This website needs some cosmetics- URGENTLY

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
ClaudiaRothenbach
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 569
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:16 pm

Postby ClaudiaRothenbach » 1 decade 7 months ago (Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:14 am)

holographic wrote:How about an image of Galileo, Luther, Jefferson, and Zundel.

'Does the sun actually revolve around the earth'
-Galileo

Einstein proved that the sun really revolves around the earth.

holographic wrote:'I question the preeminence of the Roman Church and its dogma'
-Luther

Luther wrote a real antisemitic essay about "The Jews and Their Lies" (Von den Jüden und ihren Lügen) as well as a 7 point programme for the extermination of Jews.

Perhaps M. Luther is no serious witness for our message.

holographic wrote:'I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.'
-Jefferson

For Europeans Jefferson is not important enough. He is not famous. And did he ever suffer?

Maybe for US-Americans he is. So please feel free to take him.

holographic wrote:'I question the validity of holocaust figures'
-Zundel

Simply a great guy.
"Everything has already been said, but not yet by everyone." - Karl Valentin

User avatar
ASMarques
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:47 pm

Postby ASMarques » 1 decade 7 months ago (Sun Apr 05, 2009 1:58 pm)

ClaudiaRothenbach wrote:For Europeans Jefferson is not important enough.


You really should speak for yourself. :bs: Direct relevance to revisionism is one thing; historical, political and intellectual importance is another. I'm afraid your opinion of Europeans is way too low.

User avatar
holographic
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2004 12:19 am

Postby holographic » 1 decade 7 months ago (Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:46 pm)

ASMarques wrote:
holographic wrote:ASMarques, you're an atheist I assume.


I'll not go into that because we would be in for a long off-topic discussion, so I'll just state that the question in itself, as you put it, is devoid of meaning: it's not possible to believe or disbelieve in a concept that is left undefined. For more on the true faith of the happy few, as opposed to the false faiths of the lost souls, click here if you're really interested.


holographic wrote:at least with Luther there is a connection to Zundel's birth place.


Not reason enough, unless we want to turn revisionism into some sort of narrow patriotic endeavor. Even then, if we are really interested in upholding the historical facts against the religious allegations of the "Holocaust" followers, we should not be adopting a notorious historical peddler of religious humbuggery as emblematic of our own endeavor.

no, no....not a question at all, just a mere assumption.
a "narrow patriotic endeavor"...oh, that's a GOOD one.

User avatar
holographic
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2004 12:19 am

Postby holographic » 1 decade 7 months ago (Sun Apr 05, 2009 6:04 pm)

ClaudiaRothenbach wrote:
holographic wrote:How about an image of Galileo, Luther, Jefferson, and Zundel.

'Does the sun actually revolve around the earth'
-Galileo

Einstein proved that the sun really revolves around the earth.


for all its "relativism", Einstein's theory was quite ABSOLUTE.Its greatest contribution was the invariance of the speed of light. Yet, Einstein failed to include rotation in his theory.
Rotation, is also known as "the neglected invariant". Please stand up and make a 360 degree turn....thank you, you may sit down now.
Could we say that the universe has spun around you? NO, because of the invariance of the speed of light, distant and NOT SO distant stars would have to exceed the speed of light to accomplish that. ROTATION is absolute, NOT relative)

anyway, Galileo? scrapped. Luther? Scrapped! Jefferson? Scrapped

alright, there are NO historical precedents!
at times though, I'm tempted to say, "this is a German thing!!! Y'all wouldn't understand!!"

:)

Halo
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 145
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 6:34 am

Postby Halo » 1 decade 7 months ago (Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:23 pm)

I really need an answer to my technical problem lol. Would transparency work the way I dispayed a page ago, or not? :D

User avatar
ASMarques
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:47 pm

Postby ASMarques » 1 decade 7 months ago (Sun Apr 05, 2009 11:19 pm)

holographic wrote:
ClaudiaRothenbach wrote:
holographic wrote:How about an image of Galileo, Luther, Jefferson, and Zundel.

'Does the sun actually revolve around the earth'
-Galileo

Einstein proved that the sun really revolves around the earth.


for all its "relativism", Einstein's theory was quite ABSOLUTE.Its greatest contribution was the invariance of the speed of light. Yet, Einstein failed to include rotation in his theory.
Rotation, is also known as "the neglected invariant". Please stand up and make a 360 degree turn....thank you, you may sit down now.
Could we say that the universe has spun around you? NO, because of the invariance of the speed of light, distant and NOT SO distant stars would have to exceed the speed of light to accomplish that. ROTATION is absolute, NOT relative)


The absolute equivalence of any two frames of reference only makes sense in the context of Special Relativity, when you are able to deal exclusively with inertial frames of reference. However, as soon as it becomes necessary to consider non-inertial frames of reference -- such as rotating ones -- things become more complicated, gravity and the geometry of spacetime must be considered in the General Relativity context etc. That's why, in the Twins so-called paradox, the twin that enters the rocket, travels away, achieves near-light speeds, and then decelerates, inverts the direction of his motion, re-acelerates, and returns to Earth is the one that ages the least. Otherwise, if the motions of the two twins were considered to be absolutely equivalent, an asymmetrical time dilation wouldn't make any sense.

So, it's clear that it makes much more sense to say that the Earth and the planets revolve around the Sun, than to say that the Sun and the planets revolve around the Earth, if for no other reason because you need a much more elaborate description (with complicated epicycles etc.) for the second conventional viewpoint.

And this brings me to the point I wished to make: it's correct to say that both the geocentric and heliocentric views of the solar system are describable in rigorous terms, even though with unequal degrees of simplicity and an unequal power of explanation for such matters as the history of the solar system.

What it is not correct to say is that the universe has the planet Earth for a privileged fixed center around which the whole cosmos revolves, for the very simple reason that such a point does not exist. It is this understanding of the philosophical position to be extrapolated from the scientific observations that the superstitious Church utterly lacked, while the Galilean view clearly implies it as a rich and deep consequence.

That said, I maintain that it is arrogant and dangerous to adopt Galileo -- a scientific genius, not an hands-on fighter against empowered religion -- as emblematic of revisionism. If any historical characters are required I would think such models as Lucian of Samosata, Celsus, Porphyry, Julian the Apostate, or Voltaire would be much more appropriate.

Halo wrote:I really need an answer to my technical problem lol. Would transparency work the way I displayed a page ago, or not?:D


Halo, I dare say no one seems so far very keen on complications like the transparency thing. Personally I confess I would prefer your Justice scales on the top, plus the 1984 Zündel & Rudolf on both sides of a central composition to be discussed.

User avatar
BelzeBob
Member
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 5:14 am

Postby BelzeBob » 1 decade 7 months ago (Fri Apr 10, 2009 7:52 am)

Website cosmetics.

How about creating say 10 major categories? And then redistribute all the topics there?

Now there's 159 pages of topics to browse through under "'Holocaust' Debate / Comments / News". Takes quite a bit of work if one wants to find a specific topic.

I hope I don't come across as a whiner. I'm just offering my opinion.

It would also be cool if there would be an easy-to-find topic/place especially for "Holocaust believers" to challenge us disbelievers (and visa versa). Discussion tends to be more fruitful when not everybody already agrees with each other...

User avatar
ClaudiaRothenbach
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 569
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:16 pm

Postby ClaudiaRothenbach » 1 decade 7 months ago (Sat Apr 11, 2009 5:48 am)

ASMarques wrote:You really should speak for yourself. :bs: Direct relevance to revisionism is one thing; historical, political and intellectual importance is another. I'm afraid your opinion of Europeans is way too low.


You should really cite the complete context and not write :bs:
"Everything has already been said, but not yet by everyone." - Karl Valentin

Halo
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 145
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 6:34 am

Postby Halo » 1 decade 6 months ago (Tue Apr 14, 2009 4:33 pm)

@Belze: I hope the switch to Phbbh 3 (however it´s spelled) will offer new technical opportunities to make the forums more "accessible".

on topic:
I reworked the header a bit. The chain, the judge, the barbed wire (which I am still not confident with), the curtain and the holocaust typo got reworked. The key has a different color now.

Image

Image

Just to show there´s still something going on here =)


But I´d really like to know, if the transparency thing works lol

Kind regards,
halo


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests