An alternate look at WW1 & WW2 I found the below talk/presentation very interesting and I wanted to hear others opinons because this information is totally brand new to me and I thought I knew a thing or two about history. Did any one know this info? Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 oh and please listen to all of it before agreeing / disagreeing.. thank you.
The first few minutes were more than enough for me. An "alternate look at WWI & WWII" indeed. This isn't exactly "information" it's more like speculation and anti-Zionist propaganda. What next, more 9-11 conspiracy theories? Here's another alternate look at WWI & WWII - it was actually started by the evil mutants of Castle Plundar. *rolls eyes* Learn your history from peer-reviewed journals and published works by reputable sources, not youtube. Yea, I know, I should listen to all 40 minutes before commenting, but I frankly have better things to do with my time that listen to nonsense. Where are the so called documents and proof that the narrator claims to have? Five minutes with a primary source will be more beneficial than forty minutes of one-sided "alternate looks" at history.
Thanks Stuey, I was going to check this out after work today, but you saved me the bother. I'm usually interested in WWI/WWII facts, but not if it's just biased propaganda as you say.
Right and primary/authoritative sources of information are always 100% trustworthly.. How nieve. You sit yourself down with pen and pad and watch the video and if you have some reason to disagree with some aspect of his presentation we talk about it after you highlight those points. & blackerthanblack, how about learning to use your own mind, your own discretion in your learning and gaining of information. Watch the video set then talk untill then have some respect and keep your lack of time to your self in life.
Would if I could spare the time. Unfortunately it's scarce and I have to prioritise, if enough people comment on this then I'm sure I will be able to see it over the next week or so. As it is, the only comment is negative, and there are other things to soak up my resources.
You don't quite understand what authoritative means, do you? Peer-reviewed publications are written by experts in their field, and are therefore cited as the accepted line of thought. That's the whole point of a peer review. True, they may not always be 100% accurate, which is not always possible when key evidence is missing, but they're likely to be a damn sight more accurate than whatever the Internet has to say on the matter. I somehow doubt these YouTube videos have either been written by an expert, nor undergone peer review, which means any claims they make are irrelevant, and nothing more than speculation. If you want hard facts, don't go to YouTube.
Its an interesting take on history, an unaltered opinion of an eyewitness cannot be discounted as there are many views on one subject. Having spent time in Germany there may be truth in what is being said, there may not be but it isnt for me to decide, as I wasn't there. Discounting a source because of its views is ignorant as you are ignoring an opinion which differs from yours. What is interesting is the altered history which is being taught, yes evils were perpetrated by both sides and yet we gloss over ours and focus on the evils committed by the nazi's/huns. What is tragic is that being led by the nose by popular media. It is regressive. To my eyes we are still being moved around by warlords who have amassed wealth unimaginable to us, however we must rise above it. Only by unification, putting aside petty ideals over whose deity has the bigger, better imaginary penis we can get off this rock and take up our destiny of exploration of the stars and protection of our home world. We are lucky. We shouldn't be squandering our short lives over resources when there are plenty more outside our earthly views. I will be very happy when someone gets sick of this ********, gene-manipulates themselves and thousands of others into undefeatable fighting machines and wipe away all traces of ******** and misconception and lead them into the unending furtherance of science for the benefit of every living thing.
I'm not discounting it because it represents a different opinion to mine, I haven't even watched the damn thing. That only shows your ignorance as you don't seem to understand the point that is being made. I'm discounting it because, as you have said yourself, it is just hearsay. What would be the point of wasting 40 minutes of my life watching it when I already know many facts it contains will be questionable and unable to be corroborated by physical evidence. I might as well go down the pub and ask the first random drunk I see what he thought about it, because that would be just as reliable.
HNNNNG I'm ignorant? Surely watching the entire piece instead of forming a conclusion halfway through isnt. You can question everything, not listening to the entire argument is tantamount to leaving halfway through a lecture at university and then making up your own facts afterward by reading tabloids and creationist science books. Yes I said it was questionable, however there may be truth in it. only by viewing all of the information presented can you make an unbiased conclusion instead of immediately blowing it off as "anti-semetic claptrapasshole". I approach arguments like how I practice my science. I get as much data as humanly possible and correlate an average to establish a direction of the research. Ignorance doesn't factor into my findings or opinions, as ignorance doesn't befit intelligence.
Actually, what I'm suggesting is exactly the opposite. A lecture is given by an expert, someone who knows what they're talking about and has likely published a fair number of peer-reviewed journals on the subject, while a YouTube video is equatable to tabloid journalism where it can be hard for the unfamiliar to separate the facts from the spin. So do I, as I'm a scientist as well (hence why I don't really know enough on the subject to form an educated opinion), but if you were a good scientist then you would know that quantity of data isn't what is important, but the quality and reliability of it is. There's no point having hundreds of sources of information if half of them contain inaccuracies - you'll inevitably come to an incorrect conclusion. You wouldn't even think about citing Wikipedia or YouTube in a scientific article now, would you?
Amazing, it's been only 90 years since all that hell kicked off and already we have people trying to say what didn't happen, despite the overwhelming evidence. Is it any wonder most people believe religious drivel also.......
Having watched most of the first video and found a transcript of the entire speech I have concluded that it's nothing more than anti-zionist nonsense from a man who clearly has a vendetta to pursue. It's unverifiable opinion of one man and really does not merit any more discussion than the viewpoint of, as smc8788 has stated, the first random drunk you can find to ask about WW1 and WW2.
Why listen to the entire dribble when the beginning gives a clear and exact picture of where the story was going, also considering that the narrator's voice was far from objective.
lol, rainbowbridge sent me a PM: lol, "interesting thread" indeed. Nano-particle thermite. Suuuuuure. Just so you guys know who you're dealing with. Disagree with his promotion of biased far-fetched conjecture, and he might PM you as well, in such an eloquent manner. I wonder, how snarky should I be in my response to this provocation?
What? Didn't you hear? Silly goose, all the footage was staged by the same film crew that worked on the moon landing series, and don't forget that it's "naive to trust witnesses or other primary/authoritative sources."
although i don't go as far as some people go with conspiracy theories i do believe they are real to an extent you have to admit the governments aren't telling us somethings to do with issues such as 9/11 and its because of these little omissions that people go wild with conspiracy theories.
Oh, FFS... The man speaking in those videos, Benjamin Freedman, was a convert from Judaism to Roman Catholicism and well known for his antisemitic views and writings. He associated with Holocaust deniers, anti-Semitic agitators and right-wing anti-communists including Gerald L.K. Smith, Conde McGinley, the "Reverend" Wesley Swift, Congressman John Rankin, Senator Joseph McCarthy, and J.B. Matthews. The man had issues, to say the least. What I am getting is the usual anti-Semitic ********: "WWI and WWII are all the Jews' fault, they control the press and the economy, they control us, they're out to dominate the world". Please. The first step in being a scientist or historian is to know your sources and to interpret information in the context of their perspective. And don't get me started on "nano particle thermite" on 9/11. There is no such substance known even to PhD's in chemistry. Moreover the authors who claimed such finds did in faact state that they found "traces of a substance which appeared to resemble nano-particle thermite. Whatever that is.
B-b-but I wan to hang on to my conspiracy theories based on one tiny bit of highly dubious 'evidence' rather than going along with the conclusions drawn from the vast quantities of reliable evidence. Nexxo, you're no fun.
