Holocaust Hoax Proof

reply to post by AnAbsoluteCreation


Well this post is pretty nauseating. No citations or proof I see - just nonsense.

TheBlackHat
Like 9/11 this is a subject your not supposed to talk about, just accept. This in itself is unhealthy and causes further suspicion and more conspiracy theories.
I have been to Auschwitz..i was taken there on a school trip over 20 years ago. I've seen the video footage of hundreds of emaciated dead bodies being bulldozed into pits. There is no question Hitler killed Jews, as well as gays and gypsies, and in the most despicable ways. It's the numbers involved that has caused the debate and yes, it is a legitimate question to ask because in our culture numbers seem to matter, 6 million is a bigger atrocity than 100,000 etc, but it shouldn't be that way, it isnt that way in my opinion, how ever many were murdered were far too many. And if people have been playing with the figures they should be ashamed of themselves, because it detracts from the reality and causes this type of conspiracy leading to those who say nothing happened what so ever.

Something people seem to forget is during the same time Stalin is credited with killing 20 million of his own people...again who knows if this is accurate..all I know is he was equal too if not worse than Hitler.

i wonder why the 9-11 posts are not in the lol forum here i am suprised that you are not banned like all those in this thread that had a voice against the 6 million proof strange but true

reply to post by Natecoates



I am a person who detests censorship. Truly. Let the haters speak, so we know who they are. Otherwise, you never see them coming.
But regarding this subject, I am glad tonight, that I live in a country where public denial of the holocaust is a crime.
Otherwise, I would engage the blasphemous BS in a fashion that defies comprehension.

reply to post by AngryCymraeg


You continue playing follow the leader. I don't mind. I think for myself.

You probably still believe that the 3 skyscrapers were all brought down by 2 airplanes and the passport of the leader was found in the ruins, barely damaged, huh?

I still stand firmly behind my last reply, the logic being the framework.

Remember, history is written by the victors. I prefer non-fiction when dealing with real life.

It wasn't easy for the "free thinkers" back in the day to assert that the world was round. All the conventional wisdom fought tooth and nail to support their flat world concept and all the evidence they could throw at the naysayer meant nothing once time played its roll.

And in time, all these ugly untruths will also become apparent to the world. And you will be one of the ones shocked that the earth was round this whole time.

Until then, I will never argue with the wrong side of truth.

AAC

reply to post by AnAbsoluteCreation


Just so people do not take me the wrong way on this controversial topic. I have done a lifetime of research on the subject, of course believing the original story and only started research when I heard people questioning the truth behind the original story.

The truth is that there are many unanswered questions. Scholars have already changed the original number of 6 million Jews dying to around 3.5 million, yet that 6 million number has never changed.

After all my research, what can be proven is that hitler like many nations created wartime camps to imprison enemies of the state. USA did this to Germans and Japanese in WWI and WWII.

The British then bombed the supply roads to those camps that were in very rural areas and no supplies were able to get there for many months. That is why all the videos of the dead bodies dropped in pits are all rail thin. The tattoos which are often shown as proof of the genocide, are nothing more than inmate markings. Just like the prisons of America have. Why would they g through the trouble of marking a person they plan on killing?

It is no secret that Hitler hated Jews, he believed they were a cancer to the world because of their usury banking ways that date back to before the Roman Empire. Since it was against the church to charge interest on loans, the lords often used Jews to loan money because they were not bound by Christian laws.

But this is not proof that he exterminated them all. In fact, the science does not back up that there was gas chambers there in the first place. I.e. No significant traces of cyanide on walls. The doors to the supposed gas rooms were separate from the flor under the door, which would effectively gas those outside of the room too.

There have been plenty of examples of Jewish survivors getting caught lying about their accounts of the camps. Google it for yourself.

Now we look at why would they make it up? If I have to really answer that question, there's nothing that can be done to convince anyone of anything.

Them you may ask, why did so many people push the story? My answer would be that 90% of the state of our world has been designed around this story. Had it not happened, would Israel have a country? Would America have started wars in Middle East?

