Well, Teribus, the discussion was really about "sources." One poster on this thread seems to think nothing can be true without a source. If the source was something Uncle Herb said in 1952, and Uncle Herb died 10 years ago, it has no credibility to him.

                        On the other hand, when we see historians research a topic, they often go back to the media of the day, be it newspapers or hieroglyphics. I would agree that historians--at least those without an axe to grind--get it more right than popular media, but they are still influenced by what is found. And certainly more by what is not found.

                         Therefore, if you have a conspiratorial media that is keeping some voices silenced, 50 years down the road, those voices won't be found by even the most dedicated historians.