New Documentary - Questioning the Holocaust : Why We Believed (Part1 of 2)

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
avatar
CODOH Video
Member
Member
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2016 6:50 am

New Documentary - Questioning the Holocaust : Why We Believed (Part1 of 2)

Postby CODOH Video » 2 years 4 months ago (Mon Apr 25, 2016 2:10 pm)

A new 90 minute documentary has been released by the maker of "The Treblinka Archaeology Hoax" and "The Majdanek Gas Chamber Myth"

http://questioningtheholocaust.com/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RddqP0ABzwM

Why did we believe in gas chambers disguised as shower rooms?

Questioning The Holocaust : Why We Believed (Part 1 of 2) examines the unbelievable "gas shower" claims and how images of concentration camp prisoners directly killed by Allied air attacks are cynically exploited to promote "The Holocaust."

Help support independent media! Please donate at http://QuestioningTheHolocaust.com

Watch in HD. Downloadable Mirrors soon.

Sequence 01065.jpg



User avatar
borjastick
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2266
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:52 am
Location: Europe

Re: New Documentary - Questioning the Holocaust : Why We Believed (Part1 of 2)

Postby borjastick » 2 years 4 months ago (Tue Apr 26, 2016 4:35 am)

Yep, that got it!
'Of the four million Jews under Nazi control in WW2, six million died and alas only five million survived.'

'We don't need evidence, we have survivors' - israeli politician

User avatar
Bonesy
Member
Member
Posts: 56
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 7:37 am

Re: New Documentary - Questioning the Holocaust : Why We Believed (Part1 of 2)

Postby Bonesy » 2 years 4 months ago (Tue Apr 26, 2016 9:49 am)

Fantastic Job, Eric! :cheers: I watched the whole documentary from end to end and must say that I really do appreciate all your work you've done for our movement. The many exhaustive hours of researching, bringing it all together, video making, et al has paid off.

Initially, I got a little concerned when Eric's website hadn't posted updates in a while, the virtual museum project folded and we hadn't heard from Eric on CODOH in some time. :?

As for the documentary itself, it is a very clear, concise and convincing documentary. This is the sort of documentary that I could give to someone curious or a newcomer to the topic and they would (hopefully) be able to better understand our position on the issue. This is exactly the sort of material we need more of in circulation to promote our cause.

Looking forward to part 2. :)
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep-seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan

avatar
Carto's Cutlass Supreme
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2321
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
Location: Northern California

Re: New Documentary - Questioning the Holocaust : Why We Believed (Part1 of 2)

Postby Carto's Cutlass Supreme » 2 years 4 months ago (Tue Apr 26, 2016 11:28 pm)

I'm in the middle of it right now. I think it's well explained, and that part about the Leonardo DiCaprio, where meanwhile a German prisoner bears a resemblance to DiCaprio is interesting to me. I wonder if that guy was shot right after. I don't think they took footage and then shot them.

Some huge points are passed over too quickly. Like Encyclopedia.com and their holocaust entry showing Nordhausen. That's a really big point but you have to be on your toes or you'll miss it. I'm not finished watching it.

avatar
Carto's Cutlass Supreme
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2321
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
Location: Northern California

Re: New Documentary - Questioning the Holocaust : Why We Believed (Part1 of 2)

Postby Carto's Cutlass Supreme » 2 years 4 months ago (Wed Apr 27, 2016 1:24 am)

continued...

The Nordhausen part is very powerful. I don't know of anyone covering that topic like this. But1:01:12: a disturbing photo of a dead person, but I'm not clear on the evidence that that is a photo from Nordhausen.

1:02:03 is Buchenwald, yet the viewer thinks it's Nordhausen. But this isn't too big of a deal since Belsen is explained quite well later.

1:03:52: "footage of a prisoner with his head blown off"--But I see the head on the person, so that doesn't make sense to me.

1:04:59: the fact that that's wikipedia is a big deal, but not mentioned.

The gist of the Nordhausen part is clear and with big impact, and I never understood those photos before, and it's really a big impact to get this.

The Ambrose part with a mention of the Believer formula: very good.

1:10:23 Another incredible testimony from Spielberg archive. Wow! What a find! But will there be sources at the end? To even know her name?

