Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
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.
Dr Tobin -
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.
Tit 1:14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.
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.'
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:
"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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests