one or more may not be real… but do you know which one?
Like any argument there are facts presented by both sides, however it appears that the facts have become distorted in several ways. Masaaki stated that a lot of the pictures used to support the “rape of Nanjing” as it was also referred to were propaganda attempts. He and other deniers believed that other nations took pictures of content, misunderstood the pictures, or even altered the photo to match their agenda. He went as far to explain his experiences while there. He said while there he did not see anything that resembles a massacre. Although he makes points that seem plausible there is always two sides to a story.
The other side is a video with damning evidence. The evidence includes Japanese soldiers who committed the atrocities admitting that what they had done was wrong and confirmed that the actions did take place. Secondly was photo evidence, photo evidence is probably the most damning evidence there is. Unfortunately today people are so proficient in video editing it is becoming harder and harder to believe what you see.
I think for this topic I will ponder evidence and the use of evidence. Obviously other sources have confirmed reports of the massacre to include the US military who wrote their Chemical Warfare book from Unit 731. There are several forms of evidence, pictures, recordings, statements, journals, interviews, and documents. Pictures according to Masaaki can be altered and thus the integrity can be skewed. Recordings to can be altered and interviews have proven sometimes not to be reliable because people think something is one way but it is actually the other as well as pushing their personal agenda across. Journals too can be exaggerated or reflect ones agenda, in this case people believe the death tolls of Nanjing are exaggerated while others think they are higher than the estimations.
Either way I believe it is getting harder and harder to believe what we see, like Thomas, seeing isn’t always believing. Yes I did make a bible reference… why? Because I went to Catholic school and thats all I remember. Getting back on track, I think its not only the sources that can be skewed. The reader or person making a decision can be skewed. For example, say a reader like me reads the first article, if I did not know much of the Nanjing massacre it could be believable, I spent 30 minutes trying to see if that photo was altered like he said but to no avail. If the reader stops there than they are likely to believe that point of view.
Now if that same person was to watch the film we watched next they would have heard both sides of the story. Although each author has their own agenda the principle message is still the same, were the acts actually committed. To make matters worse I believe there are people out there that deny it for two other reasons. Reasons one, Masaaki may have not seen anything, if he had a desk job or was not there and only speculating to answer what he thinks he saw then he would whole heartedly believe that to be true. The other reason for denial is that they do not want to admit to their mistake and want to justify their actions. Like a politician, whenever they are slightly correct they will justify it till the end.
In conclusion I believe that evidence is becoming increasingly harder to believe. Especially today, evidence is being skewed to reflect individuals personal agenda. I think as time continues things will be harder and harder to believe if not coming from a primary source and even then we don’t know. Some of history is not known, and as a a result it is left to historians interpretation and as a result some form of bias is injected in that interpretation. 
