Help making ground breaking revisionist video...

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
MJB
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 10:11 pm

Help making ground breaking revisionist video...

Postby MJB » 1 decade 2 years ago (Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:21 pm)

I have long been a revisionist, although I am very new here, and I have always been angry at the silence we face. It wasn't until a few months ago that it hit me: we've been going about this all the wrong way. Revisionist books are excellent and very informative, but your average Joe is not going to read them. All they will read is the plethora of articles on the holocaust that seem to appear in every newspaper in the world, and will thus believe that revisionists are insane. Sadly, most people these days do not read books, and a book on a subject such as this are rarely ever read. These average Joes are controlled by the Zionists because of this, and until they wake up to the facts there is no way our mission to bring the truth out will ever be accomplished.

However, there is a fairly new innovation that many, many people follow: YouTube. Over 100 million videos were watched per day this time last year, and I can only think that it has grown. Part 1 of the video "One Third of the Holocaust" has 15,000 views. I think that is more than many revisionist books.

This what inspired me to create my own video. I have seen others, but one thing is the same about them all: for all the factual information they have, the production is rather amature. I have a little experience in film making (I've taken classes) and would like to create my own video. Unlike other revisionist videos I want this one to address the whole Holocaust. I don't care how long it will be as it will be split into parts and will hopefully be good enough to get users to watch the next part etc.

One problem though is that I have zero creativity. I could disprove everything about the holocaust from memory and with help from the revisionist websites about, but I can't quite think up a structure that would make this video effective. I'd like help from you guys for this. I'd do all the work, get all the footage, buy all the books etc I'm going to film, but I need a solid structure that will totally annihilate the Holocaust fairytale and those who promote it. I'm unsure whether I should address each camp and it's problems individually or whether I should address all problems as a whole etc. I want to discredit Hilberg and the like too so I don't know how that will fit in.

Help me out guys!

Edit: Sorry for only posting half the message before. Accidentally hit "Submit" instead of "Preview". :roll:

Breker
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 756
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 5:39 pm
Location: Europa

Postby Breker » 1 decade 2 years ago (Fri Jun 08, 2007 7:41 pm)

We suggest focusing on certain issues, or in digestible bites like this work.
ONE THIRD OF THE HOLOCAUST
A 4 hour movie offered below in 30 episodes, on the subject of Treblinka, Sobibor, and Belzec.
http://www.codoh.com/video/onethird.html

While ONE THIRD in total is a lengthy endeavor, it does take it step by step. Above all, know the subject at hand.
Breker

User avatar
PotPie
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 3:04 am
Location: Here

Postby PotPie » 1 decade 2 years ago (Fri Jun 08, 2007 8:48 pm)

Break it down into bits. For example, you can show how prominent witnesses sourced by historians are actually frauds who have plagiarized others and have used ghost writers, then link for more information.

Laurentz Dahl
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 981
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 8:00 am
Location: Somewhere in Europe

Postby Laurentz Dahl » 1 decade 2 years ago (Sun Jun 10, 2007 11:38 pm)

Great initative.

I have no experience in movie making but I can understand that structure might be tricky.

As said above, the format used in One Third of The Holocaust is pretty good.

Some suggestions:

- Start with something that hooks the attention of the viewer, or with something which he can relate to, or at least is part of the world he live in, like footage from a crematory with facts on how long the process takes (I guess many people have experienced the death of a relative, often followed by cremation), or the complicated security measures accompanying an execution in a real execution gas chamber. Or the Auschwitz plaque switch, and the fact that the 4 million figure pops up in western literature as late as the 70's and 80's (Kogon, the Yehuda Bauer introduction to Muller I quoted in another thread &c). Or the drastic reduction of the official Majdanek figure from 1.5 million in 1945 to 78.000 in 2006.

- Since we already have One Third of the Holocaust you may focus on Auschwitz and have the other camps treated in a more summary form.

- Use as much film footage as possible. When using stills, don't have them immobile. Use zoom-in and such.

- Use a narrator with a good voice. It may be something of a minus to many watchers if the narrator sounds like Mickey Mouse.

- Excerpts from witness testimonies should be utilized as much as possible. It's basically the only evidence the exterminationist's have and it frequently works against them. Just imagine watching footage of the type of crematory ovens actuallly used in Auschwitz (photos showing people standing next to those ovens should be used) while hearing the words of Dov Paisikovic or some other joker who claims that each oven muffle was filled with 4-12 corpses.

- State sources clearly. A documentary is not an academic paper but you should mention which book you are quoting etc, footage of actual book pages, like in One Third..., can be utilized sometimes, since it erases doubts the viewer might have that you are misquoting something. Quote standard works like Hilberg et.al. to present the orthodox historiography.