If you don't want to consider the root of what we have been told, then there's nothing I can say.

What does this mean to me? Nothing. Many Jews were still discriminated to the point of death. Millions of people died. It was an ugly time in world history. But it was still hijacked and use for profit. That's what I have a problem with.

AAC

reply to post by AnAbsoluteCreation


0/10. The tattoos were for those in the concentration camps and for those who were working in places like Birkenau, where they were effectively worked to death. The people who went into the gas chambers often weren't given a tattoo. They just went straight in. As for blaming the British for bombing the railway lines, that's a despicable claim and is just plain wrong. Jewish people in the Third Reich were more than a persecuted minority they were seen as being entirely surplus to requirements.
Your facts are wrong, your statements are in fact demonstrably false. Go away, do some research and then try again. And then remember where this thread is located. The LOL forum. Holocaust denial is NOT tolerated on this site. As it doesn't have a leg to stand on.

AngryCymraeg
reply to post by AnAbsoluteCreation

 

0/10. The tattoos were for those in the concentration camps and for those who were working in places like Birkenau, where they were effectively worked to death.

Worked to death is very different than extermination. Many regimes worked their prisoners to death. Again the debate is not about whether Jews were persecuted by nazis. They were. It's about the hyperbolic design of the persecution, which has been a catalyst for the state of the Israeli we see today.

No need to dish out pithy comments about learning facts. I have seen every bit of the evidence there was before and after the nuremberg trials. All you are doing is reiterating hearsay. And there are very intelligent scholars who also dispute "the details" of the trials. Some of the facts have already been collectively disputed, yet the movement never changes the original details, mainly the amount of Jews killed.

The people who went into the gas chambers often weren't given a tattoo. They just went straight in.

Really? How convenient. So who decided who died right away? Was it people that were too weak to do slave labor? If so, then why are there so many little old ladies with those tattoos?

No mention of the lack of cyanide on the walls? No mention of the large gaps on the doors between the floors where they were supposedly gassed? No mention of the fact that no one mentioned ever seeing someone gassed? Or the reports of nazis afterwards saying they were tortured into confessing details?

As for blaming the British for bombing the railway lines, that's a despicable claim and is just plain wrong.

You ever ask yourself why the western powers never tried to liberate the camps? The Witolds report was the only description of what was happening inside the camp by a man, who was the only man, that volunteered to be inside the camp. This point is telling in itself.

The polish resistance movement kept telling the western powers throughout the camps existence of what was supposedly going on there. Why did they do nothing? I believe it is a bigger, scarier, and more subversive reason behind it. But I guess you are not the one to discuss it with.

Jewish people in the Third Reich were more than a persecuted minority they were seen as being entirely surplus to requirements.

Of course they were. Look what they were doing to the banking systems in Germany I'm not denying any persecution of the Jewish people. My heart goes out to those that died and their families. I do not wish any hurt or pain to anyone by questioning things. But you cannot sacrifice truth for pain of heart.

Your facts are wrong, your statements are in fact demonstrably false. Go away, do some research and then try again. And then remember where this thread is located. The LOL forum. Holocaust denial is NOT tolerated on this site. As it doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Really? Lol. You're funny.

Just like every great deception in the world, you look and see who benighted the most. Hmmm....

AAC

And if you're truly interested in objective reasoning, have a look at this Link.

Are you even aware that a new york Supreme Court ruled that Anne frank didn't even write the book diary of Anne frank? And that three other books by people supposedly in the camps were proven to be faked?

Do you even read the naysayers post or just write them all off as anti-Semitic devils?

Truth will set you free!

AAC

Let me end my position here with a few disclaimers.

Yes I believe that nazis singled out Jews and killed them.
Yes I believe that nazis performed ghastly experiments on human prisoners.
Yes I believe that nazis, for the most part, hated Jews and thought them to be a cancer on earth.

