Only one percent of the Holocaust claims can be proven - Says Holocaust Scholar and Expert

page: 3
53
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Thought I'd add: A good amount of deaths of Jews in concentration camps were caused by disease, not executions. When you have large amounts of prisoners living in severe conditions, there are going to be negative results.




posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by GorehoundLarry
 


A LOT of people were mistreated during WW2 not just by Nazis but also by Russians, Japanese, AND the allies. Google Eisenhower(who by the way was a jew) and 1.5 million german POWs under his authority and by his orders, who were grossly mistreated after the war.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Selahobed
reply to post by Sharrow
 
I have zero tolerence for the total BS on this thread...

Who said it wasn't real you moron. Have you read the article or the thread or you just came to rant and do your little festival and whining?


Swiftly clicks the ignore button

As I see, not I'm the ignorant here.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Selahobed
reply to post by Sharrow
 


I have zero tolerence for the total BS on this thread...


Tell my nana it wasnt real!!


Thats the only bite you will get from me...

Swiftly clicks the ignore button


Oh give me a break.

You have to investigate history, it's important. And the Jew Holocaust needs more investigation and questioning.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Beancounter72
reply to post by GorehoundLarry
 


A LOT of people were mistreated during WW2 not just by Nazis but also by Russians, Japanese, AND the allies. Google Eisenhower(who by the way was a jew) and 1.5 million german POWs under his authority and by his orders, who were grossly mistreated after the war.


Exactly my point.

However, tell that to the Jews! They're the only ones who suffered according to them and the state of lovely Israel



By the way, thought I'd point this out now: I'm not Anti Semitic. I'm anti crook and the Jews are the crooks when it comes to suffering in World War 2.

[edit on 6-1-2010 by GorehoundLarry]



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


NO SIR! It has always been claimed by holocaust supporters that the six million were jews who were killed in concentration camps via gas chambers PERIOD! NO evidence of mass graves has EVER been found near any concentration camp.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   

However, tell that to the Jews! They're the only ones who suffered according to them and the state of lovely Israel

Please keep this in a civilized manner. We don't need to offend anyone here. Let's stay on topic and someone here, please give me an answer why even their scholar is saying, even they can't prove 99% of their very own claiming.

[edit on 6-1-2010 by Sharrow]



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by GorehoundLarry
Thought I'd add: A good amount of deaths of Jews in concentration camps were caused by disease, not executions. When you have large amounts of prisoners living in severe conditions, there are going to be negative results.


The concentration camps make more sense seen as a disinfectant camp.

You get your head shaved at a disinfectant camp for lice, not at a gas chamber (why shave your head?)

There were claims that the Jewish hair was used to make mattresses for German women, but yet the hair is still at the concentration camps to this day.

Zyklon B gas was used, at the delousing chamber to delouse the cloths so they would not spread disease. The walls have high Zyklon B residue, which is why the camps had so many canisters of Zyklon B, the gas chambers themselves have no such residue.

There were many nurses that worked at the concentration camps, which would make more sense for a disinfectant camp and not a gas chamber.

I believe the concentration camps had rampant disease and were most likely cut off from essential supplies. Over 50 million people died in world war 2, clearly a banker caused war, and most of the bankers were Jewish, yet none of them died in the Holocaust. They used the Holocaust as a cover, because they were afraid people were onto their little conspiracy, and so Truth telling became Anti-Semitic. Just my personal take on the history of World War 2.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Selahobed
reply to post by Sharrow
 


I have zero tolerence for the total BS on this thread...


Tell my nana it wasnt real!!


Thats the only bite you will get from me...

Swiftly clicks the ignore button



Can you share a story with us?



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by Beancounter72
Questioning the accuracy of the Holocaust is NOT being Anti-semitic. It's a search for the Truth. Why are Jews afraid of the Truth? If the six million figure really was provable and well documented, then allowing the issue to be examined in some kind of court would shut the nazi sympathizers up once and for all but the Jews(or more accurately, the Zionists) don't want that because they know the six million number is highly inflated.


No one should have to keep providing proof of something that has been known, demonstrated, documented, proven and reproven a thousand times. No one is on trial to reprove known facts. No one has to continually respond to every ignoramus just because they say "I don't believe you - show me>"

The Auschwitz numbers are always debated because it was a concentration camp primarily and not a dedicated death/execution camp. The majority of deaths were in civilian setting by shooting and mass graves, burning bodies.

