One Third Of The Holocaust:More Compelling Evidence It Never Happened

page: 1
22
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 08:23 PM
link   
Found this tonight. After watching for about two hours (still playing!) I am in such awe that I am posting the link to this documentary.

This basically provides strong evidence that Holocaust did not happen as such. Contains parts from Lanzmann´s Shoa, which I have seen as well. (Yes all of it)

But, if you have sat through Shoa, get ready for another long sitting.

The link: One Third Of The Holocaust (04:15:20)

At this time I´m unsure who the author/narrator is, it simply starts without credits. Maybe I missed it. Would like to research him/her/them further.

Hopefully enough of you will watch the entire thing as I intend to so we can discuss this.




posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Truth4hire
This basically provides strong evidence that Holocaust did not happen

Such as what?



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Nygdan, I am actually taking notes as this plays. A transcript does not seem to exist at first Google. Trust me, you will need to see this if the topic interests you and yes I will post my personal findings (apart from that I am in awe) in a complete form within 24 hours. I would love to find a transcript, still looking while I´m listening to the narration. And typing this.

Stress.



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 08:38 PM
link   
Does the documentary disprove all the evidence that proves there was a holocaust? The survivors, camps, pictures, etc....

What is YOUR opinion on that?



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 08:45 PM
link   
My opinion as I mentioned earlier is that I do not think Auschwitz was a death camp and that most victims died of malnutrition and disease at the latter stages of the war due to insuficcient supplies reaching the concentration camps which, in turn was caused by a breakdown of the German railway infrastructure caused by Allied bombings.

The video uses Jewish historical data, and within the first twenty minutes it beoms clear that their own information on the death tolls does not even come close to the "6 Million figure". For Auschwitz the "official" number of casualties is around one million, Jews and gentile together. Bad enough in itself ofcourse.

Add: noone can deny the pictures of the skeletons and starving survivors, but this does not deter me from my belief mentioned above. Fact is there was a swimming pool located inside the prisoner´s compound. There was a theatre in Auschwitz. A hospital. Nurses. The Red Cross visited Auschwitz numerous times and have never once mentioned genocide or gassings. People were writing letters from inside Auschwitz. There was a music group. There were study groups.

If you just look at the pool. Why o why have a pool in a death camp? It is there, watch the doc. We have been lied for over sixty years about Auschwitz I say. And if the current trend continues in Europe, I might go to jail for up to five years if I say so in public in the near future. Interesting, don´t you think?

[edit on 1-2-2007 by Truth4hire]



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Truth4hire
I do not think Auschwitz was a death camp and that most victims died of malnutrition and disease at the latter stages of the war due to insuficcient supplies reaching the concentration camps which, in turn was caused by a breakdown of the German railway infrastructure caused by Allied bombings.

Wrong. The nazis specifically rationed out food so that the prisoners could survive for a time to perform labour, but slowly starve, to death. They didn't try to kill all the jews by gassing chambers, which they did use. They did it by starving them.


For Auschwitz the "official" number of casualties is around one million, Jews and gentile together. Bad enough in itself ofcourse.

You really need to ask yourself why the germans had thrown jews, gypsies, homosexuals, occultists, and all other supposed 'undesirables' into the camps in teh first place. Just what do you think they were planning? To have them on permanent welfare?

If you just look at the pool. Why o why have a pool in a death camp?

Why wouldn't it??? How does having a swimming pool interfere with a death camp? Do you actually think that the prisoners were there, frolicing in the pool, having concerts and theatre rehersals, and generally living it up?



And if the current trend continues in Europe, I might go to jail for up to five years if I say so in public in the near future. Interesting, don´t you think?

There are plenty of threads about the issue of holocaust denial being illegal in some places, lets leave that issue up to those other threads, it will be far too much of a distraction here.


I await the 'evidence' that there was no holocaust.



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 09:59 PM
link   
I'm in denial about lots of things in my life. But this seems like yet another thread on how the Germans did not kills millions of people, behind thier lines during the war regardless of religon.

I would like to see you explain the loss of around two million of Soviet troops that were captured, but never returned to Russia. What happened to them? That in itself is a halocaust. Then to deny Christians, homosexual, mentally deficient, and Jewish people were not killed in staggering large numbers. It is a disservice to humanity.