- First you should divide the mass killing allegations into segments and decide the best order in which to treat them. When discussing Auschwitz, for example, my suggestion is to treat the technical aspects in roughly this order: the gassing process and the Zyklon B problem - the different gas chambers (0, the claimed first gassing; 1. Krema I; 2. the "bunkers"; 2. Krema II-III 3. Krema IV-V) - the missing holes (with air- and ground photo discussion) - cremations and crematory capacity (with flames-through-chimney-claims compared to facts and photos) - outdoor incinerations (compared to air photos)

I'd like to help out with translations, more detailed suggestions and the choice of photos. Drop me a pm when you get started.

MJB
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 10:11 pm

Postby MJB » 1 decade 2 years ago (Tue Jun 12, 2007 11:09 am)

Thanks for the replies and suggestions. :)

The first step for me is to buy some more books depicting both sides of the argument and give them a read whilst annotating parts. From that I should be able to develop a script over the next few months. After that I can begin putting it together. I have loads of World War 2 documentaries, so footage should not be a problem, although it may be copyrighted, but who cares? The truth is more important. In regards to the narration, I can do that myself with my posh, deep English voice. It should sound pretty good. :lol:

Anyway, I'll keep you guys updated over the coming weeks and months.

Breker
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 756
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 5:39 pm
Location: Europa

Postby Breker » 1 decade 2 years ago (Tue Jun 12, 2007 11:21 am)

MJB wrote:Thanks for the replies and suggestions. :)

The first step for me is to buy some more books depicting both sides of the argument and give them a read whilst annotating parts. From that I should be able to develop a script over the next few months. After that I can begin putting it together. I have loads of World War 2 documentaries, so footage should not be a problem, although it may be copyrighted, but who cares? The truth is more important. In regards to the narration, I can do that myself with my posh, deep English voice. It should sound pretty good. :lol:

Anyway, I'll keep you guys updated over the coming weeks and months.

MJB,
We suggest that any talk of your making a video be scrubbed. An undertaking such as this is best left to those who are already well versed in the particulars.
Breker

Depth Charge
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 199
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 7:32 pm

Postby Depth Charge » 1 decade 2 years ago (Tue Jun 12, 2007 1:43 pm)

Better to have it done properly, or not at all. Don't want Counter productivity. There'll be plenty of places who'll treat a crap video like an early Christmas present. Editing and direction are the easy parts - i've dabbled with that sort of thing in the past, its pretty easy to get creative. Its the structure, argument and research which are important.

If i'd had a narrator, i'd probably have already tried something myself.

Sword Of Light
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 7:04 am
Location: Sligo, Ireland

Postby Sword Of Light » 1 decade 2 years ago (Tue Jun 12, 2007 2:38 pm)

Don't neglect the point whereby people become trenchent. The technicalities that there was no genocidal intentions, in terms of the chambers, is, in relative terms, strikingly straightforward.

The point whereby one encounters resistance is comprehending how the government can lie to them in such a manner and on such a scale. Why is academia so vehement and forceful in its defense of the holocaust? Good idea is that the listing of "digestable" precedants such as First World War propaganda and WMD demonstrating that in the real world government does and will lie and are indifferent to the truth..

The conduct of Canadian and in particular German constitutional shackles is also a good idea..

User avatar
diaz52
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 272
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 1:07 pm

Postby diaz52 » 1 decade 2 years ago (Tue Jun 12, 2007 2:53 pm)

Breker wrote:
MJB wrote:Thanks for the replies and suggestions. :)

The first step for me is to buy some more books depicting both sides of the argument and give them a read whilst annotating parts. From that I should be able to develop a script over the next few months. After that I can begin putting it together. I have loads of World War 2 documentaries, so footage should not be a problem, although it may be copyrighted, but who cares? The truth is more important. In regards to the narration, I can do that myself with my posh, deep English voice. It should sound pretty good. :lol:

Anyway, I'll keep you guys updated over the coming weeks and months.

MJB,
We suggest that any talk of your making a video be scrubbed. An undertaking such as this is best left to those who are already well versed in the particulars.
Breker


I'm not sure who "We" refers to, Breker, but maybe attitudes like that are one reason Holocaust revisionism is in the state its in. My own attitude from what I've MJB has posted is "Go for it," with the caveats that it must be rock-solid in terms of the factual evidence and arguments presented, so as not to be counter productive to the revisionist effort. So my advice for MJB and his proposed video undertaking is to limit the first production to one specific aspect of the Holohoax myth. Don't tackle the whole massive subject as your cherry-breaking project. You're just setting yourself up for failure, IMHO. Your first piece should be focused, and limited, to one specific aspect, such as the "origins of the turning Jews into soap" myth, or the "making lampshades out of human skin" myth, or some other aspect thats limited in scope. This will gain you experience with the technical details of production and will provide you, and us for that matter, with constructive criticism of your project. Then when you've gained the experience, skill and know-how to move on to broader aspects of the Holohoax, I think you'll have a greater chance of success. But your idea is a great one, and I wish you luck in it. Youtube does indeed reach a lot of people, young people in particular, and your video may just spark an interest in revisionism in some young man or women who may grow to become a great scholar in the field.
-You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.
-The establishment can't control the web, and the control of information through all means but one, is no control at all.