I don't think there's ever been a video that took on, to this extent, an attempt to explain this difficult topic of why the photos of bodies are not proof of the holocaust. This video is doing a good job.

1:13:17: "exasperated the entire situation" to "exacerbated the entire situation"

Not done watching yet. But so far I can't imagine anyone watching this closely, could possibly believe in the holocaust afterward.

avatar
SamuelGordy
Member
Member
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2015 7:01 pm

Re: New Documentary - Questioning the Holocaust : Why We Believed (Part1 of 2)

Postby SamuelGordy » 2 years 4 months ago (Wed Apr 27, 2016 5:11 am)

The documentary is spot on. I cannot imagine a sane person who is a believer, to look at the holocaust the same way after watching this movie.

On the other hand, I just watched Son of Saul yesterday, and from a movie fan point of view - it's really very poor. But, it very subtly continues the holocaust story and makes it (again) very shocking and further believable to, well, the believers.

avatar
Hieldner
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 160
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2016 5:21 am

Re: New Documentary - Questioning the Holocaust : Why We Believed (Part1 of 2)

Postby Hieldner » 2 years 4 months ago (Wed Apr 27, 2016 9:11 am)

Excellent work! I think it’s a good idea not to debunk each and every historian’s claim in such a movie, but rather to use examples showing people something is clearly wrong with the Holocaust story, the media & the established historians to get the viewer to read the books.

Several points I have to make:

• An even stronger argument against extermination than a hospital or a kitchen is in my opinion a prison in an alleged extermination camp, because a viewer might explain many of the sceptical questions in the beginning with the official narrative that those able to work were kept alive, while those unfit to work were immediately gassed, or that the installations were for SS personnel only. It’d be good if some of the sceptical questions were directly addressed in the next part.

• Most of the alleged original victims in Majdanek weren’t said to have been Jews, and therefore didn’t number among the 6 million. This is probably also the reason why the number was allowed to be reduced so drastically in the first place.

• The photo of children alive after the Auschwitz liberation contradicts the official narrative that they were immediately gassed.

• Hilberg would have been worth quoting on the issue of the non-existent extermination plan & code language.

• The alleged code words are used in *most of the documents* allegedly proving the alleged Holocaust.

• There’s also a documentary from 2013 presenting the shower room at Majdanek as a gas chamber https://vid.me/Vmxf .

• Koch is pronounced wrong (see dict.cc or something like that)

• It would have been important to explicitly stress that the *story was changed* at 22:22.

• Today’s Dachau “gas chamber” sign says, “this was the center of potential mass murder” https://vid.me/JII9 .

• There are eye-witnesses, documents, “material evidence” for and against the soap story & the gas chambers in concentration camps were it is currently claimed none have ever existed, just like for the Auschwitz gas chamber story.

• I think the part about Turgel & Neely is particularly strong and illustrative, but it should have been made clear that Turgel isn’t a special case or something like that. Either a reference to other movies/books and to the many others who “walked out of the gas chambers alive” would have been appropriate. The fake shower story planted by propagandists is why there are so many “eye-witnesses” in the first place, who embelish their shower experiences in concentration camps with all sorts of nonsense they saw on TV or heard somewhere. (see The Fiction of Memory https://vid.me/Ws1p)

• Ursula Haverbeck isn’t currently in prison, she appeals against the court decision. (Here’s her newest video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSzyBbWwDoM)

• The victims in the Western camps & shown in the corpse images comprise only a very small part of what is claimed to have been the Holocaust & almost all of the horrific images regularly shown are from camps which are not currently claimed to have been extermination camps.

• The corpse images even contradict the official narrative that the Germans went to extreme lengths to hide their Holocaust by making sure nothing was left of their victims, using the aforementioned code language and burning all of the documents allegedly proving the Holocaust.

• Schrecklich is accentuated wrong.
»[Holocaust soap] odor, if captured and retained… would preserve the core of an individual soul… The undesirable smell of the extract spoke of the spectral Derridian trace… that continued to remind its consumers of their own bio-ontology.«—B. Shallcross

avatar
Carto's Cutlass Supreme
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2321
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
Location: Northern California

Re: New Documentary - Questioning the Holocaust : Why We Believed (Part1 of 2)

Postby Carto's Cutlass Supreme » 2 years 4 months ago (Wed Apr 27, 2016 11:57 pm)

Just finished it. Really good. That really hit me at the end that with now understanding the footage, we see the same footage at the kiosk at the US holocaust memorial museum.

