FIND in
<--prev V205 next-->
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 10:04:58 -0500
Subject: Re: (urth) Re: Woodhenge without abos
From: Adam Stephanides 

on 5/20/02 12:44 AM, David Duffy at davidD@qimr.edu.au wrote:

> There is little doubt that there were abos.

Well, the books themselves contain doubts.  And I still haven't seen a
convincing explanation of why, if we are to take the Annese's existence for
granted, there is not one single piece of solid evidence for it: why every
piece of evidence proves doubtful upon close examination.

> It is more the melancholy
> fact, that just as on our world,

As Jerry Friedman said, there are certainly many cases on our world of
indigenous groups having been wiped out, but I don't recall any case in
which the invaders/colonists sought to wipe out all evidence of such groups
having existed.

> all evidence of their occupation is
> intentionally (and/or incidentally) destroyed by colonists, so that even
> the museums are filled with lies.

But the colonists' present-day descendants don't seem to be making any
attempt to cover up the Annese's existence; they will freely talk, not only
about the Annese themselves, but about the humans exterminating the Annese.
Mrs. Blount saw nothing wrong in her father killing abos; presumably,
neither did her parents.  And there's no indication the Annese government
would have intervened.  So why cover it up?

The more I think about it, the more suspicious the absence of any physical
traces is.  The war merely caused "the destruction of the records of the
first French landing parties" (157, Ace pb), not the destruction of all
skeletons or artifacts that might have been collected by the French.  Marsch
himself, who interprets all evidence as favorably as possible, doesn't
regard the war as explaining the absence of physical traces.  I'm not saying
this proves that the Annese never existed, just that the absence of physical
evidence is indeed not easy to explain away.



<--prev V205 next-->