Shermer cravenly dodged questions about his alleged "research" and repeatedly ran away from Greg Gerdes when challenged to debate.The culmination of years of research… our purpose… to present the historical facts that refute Holocaust denial… The purpose of this book is to… show precisely, with solid evidence, how we know the Holocaust happened… To debunk the deniers can’t we just go there [the camps] and see them for ourselves? The answer, of course, is “yes.” Many of our arguments draw on specialized research into the claims of the deniers that took us to the Nazi extermination camps themselves… We went to Europe to conduct research at the camps, in particular at… Sobibor… We wanted to see for ourselves just what evidence there is at the camps and to take the opportunity to examine firsthand the claims… We can no longer ignore the deniers, calling them names and hoping they will go away… We cannot remain silent anymore. It’s time to respond… Not only is it defensible to respond to the deniers, it is, we believe, our duty… Historians both discover and describe the past, just as natural scientists… we can use the methods of science to… marshal the evidence and apply tight logic… This process is practiced by all scientists… historical scientists, geologists, paleontologists and archaeologists, to prove that anything in the past happened… we must obey the rules of reason and apply the tools of science… in order to make proper interpretations; we must review the physical evidence… Like criminologists solving a crime, we piece together the myriad bits of evidence until a conclusion emerges from the morass of data… How is it that so much physical evidence can come to be doubted?
No report explaining just what "physical evidence" he allegedly "reviewed" was ever published - even after being challenged to do so.
Michael Shermer was / is a liar, coward, gross hypocrite, and of course, a:“Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.”
U.S. vs. Prudden - U.S. Court of Appeals - Fifth Circuit - April 1970
charlatan
a person falsely claiming to have a special knowledge or skill; a fraud: