Andy Mathis challenged a politician to debate the so called 'holocaust', retreated, and them curiously accepted the politican's challenge to debate (only when it comes to judeo-supremacism do things get turned upside down). I have posted verbatim an email I received from politician, Jim Condit.
Andy Mathis will no doubt come up with an excuse to drop the debate. See exactly why following Condit's email.
To all concerned,
The election is just ending today for me. I have not been able to pay
attention to the preparation for this debate since I last corresponded
with Dr. Mathis circa 10-10-07 or so.
At that time, Dr. Mathis chastised me for saying somewhere (might have
been the Piper Report on rbnlive.com) that he had "tentatively agreed"
to the debate. I therefore want to emphasize here that he has told me in
more than one email that he definitely accepts the debate.
Since about 10-10-07, and now, here is the understanding between Dr.
Mathis and myself, by email. This should be put in a formal written
agreement somewhat soon, singed by both of us., as, if this debate takes
place, then thousands will be spent to film it properly, and people may
want to travel miles to see it:
1. The debate will be between Dr. Andrew Mathis and Mr. James J. Condit
2. The place will be Villanova University, or an appropriate auditorium
for a debate around Villanova.
3. The format of the debate is: flip of the coin for who goes first;
then 15 min, 15 min, 15 min, 15 min (maybe another 15 min and 15 min to
close); 1 hour of live questions and answers.
4. Must be filmed to go up on internet or be available in DVD; this is
the one condition I put on, and that if filming stops, I stop until
filming is resumed; if one side stalks off the stage, then the other
side can stay on the stage and talk all the time and all the questions.
5. Each side can cover whatever they want -- from reading the phone book to making coherent arguments; the audience both in the auditorium and on the internet will be able to see if one side or the other or both -- are dodging issues or spouting nonsense.
6. We intend to come with full filming facilities, and will provide Dr.
Mathis with a DVD copy of our filming after the event; he can film also.
7. Both sides agree that each can erect a website to comment on the
items raised after the debate, either themselves or by use of experts.
This could engender an ongoing discussion. The purpose of the debate is
not "gotcha" -- but a search for the truth and to help others find the
truth. This also give a chance for someone to recover if they were
unfamiliar with a subject or claim, and it also gives a chance to
concede points if one side has misspoken and wishes to correct a
statement. It also allows one side of the other to try to prove the
claims of the other frivolous or false.
8. I had not introduced this element before, but I believe power points
should be allowed to support what one is saying. I.e., if I cite a book
that would not be known to most people, then I'd like to throw a picture
of it up on a screen to back up what I am saying.
9. The one element that seems a bit fuzzy for me is the audience. I
would prefer an auditorium at Villanova University with 200 to 400
cushioned seats. I would prefer that the audience be all students,
although it would also be OK for each side to grant each other 50
tickets each, let's say, and work it out with history classes in the
area to provide the rest of the audience from student bodies. The only
problem with this is that it would be hard for me to know if the
professors who claim they are bringing the students would really play it
straight, or if we would be talking to a mostly empty auditorium of the
professors who were supposed to bring the students didn't come through.
The other option is just to let it be first come first served. I don't
mind speaking to a stacked audience, although Dr. Mathis said he didn't
want me to stack the audience, and I don't want to. But I would rather
speak to a mixed audience or to a overwhelmingly student audience.
Jim Condit Jr.
see why Mathis will ultimately dodge the debate:
'Holo. Hist. Proj. rep. attempts to intimidate Bradley Smith'
'Holo. Hist. Proj.'s Andrew Mathis humidity/gassing canard'
'holocaust' denial article by Andrew Mathis debunked here'
'Prof. Mc Nally dissects HHP's Andrew Mathis' bogus article'
'Holo. Hist. Proj.'s Andrew Mathis on Zyklon scent removal'
'Green, Mathis refuted / cyanide: lice, humans, & more'
'Believer org. spokesman, Andrew Mathis, demolished in debate'
'Holo. Hist. Proj.'s Andrew Mathis attempts damage control'
'Email from Andrew Mathis (The Holocaust History Project)'
'holocaust' History Project to unveil section on Treblinka'