Who is the best Revisionist in the world ?

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Ted
Member
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 3:58 pm

Who is the best Revisionist in the world ?

Postby Ted » 1 decade 5 years ago (Fri Apr 08, 2005 8:47 pm)

Just who would be the best person to be the spokesperson to represent the Holocaust Revisionist movement ?

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10034
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 5 years ago (Sat Apr 09, 2005 3:00 am)

I think the best way to handle that would actually be a committee of Revisionists. There's quite a few up to the task, many of them post here.

From a purely technical, science point of view, I would go with Germar Rudolf, he has utterly trashed the 'Zyklon-B gas chambers' lie. You could also add Fritz Berg. He shredded the 'other gassing claims'; the laughable 'diesel gas chambers' and absurd 'gas vans'.

But as I have said all along, the Revisionists need not exist at all, the stupid tales are the real story here. Perhaps psychologists would be more appropriate. Maybe they could explain why people believe in the absurd.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
Kiwichap
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 739
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 11:54 pm
Location: New Zealand

Postby Kiwichap » 1 decade 5 years ago (Sat Apr 09, 2005 3:28 am)

Without hesitation, I woud say -

Dr Tobin -

Why -

No particular reason - exept:

I love the man - why.

Because I know the MAN has the same SPIRIT as me!
I sense the SPIRIT: it's what he has to say - and how he says it!

Dr Tobin loves the truth - and is suffering for it: as we all should be.

Do I love Ernst Zundel - I sure do!

Why - Because he has sacrificed himself for the truth - and I love the truth.

Dr Faurrison - he is my hero - why - because he is!

All those that give their all for the truth - I LOVE.

Perhaps it is now my turn - I wish.


Cheers.
There was no holocaust.

Tit 1:14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

TMoran
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 513
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 7:00 pm

Postby TMoran » 1 decade 5 years ago (Sat Apr 09, 2005 5:08 am)

I vote for me, TRMoran. I'll show up with my little beach kit from Toys R Us and announce, 'Let's go to Belzec and see what's there, aside from the words written about the alleged mass graves said to have been found.'

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10034
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 5 years ago (Sat Apr 09, 2005 10:25 am)

Tom,

IOW, grab 2 guys, a shovel, and get to work. Let's put them on my committee.

'Hey guys, what did you find?'

'Well, we found some buttons, a comb, and an old soda bottle.'

As Debbie Lipstadt would say; 'that might complicate matters, but it's still a powerful story.'

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

steve
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2002 3:24 pm
Location: Maryland

Postby steve » 1 decade 5 years ago (Sat Apr 09, 2005 9:18 pm)

Who is the most effective revisionist? Good question.

Here is my take on this.

For one, it depends on who you are trying to convince.

First, we have to realize that most of the population, regardless of their alleged intellect, will never see The Big H as a hoax. For the simple reason that people are herd animals. That's merely a statement of fact. So, for the majority, the question has no point.

Now, for the others, I would say the most effective revisionist still depends on the audience.
For higher intellect type people I would say Butz and Rudolf. Both of them are very typically German; incapable of lying, or exaggerating. Very technical. They both have a lot of integrity. However, in the case of Butz, he can be difficult to read. Hoax is murder to read. He has gotten better thru the years, and I, for one, appreciate his profound depth of analysis. I also like the fact that Butz has never, (at least I have never seen him do it), taken the usual swipe at Hitler, or the Nazis.

Germar also seems extremely honest. But, kind of naive. When he speaks of a symbiosis between Germans and Jews (in the book, Dissecting the H), I think that is, well, quite frankly, silly.

Faurisson and Graf are very competent and easy to read. For many, I would think they would be more effective than Butz or Rudolf.
Zundel and Toben seem like Faurisson. Easy to read, competent, etc. But for me, at least, just does not fill me with the confidence that Butz does.

Michael Hoffman, while I like his attitude, is too emotional. I would not use him for a source. Bradley Smith makes too many swipes against the Germans and Hitler. Come on, if you doubt The Big H, why automatically believe anything else you have heard about that time?

Now, for the majority, (and again, we are talking about those who MAY be able to be convinced in the first place), I think the most effective might be Irving. Simply by the nature of his presentation. He is quite personable, entertaining, etc. While I still do not know what to make of him (and I am sure many on this board know what I am talking about), and get turned off by his 'concessions', I still think most people would be more apt to listen to him than Butz, for example. (And I know, Irving is not what you'd call a Big H historian.)

So, for me, because of his profound powers of anaysis, along with his simple observations (see his supplelments in his book, Hoax), I put Butz at the top. For most others, I would say, (gasp!), Irving.

Oh well, these are just my thoughts on this issue.

