The Real History......

iCandy · Sep 27, 2012

Frankn said:
Hitler had many problems, probably because of the inbreeding in his family history that he tried to cover up.

Edison was a great inventor. He worked many hours to prefect a practical light bulb. He started with a carbon coated hair and tried many solutions. I think the final was carbon coated tungsten wire. He didn't steal the other guys idea.
Frank

Anything Franks says is true & correct. Forget any book, I prefer sir Frank!! Missed you Frank!!

iCandy · Sep 27, 2012

packerbacker said:
I knew Hitler had to be half nuts to do some of the things he did.

ROFLL!!! Clever!!!

Kentucky Kache · Sep 28, 2012

Now who's trying to rewrite history?

FarmerChick · Sep 28, 2012

Kentucky Kache said:
Now who's trying to rewrite history?

what are you referring to?

Kentucky Kache · Sep 28, 2012

FarmerChick said:
what are you referring to?

You guys are doing the same thing here that you dis Red James Cach for doing on other threads.

spartacus53 · Sep 28, 2012

Really

I see sources being given :laughing7:

Yes, there are some facts in history that are not true and correct... But... To say you are the only one that knows these facts though your unnamed books is just looking for trouble. You leave no room for discussion, only a "prove me wrong comment"

Pretty sad comment for a debate, or discussion :laughing7:

Kentucky Kache · Sep 28, 2012

spartacus53 said:
Really I see sources being given

Yes, there are some facts in history that are not true and correct... But... To say you are the only one that knows these facts though your unnamed books is just looking for trouble. You leave no room for discussion, only a "prove me wrong comment"

Pretty sad comment for a debate, or discussion

But you are believing your source, which is something you simply read from a book. That's exactly what Red is doing. How do you know for sure that your book is the true version of history? Were you there when the events happened? The accepted history is also written in a book, just like your revision. That tells us that just because something is written down, that doesn't make it true. So again, which version do we believe, the accepted one, or the revision? Your revision, of another?

spartacus53 · Sep 28, 2012

Again.... The idea is to show your source so people can read, digest, and come to their own conclusions.

Pretty simple process, huh :laughing7:

Kentucky Kache · Sep 28, 2012

spartacus53 said:
Again.... The idea is to show your source so people can read, digest, and come to their own conclusions.

Pretty simple process, huh

I get that, but what good does it do to read it if you don't know what to believe? If you have proof that your version is correct, then you shouldn't need to see anything else. If you don't have proof, then maybe you shouldn't be so quick to put down other versions.

packerbacker · Sep 28, 2012

So, who wants coffee??...........

Dave44 · Sep 28, 2012

Thanks Packer, I will have a cup if there is enough.

spartacus53 · Sep 28, 2012

When someone asks for a source and it's not provided, how much faith would you put into their idea. :dontknow:

Like I said, provide some sort of documentation and let the reader decide for themselves. You can discuss, or debate facts once you know what you are dealing with. Other than that, it's just an urban legend, or fairy tale to me :laughing7:

packerbacker · Sep 28, 2012

They also say U2 aircraft didn't fly missions over Vietnam from aircraft carriers. Funny, I helped push one to the fantail of an aircraft carrier in the Tonkin Gulf so it could take off effortless without the use of a catapult and only using half of the deck to get airborn. It had landed on the ship a short time earlier and the pilot carried film cases into the island. Such is history.

Kentucky Kache · Sep 28, 2012

spartacus53 said:
When someone asks for a source and it's not provided, how much faith would you put into their idea. Like I said, provide some sort of documentation and let the reader decide for themselves. You can discuss, or debate facts once you know what you are dealing with. Other than that, it's just an urban legend, or fairy tale to me

True. But without facts, even your source is worthless. That's why I say you're doing the same thing Red is doing - believing things just because you read them in a book.

Kentucky Kache · Sep 28, 2012

packerbacker said:
They also say U2 aircraft didn't fly missions over Vietnam. Funny, I helped push one to the fantail of an aircraft carrier in the Tonkin Gulf so it could take off effortless without the use of a catapult and only using half of the deck to get airborn. It had landed on the ship a short time earlier and the pilot carried film cases into the island. Such is history.

Looks like you joined in. I guess the coffee was a good Idea.

Treasure_Hunter · Sep 28, 2012

packerbacker said:
They also say U2 aircraft didn't fly missions over Vietnam. Funny, I helped push one to the fantail of an aircraft carrier in the Tonkin Gulf so it could take off effortless without the use of a catapult and only using half of the deck to get airborn. It had landed on the ship a short time earlier and the pilot carried film cases into the island. Such is history.

Part of my job in air force during the late 60s while in SE Asia was developing and studying film from U-2 and SR-71s plotting on maps what was on the film and making up briefing reports of what was there.

spartacus53 · Sep 28, 2012

packerbacker, we didn't fight in Cambodia either according to official sources :laughing7:

releventchair · Sep 28, 2012

Credible facts and sources in research. Plus what's left out of written (common)history due to secrecy or the victors view,even the authors view makes truth elusive in many cases. Finding multiple accounts unknown or related to each other can help,but the gremlin of something being commonly accepted can taint truth. Don,t records reflect what author wants?. The more i can acquire on a subject ups the odds of finding the real (?)truth. If someone can quote chapter and verse so much the better. I do not get offended if it opposes a previous conception,just file it for reference in case other sources keep matching. I have had plenty of facts wrong before and will again. Thus for me argument limited,but willing to share sources. Willing to argue sometimes though.

packerbacker · Sep 28, 2012

Yes, history is rarely recorded from the eyes of a truly neutral reporter.

Frankn · Sep 28, 2012

Hay, lets finish up this debate. History books are like treasure hunting books, you read several versions and drop out the odd "facts" and keep the common facts. I have been around since the beginning of TV and have witnessed events as they unfolded and were later edited out like that federal attack on that crazy preachers compound in Texas. I witnessed the Flaming napon dripping from the tank barrel as it pulled out. The next day that sean was cut. So history is truly biased by the presenter. It's up to the observer to filter the event with logic. You can only truly trust what you have witnessed yourself like that embassy attack where I saw men with AK's, H&K M5's and RPG's live on TV. It's harder to hide or change things today because of instant coverage. Look at the Bible. There are variations between what the followers presented but you have to remember that those accounts were written years after the facts. Frank