User avatar
Kingfisher
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1669
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:55 pm

Re: New Documentary - Questioning the Holocaust : Why We Believed (Part1 of 2)

Postby Kingfisher » 2 years 4 months ago (Thu Apr 28, 2016 7:32 am)

Eric has done a great job showing how much of what is routinely presented as evidence of the Holocaust has nothing to do with the accusations of extermination of the Jews. I do take issue with him on one point though, which is his too easy dismissal of those testimonies as lies, though fortunately he has come a long way from his earlier work where he simply labeled everything as "Jewish lies" and quoted Hitler approvingly in support.

I disagree on two grounds. The first is that I don't think he is right. People like Zizblatt are suggestible fantasists whose fantasy has been rewarded with money, attention and fame. It is well known how unreliable eyewitness testimony is not simply because people lie (of course they do) but it becomes corrupted, and most important of all, it is influenced by others to the extent that totally false memories become planted. A poster above gave this superb link https://vid.me/Ws1p

I also disagree with dismissing these people simply as liars because it is terrible PR, likely to turn potential sympathisers away. I had the reverse experience when I saw Revisionists dismissed as "liars".

As also commented above, Eric should check his German pronunciation. It may be unfair, but his mispronunciations detract from his credibility, and it can't be that difficult. There's this for a start: https://translate.google.co.uk/#de/en/schrecklig

avatar
flimflam
Member
Member
Posts: 114
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 9:19 am

Re: New Documentary - Questioning the Holocaust : Why We Believed (Part1 of 2)

Postby flimflam » 2 years 4 months ago (Thu Apr 28, 2016 11:06 am)

"People like Zizblatt are suggestible fantasists "

Indeed. But Zizblatt didn't personally tell you her idiotic lies over drinks at your local bar. They came to you via an Academy Award winning documentary movie by Steven Speilberg. He chose to feature Zizblatt's obviously absurd testimony out of thousands of testimonies he has collected. His movie was vetted by rabbis and holocaust scholars that he identifies at the end as I recall.

But that's just the beginning - not one academic at any university in the US has taken the trouble to point out the obvious absurdities in Zizblatt's 'testimony'. She still I think makes the rounds of universities, sponsored by Hillel.

So, effectively, Spieberg, the motion picture academy, every rabbi, every holocaust scholar, every US academic historian, every news reporter, has actively or passively lent their authority to Zizblatt's lies.

Now, an interesting question is, why would Spielberg choose to feature lies that are obviously absurd on their face?

Further, if you examine the testimony of the best known 'liewitnesses' in Hunt's lexicon, their testimony in every case contains gratuitous absurdities, e.g. Wiesel's 'Night' - "Babies were thrown into the air and the machine gunners used them as targets" , Levi - "The horrendous record belongs to Auschwitz, with 24,000 dead in a single day, in August 1944.", Bomba - gave haircuts to naked women in the gas chamber, currently featured on the USHMM web site, Meuller - every Sunday the kapos, Jews, played a hat doffing game, and beat to death 30 or so prisoners who failed to doff their hats quickly enough, then to make matters even worse, they served cold tea, Gray - at great risk to himself he strangled Jewish babies to prevent their further suffereing, Wiernik - the guard hung the Jews on the gas chamber walls by driving nails in their ears ..... etc.

User avatar
Kingfisher
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1669
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:55 pm

Re: New Documentary - Questioning the Holocaust : Why We Believed (Part1 of 2)

Postby Kingfisher » 2 years 4 months ago (Thu Apr 28, 2016 11:52 am)

Flimflam

No argument about Spielberg. He probably believes the Holocaust story but he's prepared to tell porkies in support of it. Likewise Wiesel. I was thinking more of the old women who get dragged round schools etc. I do think that by now most of them have no idea where truth ends and implanted memory started. Even with Saint Steven though, better to show his lie and leave people to draw their own conclusions.

The later examples you quoted are patent nonsense and it shouldn't be difficult to show that they are nothing but anecdotes with no supporting evidence, without using the L-word.