Breker
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 756
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 5:39 pm
Location: Europa

Postby Breker » 1 decade 2 years ago (Tue Jun 12, 2007 5:23 pm)

diaz52,
I'm not sure who "We" refers to, Breker, but maybe attitudes like that are one reason Holocaust revisionism is in the state its in.

We're afraid you don't understand the use of we. It's not meant to be plural, or inclusive of others. It is a British thing for 'I'.
We actually find revisionism to be in a predictably favorable state. It seems to be going through Schoppenhauer's process, "All truth goes through three stages: First it is ridiculed; then it is violently opposed; finally, it is accepted as self-evident." We'll leave it to you to decide at which stage we're now at.
Breker

MJB
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 10:11 pm

Postby MJB » 1 decade 2 years ago (Wed Jun 13, 2007 5:26 am)

I appreciate your concern, Breker, but I have been taking film making classes for 2 years (worked on 3 projects during the time) and I've been a revisionist for 5, maybe more, years. I'm not new to these subjects.

Of course, I understand the challenge that I have set myself and it will be difficult. I don't expect to complete it for a year or more. I'll post bits here as I am making them in a few months and you lot can tell me if you think I'm up to it or not. :wink:

AgainsTTheWall
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2003 10:22 am
Location: Bucks, England

Postby AgainsTTheWall » 1 decade 2 years ago (Wed Jun 13, 2007 5:51 am)

Perhaps a chronological discussion of how revisionism has developed since 1945. You could begin with an outline of the Nuremburg trials, the 'proofs' established there and the departures from due process which permitted this to happen.


1. the revisionist arguments can be developed in their appropriate place
2. the damage done to the official history can be shown to be immense (many people believe it is set in stone)
3. the revisionists themselves can be woven into the story and the honest and intelligent nature of their endeavours shown. This might serve to contrast the popular image of deniers.
4. shown chronologically, the video would have something of the nature of a detective story as more and more evidence is revealed to the viewer
5. the story could not be told without outlining the responses of the affirmers to the activities of the revisionists. This has mainly taken the form of suppression and persecution rather than genuine rebuttal but should not be omitted for that.

User avatar
diaz52
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 272
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 1:07 pm

Postby diaz52 » 1 decade 2 years ago (Wed Jun 13, 2007 9:21 am)

Breker wrote:diaz52,
I'm not sure who "We" refers to, Breker, but maybe attitudes like that are one reason Holocaust revisionism is in the state its in.

We're afraid you don't understand the use of we. It's not meant to be plural, or inclusive of others. It is a British thing for 'I'.
We actually find revisionism to be in a predictably favorable state. It seems to be going through Schoppenhauer's process, "All truth goes through three stages: First it is ridiculed; then it is violently opposed; finally, it is accepted as self-evident." We'll leave it to you to decide at which stage we're now at.
Breker


Oh its a British "thing"...I must have missed the memo explaining when that Breker fellow from Europa uses the pronoun "We" its a "British thing" meaning "I." Thats straight-forward...

And you know its just good sense to use such local colloquialisms when posting on a forum with international contributors. Its just good sense...

But besides that, I'm glad to hear, though Breker, of your positive outlook on the state of revisionism and it's predictable path toward acceptance. For the benefit of good people rotting in prison and others who've been assaulted for their beliefs, by all means let's hope you're sense, in this regard at least, is good.
-You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.
-The establishment can't control the web, and the control of information through all means but one, is no control at all.

Barrington James
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 362
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 8:26 pm

Postby Barrington James » 1 decade 2 years ago (Sun Jun 17, 2007 7:57 am)

The making of a Youtube type video might be a good idea.

I have never tried making a video but I have been discussing the holocaust with my high school History teaching friends for some time now and I have found that it is not an easy job to convince even them or anyone that most of what they have been taught about the holocaust since childhood by their teachers, professors, priests, friends and relatives, that most of what they read in the papers two or three times a week or that almost all of what they have seen in the movies, magazines or on TV about the holocaust is actually propaganda, fables, myths and lies. It's like going to school and telling your little friends there is no Santa Claus, or telling your adult friends there is no God or Gods -only worse. It's like telling the world, as Galileo did, the earth goes around the sun and not the other way around. In most countries in the world, as we all know, to deny the holocaust publicly could be dangerous for you, your family and friends. Beside very few will thank you for it. They would rather not know.