It is good to question things in the past. But data can be played with. And you will say that it was played with the other way. Good for you. Have an unhuman life.



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 10:05 PM
link   
I once took care of an old man in the ICU and saw the number tatoo on his forearm. He was in and out of consciousness and didn't make a lot of sense when he was awake. My other patient was actively dying and the whole code team was in there shocking his heart to keep it beating. The family of the dying man were unwilling to admit he was dying and told us to "do everything" to keep him alive. We kept shocking him, temporarily snatching him away from death's door but eventually the electrical current began to burn his flesh. This was extremely distressing to all of us and we begged the family to accept the inevitable. What finally turned the tide in this tragic case was the smell of burning flesh permeating the ICU. The old man with the number tatooed on his forearm suddenly became alert and began screaming hysterically in (what we assumed was) Hebrew. His wife explained that he thought he was back in Auschwitz. It took a lot of Ativan to calm him down. I'm fairly sure he wasn't in on the "cover-up conspiracy" to make us all believe there were unspeakable horrors for which no evidence exists. HE was evidence enough for me. (G_D rest his tortured soul.)


Edn

posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 10:07 PM
link   
You know you could all just watch the video instead of waiting to attack what Truth4hire thinks after he posts his thoughts.



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 11:31 PM
link   
Go to Krakow, and onto auschwitz, look at the place, look at the photos read the scripts.

This happened.

The Nazi's were systematically KILLING them, didnt they ADMIT to it during the Nuremburg trials?

to say that they died because food lines broke down is a JOKE.
The NAZI's, if they HAD FOOD lines they would of been sending them to their TROOPS in Russia, and the WESTERN front.. NOT to the JEWS!



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Go to Krakow, and onto auschwitz, look at the place, look at the photos read the scripts.


and talk to the survivors who have the tattoos and horror stories



The Nazi's were systematically KILLING them, didnt they ADMIT to it during the Nuremburg trials?


*puts voice into sarcastic tone* no, that's just what the zionist jew elite bankers that control the one world government want you to think...

sarcasm aside
yes, they admitted to it
some of the sick freaks were actually gleefully proud of their atrocities



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 11:43 PM
link   

sbob
And you will say that it was played with the other way. Good for you. Have an unhuman life.

I'm no fan of nazi revisionism, but the absolute worst we can say about Truth4hire (supicious name aside) as of right now is that he's/she's watching a video on the subject, and he/she thinks it makes a good case for its position.
That hardly makes him/her a nazi or scum. At worst, it makes him/her incorrect. Lets at least reserve judgement for what sort of evidence is presented to us.



Originally posted by Edn
You know you could all just watch the video instead of waiting to attack what Truth4hire thinks after he posts his thoughts.

Why should any of us watch a 4 hour propaganda film?
If it makes good points, or presents worthwhile evidence, then Truth should be able to communicate that to us.



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Edn

You know you could all just watch the video instead of waiting to attack what Truth4hire thinks after he posts his thoughts.


Why should any of us watch a 4 hour propaganda film?
If it makes good points, or presents worthwhile evidence, then Truth should be able to communicate that to us.
Well, it's a film, it can't communicate its points, evidences and truths if you don't watch it ;-)

The point it's trying to make in the first few minutes I've watched so far is that a few testimonies from the "Operation Reinhard" camps can be debunked the very same way we use to prove our point or debunk hoaxers sometimes: compare documents easily available to everyone to each other, use some common logic, quote out of context if necessary and leave everything aside that doesn't support the point you're trying to make.

No matter how suspicious the overall theme of the movie may be, it seems to be thoroughly researched. I personally don't like the snide comments from the narrator.

The questions raised in the first few minutes would be: can you use a Diesel engine to gas someone? Did you ever sleep on a matress made of human hair? Can a human body burn by itself without fuel like wood, for example, and if so, why would a female body burn better than a male body? And why is there a well between the mass graves?

So far, I've seen no real evidence, just a few clues.

I know I don't have to emphasize that it is out of question that the Holocaust happened; and that it doesn't help to know that it were "just" 4 million or 5.1 million Jews isntead of 6 million. Still it might be interesting to have an in-depth analysis (no matter how biased it is) to see whether history has been tampered with and make up your own mind instead of relying on or dismissing those hunches that "something can't be right with the numbers". I often meet Neo-Nazis and sympathisants at work who try to discuss this issue with me, so it would be great to know some of the arguments they might be using. Know your foe!

