Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
The video debunks Steven Spielberg's Academy Award winning Holocaust Documentary The Last Days and uses the film as a jumping off point to expose the larger Holocaust hoax.
Semitism = Jewish Supremacism
Now, who will watch the movie? It will play great to the choir, how about the hoi polloi? Who will even screen, or permit you to screen, it.
Makes no difference. It is a classic work. The freaking lies exposed. Congratulations.
As it's just in draft stage now I'd like to offer some thoughts on how it might be edited. If at times I may sound critical on individual points it in no way detracts from the fact that that the whole is impressive.
Mainly where you were able to demonstrate, with evidence, that something was false:
- Zizblatt's avowed fantasies presented as reality
- "The Liberators". That you could present indisputable third party evidence that it was a fraud and then showed that black American (and the rest) confidently reciting his false testimony, and indeed we could see that the entire film was a conscious fraud.
- The Kuwaiti incubators fraud. A real life example from our own time of deliberate propaganda fraud in wartime.
- You point out that they have cherry-picked a dozen or so survivor testimonies from (IIRC) 50,000.
- The testimonies from those whose concentration camp experience had been different, but a word on this in the next section.
- In your commentary you need to consider your target audience and the effect on them. At present it is sometimes what SevenUp called "playing to the choir". You talk of "lie-witnesses" and "Jewish conspiracy". These will be a major switch-off for many of the people you most need to get through to. Avoid name-calling. It was precisely such stuff by the other side calling Revisionists "liars" and "malicious" that made me suspicious and decided me to find out what these people had to say. Don't browbeat people with your views. The sort of people who have enough intellectual curiosity to come and see will resent this. Show them the inconsistencies and dishonesties; this will shock them and sow doubts, but it may take some time for those doubts to crystallise. Lead the horse to water, but it will have to decide to drink in its own time.
- Some sections go on too long, but I do appreciate that this is a draft, so will be edited down. probably somewhere 60-90 minutes.
- You need to make clear where your interviews with inmates come from. A suspicious person could ask if we can't trust Spielberg's witnesses, why should we trust yours. Some of them, especially the woman who painted the Swiss mountain scene, look suspiciously young, given that the quality of the videos appears to be reasonably modern. (Mind you, even if these were fake they would still prove your point that people can look convincing when lying.)
- Show some empathy for the genuine ordeal of those who were confined. Distinguish between this and the bogus extermination claims.
- I wouldn't quote Hitler. Your target audience are going to say " He's just a Nazi." and dismiss all the valid points you have made.
I suggest you run it past people like Bradley or "Denierbud" aka "Mike Smith".
You've obviously put a lot of work into this and you've come up with something that has huge potential. Busting Spielberg's credibility would probably have more effect than just about anything else.
One quibble - after the Lantos section, and Lantos was in Spielberg's movie, right?, you go to some Italian(?) brothers who tell the whoppers about the 1 bullet and three victims, but none of them is in Spielberg's movie, right? So, you've shifted gears, before we were going through Spielberg's cast, and now we're not. That needs some explanation, you need to wrap up Spielberg's cast, and then on to other testimony in his archive, what he could have shown. This is all great stuff. Hitler's quote is absolutely right. I'd also say, more commentary from you would be better, tying it all together, letting us see what you make of it, I think having a personality associated with the film is a good idea.
And, unlike Kingfisher, I don't think you should request the audience sing Have Nagilah after the ending.
SevenUp wrote:And, unlike Kingfisher, I don't think you should request the audience sing Have Nagilah after the ending.
Don't worry. I've come to expect this level of infantile fatuity from you, so I just take it in my stride.
You're up against the world's biggest public relations outfit, so you reply using some PR principles of your own. The most important of these is that it's not what you, I or SevenUp think of the film, but how will it affect the target audience.
Other than that, so far, so good.
I'll try to throw a movie poster together for you, Eric. (If you're still taking suggestions)
I'm not a computer whiz by any means, but you can accept or reject it at will.
Why False Memories Sometimes Feel Like They Are Absolutely True
Duke University Medical Center neuroscientists say the places a memory is processed in the brain may determine how someone can be absolutely certain of a past event that never occurred.
These findings could help physicians better appreciate the memory changes that accompany normal aging or even lead to tools for the early diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease, according to Duke neuroscientist Roberto Cabeza, Ph.D.
Information retrieved from memory is simultaneously processed in two specific regions of the brain, each of which focuses on a different aspect of a past event. The medial temporal lobe (MTL), located at the base of the brain, focuses on specific facts about the event. The frontal parietal network (FPN), located at the top of the brain, is more likely to process the global gist of the event.
The specific brain area accessed when one tries to remember something can ultimately determine whether or not we think the memory is true or false, the researchers found.
"Human memory is not like computer memory -- it isn't completely right all the time," said Cabeza, senior author of a paper appearing in the Journal of Neuroscience. "There are many occasions when people feel strongly about past events, even though they might not have occurred."
Cabeza wanted to understand why someone could have such strong feelings of confidence about false memories. In his experiments, he scanned the brains of healthy volunteers with functional MRI as they took well-established tests of memory and false memory. Functional MRI is an imaging technique that shows what areas of the brain are used during specific mental tasks.
During the brain scans, Cabeza found that volunteers who were highly confident in memories that were indeed true showed increased activity in the fact-oriented MTL region.
"This would make sense, because the MTL, with its wealth of specific details, would make the memory seem more vivid," Cabeza said. "For example, thinking about your breakfast this morning, you remember what you had, the taste of the food, the people you were with. The added richness of these details makes one more confident about the memory's truth."
On the other hand, volunteers who showed high confidence in memories that turned out to be false exhibited increased activity in the impressionistic FPN. The people drawing from this area of the brain recalled the gist or general idea of the event, and while they felt confident about their memories, they were often mistaken, since they could not recall the details of the memory.
These findings, coupled with the findings of other studies, can help explain what happens to the human brain as it ages, Cabeza said.
"Specific memories don't last forever, but what ends up lasting are not specific details, but more general or global impressions," Cabeza said. "Past studies have shown that as normal brains age, they tend to lose the ability to recollect specifics faster than they lose the ability recall impressions. However, patients with Alzheimer's disease tend to lose both types of memories equally, which may prove to be a tool for early diagnosis."
Cabeza's colleague for this research was Hongkeun Kim at Daegu University in South Korea. The research was supported by the National Institutes of Health and Daegu University.
the woman who painted the Swiss mountain scene, look suspiciously young, given that the quality of the videos appears to be reasonably modern. (Mind you, even if these were fake they would still prove your point that people can look convincing when lying.
About the Snow White show in Auschwitz, see more on :
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/30/arts/ ... 0surv.html
Threads about false memories, the power of suggestion, etc.:
'False memories as 'facts' / some examples'
'False memories and the "misinformation effect"
'Key to False Memories Uncovered'
Arsènelupin wrote:About the Snow White show in Auschwitz, see more on...
Interesting. Particularly to contrast the tone of the article with the tone of her interview, where she smiles a lot and doesn't talk of mistreatment.
All done under orders from Mengele. The guy did get about a lot, didn't he?
The writers of the article don't seem to have noticed that although all the Czechoslovaks bar 27 were killed, and all the Gypsies, there were all these children kept alive and provided with a supervised nursery and paints to decorate it with. By what logic do you kill the parents and keep the children alive? Maybe the parents were working.
Hannover wrote:The CODOH Revisionist Forum has it all.
Threads about false memories, the power of suggestion, etc.,,,
Elizabeth Loftus, the leading authority on false memory, is Jewish by descent, though a non-believer. She was asked to testify for Demjanjuk in Jerusalem. She considered it, but eventually the pressures both internal and external were too much for her and she refused.
The writers of the article don't seem to have noticed that although all the Czechoslovaks bar 27 were killed, and all the Gypsies, there were all these children kept alive
Hic jacet lepus... we know well this curious kind of mind which makes people see so much the more an evidence of a slaughter, when they discover people who has "survived". A good exemple is Simone Veil, a former french health minister. She belonged, as Simone Jacob, to a group of 1500 jews transported from France to Auschwitz in april 1944. According to the "Auscwitz Kalendarium", except 165 men selected for work, all other people of this group were killed. When Simone Veil became minister in 1974, newspapers, etc, inquired into her life, and then it appeared there was at least one woman of the group who was still alive... and Serge Klarsfeld, who did the "official" figure of french deportation, found 70 other surviving women of the same group.
So, following the maisntream, 37 years since, Simone Veil is at first the number one "holocaust witness" in France.
From an artistic standpoint I think you did great.
The editing was right on and the background music was very effective.
I don't know what your intention with the movie is as far as distribution goes, so maybe this is irrelevant.
I suggest that you spend some time writing a narration and think about bringing in a professional reader or speaker.
Making points at critical moments in a presentation can sway an audience.
Using a professional speaker who has the ability to create emotions through intonation would send your video over the top.
Whatever you decide, great job.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: JLAD Prove Me Wrong and 11 guests