Though Jew haters like to act as if they innocently want to verify history, they invariably jump on dubious published remarks that fit their agendas, and choose to mask their prejudices in making claims like they only oppose "Zionists" Their fixations make their real beliefs readily apparent.





[edit on 6-1-2010 by mmiichael]



Actually, when I say I oppose Zionists I actually mean it, but it is always other people who assume I mean that I oppose all Jews, which I don't.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ancient_wisdom
 
Yes. I would be curious too for her story. As I said at the beginning of this topic, I'm gladly listening both sides. She had the chance to prove her side, yet she just made a rant and clicked the ignore button without any reason.

[edit on 6-1-2010 by Sharrow]



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Beancounter72
reply to post by GorehoundLarry
 


A LOT of people were mistreated during WW2 not just by Nazis but also by Russians, Japanese, AND the allies. Google Eisenhower(who by the way was a jew) and 1.5 million german POWs under his authority and by his orders, who were grossly mistreated after the war.


Eisenhower is a Jew? Where did you hear this? Go to Wikipedia and look it up, before making a fool of yourself with such mis-info.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Sharrow
 


She would've proved nothing. You can hear many stories about the Jew Holocaust online.

It's a shame what happened but the official body count remains highly questionable as there remains to be no solid evidence.

Sure, loved ones were lost, but why can't it be a questionable event?

Many lost loved ones on 9/11 and isn't that quite a skeptical day itself?



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by romanmel
 
Actually he is right. He was half-jewish (Like if it would matter anything in this thread at all). His father was David Jacob Eisenhower.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ancient_wisdom
 


You're quite correct about jewish bankers and WW2. The Nazis were financed by banks controlled by jews. Zionists supported the nazis because a) they wanted to profit from a war between Germany and Russia and b) they wanted to give European jews a good reason to emigrate to Palestine, which the vast majority of European jews did not want to do. The Nazis offered to let all european jews emigrate in exchange for $2 million Deutchmarks and the Zionists refused to pay because the jews would have gone everywhere except Palestine. The head of the International jewish Congress was quoted as saying that the jews had to suffer a catastrophe in order to convince them that the only safe place for them was a new Jewish homeland.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by GorehoundLarry
 
Yes, I can hear stories which is telling the general story, which is told by the grandsons and daughters of survivors whose... well, actually heard from their father, who is heard from their mother or father. But I want to hear her nana's story too, not the general story. I'm curious what she heard? What's her story? We're hearing the general story which has many differences as many are passed their stories on a different way. Others are saying... sorry, I can't tell about it, because I'm in a trauma, because of my grandma or grandpa that I never even knew was there. So, we can hear excuses, evasions or general stories. I thought maybe we can hear one personal story too.

[edit on 6-1-2010 by Sharrow]



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by romanmel
 


When Eisenhower graduated from West Point, his picture in the class yearbook notes that he was 'that Swedish jew'.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Ninety-nine per cent of what we know we do not actually have the physical evidence to prove . . . it has become part of our inherited knowledge.


A mountain out of a molehill, IMO, once one compares this to the rest of history. The above is phrased in a sensationalist fashion and seems damning when standing alone. But comparatively, this makes perfect sense and would obviously be true.

That is what a large chunk of history is. It is inherited knowledge and most will lack physical evidence. In fact, 1% is pretty good in comparison (Although I believe we have a much greater provable knowledge than 1% as it relates to the Holocaust).

Take all sorts of historical events ranging from modern to antiquity. Let's take a famous historical figure as an example to begin. We could say we have 1% PROOF of Napoleon's existence, personality, and exploits and the other 99% is 'inherited knowledge.' Or let's take a historical event as our next example. We could say we have 1% PROOF of the history involving the Russian Revolution while 99% is inherited knowledge.

Sites, people, and physical evidence do not exist forever. This is why we have historians who record what occurred and pass it on to us. This is why history is 'inherited.' It's because the circumstances involving individuals and events do not stay the same forever. MOST of what we know of history is inherited. That's a part of what history is.

So, yes. This man's statements are very misleading and sensational until we investigate them further and compare them to other historical contexts.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 
Yes. That make sense. But in this case, the other claiming is not true: that it's the most documented event in history. Because it's a great contradiction. Both claiming can't be true.

[edit on 6-1-2010 by Sharrow]



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Sharrow
 


A survivor in Trauma and Not willing to share their story? Must be rare considering the Shoah documentary is six hours of STORIES!!!



[edit on 6-1-2010 by GorehoundLarry]



  exclusive video


new topics
top topics
 
53
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join