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.

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]

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.

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.

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.