The Mad Revisionist's "The Parthenon: A Post-Hellenistic Fabrication" is an interesting piece, of which there are many different arguments are made in order to prove "that there is no apparent evidence that (the Parthenon) was the majestic temple which the authorities claim."
The Mad Revisionist is an individual who puts an extraordinary amount of effort into poking fun at Holocaust revisionists, but, at the same time, he also indirectly poses another intriguing question: What if this is true? You cannot completely ignore revisionism, even though much of what they argue may appear to be 'inaccurate'. The Mad Revisionist uses a variety of techniques and a heavy dose of sarcasm in order to accomplish this feat. There are also dangers that accompany this 'branch' of history, the foremost being the possibility that there is truth to these theories.
The Mad Revisionist uses a number of different techniques to prove his Parthenon fabrication theory. They range from simple sarcasm to finding a weakness in the story and blowing it wide open, not unlike a crack in the sidewalk. For example, the Mad Revisionist, when delving for an answer to the conspicuous non-existence of two, rather large statues in the Parthenon, states, "apparently it was "lost" in the first years of the Byzantine period, after the Roman Empire conveniently converted to Christianity. What a flippant excuse to explain away such glaring lack of evidence. Revisionists are not so easily fooled."
Is the excuse 'flippant', or is it credible? I am sure, with a little more research, that one could see that the sources used to establish this point are credible. This, however, leads to another technique used by the Mad Revisionist: the fact that the evidence is controlled by the so-called "establishment" , where 'experts' are shepherds to our sheep, we "blindly trust that they...