However, now I'll go on and watch the film. Thanks to the OP for posting it. I hope it works this time.



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 01:14 AM
link   
Ok well watch that film and then you could watch the interviews Stephen Speilberg did with thousands of survivors and listen to all their stories, see all the footage and pictures and if you want go up to the remaining survivors and tell them what they had experienced was an exaggeration and that they really did not go through what they think they did because sixty years after it happened you saw a video on it.
People were burned alive at Aushwtiz, burned alive and yet you dismiss that as a direct result to the lack of supply due to allied war bombings?
The Nazi's started their genocide way before allied bomber planes were able to reach Germany anyway.



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Truth4hire
My opinion as I mentioned earlier is that I do not think Auschwitz was a death camp and that most victims died of malnutrition and disease at the latter stages of the war due to insuficcient supplies reaching the concentration camps which, in turn was caused by a breakdown of the German railway infrastructure caused by Allied bombings.



There was a WAR going on. Germany had to provide food and medical care to it's soldiers and people, first and foremost. Prisoners in concentration camps were last. That is what happens during war!

It is so disturbing that instead of considering the common sense motives for why something was done, people will believe anything (anti German propaganda) that is printed or aired.

No one ever talks about the concentration camps all over the world, including the US, that housed German soldiers. No one ever talks about AMERICANS of German heritage that were abused and terrorized (or the fear of that occurring) causing these AMERICANS to change their names and deny their heritage.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to learn the TRUTH.

For those who have nothing better to do but argue about it....It's OVER. It's been over for 60 years. You should be more concerned with what is happening NOW.



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Akareyon
Well, it's a film, it can't communicate its points, evidences and truths if you don't watch it

If its points can' tbe communicated, then its points are merely emotive devices, not actual consideration of the evidence or a presentation of a historical study. IOW, merely baseless propaganda.



The point it's trying to make in the first few minutes I've watched so far is that a few testimonies from the "Operation Reinhard" camps can be debunked the very same way we use to prove our point or debunk hoaxers sometimes: compare documents easily available to everyone to each other, use some common logic, quote out of context if necessary and leave everything aside that doesn't support the point you're trying to make.

But its one thing to say that various accounts conflict with the documents, its another to actually show that they do conflict, and quite another to then say that the holocaust didn't happen. At best, all you have before that is some accounts that aren't accurate, and, again, thats even just assuming that they were actually shown to be inaccurate.


No matter how suspicious the overall theme of the movie may be, it seems to be thoroughly researched.

That unfortunately is a tactic of the propagandist revisionist, make it appear that something has been researched. Its similar to whats called pseudo-science, you use scientific sounding terms and jargon, or just make it appear like you've conducted rigorous tests, or talk about fancy equipment, when in reality there was no actual science done. WIth nazi Historical revisionism, its giving the perception that the propagandist has done the work of an actual historian, in much the same way, when in fact all they are doing is promoting hateful propaganda with an agenda.




can you use a Diesel engine to gas someone?

I know that there are accounts of people being gassed with disel engines. Lets pretend that, no, you can't kill someone with exhaust from a disel engine. How does that refute the existence of gas chambers, and the starvation programme?

Did you ever sleep on a matress made of human hair?

Again, what does it matter?

Can a human body burn by itself without fuel like wood, for example, and if so, why would a female body burn better than a male body?

Same question, why does this matter? Is it likely that some people's observations at the time were inaccurate? Yes, assuredly, not everyon that was there is going to give a completely accurate account. But what does it matter if some people's stories end up being inaccurate?

And notice, an actual historian, or anyone wanting to get to the truth, would take note if these things didn't happen, but recognize that they're not refuting the central idea. They are nothign other than propaganda devices, to disctract you from the actual evidence.




and that it doesn't help to know that it were "just" 4 million or 5.1 million Jews isntead of 6 million.

I think 4 million is an extremely unlikely and low estimate.

pquote]Still it might be interesting to have an in-depth analysis (no matter how biased it is) to see whether history has been tampered with and make up your own mind instead of relying on or dismissing those hunches that "something can't be right with the numbers".
The thing is, lots of historians have investigated the holocaust, sifted through the evidence, the records, the communications, the trials, the sites. THe propagadistic revisionist will often act as if the question had been suppressed, or that this is a new field, or something like that. Like pretty much everything else they say, its all a lie. They've certainly learned from their nazi masters, make the lie big, the bigger, the more likely that people will beleive it.



