who is Michael Shermer, except the editor of Skeptic?
He tried to debate Mark Weber at the Institute for Historical Review, and that tape, too, is educational. It is worth viewing and digesting. Those who were there have not forgotten that exchange. It was like a bikini – what it revealed was interesting, but what it concealed was telling. Shermer, according to Nizkor’s reply, has in an Open Letter “. . . offered to take the IHR up on a similar offer, but only if they precisely define ahead of time what they will accept as evidence.” The claim is that the IHR has not replied. I cannot second-guess the IHR and what their motives are, but I can tell you what I will accept as evidence: forensic, scientific data in place of musings, fairytales or what has been described by one Jewish historian as “. . . preposterous verbosity, graphomanic exaggeration, dramatic effects, overstated self-inflation, dilettante philosophizing, would-be lyricism, unchecked rumors, bias, partisan attacks, and apologies.” In Auschwitz, the Zionists and Communists cl