Finally, I believe that some Israeli Jews are doing to Palestinians exactly what the nazis did to them.

Which probe the bigger question, in 50 years are we going to find out about a Palestinian genocide too late?

Serious question.

AAC

AnAbsoluteCreation
And if you're truly interested in objective reasoning, have a look at this Link.

Are you even aware that a new york Supreme Court ruled that Anne frank didn't even write the book diary of Anne frank? And that three other books by people supposedly in the camps were proven to be faked?

Do you even read the naysayers post or just write them all off as anti-Semitic devils?

Truth will set you free!

AAC

Ah, so here the usual badly-researched and poorly sourced arguments come out. The Diary of Anne Frank is not a fake at all. It’s been investigated. It’s been analysed. The court case that you’re referring to is from the play based on the diary of Anne Frank – Otto Frank’s father originally asked a guy called Levin to write a script for the play. When Levin failed to produce something that was seen as good, Otto Frank turned to other writers, who created a Pulitzer Prize winning success. Levin sued, claiming that their version was based on his. The case was decided in the New York Supreme Court. Some basic research would have told you this – the lie has been claimed by some appalling so-called historians like David Irving and then repeated by the usual crowd of frothing lunatics.
You read the relevant document here - books.google.co.uk... nvuLDJ3r7M&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QVLpUviJLOnB7AaSn4H4Bw&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=new%20york%20supreme%20court%20anne%20frank&f=false

As for your earlier post, mentioning the arsenic on the walls of the gas chambers I can only conclude (with extreme glee at such a massive mistake) that you’re referring to the Leuchter Report. Sadly for you that has long since been exposed as the work of a fraud. When even Wikipedia makes that clear then you’re on a hiding to nothing on this point. en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by AngryCymraeg


Nice try bud. But it looks like you only research sources that defend your position.

The real truth is:

1. The courts ruled that the handwriting of the frank diary did not match her previous writings.
2. The courts ruled It was written with a ball point pen. Those pens weren't even invented when Ann frank allegedly wrote it.

You really are pushing the drug. Too bad the drug is bunk.

Complete details of the case are available in case titled Meyer Levin Vs Otto Frank, File number 2241-1956 in the New York County Clerk’s office.

In 1980, Otto Frank sued two Germans, Ernst Romer and Edgar Geiss, for distributing literature denouncing the diary as a forgery. The trial produced a study by official German state forensic bureau, the Bundes Kriminal Amt [BKA] forensically examined the manuscript, which at that point in time consisted of three hardbound notebooks and 324 loose pages bound in a fourth notebook, with special forensic equipment. In the end, BKA clearly determined that none of the diary handwriting matched known examples of Anne's handwriting. The bureau determined that everything in the diary was written by the same person. The person that wrote the diaries had used a ballpoint pen throughout. Unfortunately for Herr Frank, the ballpoint pen was not available until 1951 whereas Anne was known to have died of typhus in 1944.

The German magazine, Der Spiegel, published an account of this report stating that;-

(a) some editing postdated 1951;

(b) Experts had held that all the writing in the journal was by the same hand; and thus –

(c) the entire diary was a postwar fake.

The diary of Anne frank is written in Ball point pen. Ball point pen was invented by László Bíró, in 1938. In 1940 the Bíró brothers and a friend, Juan Jorge Meyne, moved to Argentina fleeing Nazi Germany and on June 10 filed for its patent. however it never came into production till about 29 October 1945 in America and was not readily available to all till 1951. Children were not even allowed to use Ball point pen till several years later as it destroyed their hand writing.

reply to post by AngryCymraeg


Why not dispute the validity of this article?

1. Life Magazine, 15 September 1958, has a photo of Anne Frank on the cover against the background of what is clearly and unquestionably the 'childish', non-cursive handwriting of a very young girl, say 12 years old or younger. Compare this with the handwriting reproduced in a popular softcover edition of the diary, that of Pan Books. In numerous reprintings over decades Pan has included a sample of 'her' writing (cursive) and even a signature attributed to her, both unquestionably and undeniably produced by a very mature adult, say fifty years or older. (Anne Frank's father was born in 1889). This publisher clearly has contempt for the intelligence of their readers. Other editions of the Diary often have either one or the other handwriting style attributed to Anne Frank. The 'childish' handwriting is also reproduced in a French Livre de Poche edition with a date four months later than the date included in the sample in the Pan edition. Find a copy of the Life edition in a library and check for yourself.

2. A report in the New York Post (dated October 9 1980, early editions only) called Anne Frank may not have inked that famous diary says that the German Federal Criminal Investigation Bureau (BKA) examined the diary and concluded that portions of the work were written with a ball pen, only available from 1951.

3. Anne Frank's father Otto Frank refused to allow any interested party to inspect the diary in spite of 'growing charges of fraud'.

4. Dr Faurisson compares different editions of the diary in different languages and notes strange changes, insertions and omissions, often substantial, showing a continuing creativity at work long after Anne's death.

5. Both Felderer and Dr Faurisson analyze the diary and note many kinds of contradictions and improbabilities.

6. Professor Arthur Butz of Northwestern University says 'I have looked over the diary and don't believe (its authenticity). For example, already on page 2 one is reading an essay on why a 13 year old girl would start a diary, and then page 3 gives a short history of the Frank family and then quickly reviews the specific anti-Jewish measures that followed the German occupation in 1940. The rest of the book is in the same historical spirit.' (Butz, Hoax of the Twentieth Century (1977) p37).

7. Dr Alfred Lilienthal, the courageous anti-Zionist Jewish author of The Zionist Connection, notes 'Any informed literary inspection of this book would have shown it could not possibly have been the work of a teenager. Writer Meyer Levin won a suit in the New York Supreme Court against Otto Frank, Anne's father, for 50 000 dollars as an "honorarium for his work" on the diary' (The Zionist Connection p819).

8. All of this evidence from more than 20 years ago has in no wise stopped the continuing re-printing and publication of the diary, and the major US media have kept quiet about the issue. (Shhht! Zionism must be propped up, no matter what the cost to historical truth!)

9. Anne Frank died of typhus, not in the 'gas chamber'. Typhus caused the adoption of measures including the shaving of heads, showering and the fumigation of clothing using Zyklon B insecticide, all (ironically enough) to SAVE lives rather than the opposite. These well-intended efforts have been turned around into the most transparent lies by the Holocaust industry - why would the Nazis shave heads, if not to control typhus-spreading lice? To fill pillows with lice-infested human hair? Come on! Why did 'gassing apparatus' have to be 'disguised' as showers?According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica Micropaedia (1975), Otto Frank was hospitalized (!!!) at Auschwitz (!!!) and survived the war (!!!).

The vast hordes of 'survivors' in the 1980's and 1990's across the western world have been a wonderful confirmation of the Holocaust deniers' standpoint. (Last night I watched one of those Jewish-produced lawyer-police TV dramas, in this case with a storyline based on an insurance company enriched through sales of policies to Holocaust victims. The action takes place today, 21st century, but the program still has a Holocaust survivor as a witness! People have been so successfully conditioned to always be conscious of the sacred Holocaust that the extraordinary phenomenon of ever-present Holocaust survivors does not pose a problem.)

10. Anne Frank's Diary was instrumental in turning Dr Robert Faurisson of the University of Lyons II into a confirmed, committed holocaust revisionist. He has virtually sacrificed his life (he has received tremendous vilification and was seriously injured in an attack by Jewish thugs) for the pursuit of the truth surrounding the subject, in spite of being not of German but of French-Scottish ancestry, with a socialist, not national-socialist political alignment. A lecturer in literature where he specialized in close textual analysis, receiving acclaim for his studies of poems by Rimbaud and Lautréamont, he had set his students the task of analyzing the Diary, and came to the conclusion that it was a fraud. The opposition he received to his announcements of this convinced him that there was a powerful political element who were highly intolerant of historical truth where the Holocaust was concerned.

