HoloCost Revisionism

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 1997
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:50 am

PostTue Nov 06, 2012 12:37 am » by Eldorado


Truthdefender wrote:
Cia212 wrote:Read Proving the Holocaust: The Refutation of Revisionism & the Restoration of History by Michael Shermer from Skeptic magazine. It's pretty definitive.



A Not-So-Hidden Agenda
"Although officially Jews have never made up more than five percent of the country's total population, they played a highly disproportionate and probably decisive role in the infant Bolshevik regime, effectively dominating the Soviet government during its early years." But Lenin, who ordered the assassination of the Imperial family, wasn't Jewish. Weber's explanation is revealing: "Lenin himself was of mostly Russian and Kalmuck ancestry, but he was also one- quarter Jewish" (p. 7). This is a typical revisionist line of reasoning: Fact: The Communists killed the Romanovs and instigated the Bolshevik Revolution. Fact: Some of the leading Communists were Jewish. Conclusion: The Jews killed the Romanovs and caused the Bolshevik Revolution. By the same logic: Ted Bundy was Catholic. Ted Bundy was a serial killer. Catholics are serial killers.

Good post


Last time I checked the Bolshevics were TRAINED AND FUELED IN DOWNTOWN NEW YORK CITY BY THE ROCKEFELLERS THEMSELVES

HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT??
Image
“The superior man, when resting in safety, does not forget that danger may come. When in a state of security he does not forget the possibility of ruin.” Confucius (551 BC - 479 BC)

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 319
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 10:58 pm

PostTue Nov 06, 2012 12:51 am » by zangazanga75



Initiate
Posts: 848
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2007 6:12 am

PostTue Nov 06, 2012 2:00 am » by Baboogdi


When did it become a crime to seek out the truth? It seems that the topic of the validity of the holocaust has been hidden behind a strong wall of knee-jerk indignation, name-calling, and insults. An event that has inserted itself so deeply into our modern psychology should be open to confirmation and scrutiny. I think the truth is the ultimate goal in any discussion and even more so in this hot-button topic. If the numbers are incorrect then let's open the discussion so that they can be made right. If they are correct then the evidence should show that. Any time a large number of people are murdered it should be studied. The killing of millions of Russians, the killing of Serbs and Croats. All of these should be studied and held up as crimes which soil all of us as a race. Making the discussion of the holocaust off-limits is not right. It's time we confirm all of our history so that as we move on we have a verifiable foundation to build on rather than trying to tiptoe around a topic because we fear we'll anger someone.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 7832
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2009 9:19 pm

PostTue Nov 06, 2012 2:06 am » by Harbin


Baboogdi wrote:When did it become a crime to seek out the truth? It seems that the topic of the validity of the holocaust has been hidden behind a strong wall of knee-jerk indignation, name-calling, and insults. An event that has inserted itself so deeply into our modern psychology should be open to confirmation and scrutiny. I think the truth is the ultimate goal in any discussion and even more so in this hot-button topic. If the numbers are incorrect then let's open the discussion so that they can be made right. If they are correct then the evidence should show that. Any time a large number of people are murdered it should be studied. The killing of millions of Russians, the killing of Serbs and Croats. All of these should be studied and held up as crimes which soil all of us as a race. Making the discussion of the holocaust off-limits is not right. It's time we confirm all of our history so that as we move on we have a verifiable foundation to build on rather than trying to tiptoe around a topic because we fear we'll anger someone.


Very well said and this "An event that has inserted itself so deeply into our modern psychology should be open to confirmation and scrutiny.", is what I and others have been attempting to convey.
Image
Antiwar.com

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2469
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 2:18 am

PostTue Nov 06, 2012 3:49 am » by Proto


Baboogdi wrote:Making the discussion of the holocaust off-limits is not right. It's time we confirm all of our history so that as we move on we have a verifiable foundation to build on rather than trying to tiptoe around a topic because we fear we'll anger someone.


Who's stopping you from discussing or researching ?

this is yet another false argument ,no one forbids you discussing or researching
the holocaust , the problem starts when people ignore the facts and/or distort them
for their shady agendas .

The fact that this kind of junk usually pushed by neo nazis and other haters
also say a lot .

----
Deceit & Misrepresentation
The Techniques of Holocaust Denial

The "Science" of Denial,
the Denial of Science

In recent years, Holocaust deniers have turned to "scientific" arguments to "prove" that the Nazi regime could not have used gas chambers to carry out an extermination program against Jews and Gypsies. The "Leuchter and Rudolf reports" purported to demonstrate that there was not enough cyanide residue in the Auschwitz gas chambers to be consistent with mass gassing. Friedrich Paul Berg, in his paper "The Diesel Gas Chambers: Myth Within a Myth," claims to show that it would be improbable at best and nearly impossible at worst to use diesel engine exhaust to kill people in the manner and time described by eyewitnesses to the gas chambers at Belzec and Treblinka. Both papers cite experiments, laboratory analyses, chemical compositions, etc. just like any other objective scientific paper - or so the authors would like us to believe.

there's a difference between denier "science" and true science.
The fundamental principle of true science is this: any theory must take into account any relevant observable facts. That is, the theory must fit the facts; a true scientist never denies facts simply because they don't fit the theory. The way an honest scientist works is to make observations first, and only then come up with a theory which explains what is seen. If at any time the facts contradict the theory, the theory is discarded as false. A new one must be formed.

