Re: did man walk on the moon...and creationism.

On Aug 4, 6:08 pm, Ye Old One <use...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 15:50:08 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
<leila...@xxxxxxxxxxx> enriched this group when s/he wrote:





On Aug 3, 7:29 pm, el cid <elcidbi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 3, 7:06 pm, Suzanne <leila...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

He had no crimes. A person is innocent until proven
guilty, not guilty until proven innocent.

This particular argument is extraordinarily weak and
a pet peeve of mine.

Specific accusations aside, within a formal system of
governmental justice, there are clear and compelling
reasons to hold individuals as innocent until proven
guilty. It is absurd, however, to confuse this with a
statement of fact.

I see no reason for individuals to be required to hold
that people are innocent until proven guilty until they
are rendered into service in the formal justice system.
Nor should my opinion be restricted to what a particular
justice system should decide. Maintaining otherwise
completely misses the principles on which "innocent
until proven guilty" has been formulated.

Wither or no Hitler was ever tried I think he was guilty
of a fair number of rather obvious crimes. Examples of
those not found guilty but of whom guilt is rather obvious
could likewise be offered.

Guilt is not obvious in the case of WVB.

When you look at the evidence his guilt is clear.

He did not capture
people, and put them in concentration camps. He did not
create the concentration camps. He did not order the lack
of food and ill living conditions,

He could have done a lot to better them.

Hitler did those things. He
did not demand that the rockets would be used as weapons,
Hitler did that.

The V2 was designed, from scratch, as a medium range missile to
deliver an explosive warhead to a population centre.

It wasn't even until near the end of the war
that Hitler stepped up the mad rush to turn out all of those
rockets at break-neck speed. Hitler did that.

WvB designed, built, tested and then mass produced a weapon that had
no battlefield use - it was designed from the outset to kill
civilians.

It's also a fact
that Von Braun said at a party at a house that he would
rather he was building space rockets than what Hitler was
forcing them to do.

No, that is NOT a fact. It was used as evidence against him but as
most of the other evidence was clearly invented there is no reason to
believe  that one snippet.

They even know that the woman was
a young woman who was a dental assistant that turned
them in. We know that when WVB and the team surrendered
to the Americans, that one man that was present said that
he seemed to act like WVB fancied himself as being some
kind of hero or statesman, and that he eagerly let himself
be photographed with individual Americans who wanted
his picture made with them. That was told to a writer who
wanted to report the event. But that man was telling what
he thought that someone is thinking, and he did not really
know what he was thinking of course and the man could
have read the moment wrong.

Could he? WvB was always a publicity seeker.

But one thing is for sure,
if he had been in chains, the man would have told that
for sure, but he never said such a thing.

Abusing English again.



Another thing that is rather obvious to me whether or not
others have noticed it, is that if WVB was approving of
what Hitler was doing, the most obvious thing is what
Hitler did to the Jews. Yet in this country it was WVB that
stood up and was outspoken about how segregation was
wrong and how persecuting someone because of the
color of his skin is wrong.

Did he? So what?

So you have to have concrete
proof that someone actually did what they are being
accused of before you can be reasonably sure that they
are guilty of something.

That proof has been given.





I am not naive enough to believe
that someone is this totally innocent person just because
I think they smile pretty or can charm the ears off of a
mule. I'm basing my belief on the fact that I grew up in
San Antonio, Texas part of my childhood and there was
a man who was in a trial. He was convicted on what
some thought was good evidence, but not to a lot of
what the public saw in the supposed evidence. The
public mostly was against him being executed. When
it came time to do just that, the man on death row
pleaded, and begged and cried and was dragged
into the place where they would end his life. He said
"Please, please, I am innocent, please hear me, please
do not do this." But they executed him anyway. After the
man died, a short while later, another man came forth who
was overwhelmed with a guilty conscience and he said
that he was the one who was the real killer and that
the man they put to death really was innocent. I was
ten years old when that case made a profound influence
on me that a person should be considered innocent
until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Your country is still barbaric enough to murder some of its prisoners.

WvB was barbaric enough to allow thousands to die building his
rockets.

That's
what I believe and I believe it very strongly. It's a terrible
thing that the man who was innocent had to die, but I don't
think he died in vain because a lot of people after that
resolved to always uphold the idea that a person is
innocent until proved guilty.

WvB has been proven guilty.

Lines from Wikipedia say...
"On December 22, 1942, Adolf Hitler signed the order approving the
productino of the A-4 as a 'vengeance weapon' and the group
developed it to target London." (The A-4 was renamed the V-2.)
"Von Braun's interest in rockets was specifically for the application
of space travel, which led him to say on hearing the news from
London: 'The rocket worked perfectly except for landing on the
wrong planet.' He described it as his 'darkest day.' "

Suzanne

.

Relevant Pages