Comments after browsing 67 comments:
Byrd: If you watch David Cole you see that it is an actual pool (footage shows diving blocks)
About the numbers I agree that even if it is 4 or even one million and not six million, even if it were one individual it would have been too many,
but Nygdan, you say that 1/3 of the holocaust happened (2 million) and that is what this is about that is not so. The author covers three camps,
counting for a third of the total holocaust.
Pool,Theatre, Choir watch David C.
My prepared notes (some)
OK. Let´s start by asking why there is an immediate response calling this film nazi propaganda?
Why is any article or entity which challenges the Holocaust labelled as such? Does the author of this film hate Jews? I have no idea. Do I hate Jews?
Certainly not. Am I a nazi? No, I am an atheist-libertarian. I do not believe in fascism, in fact I wish for as little government possible with free
Moving on. The identity of the maker of this film is unknown. The film is about Treblinka, Sobibor and Belzec mainly, Auschwitz is only briefly
mentioned. (That´s why the film is called One Third Of The Holocaust; It pertains to the three camps which made up 1/3 of the Holocaust).
I find the film interesting, but would like to change the word "evidence" in the subject of this thread to "indications" just to make sure that
there is no confusion over what this really is. I think "evidence" should be information that is forensic, checked by reliable scientific sources
and irrefutable. I will give you an example here, even though I did no background check on the information.
Video 3m:15s Treblinka was not a Death Camp
I just inserted the above to make a point. Scientists doing a thorough study, that I consider evidence.
Anything circumstantial like hear-say and statements that start with "if you think about it..." are not or should not be called evidence, I would
prefer "indications". So if a moderator can please change "Evidence" into "Indications" I would be grateful, as I no longer am able to change
After watching this I have some mixed feelings:
o The narrator annoys. This is my personal opinion. Not only has he a slow and annoying voice, but he is trying to be a wise guy at times, which seems
o OTOH some (even most) of the indications presented are good enough to reproduce and discuss
Looking for a transcript I have found a several sites which host the entire film cut up into thirty pieces:
(Yes, the domain name is a cheap reference to Zionism I know)
Both sites have the same content, and quality is a little better than Google video.
Some brief comments, I have not seen the last hour or so yet. (Well hello I stayed up until 04:00am anyway and had to go to work today as some of us
Chapter one - Introduction
The interesting part in this section I found to be that the author uses the Jewish Historian books to point out several inconsistencies. So please
stop yelling 6 million because it becomes quite clear that that number is clearly revised, even by the Jewish community. You know, the first mention
of 6 million was as early as 1943? See Chapter 9!
Just what is the basis for this familiar figure?
Even before the end of the Second World War in Europe, that is, before any careful or detailed investigation was possible, the Six Million figure was
already in wide circulation. For example, in essays published in late 1944 and early 1945, the prominent Soviet-Jewish writer Ilya Ehrenburg
repeatedly told his many readers that "the Germans" had killed six million Jews. In an article published in March 1945, for instance, in the
English-language London weekly, Soviet War News, he wrote: "The world now knows that Germany has killed six million Jews."
Bit early isn´t it?
Chapter 2: Water Well
The point of the water well being to close to the burial grounds which would have contaminated the well. Not very convincing. If the Germans are
systematically killing their prisoners, contamination would not have mattered that much I reason. They could have provided water from another source
to the work force, or could have de-contaminated the water with Chlorine.
Chapter 3: Haircut
The argument that you would not shave prisoners if you are going to kill them anyway. This is a point. Not THAT much hair was needed in the war effort
(human hair was used in breathing devices in submarines) so this would be an indication..
Chapter 4: Engine Exhaust
About the ability to kill humans with Diesel fumes. I have not researched, but appearantly it is very hard if not impossible to gas humans with Diesel
Chapter 5: Nuremberg Excerpts
I would need to see the entire transcripts of the trial to make a sensible comment
Chapter 6: Gassing Building
This is rather an interesting section, because if you are to systematically going to use gas to kill humans you would expect a hermetically sealed
area with double doors. Well not present. Neither in Auschwitz as a sideline if you watch David Cole.
7 & 8 no comment. Testimony cannot be trusted either way, only if there is supporting forensic evidence I will listen.
Chapter 9: Reader's Digest
As mentioned before, is februari 1943 not a bit early to start spreading the 6 million figure?
The (...) killings have not even begun yet.
Chapter 10: Experiments
The horror. I think some of these might have actually happened. I think the Nazi´s were capable and had motives to do so. However some of the claims
seem grossly exagerrated as you will see. I would accept only experiments if they were of logical use to the Nazis. e.g. human body endurance tests to
learn the limits which would help to fight the war more efficiently. Genetical experiments to learn more about race, creating twins etc.
Chapter 11, 12 & 13: Burial spaces
Basically the numbers do not add up if you try to place the claimed number of casualties in the ground, even six deep. As this can be mathematically
proven, I would call this a strong indication. The link earlier in this post supports this.
More later, I´m out of space
[edit on 2-2-2007 by Truth4hire]