The Holocaust deniers reverse this process. First they decide what they want the "facts" to be, contrary to all eyewitness testimony and documentary and physical evidence. They come up with theories to "prove" that the "true" facts must be the way they want them to be. Therefore all documents are forgeries or mean something other than what they clearly seem to mean, and eyewitnesses to events which contradict their theory must be lying, mistaken, crazy, or victims of some form of coercion which caused them to give false testimony.

There are other ways in which honest science can be distinguished from quackery. Real scientists are cautious. They look at possible alternative explanations. They look for possible sources of error. They explain any limitations or problems they know about. They shy away from making assumptions, and if they do have to make them, they explain and justify them openly. All conclusions are based on facts plus properly established theories, not speculation and unproven assumptions.

When one examines denier "science," one finds that every one of these rules are violated. Fred Leuchter simply assumed that it would have taken just as much cyanide to kill people as it took to kill lice. That's false; lice take much more cyanide to kill and they need to be exposed to it for a lot longer. He also seems to have assumed that gassings took place much more often than they really did, apparently taking the abnormal conditions at the peak of the Hungarian deportations as being typical of the entire time at Birkenau.

Leuchter also assumed that since the delousing chambers have blue stains (apparently from cyanide compounds such as prussian blue), the gas chambers would have had the same staining. In fact, the formation of prussian blue from exposure to cyanide is not well understood. The rate of its formation, if it is formed at all, may vary considerably under different circumstances.

Friedrich Berg argued that it is very difficult to make diesel engines generate enough carbon monoxide to kill within half an hour or so, as reported by the witnesses at Treblinka. Actually, he is right - the primary cause of death was probably asphyxiation (i.e., simple lack of oxygen). However, Berg violated all the rules. First, he failed to deal with explicit eyewitness testimony that the victims suffocated to death. Second, he didn't look very closely at other ways in which diesel exhaust could kill people under the circumstances reported at Treblinka. He completely glossed over the question of whether the combined effects of low oxygen, high carbon dioxide, moderate carbon monoxide, high levels of oxides of nitrogen, and overcrowding in a very small chamber can kill even though perhaps each individual effect could not.

There's a story, perhaps apocryphal, that someone using aerodynamic theory once "proved" that bumblebees cannot fly. However, the bumblebees, unimpressed by this triumph of science, refused to walk from flower to flower and continued flying just as before.

The Holocaust deniers' "scientists" are in the same position: they attempt to prove that facts are not facts. In the most real sense, the "science" employed in the service of Holocaust denial is, in truth, the denial of every principle of the scientific method - indeed, the denial of science itself.


http://www.nizkor.org/features/techniqu ... ience.html

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 1997
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:50 am

PostTue Nov 06, 2012 3:58 am » by Eldorado


Hitler stated the following: "Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it". You think Wiesel didn't do just that or am I misreading Haaretz?

Read more: holocost-revisionism-t80504-30.html#ixzz2BP4ZMkZH
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

:headscratch: :headscratch: :headscratch:

Try this one fact finder.....

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
The_Craven

Joseph Goebbels quotes


Need any facts in the case you can ask me or Harbin on the issue
Image
“The superior man, when resting in safety, does not forget that danger may come. When in a state of security he does not forget the possibility of ruin.” Confucius (551 BC - 479 BC)

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2469
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 2:18 am

PostTue Nov 06, 2012 4:12 am » by Proto


Eldorado wrote:
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

Joseph Goebbels quotes


Need any facts in the case you can ask me or Harbin on the issue


Yeah harbin and you definitely took goebbles(Nazi minister of propaganda) advise seriously ,
you keep telling the same big lie over and over again in hopes people will believe you (wont happen).

Initiate
Posts: 848
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2007 6:12 am

PostTue Nov 06, 2012 4:16 am » by Baboogdi


Proto wrote:
Baboogdi wrote:Making the discussion of the holocaust off-limits is not right. It's time we confirm all of our history so that as we move on we have a verifiable foundation to build on rather than trying to tiptoe around a topic because we fear we'll anger someone.


Who's stopping you from discussing or researching ?

this is yet another false argument ,no one forbids you discussing or researching
the holocaust , the problem starts when people ignore the facts and/or distort them
for their shady agendas .

The fact that this kind of junk usually pushed by neo nazis and other haters
also say a lot .

