In article <1145640946.889234.16040@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, ieisbradguth@yahoo.com says...

Harvey,
I like it when you're going extra Usenet postal.  You're my kind of
truth teller (aka messenger from hell).

I too "believe in looking at the evidence, in which the information
tells
the story, and not just having a belief - only -."

I also believe in the regular laws of physics, which is obviously of
what these brown-nosed rusemasters (aka Third Reich) wouldn't so much
as dare take into consideration.
-
Brad Guth

I want to get to the truth of the matter - and settle for nothing less
than the truth.
It is the information which tells the story, and not that which is written
after the events, which is a revisionist view, often with a spin attached
to it...

Basic detective work/logic says - that if the information reveals
inconsistancies within the official story, then that story (the official
version) is a lie. You then look at an alternative retelling of events,
in which the information provides evidence for that alternative view.

You apply the same rules - always - to get to the truth of the matter.

Harvey