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Think About IT
go up to the remaining survivors and tell them what they had experienced was an exaggeration

We really don't need to make emotive appeals here. The evidence simply supports that there was an intentional holocaust and that it killed around 6 million jews, and millions more other people.



People were burned alive at Aushwtiz, burned alive

?
What do you base this upon? I have never heard of people being burned alive. The crematoriums were for disposing of the bodies AFTER gassing and death via starvation.


Originally posted by sky1

Originally posted by Truth4hire
My opinion as I mentioned earlier is that I do not think Auschwitz was a death camp and that most victims died of malnutrition and disease at the latter stages of the war due to insuficcient supplies reaching the concentration camps which, in turn was caused by a breakdown of the German railway infrastructure caused by Allied bombings.



There was a WAR going on. Germany had to provide food and medical care to it's soldiers and people, first and foremost. Prisoners in concentration camps were last. That is what happens during war!

Firstly, those people shouldn't've been herded and branded like animals into concentration camps in the first place. And they weren't starving because the nazis couldn't feed them, the plan was to have them slowly starve to death, that way they could get work out of them while they died.

people will believe anything (anti German propaganda) that is printed or aired.

The nazis themselves called the jews a subhuman race that needed to be gotten rid of. So they herded them into concetration camps, and systematically, intentfully, starved and gased them to death.



No one ever talks about the concentration camps all over the world, including the US, that housed German soldiers.

Captured soldiers get put into POW camps. Putting a soldier into a prison camp during a war is a helluva lot different than rounding up an entire civilian population, putting them into camps, making them slaves, and then starving and gasing them.


No one ever talks about AMERICANS of German heritage that were abused and terrorized (or the fear of that occurring) causing these AMERICANS to change their names and deny their heritage.

Thats BS. People certainly do talk about it.


There is nothing wrong with wanting to learn the TRUTH.

There is somethign very wrong with beleiveing bald lies just to be able to villanise a people, or to pretend that your own didn't do something horrible.


For those who have nothing better to do but argue about it....It's OVER. It's been over for 60 years. You should be more concerned with what is happening NOW.

Yes, and now, we have people, pretending to be doing historical research, but in reality they are just nazis, spreading nazi propaganda, and blaming things on the jews, all over again.

Why the heck shouldnt' we stand up to that? These people aren't merely advocating an unpopular position, they are lying]/i]. The holocaust happened. IT was a systematic plan to get rid of the jews from germany, it killed around 6 million jews, and millions of other 'undesireables'.

[edit on 2-2-2007 by Nygdan]



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 01:32 AM
link   
If there really was no holocaust i'd like to see an equivalent amount of proof that proves it. one video of propaganda doesn't do it for me. it would take quite a discovery to disprove the people/places/pictures/artifacts/papers/trials that document the holocaust.



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 01:58 AM
link   
I watched first twenty minutes. Weak sauce. His points of reference are irrelevant. Please list any real evidence if there is any, I can't stand his melencholy presentation any longer.

AAC



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 02:08 AM
link   

If its points can' tbe communicated, then its points are merely emotive devices, not actual consideration of the evidence or a presentation of a historical study. IOW, merely baseless propaganda.
Nygdan, it's not easy for me to mold my thoughts into english words. It makes it even harder for me if you're playing rough. But I'll try to do my best to explain my conviction that you can't judge a book by its cover. It's easy to say "revisionist propaganda". That's the filter through which I let this whole presentation flow into my very, very conscious mind. In fact, ATS opened my mind to a level that I started to question everything written in god's Holy Word, the newspaper or my history school books. Yes, I'm sometimes so paranoid that when somebody says "good morning" I look at my watch to verify it's not past twelve yet.

The film doesn't say "There was no holocaust". It says "a few things don't add up". And as TRUTHseekers, we should respect the right to do exactly that, propaganda or not.

If it were full of lies, I would dismiss it. But it's full of quotes from official, public sources and, whatever its author's intentions may be, it can easily be used as propagande. That's why it is so potentially dangerous and should be seriously and openly discussed in a place like ATS. Please correct me if I'm wrong :-)






top topics



 
22
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join