Saturday, June 30, 2012

I just had a fairly interesting conversation …

… with a fan of "Thomas Dalton, PhD".



In the discussion following this review of “Dalton”’s book, check out the posts of Jun 30, 2012 11:16:05 AM PDT and Jun 30, 2012 11:19:50 AM PDT.

Update, 02.07.2012: See the posts of Jul 1, 2012 4:37:26 PM PDT, Jul 1, 2012 4:38:28 PM PDT and Jul 2, 2012 1:56:59 AM PDT.

1 comment:

Steve Poelish said...

I am often bewildered by the repetitious nonsense that passes for denier dissent these days. After all these years it retains the same rigorous adherence to rational reasonability as any of the replete 'Hitler In Argentina!' reports of the 50s and 60s.

They still also seem to operate to the premise: "We don't accept eyewitness testimony and anecdotes, but we do accept anecdotes and eyewitness testimony!"

Ergo as firemen at the WTC gave conflicting first-hand evidence of what were 'explosions' (allegedly) caused by explosives, jumpers and/or falling debris, denier logic dictates they must have been 'got at' in the ongoing conspiracy that is - or might not be - 9/11.

Once again it all comes back to, not the rational tenets of historical, forensic and academic evidence appraisal across the broad piste of Holocaust chronology and contiguous occurrences, oh no. It comes down to mattresses, submariner's socks, 'Wolzek' and a sinister Jewish script, a different version of which was brutally hammered into each of the main protagonists.

Deniers really must raise their game above the mediocre and find a more rational approach to something that does not hinge on Elie Wiesel, haircloth and eating diamonds.

Another proposal seems to be that the British were so keen to get first dibs on black propaganda, they tortured Hoess into giving a range of damning admissions, and yet opened the first major camp trial by saying Belsen had no gas chambers.

It's a conspiracy, Jim - but not as we know it.