Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
- Remember, that's seven hundred people in 256 square feet?
- That's three people per square foot!!
- That's three human beings somehow crammed into the space of one square of linoleum tile!!
And yes, I do realize that some folks are proned to moments of anti-science. Thats their problem, and a huge problem for the 'holocau$t' Industry.
Only with the 'holocau$t' is anti-science deemed acceptable.
I also notice that Sergey dodges the other ridiculous assertions of Gerstein.
Did Wolff describe that particular execution?
There was me hearing so much about systematic & industralised killing centres. Now it seems every camp had a unique solution of dealing with the problem. Very much like a competition to find the most elaborate way.
Some pushed, some thrown, others whipped. And god knows all the other junk we've heard
Hey Sergey, Don't tell me when they opened the doors, every camp had a unique way of removing the bodies too !
I think starting off with something like, for example, “Did Six Million Really Die?” would be a mistake, too many details (better for later stages). Instead, what I think is needed is something that offers a big picture; for example, a summary that not only includes what is claimed and why these claims are impossible (very briefly), but also what probably actually happened. An explanation of the real causes of WWI and WWII would also be very relevant.
Until very recently, I was a believer. Although I always thought it was quite odd that a country attacked from all sides would be so obsessed with exterminating all Jews on its territory, I never really questioned it. Although there are many militant believers and liars out there, most are probably just like I was and simply never really offered an alternative version.
But there are some things that make it difficult for people to be convinced by revisionists:
1. Most people have seen those terrible images of dead bodies, many many many times.
A clear explanation of the real causes of death (e.g., typhus, starvation, bombing) is necessary. People would hopefully realize that had US been as heavily bombarded are Germany was, maybe we would have had similar images of Japanese residents of “relocation camps”. Also, if the cameras were there to film and photograph the bodies, why didn’t they photograph anything more convincing in support of the Holocaust?
2. How can so many people be wrong or lying about something like that?
What really got me to question things was hearing all the crap from US and UK concerning Iraq, and how most Americans were buying it. Considering it was probably much easier to lie during and soon after WWII than it is now, its not surprising so many people believe the Holocaust.
Also, when I first heard about Mr. Zundel in the news several years ago, I thought he was a very evil man, because the media said so (neo-Nazi, white supremacist, racist, hate monger...). If you assume this to be true, you won’t bother checking out his web-site, just as you wouldn’t check a pedophile’s web-site. But when I finally checked out his web-site, I realized that everything the media said about him was false. Why does the media lie? Listening to the audio on his web-site, he seemed like a very nice person. That really got me going and I wanted to learn more through the Internet, I wanted to know the truth. Viewing Mr. Zundel’s web-site and realizing that it does not match with how the media describes him, should get anyone to question the media. The way the media describes revisionists, and how justice prosecutes them, it almost seems like revisionists were not denying the popular version of the Holocaust, but instead were denying that the Holocaust was a bad thing.
3. But why would such a hoax be created?
To legitimize pulverizing Germany? To get compensation? To get land from the Palestinians?
I am still very new to revisionism. I don’t know the exact content of the ideal 20-min summary, but I do believe it should offer a big picture that would convince anyone that not only the Holocaust, as reported, is impossible, but that the alternative version is very believable and likely. I do think this is very important. The vast majority will never bother verifying the revisionists’ references and will always suspect that revisionists are lying, so a clear and believable alternative is necessary to at least get people curious, to make them want to confirm either version.
Although discussions between a very limited number of revisionists, for example on this forum, are very important, I believe the information should also be spread to a much wider audience in a clear and easily digestible manner (e.g., 20-min summary), to at least get them curious. I fear that access to revisionist ideas on the Internet will soon be stopped and the popular version of history will be the final version.
I can’t express how fortunate I feel to have stumbled across this and other revisionist web-sites. I generally don’t contribute, as I do not yet consider myself knowledgeable enough in this field.
Yes, I agree, I don’t expect to hear any revisionism on TV or in the papers. But there must be a way to get more people exposed to it. How, I don’t know.
I think CODOH’s Campus project is a great idea, but from their web-site I get the impression its getting a lot of resistance. Can anyone tell me how well its working (attendance)?
There must be a way to get people to check out revisionist web-sites, to get them curious.
– John Swinton, former Chief of Staff, The New York Times, circa 1880
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 3 guests