Debating the Holocaust
#21
Debates like this are counter productive because they treat the opposing parties as equals, rather than acknowledging superior authority.  As time goes on, eye witness testimony disappears due to death, and things become easier to fabricate.  The point should be to draw a conclusion as well, not to go on endlessly blabbering and confusing successive generations.   
Reply
#22
PeterII Wrote:Debates like this are counter productive because they treat the opposing parties as equals, rather than acknowledging superior authority.
Typically, the weaker side is afraid to debate, but superior authority is only granted to the winner or the side not afraid.

Quote:As time goes on, eye witness testimony disappears due to death, and things become easier to fabricate.  The point should be to draw a conclusion as well, not to go on endlessly blabbering and confusing successive generations.
No final conclusion can be drawn without permitting independent challenge to the evolving Western and Soviet holocaust propaganda.

After 60 years of communist and "democratic" censorship, it is long overdue to begin the first unimpeded inquiry. If not now, how much longer should governments wait to permit free investigation?

Reply
#23
Quote:Typically, the weaker side afraid to debate, but superior authority is only granted to the winner or the side not afraid.

There is no "side" to the truth; there are only sides when pushing an agenda.  

Quote:No final conclusion can be drawn without permitting independent challenge to the evolving Western and Soviet holocaust propaganda.

After 60 years of communist and "democratic" censorship, it is long overdue to begin the first unimpeded inquiry. If not now, how much longer should governments wait to permit free investigation?

Evidence may be brought up at any time.  If it's irrefutable, it will stand on its own merit.  There's no need for debate, there is need for scholarship. 
Reply
#24
Quote:As time goes on, eye witness testimony disappears due to death, and things become easier to fabricate.  The point should be to draw a conclusion as well, not to go on endlessly blabbering and confusing successive generations.This would effectively end any new historical research beyond the beginnning of the 20th Century..... obviously this isn't realistic...
Reply
#25
Credo Wrote:Thomas Dalton is clearly anti-Semitic. Or al Qaeda. [Image: wink.gif]


We commence bombing....should maked Devoted Knuckles happy, will pipe into his living room where he will be safe, secure......bombs away...[Image: laff.gif][Image: laff.gif]
Reply
#26
PeterII Wrote:
Quote:Typically, the weaker side is afraid to debate, but superior authority is only granted to the winner or the side not afraid.
There is no "side" to the truth; there are only sides when pushing an agenda.
The Adversarial Theory holds that the truth is most likely to emerge after all sides of a controversy are vigorously presented.

Quote:
Quote:No final conclusion can be drawn without permitting independent challenge to the evolving Western and Soviet holocaust propaganda.

After 60 years of communist and "democratic" censorship, it is long overdue to begin the first unimpeded inquiry. If not now, how much longer should governments wait to permit free investigation?
Evidence may be brought up at any time.  If it's irrefutable, it will stand on its own merit.  There's no need for debate, there is need for scholarship.
To avoid the risk of imprisonment, owners of this forum are required to immediately delete any evidence you bring up that refutes the official Holocaust position.

Evidence supporting the position might be permitted, but should be monitored. When certain Holocaust details become unsustainable in the flux of events, revisions are debated and approved in secret and presented to the public as feit accompli. Public evidence is then be removed or revised discretely.

For the past 60 years, communist and "democratic" authorities have prevented non-approved individuals and institutions from presenting Holocaust evidence or conclusions that differ in any way from the official position. Accusations of guilt for the Holocaust has compelled Catholic leadership to sinfully stop evangelizing Jews and to heretically deny Jewish leadership culpability in the Sacrifice of the Man-God.

How much longer must the Holocaust tyranny continue?
Reply
#27
Pot meet kettle.
Reply
#28
winoblue1 Wrote:Quote:As time goes on, eye witness testimony disappears due to death, and things become easier to fabricate.  The point should be to draw a conclusion as well, not to go on endlessly blabbering and confusing successive generations.This would effectively end any new historical research beyond the beginnning of the 20th Century..... obviously this isn't realistic...
Yes it is. Just forbid the research and start imprisoning defiant researchers for seven years.

Reply
#29

San Francisco Historians Condemn 1906 Earthquake Deniers

 

March 6, 2009 | Issue 45•10 SAN FRANCISCO—In an event that sparked outrage across the historical community, deniers of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake convened last weekend to share their controversial theories about what actually occurred on that tragic day more than a century ago.

