I never knew that was possible, thanks for sharing Mr Stubble!! That article is indeed fascinating. Some passages stood out to me, i'll paste them here:
Survivors, Feldshuh continues in an interview with Haaretz, “tell a different truth, and we must respect that truth, even if we do not think it is factual. That is why, in the play and in reality, survivors are encouraged to present their testimonies, their truth as they know it.”
This passage underscores the problems with eyewitness testimony, and that clearly is obvious. Some Exterminationists to their credit will give lip-service to the issues surrounding eyewitnesses (memory, inaccuracies, contradictions etc), but then double down that this still ranks higher than physical evidence, or absence thereof (eg absence of insertion holes, Kula columns, HcN residues being outweighed by eyewitnesses). Its a no-brainer but alas, here we are!
“How could I know that ‘hard proof’ would be needed to corroborate what I lived through and witnessed?’ he asks.
The chutzpah. I have no sympathy for these people's inconvenience at being held to account for their lies which disrupted the entire progression of human civilisation in the post-WW2 Nuremberg Liberal consensus.
Its also interesting to observe how Jewry discuss holocaust debate tactics amongst themselves, belying that this isn't something to be coldly analysed and to arrive at rational conclusions. For them to even debate whether irrational claims should be maintained or abandoned demonstrates this whole thing is in bad faith!
But anyway, we're getting slightly off the topic of Mantout and his wild claims!