|
 |
|
The Hindenburg
Conclusion
The Hindenburg debate has stood the test of time because this iconic event is highly pragma-dialectic as it uses imagery, film, and audio to capture a
controversial geo-political moment in time that has been preserved to present day. With the rise of the internet, the retelling of the Hindenburg disaster is a
few clicks away for those who choose to revisit the tale. And for those that are drawn further into the story by the literally explosive presented elements of the
disaster, undoubtedly many of these potentially limitless viewers will join the 86 year old (and counting) speech community
that still ponders whether Joseph Späh is guilty of sabotage, to invent their own suggested (perceived) elements and authors, along with functions and purposes that
are influenced by their own personal cultures of lived experiences.
And the sabotage versus accident question is still a valid debate, despite its convolution by human perceptions, because even though the physical evidence of the
presented elements of the explosion points to at least one leaking hydrogen cell, which may lead one to conclude that the disaster was an unfortunate accident, this
does not prove that Joseph Späh was not crawling around the airship puncturing hydrogen cells ⦨ |
|
