>Here's a thought: if the artifacts in the Holocaust Museum were
>reproduced, and exhibited as such, what fodder would that be for those who
>deny the reality of the ovens?  This is not a rhetorical question, and we
>already have part of the answer: the deniers are pointing to the
>'reconstruction' of the ovens at the death camps as 'proof' that they
>never existed, that they are figments of some conspirators' interpretation.
>
>"You made it up" can only be refuted by original objects.
>
>--bayla
 
Point taken -- but, in this particular example ... look, let's face it: the
hard-core deniers will simply tell you that even *real* artifacts are
faked.  A mound of dead shoes is simply -- a mound of *old* shoes.  Might
have come from anywhere.  Proves nothing.
 
I also remember an interview with an earnest Flat Earther who insisted that
the pictures of a *round* earth taken from space were faked and, besides,
only showed a two-dimensional disk, anyway.  He really and truly did not
seem to be faking this ...
 
A lot of people simply will continue to believe what they please to believe
(or what they've been conditioned to believe), no matter *what* proof or
"proof" you present.
 
(This by no means is offered to refute your point, mind you.  Those people
who *are* convinceable will only be convinced by tangible realities and
proofs.)
 
The need for originals vs reproductions does rather depend somewhat on what
one hopes to gain from the item -- information tout simple (general, rather
than very detailed, which a repro might not give), or the need to connect.
As others have already pointed out.
 
Sometimes, of course, the reproduction might well be a work of art in its
own right -- but I suspect I would make myself rather unpopular in some
quarters if I should start an argument along those lines.
 
[log in to unmask]