This led him to investigate other aspects of the subject, and his eventual discovery that the 'gas chambers' as popularly described even by "respectable" Holocaust academics, were scientifically impossible. Numerous other investigators, including various university academics, have confirmed this viewpoint. His first conclusions concerning the 'gas chambers' were published in 1978 and 1979 in the French daily Le Monde.

His overall conclusion: the entire saga is a politically inspired concoction to support Zionism, with financial and other political benefits as well. As Norman Finkelstein of the City University of New York writes in his book The Holocaust Industry, "The Holocaust has proven to be an indispensable ideological weapon. Through its deployment, one of the world,s most formidable military powers, with a horrendous human rights record, has cast itself as a 'victim, state' and the most successful ethnic group in the United States has likewise acquired victim status.

Considerable benefits accrue to this specious victimhood in particular, immunity to criticism, however justified " (p3). Every single aspect of the Holocaust is open to fundamental question, from the Nuremberg Trials where the victors were the judges and tortured Germans to obtain confessions, to the capacity of the incinerators of the crematoria. Finkelstein notes "The Israeli Prime Minister,s office recently (1999) put the number of "living Holocaust survivors" at nearly a million, (page 83). On page 127 he further notes "If 135,000 former Jewish slave laborers are still alive today, some 600,000 must have survived the war. That's at least a half-million more than standard estimates.

If Jews only constituted 20% of the surviving camp population and, as the Holocaust industry implies, 600,000 Jewish inmates survived the war, then fully 3 million inmates in total must have survived. By the Holocaust industry,s reckoning, concentration camp conditions couldn,t have been that harsh at all; in fact, one must suppose a remarkably high fertility and remarkably low mortality rate. If, as the Holocaust industry suggests, many hundreds of thousands of Jews survived, the Final Solution couldn,t have been so efficient after all - exactly what Holocaust deniers argue' (pp127-8).

Faurisson in a letter to the editor of the New Statesman dated 30 November 1979 (carefully unpublished) says the following: 'Regarding the tortures systematically inflicted on the German soldiers and officers by the Allies, one should read Sir Reginald Paget's book Manstein: His Campaign and His Trial (Collins, 1951). On page 109 one finds that the (US) Simpson Inquiry Commission "reported among other things that of the 139 cases they had investigated, 137 had had their testicles permanently destroyed by kicks received from the American War Crimes Investigating Team."' [It is worth tracking down a copy of Paget's book just to check this quote if you are of the doubting kind.] This gives some idea of how the Holocaust 'truth' was imposed retroactively on the desperate and utterly demoralised German people in the post-war period.

Link

You either a) don't want to objectively consider the subject or b) are a paid pusher of the movement.

One thing I know is that you may beat me with conventional opinion, but you will jot beat me by verifiable proof. Because that is not in your favor. Yours is just an emotional source of belief. But one day, the truth will be universal. And you will either be mad the truth got out, or surprised you represented falsehoods for so long.

AAC

Allow me to add the link to the Institute of Historical Review Organization

AAC

AnAbsoluteCreation
reply to post by AngryCymraeg

 

Nice try bud. But it looks like you only research sources that defend your position.

The real truth is:

1. The courts ruled that the handwriting of the frank diary did not match her previous writings.
2. The courts ruled It was written with a ball point pen. Those pens weren't even invented when Ann frank allegedly wrote it.

You really are pushing the drug. Too bad the drug is bunk.

Complete details of the case are available in case titled Meyer Levin Vs Otto Frank, File number 2241-1956 in the New York County Clerk’s office.

In 1980, Otto Frank sued two Germans, Ernst Romer and Edgar Geiss, for distributing literature denouncing the diary as a forgery. The trial produced a study by official German state forensic bureau, the Bundes Kriminal Amt [BKA] forensically examined the manuscript, which at that point in time consisted of three hardbound notebooks and 324 loose pages bound in a fourth notebook, with special forensic equipment. In the end, BKA clearly determined that none of the diary handwriting matched known examples of Anne's handwriting. The bureau determined that everything in the diary was written by the same person. The person that wrote the diaries had used a ballpoint pen throughout. Unfortunately for Herr Frank, the ballpoint pen was not available until 1951 whereas Anne was known to have died of typhus in 1944.

