Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
In other words - if one is commenting on the chemical nature of the gas chambers - best if one knows something about chemistry.
And I think PhD because a Doctorate does demonstrate expertise in a given field. I live in a country where damn near everyone has a Masters, so it's value is in some way diminished - it's 6 years of study, but that isn't a lot in a field as complex as Holocause issues is.
And Pelty is PhD in something like "History of Arts" - but has been the expert for civil engineering during the Irving trial. He believs that one could refill holes in a three laver steel concrete slab so that nobody sees that there were holes before.Hannover wrote:Raoul Hilberg does not have a degree in history.
Green has a PhD in chemistry but does not know that the influence of moisture on the relases rate of HCN from Zyklon B is different than the realease rate from KCN in sulphuric acid.
What did Zimmerman before he started to disgrace himself with holocheese studies?
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.
This may not be quite so. I am thinking of Dr. David L. Hoggan and the German Dr. jur. et Dr. phil. et Dr. rer. pol. Franz J. Scheidl.
In Germany, Dr. Franz J. Scheidl started as early as 1945 to write a comprehensive work about The History of the Defamation of Germany consisting of eight volumes, four of which were dedicated to the “Holocaust” and other propaganda of WWII. The manuscript was finished in 1950, but because no publisher dared touch it, the author published a revised version himself as late as 1967.
It also seems that the careers of academics who question the holocaust story come to a sudden standstill. I am thinking here of Faurisson and Hayward.
On the other hand are the works of Hillberg, Reitlinger and Pressac quite successful, all three with no PhDs in relevant fields.
There are some strange powers at work behind the scene here.
Hannah Arendt does have a PhD, and Gitta Sereny's qualifications are unlikely to be questioned, I think.
The same kind of mass resistance to change can be seen in other areas of academic study, such as in the study into the beginnings of civilization.
Trust me, the people who make this argument have no idea of the real technical qualifications revisionists possess.
On the other hand you have shear hearsay coming from people who have told wildly conflicting stories becoming the official holocaust story without any checking.
You don't need to be a certified genius to understand bunk when you see it. Meanwhile these same people are completely unable to discuss the actual findings of these allegedly underqualified revisionists.
- Valuable asset
- Posts: 2363
- Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
- Location: Northern California
Luboymyr's websites come up on search engines when I'm doing the most tangential revisionist web searches and totally help me. He's completely independent it appears. His effective form is posting letters he's written to people.
I was researching Gitta Sereny, and a page of Lubomyr's came up. Devastating exposé. How she wrote Into That Darkness, after interviewing Treblinka Commandant Franz Stangl. Lubomyr pointed out some weird things: He died 19 hours after the last interview. How convenient to never be able to comment on what she wrote about their conversations.
Then he pointed out something regarding the touted 70 hours of conversations she had with him. Were they recorded? It appears they weren't. That's odd. Going by memory with 70 hours of conversation? She included on her "acknowledgements" page no person who helped with recording, or no person who helped with transcribing recordings. So I guess we take her word for it that Stangl said this stuff.
Lubomyr Prytulak is one of the best revisionists in the world. The above is one of the many times his keen investigative input has come up.
And Hannover? The evidence that he is also one of the best revisionists in the world, is right here on revforum.
:3some:Carto's Cutlass Supreme wrote:Lubomyr Prytulak.
I agree on this. Lubomyr Prytulak is outstanding in his writings. Some with very dry humour (read his articles about Simon Wiesenthal ), but always to the point. Here the Holocaust Lobby has a worthy opponent. But he is actually not a revisionist.
This is how you work out who is the "best revisionist in the world". Revisionists could be rated similarly. He or she who receives the most vilification is clearly the "best revisionist in the world".
I did say earlier that I consider Rudolf to be the best of the best. However, more recent posts have reminded me of the presence of Mr. Prytulak, whose website I have found most informative and illuminating.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 4 guests