----
Deceit & Misrepresentation
The Techniques of Holocaust Denial

The "Science" of Denial,
the Denial of Science

In recent years, Holocaust deniers have turned to "scientific" arguments to "prove" that the Nazi regime could not have used gas chambers to carry out an extermination program against Jews and Gypsies. The "Leuchter and Rudolf reports" purported to demonstrate that there was not enough cyanide residue in the Auschwitz gas chambers to be consistent with mass gassing. Friedrich Paul Berg, in his paper "The Diesel Gas Chambers: Myth Within a Myth," claims to show that it would be improbable at best and nearly impossible at worst to use diesel engine exhaust to kill people in the manner and time described by eyewitnesses to the gas chambers at Belzec and Treblinka. Both papers cite experiments, laboratory analyses, chemical compositions, etc. just like any other objective scientific paper - or so the authors would like us to believe.

there's a difference between denier "science" and true science.
The fundamental principle of true science is this: any theory must take into account any relevant observable facts. That is, the theory must fit the facts; a true scientist never denies facts simply because they don't fit the theory. The way an honest scientist works is to make observations first, and only then come up with a theory which explains what is seen. If at any time the facts contradict the theory, the theory is discarded as false. A new one must be formed.

The Holocaust deniers reverse this process. First they decide what they want the "facts" to be, contrary to all eyewitness testimony and documentary and physical evidence. They come up with theories to "prove" that the "true" facts must be the way they want them to be. Therefore all documents are forgeries or mean something other than what they clearly seem to mean, and eyewitnesses to events which contradict their theory must be lying, mistaken, crazy, or victims of some form of coercion which caused them to give false testimony.

There are other ways in which honest science can be distinguished from quackery. Real scientists are cautious. They look at possible alternative explanations. They look for possible sources of error. They explain any limitations or problems they know about. They shy away from making assumptions, and if they do have to make them, they explain and justify them openly. All conclusions are based on facts plus properly established theories, not speculation and unproven assumptions.

When one examines denier "science," one finds that every one of these rules are violated. Fred Leuchter simply assumed that it would have taken just as much cyanide to kill people as it took to kill lice. That's false; lice take much more cyanide to kill and they need to be exposed to it for a lot longer. He also seems to have assumed that gassings took place much more often than they really did, apparently taking the abnormal conditions at the peak of the Hungarian deportations as being typical of the entire time at Birkenau.

Leuchter also assumed that since the delousing chambers have blue stains (apparently from cyanide compounds such as prussian blue), the gas chambers would have had the same staining. In fact, the formation of prussian blue from exposure to cyanide is not well understood. The rate of its formation, if it is formed at all, may vary considerably under different circumstances.

Friedrich Berg argued that it is very difficult to make diesel engines generate enough carbon monoxide to kill within half an hour or so, as reported by the witnesses at Treblinka. Actually, he is right - the primary cause of death was probably asphyxiation (i.e., simple lack of oxygen). However, Berg violated all the rules. First, he failed to deal with explicit eyewitness testimony that the victims suffocated to death. Second, he didn't look very closely at other ways in which diesel exhaust could kill people under the circumstances reported at Treblinka. He completely glossed over the question of whether the combined effects of low oxygen, high carbon dioxide, moderate carbon monoxide, high levels of oxides of nitrogen, and overcrowding in a very small chamber can kill even though perhaps each individual effect could not.

There's a story, perhaps apocryphal, that someone using aerodynamic theory once "proved" that bumblebees cannot fly. However, the bumblebees, unimpressed by this triumph of science, refused to walk from flower to flower and continued flying just as before.

The Holocaust deniers' "scientists" are in the same position: they attempt to prove that facts are not facts. In the most real sense, the "science" employed in the service of Holocaust denial is, in truth, the denial of every principle of the scientific method - indeed, the denial of science itself.


http://www.nizkor.org/features/techniqu ... ience.html


As to who is preventing discussion I'd say at this point you are. You use the token phrases-Neo Nazis, Holocaust deniers, to automatically categorize anyone who questions what is currently accepted. Your diatribe is rhetorical in nature throwing around names as if to intimidate any who question. Your use of bold type and aggressive verbiage is for offensive advantage. These are psy-ops techniques.
I am an engineer by trade. The field of engineering uses an established mindset to approach problems i.e. questions about the practical circumstances that throw the number of persons killed open to debate. To properly evaluate what has been taken as fact you need to provide some concrete evidence for each and every question that is raised. That means providing substantiation for each and every debated point. What you're presenting is rhetoric and rhetoric tending towards the vitriolic.
The discussion has to been open and measured. Insults and unfounded hearsay serve no purpose. The event and the accounts of the event must be spread out on the table, examined, and verified.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2469
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 2:18 am

PostTue Nov 06, 2012 4:25 am » by Proto


Me ? lol , maybe what you really meant is that I'm standing in the way of
your favorite lies ? and that you are offended that i call a duck a duck ? (lie a lie)

these are not token phrases ,this kind of junk IS usually promoted on neo nazi
web sites ,even if you deny or unaware to this fact .

Initiate
Posts: 848
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2007 6:12 am

PostTue Nov 06, 2012 5:05 am » by Baboogdi


I have 3 questions for you proto.

1. Are you Jewish?
2. Are you Zionist?
3. Are you paid to do this?


PreviousNext

Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook