Grizz, Memory & Revisionism Slant

A couple of things on Dean’s article below.

He makes a point with the article that the farther out in time (and presence) from the incident, that memory gets more unreliable. The kicker is at the end and you almost miss it, though his LEO investigative background shines subtly throughout.

Retold are two different stories of the same incident. The first from a reader retelling a story he read years ago, recalled as evidence to back up his point.

The second is written by a eye witness and shooter in the incident. A person who has legal and professional stakes in the telling who is also familiar with writing on all of the aspects involved in the incident, except one… That’s the twist, so I won’t give it away.

My take aways?

  1. Trust but Verify - R. Reagan

  2. In Grizzly Country, Grizz Rules…
    a. Best to have a buddy. 2x+ survival rate.
    b. Three guns are better than two.
    c. Reflexive response has a downside.

Note to self: Grizz Country? Take 3, a big bull elk capabable rifle, a 7+1 Pump 12ga w/Black Magic 3" mag 600 gr loads, a 44 mag w/300 gr hard cast loads and last but not least… CNS, CNS, CNS, CNS, CNS, CNS…

P. S. Don’t forget to bring a Bowie Knife.


just goes to show that the written account in the third person is not always the same as the actual historical event.


No doubt. Per Dean’s observation at the end, even the 1st person written 9 years after the event was incorrect. Although he doesn’t say what the true round count was from which guns, he commented that it doesn’t square up. Memory or self interest spin? Cause or motive isn’t hinted at.