Quote:
Originally Posted by aron
This was also my gripe with the Lily Hsu testimony of WWII-era mainland China. How much of it could be independently corroborated? How much was perhaps manipulated or misremembered history in order to cast things in the best light for the tale-teller?
|
While I understand the concerns with Lily Hsu's testimony, I do not see these as the same kind of thing. Hsu is writing from personal observations and those of others, and has acknowledged them as such. There does not appear to be the inference that the world was revolving around Hsu. That does not make her story more true, but more palatable.
And palatable is not the end-all of anything. And while it is possible that everything Krieger has accounted is actually true, plausibility is stretched to the max. On the other hand, while the story Hsu told was at first hard to believe, it has since been seen as making much more sense that Lee's almost clearly fabricated tale about Nee's living with his mother or aunt as being the cause of excommunication. Is everything about Hsu's account 100% accurate? Have all of the sources been entirely honest? Hard to say. But the world wasn't revolving around them.
Meanwhile, it would seem that there is a difference of opinion concerning activity in Santa Cruz, with one participant there having never heard of Krieger. Makes for a more difficult sell.
And makes me wonder if it is worse than some of us (like me at times) at tying everything to Lee and the LCM and just going off on it. There was another who wrote like this on the other forum years ago. Parts of his were very believable. But some parts were difficult because, once again, everything seemed to revolve around him. He stood up to everyone and no one stood up to him. And he got away with it. At least he says so.