Greeting to all from new member

[julian2012]

Hello to all,

I am new to this forum and glad to have found it. I am a newcomer to Holocaust revisionism (2-3 years), and I am compelled to dig as deep as possible while being pro-active in my efforts. I am scheduled to produce an independent documentary film on the subject, and any guidance or advise would be greatly appreciated. In particular, my film will focus on the lack of historical evidence of gas chambers as well as the Fred Leuchter findings. I feel like the research I've done would provide for many hours of documentation, but I'd like to show some restraint by focusing on key points.

I am open for correspondence as well as debate. I'm just glad to be here fighting the good fight.

Cheers.

[windandwater]

Hi julian,

I'm also new to this topic, and amazed by the weaknesses of the official story.

As an attorney, I was interested in the flaws put forward by the prosecutors at Nuremberg.

Prosecutors Thomas Dodd and Robert Jackson arranged for tattooed skin and shrunken head exhibits to be admitted into evidence. They used an affidavit from one Andreas Pfaffenberger as a basis for their claim, that those exhibits had been taken from inmates at Buchenwald. See the recent thread on this topic with my comments (and citations) in this forum, called "text of pfaffenberger affidavit".

Both Pfaffenberger's affidavit, and Dodd's and Jackson's claims about it, are full of holes. Dodd and Jackson should be criticized for their misleading statements, and use of misleading affidavits and exhibits. By weakening the Nuermberg prosecution, you weaken the holocaust myth.

IMHO. Good luck with your documentary.

[Carto's Cutlass Supreme]

Hi Julian,

Good luck. Fred Leuchter is not a strong point with seasoned revisionists. That Catholic priest made the mistake of using him. Not that the bad methodology explanation in "Mr. Death" is correct, it's not (deleting the sample by 10,000 or something like that.) but there are still problems. The Rudolf Report is better, and it would have been better for that Catholic priest to use that. Please don't make the same mistake in your documentary. I'm not sure how much you should touch on Leuchter.

[SimonBuzaglo]

In one word: Faurisson. This is a man who dedicated 40 years of his life trying to find proof for the gas chambers or lack thereof. He is still alive and no documentary can be complete without him. Ironically Pressac, although dead, would be another good source. His book was a prize to revisionists in that it clarified the big confusion between disinfestation gas chambers and homicidal gas chambers, providing ample of evidence for the former and no evidence for the latter except speculation. To seal the deal, David Cole's 46 (unanswered) questions about the gas chambers are the most concise and to-the-point debunkment of the gas chamber 'evidence'.

[proxyserver]

Hi julian,

I'm also new to this topic, and amazed by the weaknesses of the official story.

As an attorney, I was interested in the flaws put forward by the prosecutors at Nuremberg.

Prosecutors Thomas Dodd and Robert Jackson arranged for tattooed skin and shrunken head exhibits to be admitted into evidence. They used an affidavit from one Andreas Pfaffenberger as a basis for their claim, that those exhibits had been taken from inmates at Buchenwald. See the recent thread on this topic with my comments (and citations) in this forum, called "text of pfaffenberger affidavit".

Both Pfaffenberger's affidavit, and Dodd's and Jackson's claims about it, are full of holes. Dodd and Jackson should be criticized for their misleading statements, and use of misleading affidavits and exhibits. By weakening the Nuermberg prosecution, you weaken the holocaust myth.

IMHO. Good luck with your documentary.

As a new member I would like to draw the attention of the forum to http://www.amazon.com/Roosevelt-Churchi ... 0306803909 I read this in a university reference library and I was surprised to see that, apart from some reference to Jews being resettled in camps in North Africa, there was certainly no reference to anything about what we understand by the Holocaust today, and it covered up to what was nearly the end of the war, taking account of the fact that Roosevelt died shortly before the end of the war. However, both Churchill and Roosevelt were very concerned about the fate of the Poles and others in Eastern Europe at the hands of the Soviets, and what could be done to stop it.

As someone who has read a lot about the Holocaust it is beyond me how any rational person can beblieve that it is anything other than Zionist propaganda to help ensure today that the general public in the Western democratic nations are prepared to send their children to fight the Islamists, who are the main threat to Israel. The big problem, of course, is how to get even university educated people to seriously study the holocaust, since people generally take the exterminationist account for granted, and in this respect forums such as this on the internet are the greatest hope for getting the truth out to people.

As I said I am a new member and I hope that I am not breaking any rules by asking in this post how I can go about getting a signature and a avatar, as it is not apparent to me from going to my control panel, for instance. Perhaps it is the case that you actually have to make a few posts before this is possible, as I did consult the faq, and it did say that avatars and signatures are possible.

[Pappy Yokum]

In particular, my film will focus on the lack of historical evidence of gas chambers as well as the Fred Leuchter findings.

That is all well and good, but the problem with that approach is it creates a hole and fills it with nothing. The proper approach is to replace the myth of the homicidal gas chambers with the hard reality of the camps in 1942-43. Not only state what are not gas chambers, but what they were. Provide a proper context for Zyklon B, the crematoria, the piles of old shoes, etc. The Holocaust story is monster stitched together of parts that do not belong together. Nothing is as it appears in that story. It is not enough to focus on the lack of historical evidence. People have to replace what you are trying to remove. You have to provide them with something true and robust to replace the gas chamber fable.

The Holocaust story, the gas chamber story, is strongly tied to emotions. It is anchored to the credibility of trusted authority. People will reject any facts that contradict previously held beliefs, so any attempt to educate people as to why what they "know" is false will have to take that into account.

[holographic]

Greetings!

[Kiwichap]

Howdy Julian, listen up. Pay no attention to those folk who say 'leave Leuchter alone'. Use Leuchter all you can. Be certain to dwell upon Leuchter's subsequent horrendous treatment from the liars. How they attacked him, instead of what he was saying. Milk Leuchte'rs situation all you can. Smart folk see the truth implicitly through others actions, and not their words. And never fear, you can always fall back upon Rudolf for confirmation.

See if you can get Leuchter's conclusion forefront: If those doing the gassing didn't gas themselves at the same time as the executee's died, they would have been blown to bits, when the gas exploded from... [the raging furnace not more than 10ft away - ha ha]... "To think these buildings were ever homicidal gas chambers is just LUDICROUS". (and flammable to boot)

Ya just gotta laugh at the funny Jewish holo thing.

[Lamprecht]

See if you can get Leuchter's conclusion forefront: If those doing the gassing didn't gas themselves at the same time as the executee's died, they would have been blown to bits, when the gas exploded from... [the raging furnace not more than 10ft away - ha ha]... "To think these buildings were ever homicidal gas chambers is just LUDICROUS". (and flammable to boot)

Ya just gotta laugh at the funny Jewish holo thing.

The Zyclon-B wouldn't have been at a concentration high enough to be flammable if the gas chamber story was true.