So the issue is not that anyone has ever disproved a Conquest factual assertion, but instead that Conquest's evidence for a specific assertion is allegedly weak. I suppose that is always a challenge for a historian -- drawing conclusions from incomplete information, and we all have a subjective standard of proof based upon the issue at hand. For some, there will never be enough proof that Oswald killed Kennedy. But a key reason why Oswald is assumed to be the killer is not that the evidence for Oswald is necessarily conclusive, but that the evidence for every other alternative is much weaker. So, give me an example of a factual assertion by Conquest for which there is contrary evidence that is now universally recognized (by professional historians) as more compelling.
David Shemano -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Charlie Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2015 5:44 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Pen-l] The Teen Who Exposed a Professor's Myth David Shemano wrote: "What factual assertions by Conquest have been factually disproved?" Of course, one need not factually disprove an assertion by Conquest, if your question implies anything more than demonstrating that Conquest did not establish as fact many of his factual assertions. For that, there are too many to list here. For a start with plenty of references, see http://www.stalinsociety.org/2015/08/05/grover-furr-on-robert-conquest/ _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l ____________________________________________________ Information contained in this e-mail transmission may be privileged, confidential and covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, distribute, or reproduce this transmission. If you have received this e-mail transmission in error, please notify us immediately of the error by return email and please delete the message from your system. Pursuant to requirements related to practice before the U. S. Internal Revenue Service, any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for purposes of (i) avoiding penalties imposed under the U. S. Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any tax-related matter. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Robins Kaplan LLP http://www.robinskaplan.com ____________________________________________________
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
