, a book you knew would lead to insanity and death but published anyway, but you can't be held responsible, right?

(End extrapolation here)

I agree - you can't have it both ways. The back cover of Dead Names calls the Necronomicon "the most feared, fascinating, and dangerous book in the history of humankind," but when someone suggests that it might actually be dangerous, it's suddenly comparable to The Lion King. John merely takes what you have stated in the Necronomicon to its logical conclusion.

What other books and sources, Dan? Where has it been expressly and explicitly mentioned that the Necronomicon was itself "singled out for attention" and by whom? The media or the perps themselves? As far as I can tell, the only ones who singled out the Necronomicon for attention were ...you and John.

I refer you back to our book. Page 204:

According to seventeen-year-old Audrey Presson, a friend of Ferrell's at Eustis High School, Ferrell often discussed the Necronomicon with her over the telephone... Psychologist Wade Myers III testified that Ferrell "felt he was able to get powers from this book."

And how might he gain that power? Page 205:

John Goodman, a member of the Vampire Clan, said Ferrell "had become possessed with opening the Gates to Hell, which meant he would have to kill a large number of people in order to consume their souls. By doing this, Ferrell believed he would gain super powers."

Playing catchup here, but has anyone seen a documentary aired last week on MSNBC entitled "Dark Heart/Iron Hand"? It was an hour dedicated to a discussion of the Ferrel case and contained interviews with the prosecutors, defense attorneys, friends, police, Aphrodite Jones, and the Vampire Clan members themselves. Not once does anyone mention or refer to the Necronomicon or anything in it or concerning it. They refer constantly to vampirism, though, in virtually every segment. Ferrel was obsessed with the idea of drinking blood and creating a cult based on drinking each other's blood. No Necronomicon. Now, "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence"; however, how was the Necronomicon angle missed if it was truly as important or as central as Dan seems to think it is (or insists that it is, only to prove his point that somehow the Necronomicon was involved or responsible for these crimes)?

And I submit that the Necronomicon does not speak of opening the "Gates to Hell". As anyone knows who reads the book, works with the system ... there are no "Gates to Hell" in the Necronomicon. There are Gates, no question. But the Judeao-Christian idea of "Hell" is rather far removed from the mindset of the Necronomicon.


quote]The Necronomicon does not state "that power can be obtained by blood sacrifice that allows the Underworld access to the earth", thank you very much!

We have a rite that requires blood to unleash Tiamat, do we not? And does the Necronomicon not say that "these Cults rejoice in the slow spilling of blood, whereby they derive much power and strength in their Ceremonies" (pp. 213-14)?

Once again -- as I point out in Dead Names -- that quote (out of context) refers to the abhorred practices of an enemy cult which the Necronomicon attacks! You might as well say that the Biblical references to Sodom and Gomorrah are used to inspire acts of sexual licentiousness, or something. The Necronomicon is clear in its antagonism to these cults and their practices.

You focused on the one case you could actually use that actually mentions the Necronomicon in passing and blew it up into something ... other. So ... what are you saying, Dan? That the Necronomicon actually IS what Lovecraft purported it to be: a work of evil power? You guys want it both ways, it seems to me.

We have two cases, actually.

What other case? Where is the documentation?

As to "wanting it both ways", we merely recognize different sorts of power - power that comes from ancient tradition, power that works as it should, and power that does not. Our contention is that the Necronomicon has much more of the latter than the other two.

You want to say that the Necronomicon is evil and somehow responsible -- a book, responsible -- for murder. You made that very clear in your book, forget the "let the readers make up their own mind" rhetoric. And then you say I am right when I say it can't be responsible for what some mentally-unbalanced person decides to do with it. Make up your mind. You can't have it both ways. "It's not logical, Captain." In any event, as I stated in Dead Names, there are crimes more hideous and more numerous committed every day by people who believe in the Bible, or the Quran. And there was a crime committed by someone who read John Fowles' "The Collector" ... where does it end, this blaming of books by people who want to remove responsibility from the criminals and put it between the covers of a book they don't like?

If you could point to the quote where the latter point is suggested, I could better respond to it.

Clarify that, please. What point? I lost the thread somehow.


As for the rest, let's start with page liv of the Necronomicon. The position below is not my own, but one that logically emerges from your statements:

Persons of unstable mental condition, or unstable emotional condition, should not be allowed, under any circumstances, to observe one of these rituals in progress. That would be criminal, and perhaps even suicidal. One of our colleagues was fearfully attacked by his dog directly following a fairly simple and uncomplicated formula from this book.

This is where the analogy with other books falls apart. If we take your word for it, you knew that the book could have effects that could be serious, even deadly, before it appeared. Every other book you have mentioned in Dead Names became involved in events that the author did not, and in most cases could not, anticipate. You do not have that luxury.

