Next Index Thread

Re: Revisionism as a framework

 In article <mvanalst-2506961935540001@rbi142.rbi.com>
            mvanalst@rbi.com "Mark Van Alstine" writes:
 > In article <835638920snz@abaron.demon.co.uk>, A_Baron@abaron.demon.co.uk wrote:
 > 
 > > In article <neume001.835569787@maroon.tc.umn.edu> neume001@maroon.tc.umn.edu 
 > > "Craig J Neumeier" writes:
 > 
 > > > This is why I referred to the Nazis as well as the victims as 
 > > > eyewitnesses.  It is hard to see what possible motivation Eichmann had 
 > > > for lying under oath to the Israeli court that tried him.  (It is also 
 > > > odd that *not* *one* camp survivor agrees with the revisionists.)
 > > 
 > > Not true.
 Because there are plenty of survivors who didn't witness gassings or who
 passed through the camps totally unaware of them. 
 > 
 > Care to share you reason(s) for why this is "not true," Al?
 > 
 > > > Historians simply do not work this way.  An enormous body of coherent
 > > > evidence, from many different sources and more than one perspective,
 > > > cannot be simply dismissed with vague references to the unreliability of
 > > > eyewitnesses.  If it could, we would be forced to disbelieve in, say, the
 > > > English Civil War, let alone the existence of most major historical
 > > > figures from Socrates to FDR. 
 > > 
 > > What about all the witnesses to the UFO crash and subsequent cover-up at
 > > Roswell?
 > 
 > Indeed, what about "them?" Do you, perhaps believe there is a shred of
 > credibility here? Or are you simply flogging your "UFO = Holocaust" dead
 > horse  again for old time's sake?  
 The UFONUTS make similar claims to the Exterminationists. They claim that 
 documents and hard evidence exist then fail to produce them.
 -- 
 Alexander Baron