Enlarge Image [Image: San-Francisco-Jump-R.article.jpg] Well-known denier David Compson argues that our history books are skewed against tremors.
The 1906 Earthquake Deniers, a group reviled by Californians and scholars alike, held three days of lectures and roundtable discussions over what they call a "century-long hoax" of exaggerated seismic activity in the Bay area, and part of a conspiracy to bring the World's Fair to San Francisco in 1915. Historians protested the conference, saying the organization's statements denying any major seismic activity in 1906 are reprehensible and out of line with all available geologic data from the time.
"On Apr. 18, 1906, an earthquake measuring 7.8 on the Richter scale killed 3,000 San Franciscans and devastated a growing metropolis," Professor Richard Kasper of the University of California, Berkeley, told reporters Tuesday. "It was a massive, massive earthquake. To say otherwise is to callously ignore not only the suffering of the disaster's victims, but also a mountain of photographs, video footage, and eyewitness reports."
Enlarge Image [Image: San-Francisco-R.article.jpg] Doubters believe photos like this one may have been altered to include more rubble and giant crevices.
Added Kasper: "And I find it personally offensive to suggest that a single malfunctioning trolley car could have wiped out 490 city blocks."
Pamphlets distributed during the symposium, which brought together some of the world's most notorious 1906 Earthquake Deniers, raised numerous questions about the so-called "myth" of the 296-mile-long rupture in the San Andreas Fault felt from Oregon to Los Angeles.
"If an earthquake of that size really did strike downtown San Francisco, then where is all the rubble?" read one pamphlet, entitled "After$hock$: Truth, Lies, And The Business Of Earthquakes," obtained by reporters. "Where are these alleged 3,000 dead? And why does the mayor refuse to answer questions about the fires that mysteriously started moments after the supposed 'earthquake' occurred? Ask yourself: Who is he protecting?"
The early 1906 Earthquake Denier movement began shortly after World War I, when historian Michael P. Harrison published an article alleging that the Chinese government and San Francisco Mayor Eugene Schmitz devised a plan to purposely light the city on fire to acquire funds for a new Chinatown. The modern day movement, however, gained momentum in 1971 with Professor David Compson's controversial book Earthquake?, which argued that the inability to freely question the disaster was "the equivalent of mental rape."
Compson has also gone on the record with similar remarks about the 1889 Johnstown Flood and, more recently, Hurricane Katrina.
"We're not saying that there weren't a few tremors on the morning of 4/18, but we do question whether 'earthquake' was the proper term to classify them," said Compson, adding that he sees himself as more of a 1906 Earthquake Revisionist than a 1906 Earthquake Denier. "These geologists and their fancy-looking, detailed seismic readouts simply aren't telling us the whole story."
Self-acknowledged 1906 Earthquake Denier and radical seismologist Dr. William Pletcher rebuffed angered historians by stating that the goal of the conference was neither to prove nor deny the earthquake of 1906. Rather, said Pletcher, it was held to "facilitate an appropriate atmosphere in which the hidden and unhidden angles of the most important geological issue of the 20th century could become more transparent."
"This so-called 'violent shift in the earth's tectonic plates' is nothing more than a thinly veiled lie, perpetrated by the San Francisco zoning commission in secret conjunction with the Freemasons to demonize the San Andreas Fault," Pletcher told reporters outside the conference. "The government won't acknowledge our findings because they fear the truth."
While the group has numerous critics, their most outspoken opponents have always been the earthquake survivors themselves. San Franciscans who lived through the event have often countered the Deniers theories by pointing out that on the morning of Apr. 18, at approximately 5:15 a.m., the ground dramatically shook, large crevasses formed in city streets, and buildings crumbled and fell.
"It was an earthquake," said 109-year-old survivor Saul Bloomfield.
But earthquake deniers claim that these personal testimonies are littered with inconsistencies. They have also asserted that Anne Mitchell's Diary Of A Young Girl In The Great San Francisco Earthquake Of 1906, a book that has been translated into 44 languages, was completely fabricated.
"San Franciscans need to wake up and smell the lies and deceits they've been fed for the last century," Earthquake Denier Jared Meeder said. "If a giant earthquake did actually occur, why would anyone in their right mind rebuild a city knowing full well that another earthquake could easily come along and destroy it again?"
"Think about it," Meeder added. [Image: terminator.gif]

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/san...ns_condemn
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)