You knew there were risks. You knew that not everyone in the world was emotionally, spiritually, or mentally equipped to handle what was in the book. And you, so far, have had 800,000 copies of the book published and shipped to every chain bookstore in the country, where it was guaranteed to reach some of those people.

If someone accidentally performed a Necronomicon rite in front of the wrong person, that magician would be criminally responsible, according to you, for taking that course of action. In fact, by your own statement, someone could easily be killed in such a situation. Nonetheless, you are completely blameless. After all, it's just a book - well, a book you knew would lead to insanity and death but published anyway, but you can't be held responsible, right?

(End extrapolation here)

Again, like the Bible (which has been used far more often to kill and maim) or the Qu'ran (same thing). The difference is, my book comes with a warning. Theirs do not. Plus, the other grimoires and workbooks of magicians are also dangerous. Crowley, Mathers, Levi and so many others warn neophytes about their respective systems and translations of systems, and sell just as many (if not many more) books. Singling out the Necronomicon for this kind of criticism is just grandstanding on your part; you and Gonce were trying to make money on the coattails of the Necronomicon, so what does that make you?

Playing catchup here, but has anyone seen a documentary aired last week on MSNBC entitled "Dark Heart/Iron Hand"? It was an hour dedicated to a discussion of the Ferrel case and contained interviews with the prosecutors, defense attorneys, friends, police, Aphrodite Jones, and the Vampire Clan members themselves. Not once does anyone mention or refer to the Necronomicon or anything in it or concerning it. They refer constantly to vampirism, though, in virtually every segment. Ferrel was obsessed with the idea of drinking blood and creating a cult based on drinking each other's blood. No Necronomicon. Now, "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence"; however, how was the Necronomicon angle missed if it was truly as important or as central as Dan seems to think it is (or insists that it is, only to prove his point that somehow the Necronomicon was involved or responsible for these crimes)?

It's a documentary, with the goal of telling a particular story about these events. There's any number of reasons why they wouldn't discuss it, so I won't care to speculate upon their reasons.

And I submit that the Necronomicon does not speak of opening the "Gates to Hell". As anyone knows who reads the book, works with the system ... there are no "Gates to Hell" in the Necronomicon. There are Gates, no question. But the Judeao-Christian idea of "Hell" is rather far removed from the mindset of the Necronomicon.

Well, it does include that underground abyssal area populated with demons and the unhappy dead. I think people not up on their Mesopotamian theology could be excused for thinking of it as "Hell."

Once again -- as I point out in Dead Names -- that quote (out of context) refers to the abhorred practices of an enemy cult which the Necronomicon attacks! You might as well say that the Biblical references to Sodom and Gomorrah are used to inspire acts of sexual licentiousness, or something. The Necronomicon is clear in its antagonism to these cults and their practices.

That's assuming we take the book's statement at face value. From the context, it claims to be working against these beings - then it gives you details on how to make a blood sacrifice to them. It's a classic literary technique - use a quote from another person or group to express ideas or techniques that one would be censured for discussing oneself. Surely that's a valid interpretation of the text.

What other case? Where is the documentation?

Necronomicon Files, pp. 206-208.

Again, like the Bible (which has been used far more often to kill and maim) or the Qu'ran (same thing). The difference is, my book comes with a warning. Theirs do not. Plus, the other grimoires and workbooks of magicians are also dangerous. Crowley, Mathers, Levi and so many others warn neophytes about their respective systems and translations of systems, and sell just as many (if not many more) books. Singling out the Necronomicon for this kind of criticism is just grandstanding on your part; you and Gonce were trying to make money on the coattails of the Necronomicon, so what does that make you?

You've just made my point for me. All of those books existed before the Necronomicon, and their effects on others, if any (I'm not convinced on the grimoires), have been topics of conversation for decades. By your own statements, you believe that the Necronomiconis a potentially more powerful work than these. History taught you that such writings could lead to dire consequences, that any sort of "warning" would be ignored or seen as an invitation to further experimentation. Yet you published the Necronomicon in mass market paperback format, afterward turning around and blaming the reader entirely if anything went amiss.

In singling out the Necronomicon, we are merely following your own example.

If John and I were trying to make money off a book, we wouldn't have written one on the Necronomicon, and especially not one debunking it. We found the topic fascinating, and we thought there were misrepresentations being made about Lovecraft and his work that needed to be cleared up. I'd have made more than my total income so far by getting a part-time job at McDonald's for a year, and done less work in the bargain. We certainly haven't made anything close to what the Necronomicon has - I'm speculating, based on your circulation figures, that the total royalties over the years approach or exceed six figures...

