RifleResearcher,
Welcome to the forum, but personally, I think you’ve chosen the wrong venue to deride Kafkas’ article.
It hasn’t been published on this forum and I doubt that many here have read it in the magazine, so a letter to the editor of the magazine would seem to be more appropriate.
If, as you state, you’ve been a friend of his for 20 years, it seems strange that you’d write here in your first post with such obvious ill intent toward the man and his opinion.
I don’t know Kafka personally, and have never talked to him. My only knowledge of him is through his KRA affiliation, however I have heard of some of his theories and/or speculations. While I think some of his ideas might be reaching or farfetched, I don’t rule them out completely as unworthy of discussion. Religion played a much more prominent role and influence in life 200 years ago than it generally does today, and I would guess that a lot of significance to objects and designs might well have been lost in the passage of time.
As apprentices, I’ve read that training gunsmiths were to be trained in the Art and Mystery of gunmaking. Might not the Mystery have been learning the religious significance of objects and designs.
To just throw theories or speculation aside as totally worthless, without proof of their worthlessness, seems as foolish as believing it completely, without proof of their truth.
Kafka wrote is opinions in the article, and signed his name.
So far, all you’ve done is criticize his writings, without benefit of divulging authorship.
John
John,
I guess it is time to clarify myself, and my thoughts. As I stated, I have known Lorentz for over twenty years, I have never considered him friend or enemy and have made no claim here to contrary. I restored the States rifle he illustrates in his article, which was my first contact with him. As for this not being an appropriate venue to discuss his article, have I not seen in this forum discussion of various articles and books, none of which were originally published here? I don't remember anyone ever asking if everyone had read the article or book before discussion was considered appropriate. If I have missed a FAQ page, please refer it to me.
As for my "ill intent", as I have stated, I hope clearly, I am opposed to the man's writings on a historical/factual/scientific basis. I don't care "who" he is personally. If someone wants to keep their beiiefs private, no matter how strange or how true, I believe it is their absolute right to do so, unopposed. But when they publish those ideas in a public magazine, then the gloves are off. A letter to the editor is indeed on the way, as I understand, so are others from a variety of KRA members equally disturbed by his article, but this is a discussion list, or at least I was under the impression it was? Am I to understand we cannot discuss things that are controversial?
As for religion playing a larger part in life then, Amen brother. But colonial American religion is not what Kafka is talking about. The "interpretation" of hidden symbols thrown together in a hodge podge is not a serious study or research. Starting with the answer and then twisting facts to fit, is not research. What he is doing versus pure research is the difference between Astronomy and Astrology, Chemistry and Alchemy, Physics and Tarot Card reading, Medicine and a Pixie Stix. One is science, the other is not. Being an expert in Physics might get you the Nobel prize, being an expert in tarot cards, a good job writing for the National Enquirer. I personally do not see them as equal. If you are going to interpret the symbols on a Moravian rifle, you better start with knowing if the rifle was even made by a Moravian. Then to the Moravian archives. You continue with study of the writings of the founders of the church. You consult with leading scholars of Moravian thought and material culture. Then, and only then, might you be qualified to expound on meaning of the symbol as it applies to the Moravian faith. I will bet you dollars to donuts that Kafka did none of these things, or if he did, he went to teach them, not to learn from them. Moravian beliefs and material culture are unique, not exactly like Catholic, not exactly like Protestant. Not the modern church mind you, but the historic church. I do know what folks who are knowledgeable on Moravian history and material culture think of his conclusions, I have asked them. If you doubt me, I encourage you to do the same.
Marcello Truzzi is thought to have originated the phrase, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." In other words, if I declare as a fact that the moon is made of green cheese, the burden falls on me to prove that assertion, not on you to disprove it. Until I do, I think it only reasonable for everyone to assume I am wrong, based on the obvious illogical and non-scientific problems such a claim presents. The fact there is a moon, and there is green cheese, in no ways makes my claim more likely to be true.
Make no mistake, there a number of us who have indeed confronted Mr. Kafka on these claims personally, and I think you can see in the article what asking for documentation for his claims has done to temper his enthusiasm for his own beliefs. Lorentz is a big boy. I can't imagine that he did not expect folks to discuss and debate what he published. There is a time honored tradition both in the free press and in academia to do just what we are doing here. I don't fully understand why that disturbs some.
I am, for the record, in no way declaring that symbols are not found on rifles. I am not declaring that rifle makers and users did not have spirtitual beliefs, even spiritual beliefs outside the mainstream. I am not declaring that some of these spiritual beliefs could not have manifested on the rifles themselves. What I am declaring is that the study of these symbols, if and where they exist, and the study of these beliefs, if and where they exist, can in no way be given a pass when it comes to still needing to be done with the same careful research that we would expect in any other area of the arts or sciences. And that for the sake of clarity and honesty, we hold those who speculate and conjecture on the topic to be clear and honest about calling their theories, "theories", and not misleading the public or serious students into believing their writings are anything more than their own opinion.
If I state Wolfgang Haga had an accident, blowing himself and his shop up, this is not my opinion, I can cite you the newspaper article describing the event. When I declare that he never again engraved a rifle because of that accident, I have crossed a line from interpreting the facts to personal fantasy. The newspaper makes no mention of this "fact". No diary of Haga survives detailing this "fact". As I pointed out earlier, since there are no surviving signed or dated Haga rifles currently known, there can only be one source for this information, Mr. Kafka's vivid imagination. Yet nowhere in that article does he acknowledge that he has made this bit of information up from whole cloth. He states it as if it were fact! This is not the sole incident of this kind of deceptive behavior in the article. If someone would like to prove me wrong, please, please, please, do so! If Mr. Kafka had any point in EAL given a disclaimer or acknowledged in any way that his beliefs and interpretation were his own alone, and not widely accepted or recognized, and were at best controversial, I would not have darkend your doorstep and bothered to post anything here at all. But he did not, and as a student of the longrifle, a "Rifle Researcher"
, I felt compelled to post an opposing opinion.
Again, if anything I have stated about Mr. Kafka's interpretations are untrue, please feel free to point them out. If it is merely my snotty tone that offends, I am sorry, it is the only one I have. The keyboard and screen rob you of all of my cute winks and grins. In person I am big squishy pile of love and happiness, really.
Alan Gutchess