Nevertheless here's what I would do, based on my discussions with my friends, if I were to make a presentation- although I never will.

First of all tell your audience that no one denies the Jews suffered horribly during the war and that tens of thousands of them, if not hundreds of thousands of them, died during the war along with, by the way, another fifty million human beings. Tell them that a denier simply means a person does not believe the six -million- gas story. That's all. Most people today, whether they know it or not, are deniers.

Secondly do not begin your debate with too many facts, mathematical, scientific or logical. Your audience just won't believe you, first of all, and secondly, it will only put them asleep or have them call you names. If you try convince your audience of the impossibility of the gassing by using technical concepts or by explaining the impossibility, for example, of gassing 2, 000 people an hour, of cremating their bodies without fuel, or of finding any mass graves and so on, you will simply leave your audience cold, or worse, very angry.

Although at this point it would be a good idea to explain to your audience that up until WW2 more people , soldiers or civilians, in any war, died of disease than of bullets or bombs. For example, you might tell them that two thirds of the 650, 000 Americans soldiers, North and South, who died during the American civil war died of disease, or you might give them a brief history on Andersonville, where 20, 000 Yanks died of disease in that American civil war prison camp, or of the British camps in South Africa during the Boer war, where tens of thousands of Boer children died. It might get them to think a little.

However my only argument that got them really thinking, that made them at least consider my argument, that didn't cause them to think of me as a crazy Jew hating denier, was when I told them the fact that during the war and immediately after the war the “story” we were are told about the holocaust was that millions of Jews had been gassed in the camps in Germany. Yet, eventually , it was finally admitted even by Simon Wiesenthal the Nazi hunter, that despite the fact that hundreds of camp guards were hanged for their roles in the gassing and had been beaten to a pulp to confess to such crimes, no person, Jew or otherwise, had ever been gassed to death in Germany.

You could also tell them that the gassing stories were in fact British, American, Zionist and communist lies and hysterical camp rumors created to justify the war and the terror bombing of German and Japanese cities, to make us forget the horrors of the Jewish led Bolshevik reign of terror in Russian and Eastern Europe that killed tens of millions, to destroy German pride as a people after the war, and to justify the creation of Israel and other such crimes against humanity that we can talk about at some other time. Burt keep your presentation simple as possible.

Don't confuse or shock them with too many ideas. Try to keep them focused on your simple equation: no gassing in Germany=no gassing in Poland.

So, I have told my friends that despite the fact that we have all seen pictures of hundreds of dead in the German camps, all holocaust experts now agree, deniers and believers both, that there had been no lethal gassing in Germany, that most of these people died of disease. The truth is that we have never found a single victim who had actually died of gassing , and we have never found mass graves, tons of ashes, any way of getting the gas either into or out of the gas rooms, a single functioning gas room, any fuel for cremation, and any crematorium that could handle more than a couple of hundred bodies a day, let alone thousands every hour day after day, month after month.

I then explain that even though these German camps became household words for all of us who lived through the 40's 50' and 60's, names such as Bergen-Belsen, Dachau, and Buchenwald and even though today many people still believe these stories, and ask to see the gas chambers when they visit these tourist spots in Germany, there were no gas lethal gas chambers in Germany. None.

I then proceed to tell them that the only reason we did not disprove the gassing myths of Auschwitz, Sobibor, Chelmno, Majdanek, and Treblinka when we exploded the myths of the German camps, is that these so called death camps were in Poland behind the Iron curtain, and consequently we couldn't get investigate them at that time.

In any case I strongly suggest that you keep it simple, and repeat the simple message: they lied to us about the German camps and they lied to us about the ones in Poland. How many lies to you have to hear before you stop believing? Then stop and ask them for questions. Good luck.
You can fool too many of the people most of the time.

Carto's Cutlass Supreme
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2359
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
Location: Northern California

Postby Carto's Cutlass Supreme » 1 decade 2 years ago (Sun Jun 17, 2007 3:16 pm)

Hi Barrington,

Interesting post. But is the notion that everyone thought the death camps were in Germany completely true? I wonder what Reitlinger said on that since he's an early historian? I'm not sure if at Nuremberg or any NMT trials they said anything like "300,000 people were gassed at Dachau and Bergen Belsen."

Maybe I'm wrong.

I don't think that was put out at the Eichmann trial either, rather it's just the general population believed that. I know there were some confessions from SS that they gassed people at Dachau, as I've read Faurisson mention that. But how strong in the academic historic community were gassings in Germany?


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: forasanerworld, Hektor and 5 guests