My observations aside though, this film has enough to take the story down for many objective observers if it can get enough circulation, but we have to be as good at the psychology of PR as the other side.

The problem is that with the Big H there are not many objective observers. Most people have been effectively programmed to believe anything, however outrageous, where Nazis are concerned. We know this because we've all been there.

Now, an interesting question is, why would Spielberg choose to feature lies that are obviously absurd on their face?

Because no one who matters will ever question them?

User avatar
k0nsl
Member
Member
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 3:59 am
Contact:

Re: New Documentary - Questioning the Holocaust : Why We Believed (Part1 of 2)

Postby k0nsl » 2 years 4 months ago (Fri Apr 29, 2016 7:23 am)

I want to express my thanks to you Mr. Hunt for doing this magnificent task. It must be daunting, or so I would imagine!
As usual, I have mirrored your newest work on one server so far (located in USA). It can be reached via the following address:

http://questioningtheholocaust.mirror.k0nsl.org

At the moment it may be problematic to access anything on "k0nsl.org" for anyone using a DNS resolver which validates DNSSEC — due to my domain registrar being incompetent to say the least! :evil:
However, I expect the issue to be resolved soon. No pun intended.
Faithfully,
-k0nsl

User avatar
k0nsl
Member
Member
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 3:59 am
Contact:

Re: New Documentary - Questioning the Holocaust : Why We Believed (Part1 of 2)

Postby k0nsl » 2 years 4 months ago (Fri Apr 29, 2016 8:17 am)

Carto's Cutlass Supreme wrote:1:03:52: "footage of a prisoner with his head blown off"--But I see the head on the person, so that doesn't make sense to me.


If we are looking at the same footage, isn't the head split wide-open, with most of the brain visible?

Hieldner wrote:• Schrecklich is accentuated wrong.


Yes, I noticed this as well. Maybe it will be noticed only by those who know the correct pronunciation and that hopefully it will not be something many people get "too hung up about".
Even I have problems correctly pronouncing something as elementary as that :oops:
Schrecklich01_k0nsl.mp3
(21.63 KiB) Downloaded 89 times


Best wishes,
-k0nsl

avatar
Hieldner
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 160
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2016 5:21 am

Re: New Documentary - Questioning the Holocaust : Why We Believed (Part1 of 2)

Postby Hieldner » 2 years 4 months ago (Fri Apr 29, 2016 10:04 am)

k0nsl wrote:Even I have problems correctly pronouncing something as elementary as that :oops:
Schrecklich01_k0nsl.mp3
(21.63 KiB) Downloaded 2 times

You got the second half of the word right, while Eric Hunt got the first half right (except the accentuation) :) As I said, see dict.cc (or dict.leo.org) for sound samples.

I wonder if we could make the material of Eric Hunt’s “vanished” websites easily accessible again?
https://gaschamberhoax.com/treblinka-archaeology-hoax
https://web.archive.org/web/20150403024 ... useum.com/
https://web.archive.org/web/20130117071 ... enier.com/
https://web.archive.org/web/20120212/ht ... kshop.com/
https://sites.google.com/site/spielbergshoax/
»[Holocaust soap] odor, if captured and retained… would preserve the core of an individual soul… The undesirable smell of the extract spoke of the spectral Derridian trace… that continued to remind its consumers of their own bio-ontology.«—B. Shallcross

User avatar
Dresden
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1347
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 5:38 pm

Re: New Documentary - Questioning the Holocaust : Why We Believed (Part1 of 2)

Postby Dresden » 2 years 4 months ago (Fri Apr 29, 2016 2:39 pm)


Hieldner wrote:
• Schrecklich is accentuated wrong.


First of all, it's nit-picking.....gimme a break!

We don't care if Faurisson mispronounces words when he speaks English.

Secondly, if Eric Hunt can't pronounce German words properly, people will see him as less likely to be a "Nazi".

The video is great; the Nordhausen section is more than an eye-opener.....it is a jaw-dropper!.....no matter what Werd or anyone else thinks of it.

Support Eric Hunt
Maybe, just maybe, they believe what they are telling you about the 'holocaust', but maybe, just maybe, their contempt for your intelligence and your character is beyond anything you could ever have imagined. -- Bradley Smith


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests