'Deniers'

[steve]

On some other thread, johng wrote the following:

To date the ONLY qualified person who has attempted to uphold his work is Rudolf and he is of course a denier.

For some reason, I can't seem to locate it! Either it got deleted, or I really am getting old! If his post is still on the board, can someone please point it out to me just to satisfy my curiousity. Similary, if it was deleted, point that out also to preserve my sanity!

Anyway, I would like to address the above comment because a valid point can be made from it.

It seems to me, johng, you think that whatever a 'denier' says is simply not credible, simply because he is a 'denier'. If, on the other hand, someone comes to the conclusion there were no gassings, then he must be passed off as a 'denier'. In that hate mongering, bigoted, circular way of thinking, there is no way a person can credibly come to the conclusion there were no gassings.

According to Rudolf (and Leuchter), they once believed there were gassings. When Rudolf looked into it, his whole world view turned upside down. Why is it so hard to believe Rudolf came to an honest, competent conclusion? His and Leuchter's lives were ruined because they told the truth. What was their motive? Do they enjoy being tormented?

People like Rudolf welcome debate. The H Hucksters avoid it. Just from that alone, who are more likely lying? Who are the ones with something to hide? Look at the many 'eye-witness' tales that are obviously absurd. Look at Elie Wiesel. Can you name one prominent revisionist who is anywhere near the obvious liar they are?

What about me, johng? I used to believe there were jews gassed. At least to some degree. When someone suggested to me about 6 years ago that NO jews were gassed, I did not know what to make of it. For whatever reason, I was intruiged. So, I looked into it. After about a year, I had practically no doubt. There were NO gassings. Why would I 'deny'? Maybe because I enjoy being looked at oddly by my coworkers for trying to set the record straight about the Big H? What is my motivation? I'm a mere nobdy. I'm not running for office. I'm not making any money telling people the H is a lie. Women don't seem to be turned on by my attitude. I have very little German blood. What is my motivation? Am I lying to you? Am I lying to myself? What about the other people here on this forum?

From what I have seen, the ones that accuse the revisionists of having an agenda, are the ones with the agenda. The ones who call revisionists the haters are the haters. Another good example of the Polish proverb I mentioned before, the jew kicks you while he screams "stop kicking me".

You know, johng, I can kind of relate to your attitiude though. I find the Big H story so absurd, so impossible to believe, that when I see someone claiming to believe it, I sincerely conclude he has not really looked into it, or due to his (usually jewish)racist attitudes, refuses to consider it may be a lie, or he himself is simply a liar with an agenda.

[Richard Perle]

It has occured to me that despite the vast resources of the H industry, they have very few real experts into the scientific areas of the H tale. Can anyone show me wrong on this? They have Green and that's really about all. Despite the standard line that they don't debate 'deniers', anyone who's looking into this subject must accept that there has been a constant battle behind the scenes to confront the revisionists, so why haven't the industry managed to assemble a vast hoard of experts to thoroughly smash revisionists?
Those fighting on the 'front lines' against revisionists are all patently 'anti-denier', and this is an agenda itself.

The 'deniers' that johng feels aren't reliable, as you point out, steve, were at one time believers, but in carrying out their research became 'deniers'. At this point these 'deniers' are simply professionals who have reached an educated conclusion. I'm not sure what else can be expected from them. Presumably if a whole team of scientists and engineers were to conduct an on-site investigation of the alleged gas chambers and reach the same conclusions as Rudolf and co., then they would all at once become 'deniers' with an agenda which renders their work unreliable. That appears to be the kind of logic which drives a true believer.

The few experts who have actually looked critically at the holocaust and had the guts to publish their work have received no rewards for their work, apart from a sense of personal satisfaction that they are on the side of truth and integrity, and this must seem pretty hollow when they are having their lives torn apart.
What a sorry state of affairs.

[steve]

Richard, it is hard to add to your post. Just looking at the behavior of the Hucksters should alert someone to the fact that something is quite amiss.

If you read Butz, Faurisson, Rudolf, and many others, you can't help but notice that they are extremely intelligent men. When you read what they point out, if you have any brains at all, at minimum it must stir some doubt. Otherwise, I guess we at this forum are all simple minded, gullible buffoons. (But at least we are honest buffoons!)
Seeing how much Faurisson, Rudolf, etal have been persecuted, just what the hell could be their motives? Other than simply trying to tell the truth.

That is why I sincerely believe it is the BELIVERS who are the DENIERS. Maybe not some of the posters here. Some who just happened to stumble on this site. But anyone who has really looked into this, and still maintains the H is something near what it is portrayed, is simply someone who either cannot deal with reality, or are simply lying. THEY are the real deniers!

That is why I have no respect for Finkelstein, Chomsky, Shamir, the late John Sack, all of them. They prove time after time, they are jews FIRST and foremost. The truth be damned.

[Moderator]

Steve:
I pulled the post you're referring to. Johng's entire post ignored a plethora of challenges made to him. And yes, I saw that statement about Rudolf. It's things like that which dramatize why some posts get deleted. They lack very few cogent, rational responses to Revisionist research and challenges.

[steve]

Moderator,

Thank for letting me know. I was starting to get concerned about my competence!

Just as a suggestion: I would let posts like that stay. Unless a poster got way out of hand (spamming, vulgar language, etc.), I would keep the post; at least to indicate to visitors of this forum how the 'believers' do indeed avoid real debate.

[Moderator]

We're not going to allow a lot of 'junk mail', the thread becomes an unreadable mess. Think of the casual and new readers of this forum, not so much about the participants. Messages to us have generally stated an appreciation for the lack of bullshit (that seems to be the favorite term). Thanks for your opinions.