I will add one more comment:

Hannover says,

"But as I have said all along, the Revisionists need not exist at all, the stupid tales are the real story here. "


I like that because as I try to tell people over and over, I did not come to the conclusion that the H was a fraud because of what the revisionists say, I came to the conclusion because of what the Holocausters themselves say!

Steve

Radar
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 505
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 2:25 pm

Postby Radar » 1 decade 5 years ago (Sat Apr 09, 2005 10:05 pm)

Rudolf for technical chemistry.

Cole does a good job of arranging the vast array of conflicting circumstances. It is in this larger picture that the convergence of lack of evidence becomes more clear.

Cole makes a good point when he asks why several smaller gas chambers at smaller camps were not dynamited when the crematoriums a few feet away were? Especially when holocaust promoters claim such an intense cover-up program was going on. Some of these alleged chambers were also right in the middle of the barracks area. Not the best place for something being shielded from knowledge or for preventing panic.

Richard Perle
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 9:45 am

Postby Richard Perle » 1 decade 5 years ago (Sun Apr 10, 2005 7:58 am)

I think my dream panel would include Rudolf, Faurisson and Cole (if Cole were still at it). Having a Jew on the team would give people reason to take notice if nothing else, and I find some of the details Cole highlighted to be compelling.. Rudolf could handle the technical stuff and Faurisson everything else.

User avatar
ClaudiaRothenbach
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 569
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:16 pm

Postby ClaudiaRothenbach » 1 decade 5 years ago (Sun Apr 10, 2005 8:41 am)

Don't forget Carlo Mattogno.

Mattogno's works on cremation, groundwater and holes are so precious because they are simple convincing. He wrote excellent monographies on the delousing camps.
"Everything has already been said, but not yet by everyone." - Karl Valentin

User avatar
Haldan
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1371
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 9:56 pm
Location: <secret>
Contact:

Postby Haldan » 1 decade 5 years ago (Tue Apr 12, 2005 5:52 pm)

I re-read the Rudolf Report by Germar Rudolf. He is simply spectacular, what a scientist! He is in my thoughts the number one Revisionist. An example to follow.

-haldan
<?php if ($Holocaust == false ) {deny_repeatedly(); } else { investigate(); } ?>
Homage to Catalin Haldan

soda
Member
Member
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2005 9:37 am
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Postby soda » 1 decade 5 years ago (Sun Apr 17, 2005 8:03 am)

Rudolf, Faurisson and Cole

What are their educational qualifications?

Where did they study, and what did they study?

Lets face it, without PhDs in relevant fields of study from excellent universities, and with a strong publishing history through a repitable publisher, there is no reason for anyone to take their work at all seriously.

Richard Perle
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 9:45 am

Postby Richard Perle » 1 decade 5 years ago (Sun Apr 17, 2005 9:55 am)

Rudolf is a chemist educated to PhD level, Faurisson was "educated at the Paris Sorbonne, and served as associate professor at the University of Lyon in France from 1974 until 1990. He is a recognized specialist of text and document analysis." You have to understand that being openly skeptical about the holocaust will make the difference between whether you are widely respected or not, and being skeptical about the holocaust means that they won't get a 'reputable' publisher to touch their work. You can't judge them for the conditions in which they find themselves.

You also place to much worth in qualifications. If someone has spent years studying a subject it doesn't matter whether their skills have been recognized by a top university of not.

soda
Member
Member
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2005 9:37 am
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Postby soda » 1 decade 5 years ago (Sun Apr 17, 2005 10:15 am)

I don't entirely agree - both of these guys to have impressive credentials; impressive enough that I'm prepared to listen to them with an open mind, and that anyone going up against them needs to have similar credentials.

To be honest, I could spend the next 20 years of my life studying chemistry and my research wouldn't be worth a damn - I don't have that intellectual rigour that academic study in a good institute delivers.

I agree to some extent about publishing - I have considerable experience in book publishing, and certainly many companies would not touch a book which contradicted accept belief on Holocaust issues.

User avatar
ClaudiaRothenbach
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 569
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:16 pm

Postby ClaudiaRothenbach » 1 decade 5 years ago (Sun Apr 17, 2005 10:23 am)

soda wrote:Lets face it, without PhDs in relevant fields of study from excellent universities, and with a strong publishing history through a repitable publisher, there is no reason for anyone to take their work at all seriously.
:?:

1. What are relevant fields of study?

2. Why do you think that a PhD is necessary?
"Everything has already been said, but not yet by everyone." - Karl Valentin

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10034
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 5 years ago (Sun Apr 17, 2005 10:35 am)

Raoul Hilberg does not have a degree in history.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests