SilenceIsALie wrote:It's strange that one of the first things I learned in life was that academically, scientifically and legally when witness testimony is contradicted by physical evidence the physical evidence is always right.
I did not suggest something else. The only problem is that physical evidence is not equal somebody making a statement about physical evidence. For instance, if a Revisionists writes that the homicidal gas-chambers are refuted by physical evidence, because of x (whereas x is a line of argument), it doesn't mean that the homicidal gas-chambers are really refuted by physical evidence unless x can be confirmed to be true. Which is usually not the case with Revisionist arguments by the way.