The German magazine, Der Spiegel, published an account of this report stating that;-

(a) some editing postdated 1951;

(b) Experts had held that all the writing in the journal was by the same hand; and thus –

(c) the entire diary was a postwar fake.

The diary of Anne frank is written in Ball point pen. Ball point pen was invented by László Bíró, in 1938. In 1940 the Bíró brothers and a friend, Juan Jorge Meyne, moved to Argentina fleeing Nazi Germany and on June 10 filed for its patent. however it never came into production till about 29 October 1945 in America and was not readily available to all till 1951. Children were not even allowed to use Ball point pen till several years later as it destroyed their hand writing.

I see that you have an agenda. An agenda of holocaust denial. How revolting. Well, let me demolish the entire disgusting claims above. Let's start with the falsehood that it's written in ballpoint pen. It's not. There are annotations written in ballpoint pen by Otto Frank after the war, when he was getting in shape to be published, but that's it. That was verified by a forensic analysis by the Dutch Government, which looked at the paper, the ink and the handwriting. The only people who now claim that it's a fraud are Stormfront, the Neanderthals at the IHR and people like David Irving. So which group are you from?

AnAbsoluteCreation
Allow me to add the link to the Institute of Historical Review Organization

AAC

Aha, got you before you could edit this away! You actually think that the IHR are reputable historians? Really??? Those anti-Semitic morons?

AnAbsoluteCreation
reply to post by AngryCymraeg


You either a) don't want to objectively consider the subject or b) are a paid pusher of the movement.

I am the grandson of a man who help to liberate Bergen-Belsen. Paid pusher of the 'movement'? Nothing of the sort. I'm just someone who loathes people who deny the Holocaust. Perhaps I should make the font size of my signature bigger for you?

reply to post by AnAbsoluteCreation


i cannot see the bit about the diary being written with a ballpoint pen and ariel shots of the camp back in the day as i heard they were not built until after the war but that could be pure speculation by a drunk or even a link to the red cross visits .

but hey i just learned that big pharma have killed up to 800-000 in the last 5 years in europe not a sausage about that or the 20-30 million were butchered industrial style by the bolshevics and the 8 million that were killed after the war in germany or the chinese holocaust but hey why deny ignorance when we can promote it and make big bucks doing it bad things happen in a war but i lol at anyone who still thinks 6 million died in gas chambers during ww2 .

just study the world census from 1900 onwards

reply to post by AngryCymraeg


Hahahahahahaha. Is that all you can say? I was never going to edit this. This has source info in it that is backed up by American and German courts.

And your assertion that Levin won his lawsuit because he wrote the play is WRONG. The court papers say explicitly that Otto used Levins dialogue and inserted it into the diary of Anne frank. That is backed up by German courts who verified that the diary was written post war.

Sit and spin on it if you have to. The truth isn't going anywhere.

AAC

AngryCymraeg

AnAbsoluteCreation
reply to post by AngryCymraeg


You either a) don't want to objectively consider the subject or b) are a paid pusher of the movement.

I am the grandson of a man who help to liberate Bergen-Belsen. Paid pusher of the 'movement'? Nothing of the sort. I'm just someone who loathes people who deny the Holocaust. Perhaps I should make the font size of my signature bigger for you?

I get it now. You are emotional invested. Makes sense. And FYI your grandfather still liberated a prison camp. That hasn't changed.

AAC

reply to post by AnAbsoluteCreation


They say nothing of the sort and you are totally wrong. Dearie me, is this the best that you scum from the IHR can come up with? A court case involving the PLAY based on the diary? Can I remind you where this thread is based again? Wait a sec whilst I summon a mod.