This post has been edited by Danharms: May 21 2006, 08:32 PM

Playing catchup here, but has anyone seen a documentary aired last week on MSNBC entitled "Dark Heart/Iron Hand"? It was an hour dedicated to a discussion of the Ferrel case and contained interviews with the prosecutors, defense attorneys, friends, police, Aphrodite Jones, and the Vampire Clan members themselves. Not once does anyone mention or refer to the Necronomicon or anything in it or concerning it. They refer constantly to vampirism, though, in virtually every segment. Ferrel was obsessed with the idea of drinking blood and creating a cult based on drinking each other's blood. No Necronomicon. Now, "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence"; however, how was the Necronomicon angle missed if it was truly as important or as central as Dan seems to think it is (or insists that it is, only to prove his point that somehow the Necronomicon was involved or responsible for these crimes)?

It's a documentary, with the goal of telling a particular story about these events. There's any number of reasons why they wouldn't discuss it, so I won't care to speculate upon their reasons.

In other words, you only like the sources that support your theories. What reasons could they possibly have for not mentioning the Necronomicon if it was as central an issue as you claim it to be? It obviously was not. Other documentaries on other cults have not hesitated to mention the Satanic Bible of Anton LaVey, for instance. Yet, the Necronomicon is rarely, if ever, cited in this type of context.

And I submit that the Necronomicon does not speak of opening the "Gates to Hell". As anyone knows who reads the book, works with the system ... there are no "Gates to Hell" in the Necronomicon. There are Gates, no question. But the Judeao-Christian idea of "Hell" is rather far removed from the mindset of the Necronomicon.

Well, it does include that underground abyssal area populated with demons and the unhappy dead. I think people not up on their Mesopotamian theology could be excused for thinking of it as "Hell."

It would require actual attention to the text.

Once again -- as I point out in Dead Names -- that quote (out of context) refers to the abhorred practices of an enemy cult which the Necronomicon attacks! You might as well say that the Biblical references to Sodom and Gomorrah are used to inspire acts of sexual licentiousness, or something. The Necronomicon is clear in its antagonism to these cults and their practices.

That's assuming we take the book's statement at face value. From the context, it claims to be working against these beings - then it gives you details on how to make a blood sacrifice to them. It's a classic literary technique - use a quote from another person or group to express ideas or techniques that one would be censured for discussing oneself. Surely that's a valid interpretation of the text.

I see. The type of "classic literary technique" used in the Bible in discussions of demons, or Pharisees and Sadducees, or the Witch of Endor, for instance?

What other case? Where is the documentation?

Necronomicon Files, pp. 206-208.

That was that guy who had a copy in his library? Another weak case.

Again, like the Bible (which has been used far more often to kill and maim) or the Qu'ran (same thing). The difference is, my book comes with a warning. Theirs do not. Plus, the other grimoires and workbooks of magicians are also dangerous. Crowley, Mathers, Levi and so many others warn neophytes about their respective systems and translations of systems, and sell just as many (if not many more) books. Singling out the Necronomicon for this kind of criticism is just grandstanding on your part; you and Gonce were trying to make money on the coattails of the Necronomicon, so what does that make you?

You've just made my point for me. All of those books existed before the Necronomicon, and their effects on others, if any (I'm not convinced on the grimoires), have been topics of conversation for decades. By your own statements, you believe that the Necronomiconis a potentially more powerful work than these. History taught you that such writings could lead to dire consequences, that any sort of "warning" would be ignored or seen as an invitation to further experimentation. Yet you published the Necronomicon in mass market paperback format, afterward turning around and blaming the reader entirely if anything went amiss.

So, what you're saying is that this manuscript should have been buried, deep-sixed, and not allowed to see the light of day lest it go the way of the Bible and the Qu'ran? Should the same have been done with the Anarchist Cookbook? What are your views on censorship, Dan?

In singling out the Necronomicon, we are merely following your own example.

Don't get the connection, but okay.

If John and I were trying to make money off a book, we wouldn't have written one on the Necronomicon, and especially not one debunking it. We found the topic fascinating, and we thought there were misrepresentations being made about Lovecraft and his work that needed to be cleared up. I'd have made more than my total income so far by getting a part-time job at McDonald's for a year, and done less work in the bargain. We certainly haven't made anything close to what the Necronomicon has - I'm speculating, based on your circulation figures, that the total royalties over the years approach or exceed six figures...

The lack of revenue on The Necronomicon Files is not due, I submit, to your idealistic zeal or scholarly ... what? integrity or umbrage? ... but to the mere fact that the book did not sell. How many times have I heard from authors that their books did not sell because they were too good for the market, or were written for too small an audience, or they didn't really want it to sell, etc. If I had a nickel for every time an author has said that in my presence, my income would "approach or exceed six figures"! No, Dan, don't make your book's relative lack of success a red badge of courage, or something. It was a hatchet job, and seen as a hatchet job, rather than a sober attempt to understand, define, or even debunk the Necronomicon. You committed the cardinal sin of scholarship: beginning with a preconceived notion and making your evidence fit the theory rather than the other way around. If you have a master's in anthropology then you understand what I am saying.