As a history teacher in an English University I am always willing to give people the benefit of the doubt. my reasons for editing the post were based on reading Sid Walker's biography: a Friends of the Earth activist, not a historian, I thought that my suggestion that the way he was using evidence was typical of the tactics used by holocaust deniers was perhaps a little harsh. Perhaps he was just a little misguided, a little naive I thought.
Having read the threads in the political conspiracies area I realise I do need to rein in my liberal and charitable nature.
Andy Walker's assessment of Sid Walker, is probably, and regrettably very accurate.
It is also a pointless exercise trying to reason, debate or argue with such people as their failure, or inability to understand concepts like evidence and historical methododology mean their minds are closed.
In one of my favourite books Focauld's Pendulum by Umberto Eco there is a marvellous line which goes something like:
'When someone mentions the Templars you know they are the real lunatics'
I think there would be general agreement amongst all rational people that today you could do a search and replace and substitute Holcaust Deniers and conspiracy theorists for the Templars.
The only good thing about the internet and bulletin boards which have conspiracy theory discussion threads is that it is the electronic equivalent of a good old fashioned 19th Lunatic Asylum and you know the inmates are securely locked up on the top of the moors.
Hopefully I'm not being too arrogant if I claim that some replies might simply confirm some of the assertions made in this post